They Are Defended and Supported by Men

Day by day we are told how men, society, nature, and in some cases even women themselves conspire to keep women down and out. To convince yourself of this fact, all you have to do is open Google. Just plain old Google; no AI needed. Next, type in some combination of men, women, and any bad thing you can think of. Here are just a few examples picked more or less at random from the Net in the course of a couple of hours’ work.

*

“Women remain grossly underrepresented in decision making forums related to conflict prevention and peace-building” (UNFPA, 13-15.11.2001).

“Women Suffer More than Men” (Live Science, 6.7.2005).

“Natural disasters lower the life expectancy of women more than that of men. In other words, natural disasters (and their subsequent impact) on average kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men.” (“The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters,” Journal of the Association of American Geographers, 97, 2007, 3).

“Globally, women are more vulnerable to… economic shocks” (UNAIDS, 2012).

“Why is depression more prevalent in women?” (Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, July 2015).

“Genders experience pain differently, and women have it more” (The Conversation, 9.12.2015).

“Recent evidence suggests that biological factors, such as the variation in ovarian hormone levels and particularly decreases in estrogen, may contribute to the increased prevalence of depression and anxiety in women” (ibid).

“Women are twice as likely to suffer from severe stress and anxiety as men” (New York Times, 11.14.2018).

“Women suffer needless pain because almost everything is designed for men” (Vox, 22.9.2019).

“Almost 90% of Men/Women Globally Are Biased Against Women” (UNDP, 5.3.2020).

“Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)… occurs 1.5 to 2 times as often in women as in men. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 20.5.2020).

“How Patriarchy and Capitalism Combine to Aggravate the Oppression of Women” (CADTM, 28.5.2020).

“College Classrooms Are Still Chilly for Women” (Dartmouth News, 27.1.2021).

“Why Nearly 80 Percent of Autoimmune Sufferers Are Female” (Scientific American, 21.9.2021).

“Inflation affects women more than men” (World Economic Forum, 2022).

“Societal prejudices against those with mental illness may more significantly impact female patients with schizophrenia” (General Psychiatry, 2022; 35(4).

 “Across the globe, women and girls are particularly vulnerable in times of war” (Georgetown Law, April 2023).

“Not a single country in the world has achieved gender equality” (Global Citizen, 24.11.2023).

 “Women are more likely to want a job but not to have one” (ILOSTAT, 14.3.2024).

“Women in the developing world face dire job prospects” (ibid).

“When a woman does not know how to sell herself, her place will be taken by a man” (Ynet, Israel, 6.4.2024).

“ How the climate crisis fuels gender inequality” (CNN World, 9.4.2024).

Needless to say, it would never occur to me to doubt any of these and a zillion similar statements. Without exception, all are based on exhaustive research honestly presented sine studio et ira. Still I’d like to add a question of my own. Granted that men, society, nature and, on occasion, even women themselves conspire against poor, helpless, witless women unable to stand up for themselves. In that case, how come that, in practically all contemporary societies from Afghanistan up (or down), they enjoy a longer life expectancy than men do?

The answer—pssst, don’t tell anyone!—is: They are defended and supported by those bad, bad creatures who hate them so much. Men.

Something for the Mullahs to Think About

Against the background of the continuing Iranian-Israeli tensions, it may be useful to take another look at what is at stake. Iran is a large country comprising some 1,600,000 square kilometers, Israel a very small one with just about 28,000, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip included. In terms of population the difference is as 88,000,000 to 9,500,000. Short of dropping some nuclear bombs on a few key Iranian cities, how can David expect to fight Goliath and win?

For one possible answer, consider the following. Iran is a country of many mountains, quite a number of rivers—none very long, incidentally—and dams. Out of a total of 183 currently operational dams, 52 are related to the Caspian Sea catchment area. 12 are based in the Urmia basin further to the southwest, 68 are located in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman watersheds, 34 are in the Central Plateau, 11 are in Sarakhs catchment basin, and other dams are located across the eastern boundary basin (Hamoun). Most are serving one or more of the following four purposes. 1. Flood control. 2. Providing drinking water. 3. Agricultural irrigation. 4. Electricity-generation.

The biggest dam is the Karkheh Dam (capacity 5,900,000,000 cubic meters). Next come the Bakhtiari Dam (4,845,000,000 cubic meters), the Dez Dam (3,340,000,000), the Seimarem Dam (3,200,000,000), the Chamshir Dam (2,300,000,000), the Karun 4 Dam (2,000,000,000), the Marun Dam (1,200,000,000), the Lar Dam (960,000,000), the Sardasht Dam (545,000,000), the, the Daryan Dam (316,000,000), the Ashavan Dam (260,000,000), the Mamloo Dam (250,000,000), and the Al Kabir Dam (202,000,000). The maximum capacity of all dams combined is believed to be around 55,000,000,000 cubic meters.

Simply gathering the vast amounts of data needed to asses what a coordinated attack on these and other dams could do to the country would require entire regiments of experts. The more so because many of the details are unavailable to the public. It is, however, worth-while to bring up the following story. In May 1941 the officers at the Africa Corps headquarters were a worried lot. This is surprising, given that the corps, brilliantly led by General Erwin Rommel, had just completed a spectacular 1,100-kilometer advance that took it from the gates of Tripoli all the way to Sallum, a small village just east of the border between Italian Libya and British-ruled Egypt. Measured in terms of driving distance the figure was even larger. Should the German advance continue it would soon reach the Nile. And that was just what the Germans were worried about. Suppose the British, ere they abandoned Egypt and retreated into the Sinai and from there into Palestine, blew up the Aswan Dam; what would happen then?

A coded message—chefsache, nur durch Offizaier—went out to the General Staff. From there it was passed on to the experts of the newly founded Wehrtechnische Fakultaet, the newly-founded Military-Technological Faculty of the University of Berlin. It took a few days before a reply was received. When it did, it pointed out that the capacity of the Dam—meaning, the old British-built one that had been completed in 1902 and was by far the largest in the world until that time—was 5,300,000,000 cubic meters (5.3 cubic kilometers) of water. Just what so much water could do to the vulnerable land to the north depended on many variables. However, provided the demolition job was carried out in the right way (starting from the middle and working its way in both directions, rather than the other way around) and during the right season of the year (starting in July and lasting until November) it would occasion a monstrous wave, thirty to forty meters high, drowning everything in its path to the Mediterranean. Including, some 690 kilometers away, the capital of Cairo which at that time was a city of a million and a half out of a total of about 18,000,000.

In terms of capacity, several of the Iranian reservoirs are comparable with the one created by the Old Aswan Dam. Surely there must be something for the Mullahs to think about here?

They Are Defended and Supported by Men

Day by day, we are told how men, society, nature, and in some cases even women themselves conspire to keep women down and out. To convince yourself of this fact, all you have to do is open Google; just plain old Google, no AI needed. Next, type in some combination of men, women, and any bad thing you can think of. Here are just a few examples picked more or less at random from the Net in the course of a couple of hours’ work.

*

“Women remain grossly underrepresented in decision making forums related to conflict prevention and peace-building” (UNFPA, 13-15.11.2001).

“Women Suffer More than Men” (Live Science, 6.7.2005).

“Natural disasters lower the life expectancy of women more than that of men. In other words, natural disasters (and their subsequent impact) on average kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men.” (“The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters,” Journal of the Association of American Geographers, 97, 2007, 3).

“Globally, women are more vulnerable to… economic shocks” (UNAIDS, 2012).

“Why is depression more prevalent in women?” (Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, July 2015).

“Genders experience pain differently, and women have it more” (The Conversation, 9.12.2015).

“Recent evidence suggests that biological factors, such as the variation in ovarian hormone levels and particularly decreases in estrogen, may contribute to the increased prevalence of depression and anxiety in women” (ibid).

“Women are twice as likely to suffer from severe stress and anxiety as men” (New York Times, 11.14.2018).

“Women suffer needless pain because almost everything is designed for men” (Vox, 22.9.2019).

“Almost 90% of Men/Women Globally Are Biased Against Women” (UNDP, 5.3.2020).

“Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)… occurs 1.5 to 2 times as often in women as in men. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 20.5.2020).

“How Patriarchy and Capitalism Combine to Aggravate the Oppression of Women” (CADTM, 28.5.2020).

“College Classrooms Are Still Chilly for Women” (Dartmouth News, 27.1.2021).

“Why Nearly 80 Percent of Autoimmune Sufferers Are Female” (Scientific American, 21.9.2021).

“Inflation affects women more than men” (World Economic Forum, 2022).

“Societal prejudices against those with mental illness may more significantly impact female patients with schizophrenia” (General Psychiatry, 2022; 35(4).

 “Across the globe, women and girls are particularly vulnerable in times of war(Georgetown Law, April 2023).

 “Women are more likely to want a job but not to have one” (ILOSTAT, 14.3.2024).

“Women in the developing world face dire job prospects” (ibid).

“When a woman does not know how to sell herself, her place will be taken by a man” (Ynet, Israel, 6.4.2024).

“ How the climate crisis fuels gender inequality” (CNN World, 9.4.2024).

*

It would never occur to me to doubt any of these and a zillion similar statements. Without exception, they are based on exhaustive research honestly presented sine studio et ira. Still I’d like to add a question of my own. Granted that men, society, nature and, on occasion, even women themselves conspire against poor helpless women. In that case, how come that, in practically all contemporary societies from Afghanistan up (or down), they enjoy a longer life expectancy than men do?

The answer—don’t tell anyone!—is: They are defended and supported by men.

Islam Revealed

As I am getting older, I find myself less and less interested in the kind of books—mainly academic, mainly about history—I’ve spent a lifetime reading. Instead, like some other authors around my age, I tend to wander off into fiction. Partly this is because good fiction can tell you as much or more about the manifold, endlessly varied and endlessly fascinating, aspects of human life as nonfiction can. And partly because authors of fiction tend to be better, often much better, writers than academics are. To adduce just one example, the Iliad as the ancient Greeks used to know it and as we know it today is almost entirely fiction. Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector and the rest never existed. Nor, presumably, did the beautiful Helene. Yet a book that can teach one more about fighting, war and life in general is very difficult, probably impossible, to find.

That said, I want to draw your attention to an extract from a two-decade old work of fiction that I happened to read just recently and that has resonated with me. For more information about the author and his work, go to the tags of the present post. The speaker is an Egyptian in his fifties. Described as an “intelligent and often funny man” he has long lived in England where he is “brilliantly successful” at his work, genetic engineering. But he still retains a soft spot for his native land.

“‘Islam,’ [he says to his French interlocutor] ‘was born deep in the desert amid scorpions, camels and wild beasts of every order. Do you know what I call Muslims? The losers of the Sahara. That’s what they deserve to be called. Do you think Islam could have been born in such a magnificent place?’ (with genuine feeling, he motioned again to the Nile valley). No, monsieur. Islam could only have been born in a stupid desert, among filthy Bedouins who had nothing better to do – pardon me – than bugger their camels. The closer a religion comes to monotheism – consider this carefully, cher monsieur – the more cruel and inhuman it becomes; and of all religions, Islam imposes the most radical monotheism. From its beginnings, it has been characterized by an uninterrupted series of wars of invasion and massacres; never, for as long as it exists, will peace reign in the world. Neither, in Muslim countries, will intellect and talent find a home; if there were Arab mathematicians, poets and scientists, it is simply because they lost the faith. Simply reading the Koran, one cannot help but be struck by the regrettable mood of tautology which typifies the work: There is no other God but God alone, etc. You won’t get very far with nonsense like that, you have to admit. Far from being an attempt at abstraction, as it is sometimes portrayed, the move towards monotheism is nothing more than a shift towards mindlessness… Note that Catholicism, a subtle religion, and one which I respect, which well knew what suited human nature, quickly moved away from the monotheism imposed by its initial doctrine. Through the dogma of the Trinity and the cult of the Virgin and the One God! What an absurdity! What an inhuman, murderous absurdity! … A god of stone, cher monsieur, a jealous, bloody god who should never have crossed over from Sinai. How much more profound, when you think about it, was our Egyptian religion, how much wiser and more humane … and our women! How beautiful our women were! Remember Cleopatra, who bewitched great Caesar. See what remains of them today …’ (randomly he indicated two veiled women walking with difficulty carrying bundles of merchandise). ‘Lumps. Big shapeless lumps of fat who hide themselves beneath rags. As soon as they’re married, they think of nothing but eating. They eat and eat and eat! …’ (his face became bloated as he pulled a face like de Funès). ‘No, believe me, cher monsieur, the desert has produced nothing but lunatics and morons… Nothing great or noble, nothing generous or wholesome; nothing which has contributed to the progress of humanity or raised it above itself.’”

This was published in 2005. But can anyone really maintain that things were different before—or that they have become different since?

A Tale of Three Crises

Back in 1938-39, Britain—heartland of the largest empire that ever was—found itself coming under attack in no fewer than three main theaters at once. One, the closest home, was Western Europe and the North Sea where Adolf Hitler was busily at work building up the Third Reich to the point it would be ready to challenge the empire. One consisted of the empire’s communications in the Mediterranean where Benito Mussolini was threatening to take over the Suez Canal, Malta and Gibraltar, “the bars in Italy’s prison,” as he called them. And one in the Far East where a succession of militaristic Japanese governments were preparing to attack Britain’s colonies such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. Things came to a head in September 1939 when Germany, invading Poland, ignited a world war. By the time that war ended six years later Britain was lucky in that it could count itself among the victors. However, its relative power, military industrial and economic, had been shattered and would never recover.

The same year, 1945, also marked the peak of American power. Alone among the main belligerents in World War II—Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan, and China—the US neither had any part of its territory occupied nor was subject to bombing. Its losses, especially in terms of manpower killed or badly wounded, were also much lighter. Calculated in terms of value, fifty percent of everything was being produced in the U.S. Throughout my own youth in the 1950s and early 1960s, the best most people could say about anything was that it was American. This was as true in Israel, where I lived, as it was in the Netherlands which I occasionally visited; of movies (and movie stars) as of automobiles. As if to crown it all, alone of all the world’s countries the U.S not only possessed nuclear weapons but also, which was almost equally important, a demonstrated willingness to use them as its leaders saw fit.

However, what goes up must go down. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested its first nuke. This proved to be the starting point of a profound, if unexpectedly slow, process of proliferation, each of whose stages marked a downsizing of America’s relative advantage over other countries. Accidentally or not, 1949 also marked the opening of a long period, still ongoing, during which America’s balance of payments has almost never been positive. The decision, made by President Nixon in 1971, to take the US dollar off gold, simply highlighted the change and made the situation worse. Currently the American Government’s debt both to foreign countries and to its own citizens is easily the largest in the whole of history. The trouble with debts is that they must be repaid; putting a heavy burden on every economic decision made in the country, large or small.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to create what, at the time, was known as a unipolar world. Some went further still, announcing not just the end of power politics but of history itself. But the respite did not last. By 2010 Russia was beginning to come back, ready to resume the expansionist policies that, starting with Ivan IV (“the Terrible” or “the Dread,” as he was sometimes known) and ending with Stalin had been such a resounding success.  By the second decade of the twenty-first century American economic supremacy, which starting in the wake of World War I had been undisputed, was also being challenged by China in a way, and on a scale, never before experienced.

Nor is the state of that other pillar of American power, its armed forces, much better. Alone of all the great empires in history, starting already in the second decade of the nineteenth century the US has been in in the enviable position of not having a peer competitor—as the current phrase goes—in its own hemisphere. This enabled it to make do with what, most of the time and sometimes for decades on end, were almost ridiculously small armed forces. Specifically land forces or, again as the current phrase goes, boots on the ground. It was only immediately before and during wartime that the situation changed and full scale mobilization was instituted. Culminating in 1941-45 when the US waged what later came to be known as 21/2 wars: meaning one in northwestern Europe, one in the far east, and one—the ½—in the Mediterranean.

Enter, once again, the Nixon administration. The “21/2” disappeared from the literature. Its place was taken by 11/2, meaning, one full scale war against the Soviet Union on “the Central Front” (Western Europe) plus a smaller half -war in some other place: either the Far East, presumably Korea, or in the Middle East on which much of the world relied for its oil. Needless to say, the figures were never accurate or even meant to be accurate. Their only use was as a very rough guide for comparison on one hand and planning on the other. Still they did provide an index concerning the direction in which things were moving.

Hand in hand with America’s declining military ambitions and expectations went very deep cuts in the size of the armed forces. The process got under way when Nixon—Nixon again—ordered an end to conscription and a switch to armed forces composed entirely of volunteers. The outcome was a 34-percent cut in the number of military personnel between 1969 and 1973. As a combination of technological progress and inflation drove costs into the stratosphere, the cuts in the number of major weapon systems—missiles, aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery barrels, briefly everything the Ukrainians are currently begging for—were, if anything, greater still. Come 1991, these forces proved adequate to fight and win a conventional war against a third-rate power, Iraq. That apart, though, almost every time they tried their hand at fighting a 1/2 war anywhere in the world they failed. So in Vietnam; so in Laos and Cambodia, so in Somalia, and so in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Like Britain in the late 1930s, currently the US sees itself challenged on three fronts. The first is Eastern Europe where Russia’s Putin is trying to reoccupy a vital part of the former Soviet Empire and, should be succeed, get himself into a position to threaten any number of NATO countries, old or new. The second is the Middle East where Iran, using its vassals in Yemen and Syria, has been waging war by proxy on Israel while at the same time threatening Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. The third is the Far East—where America’s main allies, meaning Taiwan on one hand and South Korea on the other, may come under attack by China and North Korea respectively almost at a moment’s notice.

Even for the greatest power on earth running, or preparing to run, three ½ wars at once is an extremely expensive proposition. Especially in terms of ammunition of which, in sharp contrast to 19141-45, there simply is not enough. So far the center, though experiencing growing domestic difficulties, has not yet caved in. With the wings tottering, though, how long before it does?