I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, because the premise of snd's argument is rather subjective as far as how he's choosing to interpret meaning out of fact. but for the hell of it, I started skimming through the research study he linked- within the Executive Summary, it states :
The research we have explored uses different datasets and investigates different conflicts and
time periods, so it is difficult to say whether more men or women die overall from conflict.
One general conclusion can however be drawn: men are more likely to die during conflicts, whereas
women die more often of indirect causes after the conflict is over. Data on violent deaths (mostly survey
data) confirm that men are more often victims of violence during wartime, whereas several
studies that also take into consideration the post conflict period report a high number of
female deaths after the conflict is officially over. It is still unclear what it is about these post
conflict situations that leads to all these female deaths and this is a research area that merits
more attention.
and right after that, within the Introduction:
Direct and indirect casualty data serve as key impact indicators of armed conflict (Lacina and Gleditsch 2005).
Furthermore, “cause-of-death data can provide invaluable insights as to what services need
to be bolstered, and are a key quality control measure for health-related programs…
[Otherwise], conducting a relief program without any evidence of the extent and causes of
mortality, or how these evolve over time, may be inefficient, not cost-effective and,
ultimately, ethically questionable” (Chechhi and Roberts 2005). An example of incorrect use
of data is that for over a decade the ratio of indirect to direct conflict deaths was quoted as
9:1, without any reported empirical basis for this figure (Murray et al. 2002; Levy and Sidel
1997).
In addition, such data would assist researchers in identifying characteristics of
conflicts to help explain why some conflicts are apparently more damaging to women than
others (Plümper and Neumayer 2006). This is important because drawing political attention
to the human cost of conflict, and the different consequences for men and women, may
influence policies affecting future conflict. To this end, more efforts are needed in collecting
and assembling data from conflict areas.
this is a 28 page report that I have no time or energy for, otherwise, I'm pretty sure I could walk through it and pick up all kinds of commentary that basically has no correlation to snd's statement that men are not valued in the society, or are completely irrelevant to his argument as this study is
"to explore the availability of gender disaggregated conflict
mortality data and estimates."
which is a very different kind of study than he would suggest.
I suppose it does at least point out that any information can be taken, twisted, used, and otherwise wrongly interpreted or conveyed in anecdotal form in order to either back up or disprove an argument, but I'm pretty sure that paper has no relevance what so ever within the context of his argument.
pls try again, tho.
