|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:19 AM June 26th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Quick love run!! That isn't a courting gesture, he isn't offering you his weapon, he's going to shoot you!!
NOW headline. Men abuse women in combat.
A law is to be passed by International treaty that makes it a war crime for men to shoot women in combat.
P Ireland of NOW said this is a positive gesture but we shall be pushing for women only to be given bullets for their guns and state this affirmative action will help improve the gender imbalance when it comes to war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:44 AM June 26th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are notorious at whineing about what they want, then they get what they want, then whine about it....!
Ai-yah...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
(Off-topic) Question for Thundercloud about "Hoka Hey!" --
This week-end I was watching on DVD the first season's episodes of the HBO western series "Deadwood."
You may know it's set in a Hollywood version of the actual South Dakota boomtown of the same name in the late 1870's.
In one episode, a white settler riding alone through a Black Hills area is attacked by a young Indian warrior.
The Indian's initial pass on horseback is to "count coup" on his adversary, which I understand was a code of honor requiring that you had to touch your enemy before engaging him in battle.
Once the fighting begins, the Indian shouts "Hoka Hey!" several times before and during the hand-to-hand combat.
What would this mean in the context of this kind of man-to-man contest?
The tribes in the area at that time included Cheyenne, Kiowa, Pawnee, Crow, and Lakota.
The Indian's horse is painted with symbols describing his record of "counting coups" and defeated enemies.
Does that give any clue as to the likely tribe that the warrior was from?
The series is interesting for its occasional references to the relations between settlers and tribes in years right before the Battle of the Little Bighorn sparked the violations of all treaties and the full-out war against "hostiles."
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:49 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Scholars have documenented the widespread, seemingly unconsious proclivity of mainstream media to mention some characteristic other than gender, such as nationality or ethnicity, of male male war victims and, conversely, to emphasize the gender of female war victims. There seems to be a general acceptance that the victim's story is worth telling if the victim happens to be female; male war victms are generally considered less worthy by the press, and receive a more abstract, distant and summary treatment, if they are mentioned. This discriminatory situation is not a recent phenomenon. As in the case of this story, the women killed in this tragedy are given special emphasis, since their lives are considered more valuable than those of the majority of the victims, who happen to be male.
See the following articles by Adam Jones, Ph.D.:
The Globe and Males: The Other Side of Gender Bias
in Canada's National Newspaper
and
Effacing the Male: Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion
in the Kosovo War.
Another Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:13 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The violence came after a deadly week for U.S. forces, including an ambush on a convoy carrying female troops that killed four Marines, including at least one woman, on Thursday in Fallujah. The group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed it carried out the ambush, one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines -- and against women -- in Iraq.
Notice the media trope including women used to emphasize the gender and importance of female victims, and marginalize that of the male victims: "...ambush on a convoy carrying female troops that killed four Marines, including at least one woman."
Likewise, as the gender and importance of the female soldiers is so overwhelmingly greater than that of the male soldiers, whose gender isn't even worth mentioning, and who almost aren't even worth counting, that the female victims' special status can be used to demonize the enemy more thoroughly than if the story were about male victims: "...one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines -- and against women -- in Iraq." Was the attack against women per se? They are soldiers in this story, but the phrase suggests that they somehow retain their civilian status as women, over and above their military status as soldiers. Their lives are more precious; military service is no equalizer.
The commentary of Adam Jones on the trope including women, from his article Effacting the Male, is pertinent here.
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.
Another Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:45 PM June 29th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. This is pervasive and disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:50 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Scholars have documented the widespread, seemingly unconsious proclivity of mainstream media to mention some characteristic other than gender, such as nationality or ethnicity, of male male war victims and, conversely, to emphasize the gender of female war victims. There seems to be a general acceptance that the victim's story is worth telling if the victim happens to be female; male war victms are generally considered less worthy by the press, and receive a more abstract, distant and summary treatment, if they are mentioned. This discriminatory situation is not a recent phenomenon. As in the case of this story, the women killed in this tragedy are given special emphasis, since their lives are considered more valuable than those of the majority of the victims, who happen to be male.
See the following articles by Adam Jones, Ph.D.:
The Globe and Males: The Other Side of Gender Bias
in Canada's National Newspaper
and
Effacing the Male: Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion
in the Kosovo War.
Another Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 08:35 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase Farrell:
"When female soldiers, die it's a story. When men die, it's a statistic."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 07:40 PM June 27th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Solution do what the idiot Eason Jordan accused the US Military of doing. Kill reporters. That way there will be no information coming out other than what the Military wants. The Media is supporting the
Terrorists anyway. If I was a Soldier over there I
would consider Media members collaborators for Al-Queda and kill them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:44 PM June 27th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
This right-wing imbecility undermines the legitimacy of the men's movement. Men's News Daily is a good example of the mediocre intellect of the conservative, who harks for so-called "traditional" male/female institutions, as if they weren't relatively recent historical phenomena; who evinces a blind, uncritical patriotism, according to which the amorphous media are aiding and abetting the enemy and should be trashed, along with the First Amendment (without which, there would be nothing like democracy); and who has neither the most rudimentary conceptual understanding of nor any genuine interest in equal rights.
Why do so many MRAs undermine their own cause with immoral and irrelevant drivelling about killing journalists? Whatever happened to the notion of due process? Summary execution for the expression of ideas is the mark of tyrrany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 03:48 PM June 30th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Funny that you mention due process. The Prison Scandal in Iraq was winding its way through the Military justice system when the Lamestream media felt compelled to post the photos and further inflame an already suspicious Moslem world. It does not matter it is just cannon fodder, dolts who volunteered to die anyway. Right? The there were the so called photos of US Troops raping Moslem Women that turned out to come off of a Porn Site that were fantasy photos. The media did not care about the consequences there either.
Our soldiers are depicted by the military hating Media as trigger happy murderers of children. The truth is something vastly different. The steady drum beat of anti-American propaganda is designed to remove the GOP from power so the Democrats can regain control. No lie is to big, no crime to great in order to regain power.
This is why Democrats are losing Women, Blacks, Hispanics and Men. Well they still have the Lesbians of NOW left and the Feminist Majority. That is unless they come up with another Winner candidate like Carol Mosley-Braun to run. Not even the NY Times could take that seriously. NOW makes Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "Today's headline on msnbc.com reads ---
"4 women among 6 troops slain in Iraq bombing ---
Lethal ambush underscores hardships of keeping women away from combat."
Gosh, by feminist math, that makes women the majority of the casualties, right? (Never mind that of the nearly 2,000 dead and 14,000 wounded, less than 1% have been women.)
But let's focus on the women's "hardships" even though N.O.W. wants the girlies on the front lines.