I was driving along this weekend, listening to National Public Radio, when I heard something like the following real weirdness. It’s quite a commentary, though, on how NPR, or the left, or feminists, or, perhaps, all of America — see the relative value of men and women.
I’m not sure of all the details, because I wasn’t paying close attention. Where I’m not sure of a detail, I’ll notify you. The story went something like this :
- Violence escalated last year (I think) in Afghanistan. There were a lot more civilian casualties than the year before (I think).
- The sub-heading on the story was: “Women and children bore the brunt of it.“
- On came some correspondent or other. Sounded like an older man with a British accent.
- He reported that there was some terrible number of civilian casualties. I forget the number, but it was somewhere around 15,000.
- After the older correspondent in the field, the local NPR anchorette came on, and informed us that (I am sure of these numbers): “Of those casualties, 10 percent were women, up three percent from last year.” (Again, not sure of the time periods they used. I thought it was this past year compared to the previous.)
Look, I understand that the rise in civilian casualties in Afghanistan is a real news story. But, it was a story on the slaughter of … mostly men. How does it come about that a story of thousands upon thousands of people — the vast majority of them being men — getting slaughtered can be sub-headed: “Women and children bore the brunt of it“?
Look, I get it. Speaking very coldly here: Women are more valuable for a society from a sheer numbers perspective. Women produce one egg per month for a couple of decades. Then, if that egg becomes fertilized, she’s needed, in order to tend to the children, for at least five years. Men produce something on the order of 120 million to 150 million sperm per day, or about an astounding 1,500 sperm cells per second. All their adult lives.
One single, solitary man is a potential world populating machine if need be! But men are victims of their own biological spectacularness. You just don’t need as many of ’em. But don’t dare run out of women, or else your “group,” however you define it, is in existential peril.
Was NPR simply mindlessly succumbing to that understanding, when a story about the rampant slaughter of mainly men is really considered to mean: “Women and children bear the brunt of it?” Do they even think about what they write and say? Do they consider their listenership to be that stupid? Is their listenership that stupid?