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

EdsonNascimento

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

_

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

puremagic

EdsonNascimento wrote:

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

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.

_

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

We do live, sadly, in a society that loves to blame the victim.

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.

Sludge Factory

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.

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:

EdsonNascimento

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

We do live, sadly, in a society that loves to blame the victim.

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.

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

Missing point by 3 miles. She would find that heinous.....ALSO. And it has nothing to do with her main point.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

puremagic wrote:

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.

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.

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.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

Ummm no. Not a big fan of fox or any other "news" station. Her point is that women should not be on the front line. I disagree.


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.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

_ wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

Ummm no. Not a big fan of fox or any other "news" station. Her point is that women should not be on the front line. I disagree.


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.

That's not at all different from what I said.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

That's not at all different from what I said.

Good. We'll agree to agree.

_

Now that she's had time to prepare a written reply to her critics, it seems even more clear to me that we didn't misinterpret her...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... _ref=false