Lets first consider some facts.

Elderly people are much more likely to experience heat stress than younger people, given the fact that more women survive to old age than men, it it obvious that more women will die in a heat wave than men, simply because elderly women out number elderly men.

The 2006 tsunami occurred during the day. One would assume that the men were out working. So if the tsunami had occurred at night it is likey the the male death toll would have been much higher.

Any parent worth their salt would try to save their children first.

Death in earthquakes usually occur when buildings collapse upon the occupants, so depending on the time of day a earthquake occurs will determine the gender ratio of those who are killed.

In third world countries women are not the only ones who are malnoursihed and education is denied to boys as well when they are required to assist with the farming.

Don't bother James. Such articles and research have one aim in mind. Do you ever find any research into gender inbalances in areas where men may be at the disadvantage?

It's like schooling. Lots of effort to find out why girls may struggle at maths and sciences, or in mixed classroom environments. No research to examine why boys are falling behind in English, or even why they aren't bothering to finish school or enter university in the same numbers as girls. I suspect similar reasons for domestic violence figures not matching anecdotal evidence.

Basically no stone has been left unturned in the efforts to identify where women may be disadvantaged.

Has anyone got anything better to do than to come up with useless studies that do no more than confirm special interest groups prejudices. Why not look at how many men die in war.

Oh runner. Everybody knows if only women were in positions of power, there wouldn't be any wars. So it serves the men right that they should die in wars. More to the point, we should be worried how many women die in these men's wars. Or maybe we should study how men dying in wars affects women. Those selfish nasty men dying and leaving women to bring up their children. Misogynists all.

And out come the attack dogs. Have you guys ever counted the number of men who post on articles about women compared to the actual women? You peoples is obsessed, I tell ya.

Are you guys so determined to be victims you're now rejecting research simply because it is about women? Is your goal that there be no research about women?

On September 11, the ratio of men to women who died was 3:1. Doesn't *that* interest you? What does it say about firemen, about bravery? About the effect on New Yorkers afterward? Runner, an enormous amount of work has been done on the number of people - both men and women - who have died in war. Twenty million soldiers died in WWII - almost all men. What effect did that have on the countries that they left, on demongraphics, on the make-up of Australia and Britain and the US and everywhere else? Does *that* interest you? I don't know, but I bet a gazillion more men die in gang violence than women. Does *that* interest you? Doesn't it help to know what gender the victims are, so we can help to prevent their deaths? Or at least future deaths?

E.g. More young men die in gang violence. Prevention tactics therefore need to be targeted toward men. That will help more.

Or are you against all research into the demography of victims of large-scale disasters? Or are you against research about the gender of victims for natural disasters?

Three out of four people who died in the Tsunami were women. I can't understand why you wouldn't have some intellectual curiosity about that. It doesn't mean women's deaths are more tragic than men's deaths. Why are you making it into a competition? But the more we know about disaster, the better we can plan for it before it happens and cope when it does.

Runners post is typical of thos on the "right" wing of the culture wars divide: namely that those on the "left" always have some kind of ideological and associated social engineering agenda, to push, and/or are promoting "special interests" over the interests of the presume "normal" citizen of which they, the dreadfully sane, "right"-thinking everyman are the epitome.

The corollary being that the "right"-thinkers have access to and promote some kind of eternal (non-ideological) "god"-given, and non culture bound "truth".

Just like all the true believers, whether "religious" or atheist, and their rigidified "certainties" who have pretended to own or "know" the truth throughout his-story in all times and places.

The inevitable result(s) of such rigidified "certainty" has always been mountains of corpses---because there will always be those who challenge such certainties, and inevitably get in the way of the essentially totalitarian program which always follows from any "true believers" attempts to impose their way on everyone else.

The mini fascist-totalitarian state created in the image of Calvin in Geneva was a classic example of how this rigidified mind-set inevitably calls for executions of "heretics".
Calvin was effectively a mass murderer and his fascist mini-state was a precursor to the fascist states in 20th century Europe.

I thought the article was well reasoned, and was both very interesting and informative (thank you to the author!). I wonder how the huge aid industry that was established in tsunami-affected areas took this reality into account when designing aid and development programs for these communities. And how this aid has alleviated or compounded the effect of the tsunami for women (and men)- that would make for another interesting article.

Surely there are a whole range of complex determinants on disaster mortality. The writer made some good points but on the whole - and I've noticed this a lot in OLO - there are some very dodgy use of statistics.

Survival rates are dependent not only on culture but speed of rescue, condition of infrastructure, health conditions of individuals before the 'event'. Who ever mentioned age made a good point. The older will almost certainly die before younger, fitter people.

Some might not like this but in a major 'event' such as a tornado or earthquake, a man who is 36 who is standing next to a woman of 36 (taking that they are reasonably fit) have exactly the same chances of survival. Whether they co-operate to survive is another matter.

If they co-operate their chances of survival dramatically increase.

I fear we’re asking the wrong questions when we ask “why women are more affected by climate change than men”. It is only when we remove red herrings (such as “by climate change”), can we ever hope to appreciate the scope of the problem.

If men cannot statistically die in the same numbers in each age group, and under the same circumstances (as judged by our female researches), it proves gender inequity. Even if these statistical anomalies were to be successfully bred out of us, new criteria would surely emerge to justify further extortion.

Seems gender equality is only deliverable to women by men. And if men can be deemed incapable of either that, or credibly behaving like women, there should be a penis tax, right?

Kellie ,

Of course I'm quite happy being a man ,but I sure would like to buy those genes at retirement that give you girls that extra eight or ten years of life in our society.

They do get a rough deal in many countries that could be overcome by education.

This education just might also help limit climate change long term, providing "economic growth " doesn't equal unmanaged consumption.

cheryl, I agree the writer did make some good points

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting someone who was part of a task force to visit places like Aceh after the aid agencies had left. One significant point was that whilst the aid agencies had really marked their prescence with large signs, the names of the villages were in the fine print.

Under the name of providing aid, lots of useless products were sent to these places and the aid agencies made big noises about how they were saving people and once the noise died down, the aid agencies gradually faded away.

Does anyone recall the big news about human trafficking, well read the following link.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/4389/

"develop a gender strategy, invest in gender-specific climate change research and establish a system for the use of gender-sensitive indicators and criteria for governments to use in national reporting"

"analyse and identify gender-specific impacts and protection measures related to floods, droughts, heatwaves, diseases, and other environmental changes and disasters;"

Eeva Sodhi in "Manufacturing research"
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm
"What is interesting is that, after potential contractors have been told that they are to treat men and women differently, they are reminded that a double standard"

"Since 1998, Canadian researchers have been able to get funding only if they comply with the following guidelines (note that "gender based analysis"
"Collecting Information for Propaganda is not Research"

so what the author is proposing of this article is proposing is collecting information for propaganda and she is a lawyer.

There is nothing wrong with providing aid to meet the needs of a specific group unless, aid is only provided to that specific group and no aid is provided to other groups who do not meet the criteria in natural disasters.

Vanilla,

'Have you guys ever counted the number of men who post on articles about women..'

No. But have you ever counted the amount of feminist articles compared with articles discussing men's issues on OLO? We have recently had Australia Day cringe (Nationalism) and Corey Worthington (Cult of Celebrity) and now natural disasters, all contorted to be somehow feminist issues.

'Is your goal that there be no research about women?' No. My goal is equality in research topics. And equity in publicity of men's and women's issues. Women's issues and research dominate.

'On September 11, the ratio of men to women who died was 3:1. Doesn't *that* interest you?'
Not really to be honest. It's not relevant. I don't remember it getting any publicity or being considered news worthy either.

'What does it say about firemen, about bravery?'
I dunno. That women have been denied the opportunity to be firemen, and the patriachy doesn't respect women enough to put them in danger or let them be heros the same as men. That would be the angle I would expect an OLO writer to come up with.

'It doesn't mean women's deaths are more tragic than men's deaths. Why are you making it into a competition?'

The writer states she was 'appalled at what it showed'. Appalled that more women were dying than men. Nobody is ever appalled, and it isn't worthy of attention if the opposite situation is the caes.

The first paragraph of the article is an extremely transparent attempt to justify the research. I'd bet my house if she found early on that more men died, she would have looked for another topic that was more interesting to her. i.e. The perpetuation of women as victims.

See I don't object to a lot of the goals of feminism, just the bias. It's the PR war men have lost. When people are constantly told that women are disadvantaged and that this situation must be rectified, it easily follows that any action advancing women ought to be praised and any action advancing men threatens to widen this presumed gulf.

Then why not stop whinging and write something? The Age loves men's issues, but they don't get as many freelance submissions they get from women. I'm sure OLO is the same.

OLO does have too many feminists stories. And WAY too many Christian/atheist battles.

Instead, you're bashing your head against a brick wall telling feminists like me what we think - e.g. "That women have been denied the opportunity to be firemen, and the patriachy doesn't respect women enough to put them in danger or let them be heros the same as men." I simply disagree with your characterisation of feminism, and if this article was written then I missed it. Besides, such a simplistic argument wouldn't interest me. I ignored the hoo-ha about the Bra Boys cause I didn't think much of the analysis. I'd rather defend the articles I admire, like Audrey Apple's about Zoo, and argue with people I respect, like you. (Obviously I'm being completely hypocritical here cause I also frequently barny with HRS. Who is, by the way, the only poster on OLO who I believe has an actual problem with women.)

In another thread, you felt the sexual belittling of men is greater than it is from women because, even though women cop more, men have it worse because the speeding ad comes from the government. When I say I just want equal representation in government, you say men have it worse because women are consumers. Whenever I try to empathise with your complaints by pointing out a woman's life also sucks sometimes, I get, "but it's worse for us." At least metaphorically, you're passing up an opportunities to find common ground in order to be the biggest victim.

Anyway. I appreciate you don't find the argument about the number of men who died in WWII and how that affected the post-war world compelling. But it interests me. If bone cancer started killing 3 men for every 1 woman I'd find that appalling - horrifying in fact - and want someone brainy to work out why.

Vanilla,

I don't believe I am articulate enough to be published. How do you know The Age loves men's issues? I know I'm too cynical, but I cant even get published in The Herald letters. I think it's because I don't use the phrases 'Beggars Belief', or 'De Rigueur'.

'I get, "but it's worse for us." At least metaphorically, you're passing up an opportunities to find common ground in order to be the biggest victim. '

That's not my intention to say it's worse for us. I intend to illustrate that womens issues are accepted and validated everywhere, often with no real critique, whereas men's aren't. I'm all about the gender politics landscape, not competing about the merits of actual gender specific inequalities.

I don't agree 'women cop more', or 'men have it worse', I always say men and woman each have their own unique crosses to bare, and both men and women should be held responsible for 'society'. That's what gets me about Yvonne. She argues men make society so are totally to blame for everything. I don't say 'men have it worse because women are consumers', I was just trying to explain just because more men are in government, they don't create society. They are elected by both men and women, and media is funded by advertising, and women DO make more purchases than men.

I'm sorry I've been a little too selfish with my word quota to acknowledge your arguments enough. I wasn't aware you were using examples to empathise, I thought it was you who was trying to create some sort of competition. I do thankyou for being the first feminist I have argued with who hasn't trotted out misogynist and seems to accept that women have shaped societal attitudes as much as men.

I have taken on board your mocking of an Evil Feminist Conspiracy, and that you don't attempt to pin everything on the patriachy.

*How could that be so?*

Lets face it girls, we let you think that you are ahead to
make you feel better :), but when the crunch comes, its
another story.

I have yet to see women rush out to put out the next
bushfire. They make sandwiches, its the fellas that
do the hard yakka. You would be lost without us..

Whitty, it beggars belief that the SMH letters editor should ignore you! I would have thought letters like yours would be de rigueur on the letters page!

Anyway, you speak great sense. We always agree in the end. Where is HRS? I need someone to have a proper fight with.

Yabby: "You would be lost without us.."
Too true. And you'd be lost without us. Who else would cut up the oranges at half-time?

If climate change is made by people, then consumerism and materialism driven by over population are the culprits.

Majority of retail floor space is occuppied by womens consumables.

Hmmm, chicken, dont drop the eggs and dont shoot yourself in the foot.

Otherwise, agreed, life is, always has been and forever will be harder for women. Men just dont figure. In the us and them of gender politics (translation... not men) its all about them and they're angsty them-ness.

Funny how fat cat first worlders who have it all, have resorted to whining by transference and appropriating the hardships of poor people, who are in large part poor so that the first world fatties can keep consuming. Pathetic really.

Now, hand over the list of demands and concessions and tell us to fix it.

Oh, yeah and how many men get marched off to war to face death compared to women. Alas, men make war so that doesnt count. Where's a womans 'intellectual' curiosity over that. And 90%+ of work place deaths are men. And 90%+ of criminals, prisoners and victims of crime are men. And laws tend to criminalise 'masculine' behaviour. And majority of drug addicts and alchoholics are men. So on and so fowarth. Nary a whimper of intellectual curiosity amongst women on that.

BUT... women suffer more.

Or is it a case of, they make more noise about it, whilst men are expected to shut up and take it like a man.

Please, the sentiment of this article is so cliched and passe, is it any wounder men (and women) are generally switching off to the chicken littles, bemoaning the falling sky and hungry wolves baying for their blood.

Such a typical lefty-my-heart-is bleeding-by-association article. And lm gonna do nothing but 'raise awarness'. Bleeting from the bleachers is a good way to pretend lm doing something whilst doing nothing.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot... men die about 7 yrs earlier than women. Men earn more, pay more taxes, die earlier and draw less social security.

BUT... women SUFFER MORE.

This article is such a a joke. Th efact that men have been living 10% shorter life spans than women for a couple of centuries now is the huge elephant in the room. If it were the other way around the outcry would be defeaning.

Now, spin this reality as a demonstration of how women suffer more due to men dying earlier. l can hardly wait for the refreshingly predictable justifications.

Oh yeah, l got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning too.

Tradie, you forgot to add that men die more than women because we, in out quest for world domination, kill them.

*maniacal laughter*

*fade out*

trade, it is a big IF.

If climate change is happening, then I doubt very strongly that it is a result of human activity. If one looks at the history of the planet, climate change has been a part of this planets history before man walked the earth. Australia was once much wetter than it is now.

I strongly suspect that for example if a world wide calamity happened, the women that Kellie Tranter wants to educate will have a greater chance of survival than the modern western woman or man for that matter.

Human beings who have survival skills are most likely to be the ones most adapted for survival in the case of a world wide calamity.

If I had to choose a partner in a world wide calamity it definitely would be one who knew how to grow food, sew and all those other little skills.

Whitty, it's a shame you so simplify my position on how society is and the role of both men and women.

That aside, hasn't OLO milked the 'gender issue' enough? It is getting quite boring. Surely there are some articles out there from a man's perspective? I for one would be most interested. I have two young men as sons.

As to the article itself, I tend to agree with JamesH. He made some salient points.

It really is rather irrelevant whether climate change affects either gender more. Wouldn't make it any more or less serious an issue.

As Yabby, as always a pragmatic and sensible voice, points out: we need each other, even if women only make the sandwiches and pour the lemonade for the hunky male firies.

Things we’ve built for their comfort, enjoyment, consumption, and yes, sometimes even just to impress them … none of it counts for very much.

"Okay, so you're a rocket scientist
That don't impress me much
So you got the brain but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much”

How could we have disregarded Shania Twain as a feminist philosopher she clearly was. Arguably, she could be credited with fewest words ever used in a politically sensitive surmise of male power:

“Oh-oo-oh, you think you're special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else”

Was it perhaps because we’ve forgotten to correctly apply “the touch”, that created Feminism and its accompanying myriad of female angst?

Okay, so you want to teach me hiking and survival techniques
That don't impress me much
So you want to take me camping in your big tent
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much…

Oh-oo-oh, you think you're special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else

'Whitty, it's a shame you so simplify my position on how society is and the role of both men and women. '
I tell it as I see it. Though I may be simple.

'That aside, hasn't OLO milked the 'gender issue' enough? It is getting quite boring. Surely there are some articles out there from a man's perspective? '

This is exactly what I complain about the most. We have had the following topics absolutely contorted to be about feminism, or further women as victims at the hands of men...

Corey Worthington - I don't even know where to start on how ridiculous this article was

Bra Boys - Probably the worst example. Basically all I got from the article was how dare there be a movie about men, without discussing their effects on women.

Australia Day cringe - Well I suppose it was from Audrey

Now this one on climate change.

I envisage a world of the future. Girls are entering university at a much higher ratio than boys, and this will accelerate. There will be a splitting of the workforce, with men doing the blue collar work, women doing the white collar work.

It will then make economic sense for men to stay at home and raise the children as their partners will be the better paid in white collar jobs.

Women will then march in the streets citing that they have been taken away their maternal right to raise their children, and that men don't understand women's burden of being economic provider for the family.

The new wave of feminism will fight the oppression of this patriachical society, as men call all the shots in the home, and being the carers get custody of the children in divorce. The poor women are just being used as incubators to give men children, and are then forced to go out after birth and work 12 hour days and never see their children.

Vanilla, that reminds me of that joke

Why do most men die before their wives...
Because they want to.

As in my future world above, I think it wouldn't matter what role women had in society, they will never be happy with their lot, and will always be very vocal about it. It is perhaps men's folly that they have tried too hard to make women happy.

Ha! Is funny. Also:

Why do women have periods?
Because they deserve them.

Why do women wear make-up and perfume?
Because they're ugly and they smell.

*I think it wouldn't matter what role women had in society, they will never be happy with their lot, and will always be very vocal about it*

My business used to be audited by Govt inspectors twice a year.
They would search and search, until they found something, to
justify the 600$ cost. In the end I realised that it was easiest
to leave a couple of obvious mistakes for them to find, they could
then write their reports noting the simple mistakes and go home
happy.

Similarly I've noticed that one simply has to accept that many women
are happiest, if they have something to complain about, usually
about men :)

Vanilla, that reminds me of that joke

Why do most men die before their wives...
Because they want to.
Whitty, Thursday, 7 February 2008 9:28:50 AM

If I recall correctly another saying goes like this

"Married men live longer than single men, but married men are more willing to die for their country!"

Reading about "The order of the White Feather" (feminism) men found it more preferable to join the armed services, than to stay in civilian life during WW1.

Yabby, there was an interesting essay about what you said in the previous post in regards to the suffergettes and the right to vote.

I’ve come into this thread late and have just glanced over the general commentary. I have to say that I have never been more disgusted with an OLO commentary thread.

The author’s points are extremely valid. A 90 percent death toll for women in a disaster (even allowing for some statistical error) is a well-and-truly out of the ordinary statistic and definitely needs serious analysis by world health authorities and women’s rights organisations.

Yet this commentary thread is the most profoundly callous of all the OLO essays I’ve ever witnessed. I am truly appalled at the level of childish male-centrism here. We are talking here ‘90 per cent of the 140,000 victims of the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone disasters were women (PDF 92KB); more women than men died during the 2003 European heat wave; and the 2006 tsunami killed three to four women for each man.’

Yet the OLO stable of certifiably sexist (mostly) male supremacists here – who get oh so offended at being called ‘misogynist’, poor diddums – have reduced these truly horrifying, undeniably gender-loaded statistics to an unbelievably petty, puerile grab for misplaced male sympathy. And, I won't even bother to give all these sick jokes the dignity of a comment.

I suspect that if someone dangled a dripping, drowned Sri Lankan woman from the ceiling in front of one of these overgrown children, their only reaction would be: ‘That’s not fair!! Why wasn’t it a drowned Sri Lankan man? And I suppose all those man-hating feminists expect me to clean up my own floor.’

SJF,

You've missed the point.

Nobody is arguing the deaths are not bad, just that gender shouldn't matter, and isn't ever considered relevant except when women are at a disadvantage. Kind of like how men and women are constantly campaigning to 'raise awareness' of breast cancer, when prostate cancer kills many more PEOPLE. But breast cancer kills women so it must be worse and recieves more funding etc.

One could ask why you are so much more concerned with the deaths of women rather than the deaths of men. Misandrist!

The best quote comes from trade215..

'Funny how fat cat first worlders who have it all, have resorted to whining by transference and appropriating the hardships of poor people, who are in large part poor so that the first world fatties can keep consuming. Pathetic really.'

I suspect you are no more concerned for the actual individuals who have lost their lives than anyone who is posted here. You are merely interested in their usefullness in providing evidence to further your, and many other feminists', political agenda.

She didn't miss the point Whitty. She wanted to comment on the article. Go back and look through these posts. Not one engages with the topic, which does nothing more than what is done in police stations and by governments around the world daily - profile victims in order to best protect them. The men who have posted on this board have sought to make a different point, namely that they are victims of a PR war that women have won.

No one has missed that point - you've made it pretty repetitively. I no longer contribute to the threads about women on this board because, intellectually, the conversation is going nowhere. The threads themselves feature men arguing with other men. I was so upset when another poster suggested my grandfathers were "abusers and rapists", but I could also see that he honestly couldn't fathom that women's lives have many influences - he suggested a woman is either influenced by feminism OR her character. He thought, like HRS does, that feminists hate men. It's simply dull, easy, simplistic thinking, designed to protect the thinker from the ambiguities of life and truth. That people hold such views does not concern me - there are far worse injustices than this in the world - but I would prefer to align myself who are alive to the complexity of culture and gender. I have always been interested in the way feminism has affected men, but it is impossible to have an interesting, intelligent conversation about that on this board, without the men just banging on about what victims they are. I prefer to align myself with men I know IRL who are focussed on promoting and strengthening masculinity, rather than complaining.

Vanilla,

'She wanted to comment on the article. Go back and look through these posts. Not one engages with the topic'
I think she wanted to castigate the men for daring to question the motives of the article, and get on her high horse to show how much more compassionate she is.

We have engaged with the topic (James came up with some good questions about the data in fact) but are just suspicious to the motivations of the article and research. As I said, read the first paragraph for the transparent attempt to justify the research.

' intellectually, the conversation is going nowhere.'
Fair enough. But be thankful you at least have threads about women to comment on. Classic example Bra Boys article. Out of a whole movie about men and gang culture, the topic was contorted to a discussion about why Men's affect on women wasn't discussed in the movie. It's comical really. Out of all the themes in the movie that could have been discussed.

This is how I see feminism; Enough about men, let’s talk about women. It’s an all pervasive one track record, and I have responded I suppose as an alternate one track record in an attempt to even out the propaganda. I apologise to all for the repetition.

'suggested my grandfathers were "abusers and rapists"'.
To be fair I think he was characterising and regurgitating well known extreme feminist arguments. I can see how you found it offensive though, as he attributed those thoughts to you unfairly. But maybe that's a reaction to a lifetime of having feminist women/articles attributing negative attitudes to women to all men. I think this is probably where my problem with feminism comes from. The message I’ve heard is men are bad, women are good, women are always the victim with men as the perpetrator.

' promoting and strengthening masculinity, rather than complaining.'
Fair enough. I realise I have been a whiny, and exactly like the feminists I loathe so much. I realise these pages aren't the place for me to take out my frustrations. Where to now?

Vanilla, what a shame that it is not possible to highlight some of the words that you have just written.

I think my daughter as about 4 when she had a similar dummy spit to yours.

You wrote; 'I have always been interested in the way feminism has affected men, but it is impossible to have an interesting, intelligent conversation about that on this board"

Have you read Warren Farrell, David Thomas, Dr Richard Hise?

One thing that I have discovered is that even though people read the same words, their interpretation can be extremely different and the thing that fascinates me is why or how someone else's interpretation can be so different to mine.

So basically if I am correct, you are saying that you will only engage in conversation with men who help to support your view or who provide information that supports your view.

There is fortunately/unfortunately limited word space in these posts, so it very difficult for all points to be covered and most of us blokes are not as naturally articulate as most women.(generalisation).

I have noticed that in most of the blogs that many fail to stick to the main article. Even blogs that have nothing to do with feminism or women.

I believe that I did raise some valid points about the research and after some consideration have come to understand another point raised by the article, which I will post later after I have finished working on it.

James: "So basically if I am correct, you are saying that you will only engage in conversation with men who help to support your view or who provide information that supports your view."

No, you are not correct.

I've appreciated the points you've brought to this debate. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to say, but there it is.

Whitty (and JamesH)

‘Nobody is arguing the deaths are not bad, just that gender shouldn't matter, and isn't ever considered relevant except when women are at a disadvantage.’

Put the halo away, mate. You ARE arguing that the disporportionate deaths of these women are ‘not bad’ – to the point of callousness.

You and JamesH have been taking up all the oxygen on this thread (as you do on all OLO gender threads – along with a cabal of others like HRS, runner and trade215), playing down the significance of these disaster statistics for the sake of your own pro-men agenda.

Your male supremacist obsession is so bizarre that you must continually set up this weird competition to assert men’s superiority over women in absolutely everything, even victimhood.

Gender does matter. That’s why you write so many posts about it.

Kellie Tranter uses three research articles to support her sensational claim. In the past sensational claims have been made using the research tool. Sometimes much later the research is shown to have been faulty. However the initial urban myths created by the initial research remains a 'truth' in the public conscious.

Eeva Sodhi a woman who is critical of feminist driven research, wrote that the truth is usual buried in the detail and that the truth is usual confined to a line or two in the research.

Daphne Patai, indicated that one of the techniques used is to engage a emotive response, once a emotive response is engaged this tends over ride the more critical, analytical and rational thinking parts of the brain.

The author uses the word 'climate' 17 times, and climate change is a highly emotive subject at present.

It is a pretty long string to draw to include a tsunami in 'climate change'. Unless geologist have some how linked earthquakes which are caused by tectonic plate shifts to climate change.

Bangladesh is a country which from what I understand happens to be relatively flat, particularly in the areas that are likely to be affected by cyclones. Secondly it is a densely populated country, so people are likely to live where ever they can find land to live on.

So in Bangladesh the solution would be for people not to live on land that is prone to flooding.

Wherever there are millions of poor women, there are also millions of poor uneducated men. Whilst educating women may possibly help improve their lives. The reccomendation is to make gender specific strategy, invest in gender-specific climate change research and establish a system for the use of gender-sensitive indicators.

Whilst on this forum many people have claimed that feminism is about equality, where is the equality in having programs that only target disadvantaged women, and not disadvantaged men?

SJF,

'Put the halo away, mate. You ARE arguing that the disporportionate deaths of these women are ‘not bad’ – to the point of callousness.'

Nice try, but You're blatantly the one getting on your high horse. I think you need to put the Halo away, since you are just oh so compassionate. I've stated earlier that I'm not interested, and it's not news worthy, or worth studying, when more men die than women in war, or 9/11 or some other area. You know why? Because it's not useful feminist propaganda material. I have compassion for all the people who died, and don't need to use their gender to further my political agenda. I'm not the one being callous.

'playing down the significance of these disaster statistics for the sake of your own pro-men agenda.'

Wrong again. I am exposing the pro-feminism agenda in OLO and the general bias in researching gender effects only where women may be disadvantaged. How is that pro-men? Even if you think that is anti-feminism, for it to be pro-men, you are then saying that feminism is anti-men?

'Your male supremacist obsession is so bizarre that you must continually set up this weird competition to assert men’s superiority over women in absolutely everything, even victimhood.'

Just where have I asserted men's superiority over women? You're hilarious. Oh how scary it is for women's exclusive victim status to be threatened. I haven't attempted to place men as bigger victims, as I have said I don't find it relevant when men are significantly over represented in death statistics.

I maintain that a non-feminist wouldn't be looking for inequalities in disaster statistics, and a feminist wouldn't be interested if they turned out with men being worse off. This creates an inherant bias in research topics and articles.

But you keep on appropriating the hardships of poor people for gender political reasons, and be sure to keep a watch out for all those male supremacists.

I can’t understand how an underwater earthquake is related to climate change. Perhaps in a feminist geography class it would be.

If the author was knowledgeable about demographics and populations, then they would know that in the vast majority of countries, the average life expectancy of a male is less than that of the average female.

This is regardless of the politics of that country, or the socioeconomic background of that country. So there is something very unnatural happening there.

If feminist were concerned about equality (?), then they would be interested in increasing the average life expectancy of males, but I have never heard a feminist so much as mention this (not once).

sjf,

As you correctly said, men react when it comes to the gender war and you have inadvertantly exposed the inherent bias in the dynamic of its dialogue.

Firstly, this style of engagement was more or less established by women, whereby you always turn another's concerns/issues around to reflect your own agenda. Its basically a flawed strartegy in the hands of men due to a biased perception of gender. The tendency is to come to a womans defence, particularly when under seige by a male, even if its only verbal, in fact especially so. And the most likely champion is gonna be a man. You know, fairly tales, vilian/damsel/knight. This actually speaks to the benevolent sexism of chivallry.

Mere reaction is what we've been reduced to and its pretty much the only way to get a voice within the context of the gender snore dynamic... in the mainstream. Behind the scenes, there is much more open dialogue and unfortunately a lot of the same angsty malevolence present amongt women and feminists in characterising the opposite sex. Which is an easy influence to absorb and takes consistent effort to keep at bay.

Changes are under foot. Many social shifts are occuring under everyone's noses, contrary to the 'nothing changes' mantra of feminists, or any ideologue for that matter, in pursuit of funding and recruitment.

That the suffering of the poor gets USED to promote SELF INTEREST is truely cynical. This is the point. Some people will go to any length to promote their agenda, as you have pointed out.