|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:45 PM June 28th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Women might "forge whole new ways" to torture and sexually humiliate their victims".
They already have that, It's called MARRIAGE!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are a list of some infamous names of female jailors: Ilsa Kosch, Herta Oberheuser, Irma Greisse (all SS camp guards)none of whom spouted any sort of feminist victim trip when pleading for their lives at Nurnburg.
"And the Jesuit missionaries to the Huron and Choctaws, prayed fervently for deliverance from the torture of their squaws"-Rudyard Kipling.
Penises are uniquely male....assholes are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:41 PM June 28th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll believe that people get it when male victims of domestic violence get anywhere near the level of support that female victims do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anon said: "I'll believe that people get it when male victims of domestic violence get anywhere near the level of support that female victims do."
Amen to that Anon.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so from the article we know that 43% of those charged in the Abu Ghraib fiasco were women (3 out of 7), and that women make up 15% of US armed forces. Put those two numbers together and tadaa : Women in combat are three times as likely to commit atrocities than men.
And you wondered where all those scary domestic violence numbers came from. Anybody can make them up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so from the article we know that 43% of those charged in the Abu Ghraib fiasco were women (3 out of 7), and that women make up 15% of US armed forces. Put those two numbers together and tadaa : Women in combat are three times as likely to commit atrocities than men.
Actually it's probably greater than that; women really aren't allowed into active combat-duty roles, and so men assigned to prison-duty probably tend more toward the "4F/Secion-8" mentality, and therefore aren't adequately represented in comparison to women.
What I'd like to know is what the hell women were doing in a men's prison in the first place; it's extremely inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual violence is used on women to humiliate, intimidate and destroy their identity and wholeness as women," says Copelon. "Sexual violence is used on men to feminize them, to take away what is seen as their masculinity."
Right... to "humiliate, intimidate and destroy" the men's identity. I don't think Copelon sees that there is no difference between the sexual abuse of men and women. It's wrong either way.
On the good side Barbara Ehrenreich (who I don't know from a hole in the wall) is a self-proclaimed femenist who sees that men are not the only perpetrators of violence. Good for her. An article that openly makes statements like this can only bring positive results in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right... to "humiliate, intimidate and destroy" the men's identity. I don't think Copelon sees that there is no difference between the sexual abuse of men and women. It's wrong either way.
Not from the feminist viewpoint, which sees masculinity as a mark of insecurity, and womanhood as one of perfection; notice how she uses the term "masculity" as an adjective applied to the victim, while describing the female victims as "women," i.e. a gender-specific noun. This is pretty telling, in describing one form of abuse as violation, the other as valid in removing something external and even worthless and harmful ("masculity") as opposed to "their worth as men."
Translation: women are important and worthy via their nature as women, and therefore degrading them as such is is wrong; but men simply have masculinity, and therefore this treatment is less unacceptable because it simply takes away something bad, stupid and artificial that they only want in order to use to oppress women anyway.
It just goes back to the "all men are rapists" credo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank-you.
I think that was what I was getting at. I just have a bad habit of not coming out and saying it.
It's one of my strategies (that has turned into habit) that I use when convincing people of something (especially racists / sexists / agists...): take them to the point where there is only one possible conclusion, and let them make it themselves. Let them argue with themselves after that.
You sum it up in the last paragraph very nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women during wartime can be brutal, sadistic, sexually depraved and equal to their male counterparts in the worst possible way. women might "forge whole new ways" to torture and sexually humiliate their victims.
Actually this is well known, i.e. that women who attempt to compete with men, lose all perspective of the male societal context, and focus reflexively on hostile aggression (as opposed to the male context of instrumental, or construcive aggression; this applies both in and out of war-time as well. While men tend to temper such aggression as a means to an end within a definitive masculine social-context, as mere adversaries rather than ruthless rivals, such feminism, as we have seen, tends to ignore any such context, and equate "masculinity" with aggressiveness rather than leadership and responsibility-- particularly given women's greater natural tendency toward moral relativism when men give overt or tacit approval and encouragement, as with at Abu Graib. (This encouragement is also given tacitly by men, when feminist attitudes or laws prevent men from asserting protest of such behavior).
As the phrase "be a man" has gone from a badge of honor to a mark of ridicule under insane western feminist culture, the like stigma of female sadism and hostility has likewise escalated in status from one of shame to one of admirability. Women such as Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno have been defended even at their most outrageous by labelling any detractors as "insecure men fearing strong, successful women," regardless of how ruthless, unscrupulous, and/or devious these women's actions or methodology. Meanwhile, women who take the traditional women's role of peace-makers are either likewise ridiculed by the radical leftist media-- or else such roles are given mock-status as with the assignment of meaningless titles, as with the UN's creation of the role of "Goodwill Ambassador" to unlikely 2nd-generation celebrity Angelina Jolie (Voight), who is most famously identified with an extremely ruthless, unfeeling and violent female image of Lara Croft, an inanimate video-game character who personifies such gender-role reversal in ruthless pursuit of material gains. appropriately developed in Great Britain).
Sadly, this type of female character is nothing new since the 70', and so these latest images of outlandish female behavior are hardly surpising-- particularly with a chorus of male American soldiers encouraging a female who looks to be quite unattractive and therefore in desperation for male attention and approval-- and so would behave in a sadistic manner for such, particularly since our culture has so long defined equated female attractiveness with disdainful sadism and indifference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely said.
That first paragraph puts words to something that has been itching my brain for a while. Plenty of food for thought there...
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
