"In her analysis “Women and Genocide in Rwanda,” the former Rwandan politician Aloysia Inyumba stated that “The genocide in Rwanda is a far-reaching tragedy that has taken a particularly hard toll on women. They now comprise 70 percent of the population, since the genocide chiefly exterminated the male population.” In a 1998 speech delivered before a domestic violence conference in El Salvador, former US senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” These statements are illustrative of a wider trend of “male disposability.” What is Male Disposability? “Male disposability” describes the tendency to be less concerned about the safety and well-being of men than of women. This night sound surprising given the emphasis in contemporary Western discourse on the oppression of women by men. How is it possible that societies built by men have come to consider their well-being as less important? But embedded in this kind of question are simplistic assumptions that flatten a …"

Eh... Quillette consistently leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The writing is just nuanced enough to provide some valid points in order sound smart, but always with enough omissions and mental acrobatics (or incompetence?) to feed the alt-right trolls. Here is my take on male disposability: The main source of violence against men are power structures — nation states, corporations, etc etc. Power structures target men because societies are patriarchal and men are the ones that hold power. So framing it as violence against men is dubious, its violence against communities with less power. There are numerous organizations and initiatives that address this issue, they just don't call it 'mens rights'. These efforts don't in any way impeded or conflict with addressing violence against women. Organizations that focus on fighting violence against women have a much narrower focus - its usually violence against women perpetrated by men who wield power over them, either physical or societal. Comparing the two is unproductive. Violence against men happens on a macro level and women can also be victims of this violence. Violence against women happens on a micro level, within individual communities of families. Does the sociology student writing this article fail to mention this significant distinction out of incompetence or because she wants those meninist clicks? Is there a term for intellectual clickbait? Oh yeah... IDW Here is a concrete example: in US we can observe a huge amount of violence directed towards black men by the state. This happens in the form of police shootings, mass incarceration etc and is rooted in systemic efforts to disempower and suppress black communities. Is it more useful to frame this problem as violence against men? Or violence against African Americans? Both ways of framing the issue are reductionist but the latter much more appropriate.