> There seems, indeed, a decided lack of sympathy for noncombatant men in war zones. Even reports by international human rights organizations speak of massacres as being directed almost exclusively against women, children, and, perhaps, the elderly. The implication, almost never stated outright, is that adult males are either combatants or have something wrong with them. (“You mean to say there were people out there slaughtering women and children and you weren’t out there defending them? What are you? Chicken?”) Those who carry out massacres have been known to cynically manipulate this tacit conscription: most famously, the Bosnian Serb commanders who calculated they could avoid charges of genocide if, instead of exterminating the entire population of conquered towns and villages, they merely exterminated all males between ages fifteen and fifty-five.
@hakan_geijer You are right that arab men are treated as acceptable victims, and that the western radical narrative makes a symbol of women and children. On the other hand many of these men would agree that stopping violence on women and children is the priority. This doesn't mean that male victims should be disregarded, or that everything they say should be accepted acritically, but they should be listened to, even if we don't completely agree with their point of view.