Why are women regarded as more caring or more victimised than men? I was one of the many thousands of men that turned up to the march and will participate in any resistance to the war - because I care. Why this the emphasis always on women and children as victims, as more vulnerable and deserving? Bombs don't just fall on their heads, but also the heads of innocent male civilians. While women are likely to suffer rape, men are likely to be forcibly conscripted to fight. War has no gender.

Women are regarded as more victimised than men because it's a fact. In today's wars, more than 80% of victims are civilians. These are almost all women and children - because men are not there, they left to fight the war, they left to find work, whatever. Again, and for the same reasons, most people who are displaced by war, are women and children.

Another point is that wars are decided and fought by and for men.

All these are facts. It is not making a judgement about all men, just looking at what happens. I'm sure if you were in such a situation, part of a group, defined by gender or other criterias, who is harshly discriminated against by war, you'd also feel the need to make the point. It doesn't mean that those who are not part of this group are not worthy.

I must dispute your "facts", which claim that wars kill only female civilians and children and that all wars are the responsibility of men.

In Sri Lanka, it took a man, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, to negotiate peace with the Tamil Tigers after the female president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, made a mess of the country and caused a bloodbath. More than 64,000 men, women and children were killed in the civil war, which ended this year. In Bangladesh, it is the female Islamicist Prime Minister Khaleda Zia who is presiding over the persecution of hundreds of thousands of Hindus, Buddhists and leftists. In Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto helped fund and train Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and India. Then there's women like Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Allbright, etc, etc, who have participated in wars. As for combatants, significant numbers of women have volunteered to fight in Latin American and African guerrilla armies.

Again, why must there be a an exclusively women's group marching against war as if it were a gender issue? As I said, war has no gender - it is about the economics of capitalism.

It is certainly ture that war is created by capitalist economics, and that both men and women suffer as a result of war. However, the 'suffering', both under war, specifically, and capitalism, more generally is disproportionate.

The capitalist world economy that produces war is responsible for the day-to-day oppression of women (as well as the working class, non-whites, those who live outside of the West etc...). Under the current system women all over the world (to a greater or lesser extent) have less access to power than men, despite being the majority of the world's population, do more work than men, though earn and own less, and are often the biggest losers in economic crises, women's most basic 'human rights' are less protected than men's, research into illness and disease that effect women is far less advanced throughout the world than diseases which effect men. I could go on...

Sexism and sexist structures are also extremely present in the so-called anti-capitalist movement, whether it be in the form of male dominance in meetings, groups, editorial collectives and social spaces or the overtly predatory heterosexuality of many men in the movement. Even from the most superficial glance at the relationship between men and women in meetings, on actions or at movement social event it must become instantly clear why so many women want to organise purely as women.

It needs to be acknowledged that men, like it or not, occupy a position of privilege above women, under the current world system. It is therefore important that women, as an 'oppressed group' organise together to overcome their oppression. In the same way that it is necessary for the working class to organise itself as a force capable of destroying capitalist social relations, and for blacks etc... to organise against rascism.

As men it is ESSENTIAL that we offer as much practical support and solidarity to women fighting back against the essentially PATRIARCHAL capitalist economic system as possible. How this solidarity can manifest itself is a matter to be discussed at more length (but for those interested there have been many documents written by feminist women about how pro-feminist men could act in solidarity with women) but this solidarity should certainly begin by MEN IMMEDIATELY STOPPING TO QUESTION THE NEED AND VALIDITY OF WOMEN TO ORGANISE COLLECTIVELY AS WOMEN!!!

Why can't I question the validity of this ultra-feminist critique? I am not sexist and I have no wish to oppress women, but I don't see a need for women to segregate themselves. Having separate male and female protest groups is not empowerment, nor is it going to help change sexist attitudes. Indeed, it could enhance feelings of difference.

Also, I think the basis of some types of feminism is questionable, since many feminists completely ignore issues such as class and ethnicity and take the concept of womanhood as an ideological construct. I know that some black, working-class women in the anti-capitalist movement feel alienated by what they perceive as middle-class white feminism.

Some feminists go so far as to suggest that war is inherent in men and that women are biologically and psychologically more caring and peaceful. A tiny minority even suggest that the act of heterosexual intercourse is rape and therefore is bound up in a man's inherent drive towards domination and war. Aren't these gender stereotypes things we should be leaving behind in working towards gender equality?

What worries me about using feminism to demonstrate against war is that it advances anti-male prejudice that suggests masculinity is a problem. The logical conclusion is therefore that men should be eliminated, either socially, sexually or physically. I can't see anything positive in this form of feminism.

Dan, the fact that there are some women who take part in war and opression structures is irrelevant. There are also some cases of domestic violence where the woman beats the man up. But that's just a very small proportion of domestic violence - most of it is done by men.

I think you should learn to understand that there are things you cannot understand. It sounds like a simple thing, but it's a capacity most people don't seem to have.

I know some women, who are certainly not anti-men, who do work and organise with men, but who also do other things wich are women only, go to women only peace camps, etc.

If you can't understand why they're doing it, look at things this way : they're doing it. Therefore they feel the need. Therefore there is a need. Once you've accepted that, thus putting your pride away, you might start a slow process of understanding.

Dan, are you so hurt by those who walk with a banner 'lawyers against the war' or 'media workers against the war' or others ? Or is it only for women ? ;)

Don't take any of that badly, and look at this :
 http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=243

Any similarities with your reaction ? :)