|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 27, @01:23PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have long been a fan of Cathy Young's writings.
She never fails to see the truth.
Frankly, after a personal life time of hearing nothing but disrespect, souless hatred and anti-male bigotry spewing from countless women, these days it is nice to find one [Young] who seems to be immune to prejiduce of any kind.
She is a GOOD person, all around.
As far as atrocities carried out on men in Iraq, Just this morning I heared Prime minister Tony Blair describe how a male dissedent(SP?) was taken out and lashed to a pole in a public square.
There his tounge was cut out.
...He was left there to bleed to death...,
This is only one of enumerous atrocities carried out in Iraq against the poor people in that God forsaken regime. Not JUST against women, as the feminazis and their willing acomplices in the media would have us believe, but against MEN as well.
These feminists that want to make this a "women's issue" show their true colors here. and seem to be doing so everytime they open their big, fat, ugly, stupid mouths.
They are for FEMALE SUPREAMACY not EQUALITY, piriod.
More and more people are waking up to the reality of what these feminists TRUELY stand for.
If the millitant feminists of America, Canada, Australia and Britan had their way, they would be running a regime very similar to the one we are fighting against in Iraq.
...Maybe we should start refering to the feminists as; "the feminist republican army..."
Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 27, @11:39PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"More and more people are waking up to the reality of what these feminists TRUELY stand for.
If the millitant feminists of America, Canada, Australia and Britan had their way, they would be running a regime very similar to the one we are fighting against in Iraq."
If Western feminism comes to Iraq nothing will have changed. We will have just exchanged one evil for a greater one.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 28, @02:03AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
If that happens I wonder if we'll go back over there and bomb them again.
...Well, I can dream.
Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy's article is, as usual, quite good. There is one problem, however, with the last sentence, "Instead of reinforcing this paternalistic mentality, feminists should be speaking out for human rights, not just women's rights."
If they were working for human rights rather than only women's rights, they wouldn't really be "feminists." They would be "equalitarians," or "egalitarians," or "humanists," or "personists." The ceaseless attempt, to rehabilitate what is by its very nature an anti-male movement, impedes our attempts to eliminate sexist hatred, lies, and oppression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't count how many times over the past week I have heard the phrase "innocent women and children". And this from the "fair and balanced" network. Is it so difficult to say "men, women, and children"? Or if that is too many words, then how about just "people"?
As a side note, a couple of days ago, I saw an interview on one of the nightly FoxNews shows with a high-ranking U.S military officer. Sorry I don't remember his name, but they only said who he was at the beginning of the interview. The topic was concerning the POWS and he was asked how he felt about the fact that one of our FEMALE soldiers was in enemy custody. He QUICKLY AND EMPHATICALLY stated that he felt exactly the same as he does for the male POWs. He began to elaborate on that but was cut off as the STUNNED reporter changed the subject with his tail between his legs. Apparently, the reporter thinks male POWs are not even worth worrying about.
That said, I am certainly concerned for the well-being of the female as well as the male POWs. I just don't see the need to list them seperatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 27, @08:18PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree totally. I hope that I sometime can
duplicate that officers intelligence and courage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That said, I am certainly concerned for the well-being of the female as well as the male POWs. I just don't see the need to list them seperatly."
Where's the rattings in that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When female POW's are discussed, the possiblity of rape is freqeuntly brought up. The thought of a woman POW being raped is certainly horrible. However, prisoners of war are tragically exposed to all kinds of abuse. A few nights ago I heard a pilot who had been captured in the 1991 war tell a gut-wrenching story of his treatment - beatings and whippings on top of severe injuries he suffered when he ejected from his aircraft. Is rape any worse than that? And, when it comes down to it, men can be raped, too.
Let's hope this war ends quickly, so we can get ALL our prisoners back fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if we are going to focus on one network to get more gender "fair and balanced" then it ought to be Fox. At least with them, we MIGHT have as much as a snowball's chance in hell of getting their ear.
So I propose this: everyone who visits here ought to write to one show, (I suggest Fox & Friends for starters) and get on their case about this. They fail to recognize in their commentary that there ARE in fact innocent MEN associated with this debacle. We should simply ask this small (and very acheivable) thing.
Their email address is: friends@foxnews.com
I suggest wording something like this:
In the interested of "fair and balanced news" would you please recognize that there are innocent men involved in this war. When you use the phrase "innocent women and children" it belies a level of sexism in your commentart that I find offensive. Please change it to "innocent men, women and children" Your usage of the former implies that men are never innocent, something we see in your very news reports when we see a man carrying or otherwise caring for a child or for the wounded.
Thank you,
your name here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting the number "Women and Children" killed in a war *could* be excused on the basis that the enemy do not recruit females and thus is one way of deciding whether the casualties were civilian or not.
What I consider to be the smoking gun is how often we hear the "Women & Children killed" phrase used in conjunction with gas explosions etc. were the "obvious civilians" excuse cannot possibly be used.
--- panlet ---
Yes, I do know I overuse italics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting the number "Women and Children" killed in a war *could* be excused on the basis that the enemy do not recruit females and thus is one way of deciding whether the casualties were civilian or not.
That's a weak argument, given the systematic asymmetric treatment of the gender of victims of violence in the press. Consider the work of Adam Jones (in my other post in this thread).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quoting the number "Women and Children" killed in a war *could* be excused on the basis that the enemy do not recruit females and thus is one way of deciding whether the casualties were civilian or not."
Yes, but on the other hand the great majority of the Iraqi army consists of conscripts. And conscripts ARE civilians, they're just been forced to wear a uniform and carry a gun. I really feel sorry for the average Iraqi draftee. I couldn't care less for the Republican Guard and other voluntary elite units, they presumably made a choice to work with Saddam's regime; the young males who were drafted never had a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a side note, a couple of days ago, I saw an interview on one of the nightly FoxNews shows with a high-ranking U.S military officer. Sorry I don't remember his name, but they only said who he was at the beginning of the interview. The topic was concerning the POWS and he was asked how he felt about the fact that one of our FEMALE soldiers was in enemy custody. He QUICKLY AND EMPHATICALLY stated that he felt exactly the same as he does for the male POWs. He began to elaborate on that but was cut off as the STUNNED reporter changed the subject with his tail between his legs. Apparently, the reporter thinks male POWs are not even worth worrying about.
Adam Jones made the point that the news media typically undervalues male victims of violence in Effacing the Male: Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion in the Kosovo War available at this URL. Jones spells out the meaning of the phase "including women and children" in the press in the following passage:
Let it be stated plainly: "Including women" excludes men. To get a better sense of the origins and implications of the phrase, substitute "including Europeans." (Indeed, the systematic exclusion of one category of victims, and the implicit prioritizing of the minority category, is very similar to colonial discourses in Victorian times.) The trope is particularly misleading when the phenomena described -- such as the massacre at Velika Krusa and the campaign of mass killing in Kosovo as a whole -- are so disproportionately and methodically slanted against males. In virtually all cases, the phrase "including women and children" can be translated as "including a majority of adult men and a minority of women and children." But men remain the "absent subjects," entering the narrative only indirectly and by inference, if at all.(8)
I once forwarded Jones' article to a woman journalist; her reply to me was, "have you been victimized in some way that you feel deserves greater attention?"
Attitudes like this are typical in the media. It's good news that Jone's work is beginning to be appreciated, if not always cited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of you might be interested in this article that I got via gendercide.org. A quote from it "Men get the full force of the dictatorship's brutality in this country, but women end up suffering the results" this comes from a female kurdish commander.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Men get the full force of the dictatorship's brutality in this country, but women end up suffering the results"
Yes, well, men only lose their lives; women are the important ones, who are tremendously inconvenieced by the demise of their providers. Utimately, of course, even the men who lose their lives don't suffer the results, because they're too busy being dead to suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
