Afghan Men Devastated

	posted by Scott on Wednesday January 09, @04:32PM from the men's-health dept.
	Neil Steyskal submitted this New York Times article (free registration required) and writes "The NY Times has a feature article on the mental and physical devastation of Afghan men after decades of war." From the article: " Afghanistan is a nation with 24 million people but only three psychiatric hospitals and eight psychiatrists to serve them. It has virtually no ability to treat its enormous population of mentally ill war victims, according to the World Health Organization, which estimates the mentally ill population at two million."

	Source: The New York Times [newspaper] Title: Ravaged Psyches in a Generation of Fighting Author: C. J. Chivers Date: January 9, 2002

<  New DesertLight Journal Released | Abortions Hard to Come By for Women Soldiers Abroad  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Damn!! (Score:2) by frank h on Wednesday January 09, @05:14PM EST (#1) (User #141 Info) Damn! The horrific plight of Afghan men, in mainstream media, no less.

Re:Damn!! (Score:2) by Marc Angelucci on Wednesday January 09, @07:44PM EST (#2) (User #61 Info) frank h is absolutely right. Not just mainstream media, but New York Times! I know this is not all that controversial a gender issue, but actually giving some attention to the plight of men, and with all the gender politics surrounding this issue? Damn!! Incidentally, the LA Times printed a very long, front page story on women in Afghanistan. They have printed article after article after article on the same thing, but nothing about men. I always thought the New York Times was worse. I guess not this time.

hey... (Score:1) by LadyRivka (abrouty@wells.edu) on Wednesday January 09, @09:08PM EST (#3) (User #552 Info) http://devoted.to/jinzouningen I'm quite surprised that a major American newspaper would take a truthful instead of a PC stance for once! Go NYT! "Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.

this really isn't about men (Score:1) by plumber on Wednesday January 09, @11:43PM EST (#4) (User #301 Info) It's about the suffering of Afgan persons. The article never discusses why all the victims are male. That unfortunately is still a taboo issue to raise. Mainstream media presents adults as persons and as females. Maleness is considered to be meaningless. But we know better.

cats' tongues (Score:1) by Smoking Drive (homoascendens@ivillage.com) on Wednesday January 09, @11:50PM EST (#5) (User #565 Info) While the Taliban were certainly horrid to women the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on men by the civil war must have been (at least) equally devastating. And gender fems demonize all afghan men. sd Those who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.

Persons and Women (Score:1) by Uberganger on Thursday January 10, @04:43AM EST (#6) (User #308 Info) It's about the suffering of Afgan persons. The article never discusses why all the victims are male. That unfortunately is still a taboo issue to raise. The feminist worldview sees men as an oppressor class. Distinctions between different groups of men are not seen as very important because they are perceived as less 'fundamental' than the oppressor/oppressed distinction. Consequently any man, no matter how great his suffering may be, is still viewed as a member of the oppressor class. If his suffering is caused by other men this is viewed as a conflict within the oppressor class. By ignoring important and real differences between different groups of men it becomes impossible to empathise with those being harmed. The consequences of this perception of men can be seen in numerous areas of society.

Re:Persons and Women (Score:1) by tparker on Thursday January 10, @08:57PM EST (#7) (User #65 Info) The feminist worldview sees men as an oppressor class. Distinctions between different groups of men are not seen as very important because they are perceived as less 'fundamental' than the oppressor/oppressed distinction. Consequently any man, no matter how great his suffering may be, is still viewed as a member of the oppressor class. If his suffering is caused by other men this is viewed as a conflict within the oppressor class. By ignoring important and real differences between different groups of men it becomes impossible to empathise with those being harmed. The consequences of this perception of men can be seen in numerous areas of society. I always have trouble understanding this kind of victimist reasoning - this clarifies it nicely. Thanks - I'll keep the text, if you don't mind.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]