Home » recent diaries » Lyssa Strada's diary

Denial as a weapon of mass destruction?

Submitted by Lyssa Strada on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 2:39pm.

One reason for the popularity of war among a certain class of men, that hasn't been discussed as much lately as perhaps it should, is that they are privilged enough to be spared not just war's actual consequences, but also any real knowledge of war's consequences. GWB achieves this state of optimism and bliss, by focusing on his idea of what reality should look like and refusing to consider that reality might deviate from his will. Such an attitude might be admirable if he were climing a mountain, and everyone else along on the expedition was there willingly. Instead, he pushes others out the door on dangerous expeditions and demands that they return with reports that justify his world view.

In Dan Froomkin's column today, he links to several stories in the mainstream media which reveal the inevitable cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile GWB's perspective on the cease-fire in Lebanon with the actual facts of the case, and its wider implications in the region. Make sure you read down the page far enough to catch George Will's take-down of Bush's policy. It would be even more satisfying to read, if only it weren't about a life and death matter for so many.

» Lyssa Strada's diary | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

1) Men are mainly the ones

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 7:16pm.

1) Men are mainly the ones who have to go to war so men discussing it is normal; 2) Most men don't go to war as most men don't become politicians but they have a view and can share it with or without experience; 3) Men who go to war voluntarily (as in the USA) or out of obligation) have opinions also. They come home and have opinions they share with other people who have never been to war; 4) Women who have never been to the front lines of war have opinions about war - they don't participate but can still say what they 'feel'. Should they not say as much as they seem to say sometimes?

Would women's ideas of life,death, war, peace be more valuable if they got shot or were put on the front lines? Maybe but they won't do it even though there are many more women in the military. Let men say what they want - women do! It's not denial (that's a river in Egypt)

» login or register to post comments

It is a myth-- now -- that men are those primarily affected...

Submitted by Lyssa Strada on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 9:50pm.

...by war, although that used to be the truth.

We had earlier posts that dealt with the disproportionate impact of war on women and children here and here.

Actually, my point in this particular post was less about the different roles of women and men, and more about the fact that "privileged" men are those making decisions about war for everyone else: including most men, as well as women and children. Naturally, I think those who are, in fact, touched by war, including having to fight, whether men or women, should have more say in where our blood and treasure are spent. [Tho' I didn't mention him, I was also thinking about William Kristol, a blood-thirsty journalist, if ever I saw one. And a number of others, but I'll spare them for now.]

Thank you, though, for reading here and stopping to comment. I hope you'll continue to add to our discussions.

» login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.