rape in the military all the woman's fault.....

Pepe Silvia

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

John Stewart's Opinion

Saw this last night.
Laughed a good bit.


Women being raped too much.
Sheesh.

_

Pepe Silvia wrote:

“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.”

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.

SweetChildofMine

I saw all the hype and let it go... ridiculous. Lets just say women getting their mani and pedi's will not be signing up for combat missions.

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.

Vitalogy Man

Another intelligent thread.

Ought to create a wonderful and meaningful discussion...


Thanks for posting...

EdsonNascimento

Pepe Silvia wrote:

“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:

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.....

StillHere

maybe if we just stop sending ANYONE to the trenches of war???

hmmmm???

:roll:

SweetChildofMine

StillHere wrote:

maybe if we just stop sending ANYONE to the trenches of war???

hmmmm???

:roll:

That would be the ideal.


However, since nobody wants to play the peace game.

SweetChildofMine

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Another intelligent thread.

Ought to create a wonderful and meaningful discussion...


Thanks for posting...

Since you are on a new screen name. We're gonna out you. How many do you and your friends have?

Vitalogy Man

SweetChildofMine wrote:

StillHere wrote:

maybe if we just stop sending ANYONE to the trenches of war???

hmmmm???

:roll:

That would be the ideal.


However, since nobody wants to play the peace game.

Nobody prays for peace, like the soldier.

Vitalogy Man

SweetChildofMine wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Another intelligent thread.

Ought to create a wonderful and meaningful discussion...


Thanks for posting...

Since you are on a new screen name. We're gonna out you. How many do you and your friends have?

Are you a schizophrenic?

Who is we, and what are you asking me?

Pepe Silvia

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

“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:

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.....

"what did they expect?"

StillHere

Pepe Silvia wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

“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:

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.....

"what did they expect?"

:shock: ???

Monster Rain

I don't see her saying "What did they expect?" as blaming the victims at all. It seems to me that she's saying the groups pushing for the changes that led to more interaction should have anticipated that such problems would arise more often. That's not the same as saying it's the victims' faults.

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!

EdsonNascimento

StillHere wrote:

maybe if we just stop sending ANYONE to the trenches of war???

hmmmm???

:roll:

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.

EdsonNascimento

StillHere wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

"what did they expect?"

:shock: ???

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 wrote:

I don't see her saying "What did they expect?" as blaming the victims at all. It seems to me that she's saying the groups pushing for the changes that led to more interaction should have anticipated that such problems would arise more often. That's not the same as saying it's the victims' faults.

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!

Pepe Silvia

EdsonNascimento wrote:

StillHere wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

"what did they expect?"

:shock: ???

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 wrote:

I don't see her saying "What did they expect?" as blaming the victims at all. It seems to me that she's saying the groups pushing for the changes that led to more interaction should have anticipated that such problems would arise more often. That's not the same as saying it's the victims' faults.

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!

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

EdsonNascimento

Monster Rain wrote:

I don't see her saying "What did they expect?" as blaming the victims at all. It seems to me that she's saying the groups pushing for the changes that led to more interaction should have anticipated that such problems would arise more often. That's not the same as saying it's the victims' faults.

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).

EdsonNascimento

Pepe Silvia wrote:

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

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.

puremagic

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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?
.....
Carry on.....

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.

Jason P

I wonder what Skip Bayless' opinion of the matter is?