Targeted mass-murders of men by Islamists receiving scant attention

Religious and other kinds of ideological extremists have been committing genocide for millenia.  So that isn't news, as horrific as it is every time it happens.  What isn't typically discussed is that the principal targets of ideological and particularly religious extremism that becomes violent in its expression are men.  But when extreme ideologies become violent, even when not religious, they still typically target men exclusively or principally.  An obvious exception we've recently seen in history is the Third Reich, which targeted men, women, and children indiscriminately.  Here in the U.S., the 19th century ideology of "Manifest Destiny" combined with a callous indifference toward the original occupants of the continent led to a general genocide that targeted men first as combatants but then implicitly moved on to everyone else by continued use of weapons or forced dislocation and exposure to the elements.  The results are a matter of historical fact.  But the primary agents of such extremist genocide are also men.  Typically their behavior is supported by the women in their lives for any number of reasons, but there's no denying it's primarily men contriving and carrying out genocidal plans or armed persecutions of others.  It's what I call "auto-gendercide": People of gender X targeting people of the same sex almost exclusively.  And I have yet to see a single example in human history of women committing gendercide against women unless it's in association with a general genocide, such as what happened during WWII when female SS officers "oversaw" the female victims of the Third Reich. And also, when was the last genocide planned and executed by a woman or group of women? Can't name one. Oh, they've willingly supported them-- women such as the wives of high-ranking Nazi officials, and women who sincerely volunteered for positions in the Nazi machine of state or war (or to commit crimes against humanity, as the case may be).

Feminists claim these facts are due to the inherently violent and inhumane impulses if not nature of males. I disagree. Based on what I've studied in human history, the fundamental values of a given society determine what it will tolerate, support, or reject. I doubt, for example, one could have gotten the men of Tibet to commit genocide against anyone any time in its history, particularly after Buddhism took hold as a religion and philosophy. There are numerous other examples of entire populations of men who have never been involved in a genocide/gendercide and are unlikely to ever be. But when genocides/gendercides do occur, they're started and pursued by men as a rule, but as I said, supported by the women in their lives.

The way to stop atrocities like the one we see now unfolding at the hands of a network of violently motivated men who have bought the false teachings of other men who undoubtedly seek to manipulate and use them to become powerful "by any means necessary", including by preaching a warped and evil version of a mainstream religion that, contrary to popular belief, pacified constantly-warring groups of people in a land of great scarcity. Was it a perfect fix? No. But neither has Christianity or Buddhism been. Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims (Islamists and not), and pretty much everyone else still find reasons to kill each other and "others" for whatever reason. And those killers, when acting as agents of their nation, religion (purportedly), tribe, etc. are almost exclusively men.

So I finish by saying this: We have work to do on getting rid of "man's inhumanity to man". In this case, I think it'd have to start with accepting that not every man you see should at least say he has similar religious beliefs as you do, or else you'll kill him "in the name of God!"