The media’s unfair reporting on the sexes’ war risk and sacrifice


Count the number of women you see.

By Jerry A. Boggs                          2,720

Until recent years, journalists seldom recognized the military women who risked — and often sacrificed — their lives in war. They almost always reported on “the men.” Since military women represented at least a small percentage of those ensnarled in fighting a war, journalists were hardly fair when minimizing or ignoring servicewomen’s risk and sacrifice altogether.

    Now, however, journalists are over-correcting in overdrive. Instead of “the men” as in the past, they often inappropriately insert in their reports on war “the men and women,” giving the impression, likely intentional in many cases, that women have risked and sacrificed in wars just as much as men have.

    Take the front-page story about the Vietnam War in the Detroit News on April 30, 2000. Staff writer Kim Kozlowski wrote, “Everyone has their own personal Vietnam. It wasn’t just the men and women who traipsed through the Vietnamese jungles, rifles strapped on their shoulders, fear racing through their minds.”

    The men and women who traipsed? In that war, over 58,000 American men were slain. The number of women sacrificed? Eight. Despite a male-only draft and the male soldiers’ astronomically higher risk and sacrifice, Kozlowski suggests women showed up in Vietnam in equal number and faced equal risk. Her explanation for the women’s minuscule loss of lives has to be, I’m sure, that the enemy, beset with chivalry, kept females out of its cross-hairs and somehow set its mines and mortars to vaporize only males. 

Count the female soldiers.

   But Kozlowski’s reality-warp pales next to that uttered by ABC News’ late Peter Jennings. On May 22, 1998, during a pre-Memorial Day story on the Civil War, Jennings delivered this shocking news: “More than 600,000 men and women died before the war was over.”

    Correction: The Civil War murdered over 600,000 males, a lot of them boys young as 14. Historical records show that about 60 women were either wounded or killed. Yet Jennings, instead of taking an extra micro-second to state truthfully how many females died, chose to ignore journalism’s principles of accuracy and fairness, and strongly implied that the Civil War leveled 300,000 men and 300,000 women. (What would feminists have said if Jennings, at a time when everyone regarded domestic violence as something virtually only men commit, had said, “More than 50,000 women and men were victims of domestic violence before the year was over”? After he was fired, they would have said what men should have said after Jennings’ real statement.) 

   “I don’t want American boys and young women to get killed.” – Joe Scarborough on MSNBC TV’s “Morning Joe,” September 13, 2010, discussing the Afghanistan pull-out of U.S. troops. (To Scarborough, women are women, but men are boys. Woe be to him if he had said, “American girls and young men”!)

“The men and women” is misemployed also on the Web. At, a link informs, “Many U.S. Military men and women encountered some of the most gruesome battles, triumphing over some of the biggest nations to maintain the very freedoms we have today.” At is this: “D-Day. It was the largest air, land, and sea invasion ever undertaken, including over 5,000 ships, 10,000 airplanes, and 250,000 service men and women.” Again, were the benighted left picturing in their mind 125,000 men and 125,000 women? Watch the film documentaries about war, as well as such fact-based combat movies as “Saving Private Ryan.” See any women taking part in an invasion? See any female soldiers floating face down in the water as their blood pools around their bodies? See any of their torsos, arms, legs, or intestines littering the beaches?

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” May 10, 2011, was this bit of news from Rolling Stone magazine: “…6,022 American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 42,000 have been wounded.”
Once again, unenlightened viewers, especially the young and impressionable, were no doubt led to think half of those killed and wounded in war were women.

    Increasingly, the journalists’ rule appears to be this: Even if only one female troop — or just one nurse — falls in a war that slaughters thousands of men, report “thousands of men and women killed.”

    One truly sad upshot of this false reporting on the sexes’ risk and sacrifice in war is its indoctrination of the very young:

“World War I began in 1914 and continued for four years until 1918. 600,000 men and women fought in World War I and of those, 60,000 Canadians died and 170,000 were wounded. Men and women fought in trenches filled with water, mud, and rats.”

This was in a paper by student Brittany Oulton in 2000 — when she was in the 7th grade. (If young women grow up thinking females equally share such horrific risk and sacrifice in war, little wonder they resent not equally sharing the imaginary power and privilege that feminists and the media, in an extension of their anti-male indoctrination, tell them only men possess.)

When men do 30 percent of the housework, we criticize men for not sharing the housework; when any given woman receiving 100 percent of male combat pay takes 25 percent of the combat risks of any given man, we call her a warrior and credit her with “sharing the danger.” —Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power. Update: See Farrell’s March 2018 book “The Boy Crisis.”

    Call it another gender gap: Equal recognition for unequal risk. But this gender gap is of the worst kind.

    Giving women recognition that’s commensurate with their actual risk and sacrifice in war is necessary and just. But planting the notion that women risked and sacrificed equally with men is gravely unprincipled. Moreover, it may foster resentment in male war veterans who no doubt sense their risk and sacrifice are per force watered down.

“I was in Vietnam,” grumbled Bill Geist, author of The Big Five-0h! “and didn’t see any women over there, and we have a monument for them.”

And our country’s next war effort may be hampered. Male soldiers may become demoralized over politically correct distortions such as Peter Jennings’ “over 600,000 men and women killed,” because these soldiers know that they, not women, will overwhelmingly be in harm’s way.

On January 25, 2012, Jessica Buchanan and Danish co-worker Poul Hagen Thisted were rescued by Navy SEALs from Somali pirates. Buchanan’s uncle Dave Buchanan told ABC News, “The men that risked their lives — I just can’t say enough so I really, really appreciate it.” But what did Vice-President Joe Biden, who I suspect is too afraid of feminists not to be politically correct, have to say about this all-male rescue team? This: “It takes your breath away, their capacity and their bravery. These guys and women are amazing.” As the presidential election draws near, Biden may become even more desperate for female votes. Thus, after the next all-male Navy SEAL rescue, Biden is, in Male Matters’ view, the person most likely to proclaim, “It takes your breath away, their capacity and their bravery. These women are amazing.”

    I would be far less troubled by the portrayals of women as equally burdened with protecting the nation and equally victimized by war, if journalists did not deliberately overlook men in other areas of risk and sacrifice. Take the workplace. Although you regularly hear about how women are affected by sexual harassment and the sexes’ wage gap, how often do you hear about the sexes’ occupational death gap, the approximately 6,600 men fatally hurt at work each year compared to the 420 women? Journalists are apparently more concerned about women’s pay and about women being offended by off-color jokes at work than they are about men being killed at work. Consider, too, domestic violence. Men’s risk is ignored by most journalists despite recent studies — those not influenced by feminism — that expose domestic violence as an equal-opportunity activity. One study, as described in Violence and Victims (Vol. 10, 1995), shows that 11 percent of wives and 7 percent of husbands in military couples were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.

Studies suggest there are almost as many male victims of domestic violence as there are female victims.” -WFUV News, March 2, 2011

    If we’re going to give women recognition where it isn’t due, the least we can do for men is give them recognition where it is due.

    Judging by journalists’ growing disregard of the truth about the sexes’ risk and sacrifice, I can’t help cynically thinking some journalist somewhere will one day drop “the men” altogether and intone solemnly, “The Civil War slaughtered over 600,000 women.”


On May 9, 2007, “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, appearing on NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams, said, “How can our daughters and sons continue to spill their blood” while Iraqi officials vacation. Ladies first, right, Tim?

Putting women first — “the women and the men killed” — has been said many times. On September 21, 2004, on MSNBC, war analyst and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, when referring to our soldiers in Iraq, did not say the usual “men and women.” Instead, he reversed the order, saying “the women and men.” So did Paula Zahn on CNN September 9, 2004. And on July 4, 2005, so did Cokie and Steve Roberts in “Service on the battlefield and elsewhere.” Do these pundits signal a new trend that will go beyond merely mentioning women in all references to military personnel, to mentioning female soldiers first, even though the soldiers in the military and at risk in Iraq are overwhelmingly men? What if when referring to victims of domestic violence, they had said “the men and women,” which would have been perfectly logical given that recent studies show women initiate unprovoked spousal abuse as often as men? Wouldn’t their employers have dropped them, and wouldn’t feminists have hounded them out of the country?


In a pdf file here.
For more on the media’s biased, feminist-influenced reporting on the sexes, among other things, read Bernard Golberg’s new book,
Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite.

ww2 mem


About Male Matters USA

See About the Author
This entry was posted in Gender Politics, In-depth commentary for the serious activist, Male "Power" and "Privilege", Media Sexism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The media’s unfair reporting on the sexes’ war risk and sacrifice

  1. Tom Foolry says:

    What I wonder is what are they SUPPOSED to say? “Lot’s of men and very, very few women”? That just doesn’t make any sense. Don’t worry, the media mentioning women doesn’t hurt your manliness, so you really shouldn’t get too upset over this.


    • Thanks for your comment.

      How is it that you missed this point: In reports on domestic violence, is it said, “Lots of women and very, very few men”? No. The huge majority of these reports, until very recently, have mentioned only women — despite the FACT that a higher percentage of men are victims of this violence than women are victims of war. Do these reports give the impression that men are victims of domestic violence in numbers equal to women? I don’t think so.

      Such put-downs as “won’t hurt your manliness” are employed by those who don’t want to debate, only to intimidate. I’ve heard such from arrow-slingers as yourself for over 30 years. (What you don’t know is that for every such comment as yours, I get ten resounding approvals.) Do you seriously think I can be intimidated by someone like you into, say, deleting my entire blog and joining a feminist effort to help women, who you apparently think are the only sex that has gender issues?

      So what are they supposed to say? What do they say about domestic violence? You answer that.


      • Tom Foolry says:

        I could never asked you to join the femenist movement, seeing as I am strongly against them. I guess you could say that I’m not looking for a debate, because I think that both sides are equally to blame. I believe that both men and women should have equal rights and such, but we’re never really going to get there if both sides of the movement are always bickering.

        Yes, the media sometimes unfairly reports on stats such as domestic violence, but then it seems that throughout most history, women haven’t had many rights at all, compared to men. I think that we should all just get off our high horses and try to see eye to eye. Besides, why should they change if we refuse to?


    • Keevo says:

      How does it not make sense, it would be a damn sight more accurate. The personalising, emasculating comments are beyond pathetic and utterly predictable. It is a fact that has nothing to do with him whatsoever, what a feeble game.


  2. Re: “but then it seems that throughout most history, women haven’t had many rights at all, compared to men.”

    Yes, it SEEMS that way because most people are fooled by the mainstream media, which for decades have been committed to dichotomizing the sexes, chiefly by portraying women as disenfranchized victims and men as their privileged victimizers.

    But reality is quite different.

    What do you make of this, as just one example: Around 1908, states began passing, at the urging of women’s groups, an hours-limitation law to prohibit employers from requiring women — but not men — from working more than 10 hours per day. This female-protective law put male workers more under the thumb of employers. In those patriarchal times when men “oppressed” women, why did the states protect women instead of men? How better to oppress women than to make them work longer than men? You’ve never heard of that hours-limitation law because feminists and the media would never, ever bring it up.

    Then, of course, there also was the male-only military draft that resulted in the loss and mangling of millions of men but not women. Only eight women were killed in the Vietnam War. How better to oppress women than with a female-only draft?

    Re: “I think that we should all just get off our high horses and try to see eye to eye. Besides, why should they change if we refuse to?”

    Because you gave no concrete, real-life examples of what you mean, I don’t know specifically what to respond to. But I think you should understand that ideological feminists and especially the liberal mainstream media have no interest in seeing eye to eye (tell me how one does that, exactly, when one won’t budge from “I’m a victim and you’re a privileged victimizer”), only in casting women as put-upon (paid less than men for the same work, etc.).

    If you think what I’m doing is wrong, enlighten me and my readers with your precise prescription for gender equality and peace.

    I could go on and on but don’t have the time. Just read Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s