rape in the military all the woman's fault.....
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
at least according to fox op/ed contributor liz trotta.....video is at the site, couldn't find a direct link to it
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6396
Question For Fox News: How Much Rape Is Too Much Rape?
Contemporary media has many flaws that weigh upon its credibility. It has earned the disrespect of critics from across the political spectrum, and more importantly, from consumers of their news products. But every now and then there is an occurrence that is so inconceivably disgusting that it defies explanation. Such an occurrence took place today – where else – on Fox News.
In a discussion of the role of women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta expressed an opinion that could only be held by a seriously disturbed individual. On that measure, Trotta qualifies. The issue involved new rules from the Pentagon that would permit women to serve closer to the front lines. Trotta’s take on this centered on the problems faced by servicewomen who are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers. She begins by insulting female soldiers as whiners who should shut up accept as a fact that if they work closely with men they should expect to be assaulted:
“We have women once more, the feminist, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time. [...] But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact.”
You see, it’s not the fault of the rapists. It’s just serendipity, nature playing out its course. From there Trotta moves on to lament the cost of enforcing military laws that prevent such assaults or providing support for the victims:
“And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators.”
I wonder if Trotta would also favor eliminating rules that prohibit any other sort of violent behavior. Perhaps she would oppose counseling for soldiers, male and female, suffering from post-traumatic stress. Those would be bad enough, but they don’t come close to what she said next:
“So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.”
Raped too much? I would really like to know precisely how much rape is acceptable before it crosses Trotta’s line. Is there any context in which she might have meant that that isn’t unfathomably repulsive?
This is not the first time Trotta has articulated out loud, and on the air, an inexcusably revolting opinion. Last month, in a commentary following the State of the Union address, she demeaned our most elite soldiers by wondering, “How many times is [Obama] going to use Seal Team 6 to get out of trouble? [...] They are becoming political operatives.” And during the last presidential election Trotta joked about assassinating Obama.
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6396
Question For Fox News: How Much Rape Is Too Much Rape?
Contemporary media has many flaws that weigh upon its credibility. It has earned the disrespect of critics from across the political spectrum, and more importantly, from consumers of their news products. But every now and then there is an occurrence that is so inconceivably disgusting that it defies explanation. Such an occurrence took place today – where else – on Fox News.
In a discussion of the role of women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta expressed an opinion that could only be held by a seriously disturbed individual. On that measure, Trotta qualifies. The issue involved new rules from the Pentagon that would permit women to serve closer to the front lines. Trotta’s take on this centered on the problems faced by servicewomen who are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers. She begins by insulting female soldiers as whiners who should shut up accept as a fact that if they work closely with men they should expect to be assaulted:
“We have women once more, the feminist, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time. [...] But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact.”
You see, it’s not the fault of the rapists. It’s just serendipity, nature playing out its course. From there Trotta moves on to lament the cost of enforcing military laws that prevent such assaults or providing support for the victims:
“And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators.”
I wonder if Trotta would also favor eliminating rules that prohibit any other sort of violent behavior. Perhaps she would oppose counseling for soldiers, male and female, suffering from post-traumatic stress. Those would be bad enough, but they don’t come close to what she said next:
“So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.”
Raped too much? I would really like to know precisely how much rape is acceptable before it crosses Trotta’s line. Is there any context in which she might have meant that that isn’t unfathomably repulsive?
This is not the first time Trotta has articulated out loud, and on the air, an inexcusably revolting opinion. Last month, in a commentary following the State of the Union address, she demeaned our most elite soldiers by wondering, “How many times is [Obama] going to use Seal Team 6 to get out of trouble? [...] They are becoming political operatives.” And during the last presidential election Trotta joked about assassinating Obama.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Saw this last night.
Laughed a good bit.
Women being raped too much.
Sheesh.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Fucking feminists. How dare they want women to be able to serve their country without being raped! Men don't have such crazy expectations for their military service.
Addressing aggressive rape crimes is serious business male and female in the military needs to happen.
I saw that Jon Stewart segment last night. It was funny.
Ricky Gervais and the Panda thing was better.
Ought to create a wonderful and meaningful discussion...
Thanks for posting...
I'm not agreeing with her. But, I don't see the same interpretation of that. Yes, she is advocating against women being on the front line. Agree or disagree and argue/discuss her suppositions on THAT basis.
But, I don't see how that statement is saying it is the victim's fault. That is you (and others) foisting your desired interpretation by her on her. All she is saying there is it is not surprising there are more rapes with more women involved. Where is blame laid on anyone? The implied blame is ALWAYS on the rapist. But, if you want to spin a Fox report (or if you're on the other side an MSNBC report), then so be it. But, just because someone doesn't say the obvious doesn't mean they don't agree with it (in actuality, the assumption should be the opposite - its so obvious it doesn't need to be stated).
If anything, she is blaming feminists in general for pushing this agenda and putting other women (because folks like that never actually get involved, they just chatter on) in potential harm's way that anyone, including you could easily ascertain. And that is where her argument is centered. That doesn't make it right. But, at least she's arguing a point (however misguided) on a concrete basis.
Now, her solution is - no women on front lines. That seems silly to me, also. I believe the better solution is greater punishments and far greater control of those situations. But, I can see her point, where the latter may not be possible or sustainable (however unfortunate that may be. There's a lot of things about the human condition we'd all like to change). So, her solution becomes her suggestion. I don't agree with it, but I see where its coming from.
So, basicall what I'm trying to say is - this thread is another (extremely poor) attempt to twist words to prove your point (which I think is that Fox news is bad? I'm not sure because you never really say it. I think you're blaming Fox news for the rapes and think the woman speaking is blaming the victims, but you don't exactly say that, so I'll make up whatever I want to make you seem silly and my view point seem right) instead of understading the very clear point being made and discussing that.
Carry on.....
hmmmm???
:roll:
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
However, since nobody wants to play the peace game.
Since you are on a new screen name. We're gonna out you. How many do you and your friends have?
Nobody prays for peace, like the soldier.
Are you a schizophrenic?
Who is we, and what are you asking me?
"what did they expect?"
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
jo
http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
"How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
"Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
Also, the comment the author made at the end about the woman "demeaning" SEAL Team 6 is absurd. It's pretty obvious that the comment was an attack on Obama for using the team's accomplishment for his own political gain when she said, "They are becoming political operatives." To skew that any other way is being dishonest. It's as if the author understood that the quotes in the first part of the article could be interpreted a couple different ways so he/she needed to "prove" that the blaming-the-victims interpretation is the correct one by misrepresenting the intent behind the other quote. After all, she hates Team 6 so she must also hate rape victims!
Again - the answer every good person wants and desires. But:
a) unfortunately not realistic. For whatever reason all living things evolved/were created for emminent domain. Go to any school yard. Why? Why tell me? And should we just keep to our own and let our neighbor's neighbor take what they want? You've heard the parable - They came for someone I did not know, and I did nothing. They came for a distant acquantance, and I did nothing. They came for my friend, and I did nothing. They came for my neighbor and I did nothing. They came for me, and there was nobody to help.
b) And this still doesn't answer the question at hand (should women be in the military). It just moves the site. Unless what you're saying is totally dismantle the military. In which case - you are right. There won't be any wars. We'll all be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. There's evil men/women (mostly men). All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Disclaimer: This is not advocating (or denouncing) any recent military action. Just stating the facts (however unfortunate they may be) about the general need (not size). Sorry, boys and girls.
Reading/listening comprehension is a wonderful thing. My 5th grader is struggling with just that thing right now. Stop listening to other folks interpret things for you. Read/listen and discern. There is wisdom where you might least expect it (and even where you might disagree).
Thank you, Monster Rain.
monster rain and you are exactly right....she's not saying it's their fault, just that it should have been obvious to them this would happen, got it
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The second part of your statement was also spot on, but I want to say something about this....
The point she is making in her statement (not the author's intepretation, but her actual words) is ---- these folks never think of solutions to problems (before or after the fact) or think ahead to what might even be the issues. They believe that everything should just be a-ok. And, not because we don't want it to be, but the world doesn't work that way.
So BEFORE!!!! BEFORE!!!! pushing these agendas and putting OTHER people's children in harm's way, they should think through what the ramifications are, and come up with remedies (as best possible) to prevent the most likely (however unfortunate or unthinkable) possibilities from happening (to the best of their abilities).
Instead, they try to prove a point with someone else's child and then cry themselves victim (the ideal pushers, not the rape victims who ARE the actual victims).
And, yes. I got all that from her speech (and none of it from someone else's interpretation).
Again - I do not agree with the basis of her discussion that women should not be allowed to be on the front lines. Do whatever the hell you want if you meet the basic physical and mental requirments. But, her point about the feminists is spot on. (And she is not blaming the rape victims).
Cool. Thanks. I love when people fake agree with me. :ugeek:
PS - that's still not the point, but I'll take it. That's one of the arguments against feminists. But, its not the main point.
But it should be surprising to her, it should shock her, it should outrage her. To even imply that rape is an inevitable consequence for women in the military or any other male-dominated work environment is to condone the attitude that allows such violence to continue. It’s an attitude that tells women, they should expect to be raped if they work in a male-dominated field. It’s an attitude that tells women they should learn to deal with rape as part of the price for being in the military. It’s an attitude that blames the woman and tells them if they can’t handle being raped they should get out of the military.
Agree that as predictible as it might be that shock and outrage should be a reaction. Its not an inevitable consequence. But it is a predictable one (especially considering it did not go UP from 0). But, you are right, once you stop feeling those things about such horrific crimes is when we stop being a civilized society. We can continue to hope for the betterment of man. But, we must protect against the evil. And thereby, try to mitigate and prevent it by being smart about the way we go about such things (not IF we should go about such things). We can't let it stop what we are doing. But, we also can't simply ignore it as a very real possibility (as opposed to something bizarre and unheard of). Yes, that's a sad commentary on the human condition. So, let's fight to stop that. And not allow those pushing agendas to morph them or misundertand the point of a simple argument. The latter also blunts the true impact and trauma of the real victims.
Exactly. It's the old "boys will be boys" defense. Yeah, technically the words are just a statement - but they act as a defense. And any intelligent person knows that, as I'm sure the woman in the video did.
You say let's fight to stop it - There's no recruitment brochure or recruitment speech given that says if you're a female and you chose to enlist, you can expect be raped by a fellow soldier, it's predictable.
My point is that she is part of the media and women are part of the military; instead of towing the old 'feminist' line that women want it both ways, she had the opportunity to stand up for women in the workforce who work in jobs that are still considered male-dominated, like hers, and denounce the Pentagon for allowing just one rape to occur against a fellow Soldier.
That's right a fellow soldier wearing the same uniform as the rapist, facing the same dangers as the rapist, willing to die in service of their country just like the rapist. That soldier whether she is on the front line or in the medical tent is at risk of death 24/7 just like the rapist. The main difference is that the Pentagon, the media and the public seems to think that the rape of a female soldier is inevitable because of the work environment.
Well, Ms. Media had an opportunity to tell the Pentagon that regardless of what role the female soldier serves, when she puts on that uniform and pledges to serve and die for her country, it doesn't include being raped by fellow soldiers. Ms. Media had an opportunity to challenged Secretary Panetta's rape numbers, to institute a no tolerance rape policy, because if a soldier can rape a fellow soldier, God help the women and children of those villages.
Instead, she, herself towed the Fox News party line and played the role of old 'feminist' and reduced rape as an inevitable and predictable defense for 'women' not 'soldiers' being on the frontline.
I wonder how she would feel and what she would be saying if it were women in her male-dominated field who were being routinely raped.
Also, I think it's insulting to the women who serve our country for her to suggest that either (1) they don't want to be able to serve to the same extent that men do but are just being put in that position by feminists, or (2) they want to serve to the same extent that men do only because they can't think for themselves and are being coerced by feminists.
Many people enjoy being the victimizer a bit too much. what the bullies hate even more is when their victims stand up for themselves. So when women want to serve their country AND not get raped... well, that's just a bit too much for them to take.
I guess the good thing that comes form this is that people have been forced to take a side.
hope they choose the right one.
Actually there is a candidate who does want to play the peace game. But, because your "gut feeling" is that he is a fraud and you have "seen" him flip flop without actually having evidence or even a recollection of what that flip flop was you've already written him off... :roll:
Real Victims standing up for themselves is good. Please read the actual statements. From what I've read, you are extremely intelligent. Please know the original op is doing damage to the cause it hopes to support.
I don't want people taking sides. Rape is heinous. Perpetrators are the worst. That is not what the op was talking about. He was twisting. My responses were about that. Twisting does the actual victims a disservice.
Missing point by 3 miles. She would find that heinous.....ALSO. And it has nothing to do with her main point.
Are you her PR rep or something? Please enlighten me, then, about the main point and how this has nothing to do with it.
But the unspun truth of what she said is that women standing on the sidelines are not victims. But they should have thought of the real victims. And that none of it did any of us any good.
If you need more. Please let me know.