This morning, as I was listening to the Presidential press conference, where British Prime Mister, Gordon Brown was appearing, I heard President Bush talk about the war on terror. Certainly, that is not a new subject, and from my perspective, neither is the President’s disregard for America’s male victims of violence.
At one point, as the President was describing how the war on terror was an “asymmetrical war,” he went on to explain how terrorists specifically target “innocent women and children” (no mention of innocent men).  I guess the President has already forgotten the male victims of 9/11, or as I suspect from the history of his past policies, male victims of violence don’t really matter that much to him.
In our politically correct world, any mention of the military must include a mention of men, “and women.”  And even though women are less than 3% of combat deaths and injuries, I think that is a fair and reasonable inclusion.  Even though women are legally exempt from front line, ground combat, with full Presidential support, women are still serving honorably in many roles in the military and deserving of recognition for their work and sacrifice. However, when men are 97+% of combat casualties and deaths, isn’t it just a little bit hypocritical that we don’t see gender feminists running to federally mandated, Title IX to “level that playing field.”ÂÂ
 As President Bush is fully aware, it would be an egregious error to forget to mention the women serving in our military at any press conference or public speaking engagement. Women must be included in any mention of the military these days, but when it comes to mentioning “innocent” members of the civilian population who have died in the war on terror, it appears from today’s omission – NO MEN ALLOWED!  If civilian male victims can’t even get a mention, well then heaven forbid we specifically mention the military “victims” of the war on terror who are 97+% male.
Where is the “gender inclusivity” that great leaders and great politicians are supposed to practice? Obviously, President Bush reinforces the “protection” of women from violence and the “disposability of males” to violence, both in his speech, and in his policy on the war on terror.   So much for equal protection under law, based on gender.
Given the overtly misandrist bigotry that is openly practiced at the highest levels of American government, it’s no wonder men are disproportionately the victims of violence, and literally 2nd class citizens in their own nation. When it comes to receiving services or even recognition, for the violence they endure in domestic relations, or other situations, it appears ”innocent” men (and boys) are a cast all to frequently unmentionable.
In the state in which I live (California), men are excluded by law from the same domestic violence services and protections women get.  Today, conceivably, a California man can serve in Afghanistan, or Iraq, get his legs blown off, come home, be sitting in his wheel chair in his home, get hit in the head with a frying pan by his wife, then legally be denied the same domestic violence protections and services that women get. Veterans have been discriminated against by domestic violence laws in California, just for being male.
Given the freedom with which the highest elected official in America, panders to gender feminist, PC language, while openly disregarding male victims of violence, it is no wonder men (and boys) are held in such low regard by America’s government, societal institutions, and multi-billion dollar government programs like the misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
How much longer the good men (and women) of America will tolerate these abuses of government is a question I ask myself - frequently. The silence is deafening.
