quote:

---

By rights, Ombeni should be nearing the end of her university life, perhaps fending off marriage requests or applying for teaching posts in the city. But her schooling, and her life's journey, were brutally interrupted almost five years earlier.

Back then she was a typical 15-year-old with dreams of university and a better life. Her home was a village in the countryside, where, when she wasn't studying, she helped in the fields. It was while out working one evening that rebel forces captured her carefree innocence. For months she became their slave, both sexual and physical, as they lived in various wooded compounds along the Rwandan border. Heavily pregnant, and near death from lack of food, the rebels returned her to her village so her parents could watch her die.

---

Before you click this link, beware this is a horrific story. And no one cares.

[ 25 November 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I read that article today and could barely contain my anger. It was on Digg and most of the responders talked about the rapes as if this were somehow localized to Africa. Digg deleted my comment, which was that it is not localized but seemingly inherent in every culture, and worse during times of war or conflict. I asked that we consider a world that condones this through the assumption that the "culture of masculinity" is never to be discussed, or even admitted to and that this culture is what must be dissected and destroyed before we can do anything.

quote:

---

Well FM, at least you weren't disappointed. It resulted in jokes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
So if Webgear takes his uniform off, he is a friend to women, then?

---

WTF Cueball? Seriously, WTF?

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Wtf, wtf?

---

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I'd ask you to refrain from stalking me around the forum to prosecute your personal vendetta against me.

---

quote:

---

As it is now perfectly clear, your real agenda is coming after me for my "bad behaviour" in the "feminist" forum, and really has nothing to do with what I said here.

---

quote:

---

I made it quite clear that I would not be visiting your forum in future, and as far as I was concerned that was the end of the issue.

---

quote:

---

Now, you don't think that the German aid worker, is talking out of both sides of her mouth?

What a stupid construction: "Any person in uniform is an enemy of women"? Pulease! She is obviously trying to extend the lesson generally beyond the bounds of the specific, and use it as an example of a more general nature. All people in uniforms are rapists, essentially.

I disagree. I posed above what I think is the relationship between wars, uniforms and rape. It is certainly not localized to Africa, or anywhere in particular.

---

oh yes, let's ignore what she was saying and discuss other, like she is talking out of both sides of her mouth!

moderators could you please place this in the feminist forum where it should've been in the first place? cueballs continued bad actions are wholely innappropriate.

[ 26 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You don't think that in some units, criminal acts are used as a means of blooding soldiers and ensuring their group loyalty? Or that this kind of thing is sometimes even condoned and encouraged by NCO's and officers?

---

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

That war is the enemy of women. I think that war provides opportunities for men who would rape to do what they want.

---

Men rape women. War is an excuse. This thread is about women and rape and you were out of line first with the joke and now with your trivialization of the issue that was raised, and which you refuse to see - that of the culture of masculinity. This is the centre of rape and this is what needs to be dissected.

Michelle, we agreed ages ago that threads that were specifically women centered would be moved to the feminist forum so that this kind of thing would not happen again and again and again. We have already lost a lot of women posters due to these issues. Cueball, nor Webgear, should be turning this thread into a thread about uniforms and soldier's macho exercises, especially as a means of using war as an excuse for rape.

Why don't you talk about the subject instead:

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

He was challenging the concept in the subject line in this thread that "any person in uniform is an enemy to women". I think that's a legitimate argument. It's a blanket statement and just not true. I don't like what soldiers do any more than anyone else and I don't particularly think it's a moral job, but I also don't think that every soldier on the planet is an "enemy to women" when it comes to rape and such.

Cueball brought up some important arguments against it. Yes, he made a wry comment at first, because he saw a SOLDIER in the thread saying that this is an important discussion to have, and that clearly put the lie to the title that ANY person in uniform is an enemy to women.

But because of past arguments with Cueball, remind flew off the handle and freaked out on him. And now she is demanding that the moderator back her up on this shadow-moderating and attack on another poster who hasn't done anything except challenge the blanket statement in the thread title?

Come on. I don't think so. I think people have to realize that this is still a DISCUSSION forum. People are going to sometimes disagree with what we've written, and sometimes they're going to say so. Sometimes they might even use a different tone than we might like.

quote:

---

He was challenging the concept in the subject line in this thread that "any person in uniform is an enemy to women". I think that's a legitimate argument. It's a blanket statement and just not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Cueball, nor Webgear, should be turning this thread into a thread about uniforms and soldier's macho exercises, especially as a means of using war as an excuse for rape.

---

The title is surely sensationalistic and deliberately incendiary, but inaccurate? Really? If we are really engaged in parsing the headline's diction, look at the construction: any individual in uniform is an "enemy" to women, plural. To take from this that any actual individual in uniform is immediately and specifically antagonistic and predatory against every singular, actual woman is to misread the statement.

"Person in uniform." As Cueball's "joke" suggests, if a soldier takes off her uniform does she cease to be a threat? Obviously, such an answer is disingenuous to the spirit (and grammar) of the article. A person in uniform, a metonymical construct, a stand-in for a combat force in general. And these, as history shows, where war is again and again fought on the no-man's land of the female body, where war uses the female body as ammunition, as incentive, as battleground, and as spoils, are surely an "enemy" of, a threat to, women.

So when a woman sees a "person in uniform" of whatever gender, of whatever sex, of whatever race, should she not be afraid? Should she not consider her an enemy?

quote:

---

I shall depart with haste and without comment upon your request.

---