I’m Every Woman, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
May 11, 2013 Martha Thomases 1 Comment
This hasn’t been a great week for women in the media. There have been events in which women have been depicted as ignorant sluts, or too stupid to know what’s good for them.
The most sensational of these is the discovery of Amanda Berry and two other women held captive in a house in Cleveland for more than a decade. They were beaten and raped repeatedly, forced to have children or forced to miscarry, by a man who tricked them into getting into his car, claiming to be the father of a classmate.
(By the way, this was true in at least one case).
If the charges are true, I would call the accused is one sick puppy, except that would be an insult to puppies. Yet I am more disturbed by the second, less tawdry report.
The Pentagon reports that sexual assault of women is an epidemic throughout all branches of service. And the man who was supposed to investigate this problem is himself accused of violent behavior towards women.
Another psychopath? Maybe. But in the military, at least from remarks like this, it seems as if the psychopaths are in charge. The general described in the link blames the increase in rape on a “hook-up culture” prevalent today.
Let’s think about that. Because women may have consensual casual sex, they can no longer complain about being raped. I mean, a woman who agrees to have sex with the partners of her choice has no right to refuse to have sex with partners she doesn’t choose. It’s not fair to the men who might be in the latter group. How are they supposed to know?
Reasonable people might assume that women who can be trusted to serve in the armed forces and carry weapons might be able to express themselves, and that their words might be credible. But that assumes a climate in which women are presumed to be rational humans.
(By the way, doesn’t this show that the NRA proposal to arm every living human to prevent crime won’t work?)
Instead, both stories reveal men who think of women as interchangeable collections of body parts. She is either assorted orifices to fuck, or a uterus to carry a child. She certainly has no brain to decide how she might choose to use these parts.
If there is a way to prevent people from growing up to be psychopaths, I don’t know what it us. But I do know that a civilized society doesn’t cater to crazy people. And it certainly doesn’t put those who do in charge of the military.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, may someday decide to use her parts again.
Mike Gold
May 11, 2013 - 9:52 am
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Pentagon report said sexual assault of MEN AND women is epidemic throughout all branches of service, and while assaults on women may exceed those on men on a percentage basis, quantitatively they number about the same. And in some cases, the women are perpetrators.
I realize you’re not suggesting it’s okay to molest men, but to understand and appreciate the situation one gender’s oxen are no more important than the next.
R. Maheras
May 11, 2013 - 2:49 pm
While I don’t think it’s fair that you used one of the most appalling and sensational sexual crimes in a generation to do a pile-on attack against some of your favorite political whipping boys (the NRA and the military), the fact that there is a sexual assault problem in the military can’t be denied.
It’s a problem that, despite warning signs, didn’t get the emphasis it should have. As a result, it festered, and it was only a matter of time before it would be very publicly exposed.
But, despite the military’s own reports, I take exception with claims that it is an epidemic, and especially insinuations that the problem is any worse in the military than it is in the civilian sector. In my 30 years associated with the Air Force, I’ve only seen, first-hand, one instance of sexual harassment/assault. It happened to be man-on-man, and after an investigation, the accused was separated from the service.
And lest you think I had my head in the sand, let me relate an incident last year involving the documentary, “Invisible War.”
Because the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved support of the documentary, and I was tasked as the service lead for coordinating inter-service support, I was one of the 15 or so people who viewed the pre-release rough cut for accuracy – an arrangement we routinely make with producers who wish DOD support.
When the viewing was over and the lights came on, I was numb from what I’d seen. How could I not have seen a problem allegedly that rampant? After all, I’m generally a very perceptive person, I’ve been around the military for three decades, and I’ve been a woman’s rights advocate most of my life. Genuinely taken aback, I turned to the six career military women from the various services who were in the viewing room and asked them their thoughts. It turns out they were all just as shocked as I was.
So, while it’s clear there’s a problem, and one that seriously degrades readiness, unit cohesiveness, and quality of life for servicemembers, I think the term “epidemic” is hyperbole.
What to do about it? Those decisions are made way above my pay grade, but if I were king for a day, I’d ensure all accusations were investigated fully, and hold anyone found guilty accountable – up to and including jail time. I’d also make sure all key sexual assault prevention and reporting positions were staffed with female officers, since females make up the majority of victims.
George Haberberger
May 11, 2013 - 2:50 pm
“Instead, both stories reveal men who think of women as interchangeable collections of body parts. She is either assorted orifices to fuck, or a uterus to carry a child.”
I agree that those men may consider women to be “assorted orifices to fuck” but “uterus to carry a child”? No, not so much. Men assaulting women in the military are most likely not wanting any children to result from the “hook up culture.” I don’t understand how you connect that story to men that have that view of women.
Regarding the kidnapping in Cleveland: Over the course of ten years with three women, Castro fathered one child. One of the women, Michelle Knight, reports that Castro induced at least five miscarriages by beating and starving her. Authorities are considering capital murders charges because of those pregnancy terminations. Sounds like Castro didn’t appreciate the function of those women’s reproductive systems.
Another person who thought of women as “assorted orifices to fuck”, is Kermit Gosnell. Changed with the murder of a woman and infanticide of several babies, Gosnell most certainly fits the criteria of this column. But his trial, which has been in jury deliberation for two weeks, is woefully underreported.
Mike Gold
May 11, 2013 - 2:59 pm
The Castro story has yet to fully unfold. Assuming reports are accurate, why he maintained the pregnancy of one woman but not another is, well, inconsistent. Did he approve of one as a potential mother but not the other? Or, to track your semantics, he “appreciated” the function of one woman’s reproductive system, but not another’s. And the third woman’s story remains unrevealed.
That seems weird, but given the entirety of the situation, the whole damn thing is just incomprehensible. I wonder if Ms. Knight’s testimony can be backed with physical evidence? I’m certainly willing to take her word for it, but that alone is unlikely to get a murder conviction.
That that I approve of the death penalty under any circumstances, period.
Martha Tomases
May 11, 2013 - 3:28 pm
The women reported thar Castro told them if Amanda’s baby died in childbirth, he would kill them. Sounds forcible to me.
And I read plenty about Gosnell. He is a scumbag. That is what happens when women don’t feel they have access to safe, legal abortion. They look for what they can find/afford.
Neil C.
May 11, 2013 - 11:20 pm
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/
Rene
May 13, 2013 - 5:19 am
I gotta say, I never trusted any organizations that are all-male or almost all-male. I don’t trust national armies, I don’t trust the Catholic Church, I don’t trust fraternities.
There is something that happens when guys hang together in an environment that is mostly female-free. They all start to compete to see who is the greatest asshole to women, as if that was a measure of how manly they were.
I wonder why that happen?
I’m not against male friendship, but in the rare instances when I hung around with the guys in a bar table, we didn’t talk about which of us was the nicest to that girl we liked, it was always “hey, did you fucked that bitch yet or is she giving you that just friends bullshit?”
The times when I had nothing bad to say about the women in my life it seemed like I was a conversation killer with the guys. “No, I don’t hate my wife. I love her a lot and we complete each other.” And then I hear a couple of “that must be nice.” and “Yeah.” And the conversation dies down around me.
I suppose that is why I don’t hung around with the guys so much anymore.
Okay, this has been a semi-jokey post, but I wonder what iy must be like to be in an all-male organization for years and years. I don’t think it makes you a sensitive guy.
George Haberberger
May 13, 2013 - 11:19 am
Neil,
I am not surprised that a writer for Salon doesn’t think there has been a Gosnell cover-up. Besides, I said, “underreported” not ignored.
Coverage has increased since Kirsten Powers shamed the rest of the media into covering the trial in her column in USA Today back on April 12th.
Before that, the press gallery looked like this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/photo-of-the-day-media-row-at-the-gosnell-trial/
What is really telling about this story you linked to, is that the writer blames the Gosnell horrors on “the lack of public funding for abortion”. Like that would be so much better. Gosnell’s practices are only an extrapolation of what every abortion is. The Salon article brags that the mainstream press did cover Gosnell when he was arrested in 2011. Yes, they did because they need to distance themselves from him.
Here is a pertinent quote from Kristen Walker Powers of LifeSiteNews: “Do we condemn Kermit Gosnell for committing abortions in a filthy, slovenly, contaminated manner? If we do, are we saying it’s okay to kill babies if you use clean instruments and don’t accidentally perforate the uterus? Is it okay to abort lots of black babies if you’re just as nice to the black mothers as you are to the white? Is it okay to kill children as long as they’re not a certain size or a certain age?
This is what the pro-abortion people are saying when they condemn Kermit Gosnell. It’s not what he did that’s the problem; it’s how he did it. It makes them look bad. They hate looking bad.”
Rene
May 13, 2013 - 11:47 am
George,
You and the right-wing media are, once again, being unfair to the Pro-Choice side and projecting your own stereotypes of what the Pro-Choice side stands for.
I mean, there is a lot of talk about killing babies and killing children in Kristen’s rant, for instance. From the get go, that doesn’t inspire confidence in a rational discussion.
First, if the Pro-Choice side were worried about the unwanted fetuses, they would not be Pro-Choice. What Kristen is doing is the same old, same old: Attacking the Pro-Choice for being Pro-Choice. Duh.
Second, what the Pro-Choice side REALLY worries about is the health and safety of the women who seek an abortion. THAT is the crux of the question, and the difference between the sides. One is worried about the rights of the fetuses, the other is worried about the rights of the women. And being forced to endure abortions in such poor conditions is not benefitial to the health of the WOMEN.
That is what the Pro-Choice side is worried about. Not with the killing of babies (since we’re all baby-killers anyway and we quite enjoy eating babies, every last one of us) but we’re worried about the safety of the women.
And by causing access to efficient and legal abortion to be ever more difficult, what the Pro-Life side is doing is pushing women into the hands of guys like Gosnell, instead of making them to “give up” on having an abortion. Your side doesn’t like that the blood of those women is on your hands.
Just to clarify, I have deep moral reservations about abortion, personally. It’s very much against the spiritual convictions that I have, vague and uncertain those may be. But I also dislike immensely the dishonest tactics and rethoric of the Pro-Life side, and the refusal to admit that the question isn’t black and white, and that repression isn’t going to save those fetuses.
Neil C.
May 13, 2013 - 1:00 pm
Anyone who thinks liberals are ‘upset’ about the conviction are just total tools. The guy was a murderer and broke the law. To me, it’s like saying that second-amendment absolutists are upset when a cop-killer is convicted because he used a gun.
George Haberberger
May 13, 2013 - 1:01 pm
Rene,
I wish your deep moral reservations about abortion were just a bit deeper. If calling an aborted baby a baby is a dishonest tactic and rhetoric. then certainly calling a fetus a tumor or a just mass of cells is more than dishonest, its delusional.
It was announced a few minutes ago that the jury has found Gosnell guilty of three first-degree murder charges. These would be charges resulting from the babies whose spinal cords he cut, since the woman who died from anesthesia was not a first-degree charge.
“I mean, there is a lot of talk about killing babies and killing children in Kristen’s rant, for instance. From the get go, that doesn’t inspire confidence in a rational discussion.”
First degree murder because what he did differed in time and location from something considered legal if he had done it a couple of weeks earlier and inside the womb. What’s rational about that?
Neil C.
May 13, 2013 - 1:01 pm
And George, you’re a pro-life nutcase, so there’s no reasoning with you.
Rene
May 13, 2013 - 1:14 pm
No, I don’
Rene
May 13, 2013 - 1:30 pm
Ooops. Send it by mistake.
What I was going to say is that I don’t think calling an aborted fetus a baby is a dishonest tactic. It may be a bit overblow, but not dishonest at all.
What IS dishonest about rants like Kristen’s and yours is that you guys make it seem like the Pro-Choice side is worried about some small technicality, like “Hey, Gosnell does the same job they do, but just because the guy is a little dirty under the fingernails and doesn’t have a license, they criticize the guy as a monster, but otherwise they would be okay with it, the hypocrites!”
No, the problem with guys like Gosnell and lots of illegal abortionists here in Brazil also is that under them, with unsanitary and precarious conditions, the WOMEN are at much greater risk.
That is it. That is the concern of the Pro-Choice side. The women. Women die a lot more in illegal abortion clinics, and are at much greater risk of some permanente damage. The Pro-Choice side doesn’t care about the rights of fetuses, that is obvious, but they do care about the women. The failure on your part to recognize that as the cause for outrage against Gosnell can only be attributed to how much you guys demonize the Pro-Choice side.
“I wish your deep moral reservations about abortion were just a bit deeper.”
They are deep enough for me to care for the fetuses and the women as individuals, not as an indifferentiate mass of sinners that can be refrained from sinning by repressive laws. I don’t believe the practice of abortion can be fought except by honestly appealing to the hearts of those women. And considering the poor record that the religious right has with women, I find it a hard task indeed for them to reach those women.
George Haberberger
May 13, 2013 - 2:35 pm
Rene,
The Pro-Life side does care about the women. There are numerous secular and religious organizations in existence to aid women with unplanned pregnancies, Birthright, OptionLine, Abortion Alternative. These organizations help women with housing, food or adoption if that is the woman’s choice.
Rachel’s Vineyard helps counsel women who have had abortions and have emotional issues afterward. This organization and many like it wouldn’t exist if they didn’t care about the women even after they have had an abortion.
Neil,
“And George, you’re a pro-life nutcase, so there’s no reasoning with you.”
People with strong convictions are often called insulting names by those who either have no strong convictions or do not share the same convictions. If “reasoning” with me means that I must accept abortion as a viable alternative to adoption or contraception, I am proud to be unreasonable. Abolitionists were nutcases too.
Neil C.
May 13, 2013 - 2:47 pm
And abolition is not even close to allowing women to control their own lives.
George Haberberger
May 13, 2013 - 3:12 pm
“And abolition is not even close to allowing women to control their own lives.”
You know, you wouldn’t feel that way if only you were a bit more reasonable.
Neil C.
May 13, 2013 - 4:16 pm
And if you weren’t such an asshole, you wouldn’t be George.
Rene
May 13, 2013 - 6:54 pm
George,
I gotta hand it to you, the Church does some amazing charity work. There is a lot of good people in the rank-and-file of the organization, perhaps even the majority of the people in the Church. Incidentally, a lot of them have much more liberal positions than the leadership.
When I say Religious Right, I’m talking of the leadership, in the case of the Catholic Church, the cardinals, the Pope, the guys that set policy and influence secular authorities. Those are the guys that are doing no favour to women, and in fact are partly responsible for the need of a large portion of the Church having to do charity work.
After all, they calcified spirituality, imprisoning it in a form that is thousands of years old, instead of allowing it to evolve as technology has evolved. With their dogmas, your guys have contributed as much as anyone else to the explosion of materialism we’re seeing. Because your guys distorted God into something that is too unbelieavable.
Rene
May 14, 2013 - 12:51 pm
That was uncalled for, Neil. George is very commited to his views, sure. But no more than most of the people who post here.
George Haberberger
May 14, 2013 - 3:04 pm
Hey, thanks Rene. I wasn’t going to respond to Neil’s last post because it just seemed so appropriate to let it stand as his best argument.
And as along as I am posting, what’s with the posts from Mike, Martha and Russ that just showed up with time stamps from the 11th? Why were they delayed?