Twenty years after Srebrenica: Mass murder of men remains un-investigated to this day

The following article is my translation of an article, published a few days ago by the German writer on men’s issues Arne Hoffmann. I first read about the unequal treatment of men and women by NGO’s in conflict situations last summer in his book Not am Mann – Sexismus gegen Männer (Men in need – Sexism against men) and his book Plädoyer für eine linke Männerpolitik (Plea for a left wing men’s politics). It is not like I had not witnessed callous sexism against men before but that people were intentionally left to die by human rights organisations, i.e. the very groups of people who had devoted their lives to NOT shutting their eyes to human suffering but going into the places that others were fleeing from and helping those in need. The reality of those people who are the last hope for those in danger, leaving men back to die just because of the sex they were born with shook me to the core. It made me really sad for humanity. But then again I had met a person who was working in the UN, a young lecturer teaching a human rights seminar at the university, who had laughed her head off when I had replied to her question of which groups need human rights, with: “men”. Back then she asked me which rights men are lacking and all I could think of was father’s rights. Now, two years later, having done my research I would have a lot to tell her. But I am still astonished that with her research credentials she wouldn’t know herself. I don’t know if people do not want to know or are sincerely uninformed. For the general public the latter is certainly true. Which is why I wanted as many people as possible to be able to read the article that Arne Hoffmann published a few days ago on the gender aspects of the massacre in the Kosovo twenty years ago. 

These days, numerous media outlets are publishing articles on the 20th anniversary of the massacre of Srebenica. I have dealt with the gender political relevant aspects of this mass murder in my book Plädoyer für eine linke Männerpolitik (Plea for a left wing men’s politics)

This article was originally published in German on “Genderama” and then on “Cuncti”

In June 1995 the Serbian army attacked the city Srebrenica, in the East of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and systematically slaughtered almost 8,000 men and older boys and thus became responsible for the worst massacre since the end of WW II. Two years before this massacre, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had evacuated several thousand civilians from the besieged city.

Women, children and the elderly had been allowed to flee through the UN convoys; adult men from the civilian population had been left back in the city – despite the people in charge having been fully aware that, in such cases, it was almost always the male population murdered en masse. Men between the ages of 15 and 60, who had tried to hide among the throngs of refugees, were removed by the people in charge at the UNHCR, who refused to take responsibility for their protection.

Four years after the massacre, in 1999, the United Nations Security Council met in order to discuss the protection of the civilian population in war zones. While, once again primarily male, civilians were being massacred in the Kosovo, the delegates agreed that women and children have a special right to humanitarian support. A study by the human rights organization Human Rights Watch of 3,453 executions in the context of the Kosovo-conflict found that 92 per cent of all victims, whose sex was known, were male. Among other human rights violations, that largely and predominantly affected men, were capture and severe torture. This was also confirmed by reports on the human rights situation in the Kosovo by other organizations. An aid who had stayed back in the villages spoke of a “planet without men”, a world of only women and children. The men had been displaced or murdered.

When the gendercide expert, Professor Adam Jones, contacted the president of the human rights center of the United Nations to share his worries about the men who were facing death during the Kosovo conflict, the reply he received consisted of three sentences from an assistant, who thanked Jones but explained that these kinds of questions were not part of the UN-mandate. The women were brought to safety but were visibly distressed about having to leave their men behind in a situation of certain death. “It was not easy to watch, women and children being led away from their menfolk”, Adam Jones cites the reaction of a Dutch member of the UN-peacekeeping forces in the Kosovo and adds: “This statement serves well to summarize the predominant attitude.” Sympathy was directed at the distressed women, not at the men awaiting impending mass murder. Eight months later the massacre of Srebrenica took place. One year later, the UN institution, that Jones had contacted, founded an international coalition for the protection of the human rights of women in situations of conflict.

The international relations expert, Paula Drummond, for her article “invisible men”, examined in particular the Gender-Mainstreaming-policies of the United Nations in the context of the genocide in the Congo, that cost the lives of such a high number of men that in some regions 80 per cent of survivors consist of women and children. The result of Drummond‘s analysis: foundation of the UN policies is the adoption of the so called Gender-Mainstreaming-principle, which, according to the official definition, should address the needs of both genders, but is de facto only applied to benefit women. Despite the United Nations witnessing, again and again, that gender specific violence was mainly directed against men and boys, e.g. in Ruanda and the former Yugoslavia, for them “Gender Politics” consists of protecting women and girls.

Drummond shows that when, for example, boys and men are forced through threat of death to rape their own family members, the UN will later only provide support to the raped women. If the en masse slaughter of men is at all included in a UN report, then it is only because the “resulting scarcity of men leads to more insecurity for households that consist of only adult women” – meaning that dead men impair the life of women. Contrary to all existing findings, it is emphasized again and again, that women and children were particularly at risk in the conflicts mentioned. Generally, the engagement with the conflict in the Congo is dominated by a feminist perspective, which Drummond views as short sighted, since the marginalization of male victims reinforces the cliché of women as vulnerable and continually in need of assistance.

If Gender Studies really was a legitimate academic discipline, these aspects would be among the central research and teaching tenets. Instead they are dominated by the concerns of one gender only. For scientists in other disciplines, Professor Adam Jones, for example, is seen as one of the global leading experts on the topic of genocide, yet from the perspective of Gender Studies he is obviously an ‘unciteworthy’ “old white man”.

This camp takes even more aggressive action against human rights activists who would like to see the suffering of men put on the political agenda as well. By the Ausputzern der Genderszene (Gender activists) such activists are vilified as “Rechte” (far right-wing), as they are apparently pursuing a victim ideology just like the National Socialists did (the actual one-sided feminist victim ideology is not being questioned in the Gender-camp). One should not even talk with these human rights activists, demands, among others, Thomas Gesterkamp, but instead draw a “Cordon Sanitaire” around them. Public broadcast journalists, such as Ralf Homann and Nina Marie Bust-Bartels, like to spread this hatred and don’t seem particularly interested in mass murder that is specifically committed against men.

Thus, the next massacre of this kind will be take place unhindered. Its foundation cannot only be found in other cultures, it is also deeply entrenched in Western society: It is the conviction that only the suffering of women counts and anyone who speaks about the suffering of men is turned into an untouchable and socially executed.

The mindset, that even the death of a great number of humans accounts to nothing and the winning of recognition for one’s own political camp means everything, is familiar to us from several ideologies, which both far left and far right intellectuals indulged in: National Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism and now Feminism and Gender.  This mindset returns again and again but that should not keep us from doing all we can to finally overcome it, even if it means becoming ever more a target of hatred.

It is grotesque when, in the face of such hideousness, we are asked to stay emotionally detached and indifferent. Otherwise, one gets vilified as an “angry white man”, and thus declared not worthy of having an opinion. Then again, this mechanism only works in the mind of ideologues. Personally, I prefer anger in this context. It is by all means better than depression.

Dr. Tanveer Ahmed – former White Ribbon Ambassador

Australian psychiatrist and former White Ribbon ambassador, Dr. Tanveer Ahmed, recently gave a talk at the Domestic Violence Symposium in Toronto. I will share the audio of the talk here now and later add points from the talk that I find particulary important. He was asked a few months ago to step down from his position as ambassador of the feminist White Ribbon campaign after writing an article about male victims of domestic violence. Doing so he had not intended to cause outrage but to highlight an aspect of the domestic violence problem that was not getting any attention. He saw what he was doing as part of his job in the domestic violence campaign. What seems a long time ago now, I likewise was writing about men’s issues on fb, innocuous comments about things that I had observed, not under the banner of men’s rights activism / advocacy at all. I did not know then that such a thing existed. And just like Dr. Ahmed, I was stunned by the virulent reactions I was getting. But just like him, rather than silencing me, the accusations of me being a men’s rights activist lead me to check out what that is and discover a world out there that I didn’t know existed, people who are not evil as the media likes to claim but who are fed up with the ideologically driven narrative that they are being fed, which does not correspond to people’s lives reality and leads to division and strife between people instead of peace and harmony.

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj on men’s issues in India

Finally Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj has uploaded the Tedx talk she gave on men’s issues in India about a month ago. She is a great resource of information for people who do not live in that country. I am very glad I found her after being puzzled for a long time abut why the European media is only presenting the women’s side of things. After all men and women exist together, so you can never have the whole picture by consistently excluding one half from the conversation. With this one sided perspective it has gotten to the point where people look at you like you’re the scum of the earth when you say that you’re not a vegetarian but the same people don’t blink an eye when you confront them with the astronomically high male suicide figures across the globe. So it just happened to me at a party I recently attended where upon me saying that I work on men’s issues a French lady went ballistic, exclaiming: “But ….. but … men are the perpetrators and women are the victims …” Note that this is NOT paraphrasing but the actual words used, from which she went on to say that she had recently been to India where the men enjoy so much more freedom than the women. She was completely untouched by the suicide figures that I confronted her with. When people have more empathy with chickens than with men my admiration for someone like Deepika, daring to go against the grain, grows even more.

One Indian lady fighting the empathy gap:

This is why I write about men’s issues

In the past few months – since my very non-nondescript blog about my six week trip through Pakistan almost two years ago – took this direction I have thinking about writing a new introduction that would explain my interest in this topic. I was never sure where to start, as I had so many experiences in my life that drew me in this direction and how personal it should be as personal attacks on people who write about and research these issues are not uncommon and I do not want to cause distress to my family. Now I have just come across a note under an article about male suicide from The Guardian that was posted on the facebook site of the ManKind Project. It makes the point very clear why drawing people’s attention across the globe to men’s issues is of vital importance.

This is why I write about men's issues

Intuitively we tend to focus on women and girls when there is a tragedy and completely black men and boys out. Having done my M.A. in Literature I encountered the phrase ‘writing women back into history’ more than once. In the same vein people claim that Men’s Studies is not needed as every history class is men’s studies as it recounts men’s lives in the past. But that is not true. It only recounts the lives of men in certain glorious roles and says nothing about the hardship they suffered under strenuous conditions. Yes, we need to write some of women’s achievements back into history books, as they were not always appreciated. But at the same time we need to write men’s suffering back into history books. And if someone now thinks that this is a big whining contest in the run up for the oppression Olympics they are still not aware of the real world implications of ignoring men’s suffering. As shown above they are deadly. While men always lived slightly shorter lives than women the life expectancy gap has widened globally in the past 100 years from one year to seven years in the worst affected countries. The male suicide rate is 4 times as high as the female suicide rate in most western countries. In India a married man takes his life every 8 minutes. And while suicide is a sin and considered a crime in many Muslim countries (and thus difficult to get numbers) evidence points to men outnumbering women in Pakistan as well. In western countries it is quite clear that these high numbers are not due to ‘male egos’ as Feminists like to claim. Men are certainly not exactly encouraged to come forward with their problems in a society where if they do so they are called cry babies, laughed at for their ‘male tears’ by journalist Jessica Valenti and told to go to a psychiatric ward instead when calling a domestic violence shelter hotline. Our natural inclination to focus on women and black out men has furthermore led us to make gender specific laws in the name of equality, that clearly have put men under severe hardship. 

Globally we now have the UN’s HeforShe campaign that once again asks men to don the armor to be the shining knight and enter the service of women’s protection. Knowing that western NGOs operating in developing countries already heavily favour women even when something affects mainly men I was rather shocked by this campaign that asks men once again to shut up about themselves and help women. Feminists and some anti-feminists alike like to claim that women in the ‘third world’ need Feminism. No one would deny that women in developing countries, such as Pakistan, are suffering. But Feminism will certainly not help them bring food on their table or protect their sons and husbands from being wrongfully incarcerated or killed in a fake police encounter. It is men and women who are struggling in these countries and focusing on improving the lives of only one group and claiming that the other is responsible for their hardship is the last thing the people in these countries need. With a lot of sectarian and communal strife that is already taking so many lives and putting psychological strain on people what is needed are strong communities and a rebuilding of trust in one’s neighbour! The very opposite of what feminist ideology aims for. What we need across the globe is respect for human lives, which grows out of empathy for each other. Claiming that a group of people somehow has privilege makes it impossible for us to have empathy towards them and consequently makes us blind to the fact that they are spending considerable less time in this world than the so called oppressed group. 

 PS: Feminists like to claim that speaking about men’s issues as long as women’s suffering has not been eliminated is ‘derailing’. As someone from a rail family I do not find this metaphor apt. I would rather say that people working on men’s issues are ‘expanding the network’ and bringing the rail system from 1848 into the 21st century: more lines, affordable fares and more frequent trains, so that anyone can go anywhere at any time they wish :)

Undoing most of the damage wrought by feminism in one simple step


“A return to vocational high schools will be strongly, desperately resisted by feminists, mark my words. Because at the very heart of that restoration is a very simple idea: men have worth. Vocational high schools treat all men (and the few women who are interested) as intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings not to be squandered to mistaken ideas about social justice. This isn’t about economic worth. That is merely a side effect. It begins with the idea that men have worth as human beings. Instilling that sense of worth by providing men with a real opportunity to discover their own worth and translate that into economic market value as they see fit is the result of treating men, especially low income and working class men as inherently valuable human beings.

The reverberations in the black community will be profound indeed. Find me a progressive or a feminist who claims that low income black men are intelligent, ambitious, talented, driven, capable and valuable human beings.

Want to find out just how true that is?

Bring back vocational high schools.”

Originally posted on judgybitch:


For the past two years, I have been unpacking the racist, classist, misogynist bullshit that is feminism, and exploring the ways that sexism harms men and boys – and always in the back of my mind is the whisper what do we do about this?

Watching President’s Obama’s SOTU address was an incredibly frustrating experience as he ignored all the key issues and proposed massive spending campaigns that effectively pour more fuel on the fire when we are trying to put the damn fire out! The one that struck me in particular was his suggestion that community college tuition be reduced to zero, and I was left shaking my head that the goddamn President of the most successful capitalist, free market economy in history does not appear to understand how markets function.

Here’s his idea: the markets have set community college tuition at $3800/yr. That is what students are able…

View original 1,655 more words

A Better Feminism for 2015


“While British feminist writer Laurie Penny asserts that our culture “hates women,” researchers including feminist psychologist Alice Eagly find that if anything, both sexes view women more favorably than men.

The perception of pervasive, one-sided male power and advantage can create a disturbing blindness to injustices toward men—even potentially life-ruining ones such as false accusations of rape. A true equality movement should address all gender-based wrongs, not create new ones.”

Originally posted on TIME:

Was 2014 the year feminism won the gender war, or jumped the shark? One could say it has had a pretty good year, with celebrity endorsements from the likes of Beyoncé Knowles and Emma Watson and with gender issues often dominating the news.

And yet all too often, the publicity backfired.

The campaign to nix the word “bossy” as a putdown of assertive girls was criticized and mocked not only by conservatives but by liberal and left-wing feminists. The #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag created in response to Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree and his YouTube rants about female rejection elicited a groundswell of sympathy for women’s stories of violence and sexism—but also unease from pro-feminist men and women who felt all males were being unjustly shamed. A social media group called Women Against Feminism sprung up, many of its members stressing that they were for equality but against male-bashing, gender warfare…

View original 1,222 more words

Feminism: the same old gynocentric story

Originally posted on Gynocentrism and its cultural origins:

The Same Old Story
Lecture No. 2 by Adam Kostakis

“I’m not cut from the same mold. I don’t read from the same old story” – Pennywise

My readers must understand that the concerns which Gynocentrism Theory addresses are not limited to feminism. Feminism is still fairly new on the scene, while Gynocentrism has been around for as long as recorded history. The Men’s Rights Movement seeks to address problems associated with feminism, but does not limit its attention to these problems. Many of these problems existed prior to the emergence of feminism proper in the late 19th century, although they have been expanded and exacerbated since. Feminism is only the modern packaging of Gynocentrism, an ancient product, made possible in its present form by the extensive public welfare arrangements of the post-war period.


In spite of its radical rhetoric, the content of feminism, or one could say, its

View original 1,360 more words

Grateful for the patriarchy ;-)


My urdu teacher this week when one of the guys was slow at reading: “When I was teaching Arabic in Bonn, the boys used to sit in the front row and I would pinch them when they didn’t know the answer. I couldn’t do that with the girls obviously. But then the girls started to feel sorry for them.”

Patriarchy = a system in which men and boys suffer violence but girls and women are excempt

Video about Misandry in Pakistan

I made this website two years ago, after visiting my friend from study abroad in the UK in her home country, Pakistan, with the aim of dispelling stereotypes and prejudices about this South Asian country. When I told people in the UK and Germany where I was travelling to I was told that it was too dangerous and that Pakistan was a country that was bad for women. When I came back I couldn’t say anything to counter the first claim as the safety situation is poor to say the least. The fear from terrorist attacks and communal and political violence determines how people live their every day lives. Add to that constant power outages and every day activities that people in Europe don’t think about twice become a challenge even for the part of the population who is lucky to not belong to the majority of the poor. That the international media tends to focus only on one half of the population has begun to increasingly bug me.

So it was very refreshing to see this video that Pakistani men and women have made recently:

misandry in pakistan misandry in pakistan3

misandry in pakistan2

On the same issues:

What shirtgate tells us about men’s desires and male power

All around the world people share two basic beliefs:

  1. A man’s greatest desire is to oppress a woman.
  2. Because men have historically written most texts and appeared more in the public sphere they are the ones who determine how life should be lived by all women and the remaining men who are not public speakers, writers, judges, etc. (Feminists call that ‘patriarchy hurts men too’)

So, a man has this desire to oppress women AND the power to enforce this oppression. Having lived among men and women for 31 years my impressions about what desires they both have are slightly different. But let’s look at #shirtgate and what Matt Taylor’s desires and actions were, apart from that insignificant thing with the comet. ;-)

For his big day he wore a shirt that his female friend made to promote women empowerment. Mh, interesting way of oppressing a woman by wearing the shirt that she made and transporting her message out into the wider world. His actions look more like he likes women and wants to please them. When another woman complains that his shirt is bad for women empowerment (how is head not buzzing with confusion at this point? Mine certainly is!) he breaks down in tears and apologizes. His strong desire to make women happy and do anything to please them should be clear to anyone right now.

Further, it should be clear to anyone what has been clear to women who are honest all their lives. There are some vocal women who have a keen interest in pushing their own way of life onto other women and making them belief that this is how a woman has to be and it is the only way. I was quite confused as a teenager when I opened women’s magazines and were told on every other page that this and only this is the right way of being a woman. Ever since them I have avoided them like the pest. But in recent years women’s issues have been creeping into the mainstream media in such a dominant way that you cannot open any publication anymore without being told how you should live your life as a woman. I am getting sick and tired of being made to feel that I have not succeeded in my life because I am not in a STEM field. Apparently women empowerment is not about women doing what they are interested in and being successful in realizing their personal dreams. No, they have to realize the dreams of some outspoken Feminists. Become engineers, computer programmers or politicians even though most women have no interest in going into these fields. They claim that women aren’t encouraged enough in their childhood to go into these fields. As a child I have probably seen more trains and have been their explained their inner workings than most kids, but ironically I observed that they worked just fine whereas I observed very odd behavior in adults. That’s why I developed in interest in learning about different behavior in humans, in order to understand why they acted so strangely. I still ask myself why? when I see strange societal phenomena. When I see men sit cross legged on the subway I ask myself why? Because they are anatomically different to women. When I see Feminists starting a media campaign about men sitting cross legged on the subway, I ask myself: why do they not know that men and women are anatomically different? Why do they at other times pretend that anatomic differences mean that men are indestructible and instruct social services to look for the fault in the husband whenever there is a family conflict even though women in relationships are just as violent as men? Maybe, just maybe, if Feminists didn’t make people behave so strangely girls would not want to explore the world or human behaviour and study literature and culture but will want to find out out how to make faster and more climate friendly trains. :)

I ventured slightly off topic in trying to show how it’s women and not men, as is usually claimed, who like to define how women should live. Tomorrow in my seminar on “Islam, Gender and Democracy: Comparative Aspects between the Arab World and India” we might again talk about how certain Hadiths and Sunnahs were interpretated in such a way as to very clearly define the roles of women. Apparently that was done by men to control women. Ironically I have in 31 years not come across men who had a strong opinion on what I should be like as a woman. (Except for male Feminists) I have though personally come across such women who claimed: “This is what women do.” (I never do such things) or “This is how women live” (I never intend to live this way) and been bombarded with media reports on what women should be like. While I am not conservative, I found this article that I came across today very interesting. It talks about how the majority of women in the UK feel like they have to live the life that a minority of vocal women have defined as the ideal life of a woman. Needless to say that they are finding it less than ideal.

With everything that is going on around me I find it very hard to believe that in the past women had no opinion of their own and men had a strong desire to define their lives. Very hard indeed to believe that there were no women involved in convincing men to interpret certain hadiths in such a way that they would present they lifestyle of this particular woman as the ideal one. No one could fault them. In the past societies had to be very homogeneous. It’s completely understandable that women would push for their life style to be declared universal so that they would not have to fear being asked to live differently. Live and let live! :) And stop holding men responsible for women’s decisions.

Who is the slave to whom?