I don’t even know what to say. It’s looking like Sec. of State Rice will successfully stall any cease-fire until Israel is satisified. Why can’t Israel see that this will only create more people that hate them? After eighteen years of occupation and failing to get rid of Hezbollah, why can’t they learn?
What I do not understand is why the good people of Israel (I am not being sarcastic - there are good people in Israel) do not make their way into Lebanon, which is after all right next door to them, to witness the outrage for themselves, to help however they can, and to stand, if they must, where they expect the bombs to be dropped. Are they so lacking in courage? Do they think they cannot make a difference if they intervene directly? They can make a difference, they can stop the bombing, if enough Israelis join the effort. Does anyone know of an Israel-based website that makes this call?
The ambassador to the UN for the illegal, rogue-state, ethnic cleansing apartheid entity now occupying Palestine and Lebanon, the so-called State of Israel, Dan Gillerman mouthed off that they had “a right to cut out a cancer” to protect the patient. They couldn’t “stop half-way through the operation or there would be a relapse,” he said.
Respectfully, the cancer in the Middle East IS Israel. Imposed illegaly by the US and the UK, with the collusion of the UN, on land that was stolen, not paid for, this upstart “nation” has been the sole cause of all regional strife since its inception. Fully 85% of Israel’s population never darken the door of a synagogue. It is a secular state. Being Jewish is irrelevant. The world does not hate them because they are Jewish. They are hated universally because they are monsters. They treat the Palestinians and the Lebanese like animals, Qana being the example again. If the world wants Middle East peace, we need to cut out the cancer: Israel.
When we think that the first Zionist plan to partition Lebanon dates from 1919, and there have been several attempts since, this latest plan that disturbs the uneasy balance of the least 5 years smacks heavily of oil.
Chossudovsky has a piece on the new oil pipline from Baku that skirts Russia and Iran and has just been completed as far as Ceyhan and which is planned to run underwater past Syria and Lebanon to Israel. Israel needs to be in control of the coast all the way down… http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
Naveed Haq, from a middle class Pakistani-American family in eastern Washington State, shot six women at the Seattle Jewish Federation, in the city where I live. He killed one and left three critically wounded, saying “I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel.”
[…]
It’s tempting, particularly for those of us who are Jewish, to use this shooting as an excuse for supporting Israeli military escalation, and to blur the urgency of halting the bombs and shells falling on equally blameless civilians in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. […]
Except that Israel has followed this punitive approach again and again in the forty years since it occupied the West Bank. It’s never brought security, only more bitterness. Five days before the shootings I appeared on a Seattle Jewish radio show along with the local head of Jewish Voices for Peace and an activist who worked to support Israeli policies. Though it was a friendly dialogue, the rabbi who cohosted the show kept treating those of us who challenged Israel’s actions as starry-eyed dreamers, unwilling to acknowledge the realities of a violent world.
But it isn’t naive to suggest that Israel’s massive attacks on Lebanon and Gaza will embitter a new generation.
I want to tag two key elements which leap out at me. Number one: the fury of this Pakistani-American male was taken out on Jewish women. The male instinct or imperative or trained behaviour to “get back at the other guy by killing his [emphasis mine] women and children” means that women and children pay the price disproportionately wars that are started and perpetuated by men. The fury of working class whitefellas in the US, as their feudal overlords rip the “american dream” out from under them and reduce them to peonage, is disproportionately directed at feminists (”feminazis”) and Black women (”welfare queens”) etc.
Number two: it is an enduring male fantasy that violent male posturing is somehow “more in touch with reality” than “sissy” or “idealistic” notions like democracy, nonviolence, diplomacy, negotiations, etc. This highly gendered epistemological claim is embedded throughout the language in terms like “realpolitik”, “market forces,” “pragmatism,” “shock therapy” etc. and in contradistinction to (implicitly girly-man) memes like socialism, peace activism, justice, fairness, mutual aid, reciprocal altruism, etc. Men claim that the traditional male toolbox of threats, force, and brutality is somehow more authentic, more real, than “idealism”. Thus the catchphrase among neocons and centrists, “crackpot altermondialistas”.
And yet this author reveals an obfuscated truth in graf 3 above: Israel has followed the male-posturing, violent, punitive, brutal model of engagement repeatedly and it has never led to the ostensibly desired aim. Repeating the same behaviour over and over and expecting different results, as the man said, is the definition of insanity. In other words, the men who keep patting themselves on the back for being so “in touch with reality” are actually those whose behaviour pattern is delusional, contradicts observed facts on the ground. They repeat compulsively a formula which does not work.
I could draw similar examples from industry, economics, and agriculture, where the brute-domination approach to complex systems repeatedly fails to achieve desired results and instead produces not only failures, but wildly unintended consequences. In each case the men who make these delusional planning decisions do not pay the price — it is paid disproportionately by women and children.
An alternative explanation is that the planning is not delusional; that the true objective of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan was to create a political vacuum, a failed and shattered state, to destroy any chance of democracy, and to exterminate large numbers of civilians; that the true objective of Israeli hawks in Lebanon is not to make Israel more secure but to destroy Arabs or use up a surplus of munitions and materiel or create a climate of fear for domestic electoral purposes. Or that the true objective of agribusiness is to destroy farmers’ livelihoods, ruin soil, degrade watersheds and place control of world food production in the hands of a tiny elite of technomanagerial corporadoes.
Against the definition of madness above we have to put the systems theory axiom, that if an engineered system repeatedly achieves the same result over time, we should conclude that its engineers intended this result — whether they cop to it publicly or not.
So which is it? Is the masculinist elite that perpetuates these destructive behaviours mad, or bad?
De: I can’t thank you enough for insights like this. And thanks also for your reply to my last question, which was very generously informative and thought-provoking.
Back to the issue at hand, I was just thinking today about the “violence-as-rational, diplomacy-as-delusional” meme, and what a powerful, ingrained, and difficult-to-combat one it is. Democrats trample over one another in efforts to exude toughness in response to it, as when Karl Rove made his cynically-calculated and tactically-brilliant remarks about them wanting to “offer therapy to terrorists.” They take the bait every time.
But, at the risk of rehashing a debate I suspect has come up before, I want to ask a question about the language you used: Is it accurate to describe this as a male trait, or a male fantasy, as you do in your second paragraph? Does that run the risk of essentializing the characteristic in question, as if to say it has some intrinsic relation to the XY chromosome?
I for one am a male who has always preferred the diplomatic / conciliatory route. Yet the women in my family, from my same gene pool, have all embraced the meme you described, at least when it comes to foreign policy … just like Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin, et al. Have these women adopted a trait which is quintessentially male, going against some supposed true feminine nature? Have I become female-identified by favoring the opposite approach? Does Ann Coulter perhaps possess more testosterone than my sissyfied beta-male body, thus possibly explaining her Adam’s apple? (Sorry, couldn’t resist a bad joke.)
Of course I understand that the system is male-dominated, and so males deserve much of the criticism. And maybe you use “male” as a necessary generalization, with the allowance for exceptions. I also understand that proponents of the meme use it to frame their objects as either strong (i.e male) or weak (i.e. female), so it obviously serves as a gendered construction which reinforces male power … but I’m asking, is it right to call it a “male fantasy”, or to say that “men claim …” when women also have bought into this fantasy, and women also make similar claims? I see it as a fantasy which reinforces male power, but not one that’s necessarily “male.” Am I splitting hairs here?
I ask not to play gotcha, but out of curiosity about the language used in discussions about gender. I’ve come to appreciate the concern for precision in language (to the extent that such a thing is possible) that people like you and Stan employ in your writings, so I’d just like to hear your thoughts on why you chose that particular wording.
P.S. Re-reading this sentence — “I for one am a male who has always preferred the diplomatic / conciliatory route” — reminds me of something.
Being the weird little kid I was, when I was in 2nd grade I actually established a conflict-resolution practice, where I would counsel other kids about how to peacefully resolve their disputes. Of course, as an elementary-school kid, I didn’t know the words “conflict resolution,” so I made a little sign that read
Israel, is once again behaving like the big school bully, and getting applauded along by the US and UK.
My solution would be for all people to withdraw from that part of the world and make a home where it is peaceful. Let the big bullies, warts and all have it out with themselves, they haven’t got anything better to do - obviously.
James M — “male” is often a shorthand (when writing in haste) for “masculinist,” and a sloppy one at that.
I think women can definitely subscribe to a masculinist ideology. cf Right Wing Women for a start: women may conclude that their personal survival chances are better with a masculinist social structure w/in which they can find a defined and secure niche. but beyond that, women who are attracted to men may find that masculinity has a glamour of its own — that the Tough Guy archetype is valorised and encoded in this very personal, emotional matrix of self-definition, desire, etc., so that to challenge it would pull out the props from under their own self-assessment, self-worth, etc. I’m thinking here of Peggy Noonan’s retch-making gushing over Making America a Man Again post-911: surely all her swooning over burly fire fighters and (faux) Cowboy Bush was at least in part a way of saying “look look look how Womanly I am.”
there’s a lot of defining Self negatively by contrast with the Other, and it’s not always as simple as We Hate Them Because They are Not-Us… sometimes the sense of self collapses w/o that Other as the reliable foil. who am I, if I am not Not-You?
I think women who cheerlead for warmongering males are staking a claim on their own status as the preferred mates and dependents of those alpha males — seeking a sense of safety in a scary world, wanting to believe in the protection racket (Our Guys Are Good and Will Tak3 Care of Their Women and Kids), and finding reassurance and validation of their own femininity in the maintenance of an overconformist (thanks Stan) masculinity. and then there are intersecting tropes of r
… tropes of race and class. Warmongering women may be declaring a racial or class allegiance in their support of warmongering men.
Lastly women — in my personal experience, even extending to my own behaviour in younger days — may seek to escape the Taint of femaleness by adopting masculinist stances (which have been valorised as rational, see above), so as to disavow the stereotypically female “defects” of emotionalism, soft-heartedness, vacillation, etc. One way that conforming women can try to escape the social stigma of femaleness even while overconforming to beauty and dress codes is to “talk tough” and fall into line with masculinist social attitudes — joining in the blaming of rape survivors, turning off their empathy to victims generally, displaying nationalist blood lust, etc. An older (Edwardian) sensibility would find this “unwomanliness” disturbing but it seems to be a harmless form of pseudo-rebellion permitted to respectable women in late C20 - early C21. (Kinda like SM and porn are harmless forms of pseudo-rebellion permitted to gays and women? they reinforce rather than challenging masculinist sexual mores…)
There seems to be a pecking order in wingnut gender and race and nationalism: a white woman is a “ballbusting bitch” if she acts domineering around white men, yet she can become a wingnut cultural heroine if she pulls a Lynndie England and dominates brown men — so long as she still permits white men (Graner) to dominate her…
Perhaps women of the aggressor culture in wartime become uncomfortably aware of the brainless brutality and sadism of which their men are capable, and some respond to this by stepping up their Stand By Your Man behaviour, so as to avoid any risk of getting “on the wrong side of” the riled-up male power structure? One of the classic triggers for battering males is “you took the other person’s side in an argument, therefore you are disloyal to me, therefore you deserve to be beaten.” There is heavy pressure on women to conform to the attitudes and opinions of dominant males in their lives, or face accusations of disloyalty (you’re either with me or against me)….
any and all of these might influence women to cheerlead for warmongers… I’m sure there are lots of other possible reasons, maybe others can comment?
Re: Lynndie England and dominates brown men — so long as she still permits white men (Graner) to dominate her…
Ann Coulter also a good example. Racist but always the scant attire and cleavage (although I’ve been thinking lately that certain scant clothing is a mode of controlling males; very handy for teenage girls around naiive adoloescent boys).
Hillary, too. She positions and postures to prove she’s on board with AIPAC, West Asia project, but grand stands opposition to Rumsfeld’s „methods“.
Re: any and all of these might influence women to cheerlead for warmongers…
I find myself thinking in terms of the various four-quad „personality types“ models or four temperaments models, instead of gender. The choleric type (smashes square pegs into round holes for expediency) seems prevalent among these executors. I’d think this type can insinuate itself into power most easily by its nature, especially under current fear, frenzy and lawlessness. Look at them, human wrecking balls all, except for melancholic, introspective Wolfowitz, who’s gone, and Condi, sanguine butterfly shoe shopping during a hurricane and useful for PR but not negotiation. John Bolton and James Baker smashing vote recount in FL, in person, Bolton smashing the UN, Negroponte smashing up limits on domestic surveillance and interrogation practices; all the others… and now rottweiler Ohlmert clear cutting a path to Syria’s door with a message for Iran.
It seems to me, looking back, that two consecutive stolen elections were an imperative for them to follow through reshaping West Asia/Caspian Sea, after Clinton flanked the region, established Bondsteel in Bosnia and harassed Afghanistan. Now the petro meters are blinking red, and only two years left, U.S. elections-wise, I’d expect much more violence to wrap things up. They need the final keystone of the whole structure, occupation of oil-rich Khuzestan province of Iran and securing the sensitive Strait of Hormuz. It looks like do or die, to me, so I expect human bodies to be fed into the meat grinder at an accelerated rate. Also pretty much now convinced that the long-term plan is to Outsource Everything, including the military, so they’d dispense with as many U.S. troops as possible because they’re a political and fiscal liability when they come home…
Maybe they use a nuke on Syria for demo purposes, freeze everyone in place, or certain parts of Iran, considering they can’t occupy certain territory in the aftermath.
Questions for Stan: On a continuum from, say, mindless, choleric Boykin to introspective Wes Clark, where Clark is clueing in a little bit, and I think he quit Axciom, how much military brass would prefer a more traditional America with a Constitution, Bill of Rights, peoples’ control of the commons vs. destructive, greed-frenzy, capitalist behemoth empire? I ask because it seems to me if we could get their attention early on, they’d be more helpful than hurtful when the U.S. social fabric breaks down. Strausscon contempt for humanity means they’d bomb populations anywhere, even in the U.S., right?
I’d love a universal stand-down order right now, tell Bush to go to H*ll, to do the right thing for all the world to see. Although Washington dithers, and the genie seems too far out of the bottle at this point, We the People could begin to ask the commanders, ourselves. Only 40 years of oil left, and a lot of it will go to feed production in India/China, anyway. We need our Corps of Engineers and Halliburton worker bees here on this continent and everybody worldwide to share solutions with each other. Not war.
Michael:
I don’t even know what to say. It’s looking like Sec. of State Rice will successfully stall any cease-fire until Israel is satisified. Why can’t Israel see that this will only create more people that hate them? After eighteen years of occupation and failing to get rid of Hezbollah, why can’t they learn?
30 July 2006, 9:55 pmpeggy:
What I do not understand is why the good people of Israel (I am not being sarcastic - there are good people in Israel) do not make their way into Lebanon, which is after all right next door to them, to witness the outrage for themselves, to help however they can, and to stand, if they must, where they expect the bombs to be dropped. Are they so lacking in courage? Do they think they cannot make a difference if they intervene directly? They can make a difference, they can stop the bombing, if enough Israelis join the effort. Does anyone know of an Israel-based website that makes this call?
31 July 2006, 5:05 amTom in Tokyo:
The ambassador to the UN for the illegal, rogue-state, ethnic cleansing apartheid entity now occupying Palestine and Lebanon, the so-called State of Israel, Dan Gillerman mouthed off that they had “a right to cut out a cancer” to protect the patient. They couldn’t “stop half-way through the operation or there would be a relapse,” he said.
1 August 2006, 2:54 amRespectfully, the cancer in the Middle East IS Israel. Imposed illegaly by the US and the UK, with the collusion of the UN, on land that was stolen, not paid for, this upstart “nation” has been the sole cause of all regional strife since its inception. Fully 85% of Israel’s population never darken the door of a synagogue. It is a secular state. Being Jewish is irrelevant. The world does not hate them because they are Jewish. They are hated universally because they are monsters. They treat the Palestinians and the Lebanese like animals, Qana being the example again. If the world wants Middle East peace, we need to cut out the cancer: Israel.
dave brown:
When we think that the first Zionist plan to partition Lebanon dates from 1919, and there have been several attempts since, this latest plan that disturbs the uneasy balance of the least 5 years smacks heavily of oil.
2 August 2006, 5:13 amChossudovsky has a piece on the new oil pipline from Baku that skirts Russia and Iran and has just been completed as far as Ceyhan and which is planned to run underwater past Syria and Lebanon to Israel. Israel needs to be in control of the coast all the way down…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
DeAnander:
Shooting in Seattle
I want to tag two key elements which leap out at me. Number one: the fury of this Pakistani-American male was taken out on Jewish women. The male instinct or imperative or trained behaviour to “get back at the other guy by killing his [emphasis mine] women and children” means that women and children pay the price disproportionately wars that are started and perpetuated by men. The fury of working class whitefellas in the US, as their feudal overlords rip the “american dream” out from under them and reduce them to peonage, is disproportionately directed at feminists (”feminazis”) and Black women (”welfare queens”) etc.
Number two: it is an enduring male fantasy that violent male posturing is somehow “more in touch with reality” than “sissy” or “idealistic” notions like democracy, nonviolence, diplomacy, negotiations, etc. This highly gendered epistemological claim is embedded throughout the language in terms like “realpolitik”, “market forces,” “pragmatism,” “shock therapy” etc. and in contradistinction to (implicitly girly-man) memes like socialism, peace activism, justice, fairness, mutual aid, reciprocal altruism, etc. Men claim that the traditional male toolbox of threats, force, and brutality is somehow more authentic, more real, than “idealism”. Thus the catchphrase among neocons and centrists, “crackpot altermondialistas”.
And yet this author reveals an obfuscated truth in graf 3 above: Israel has followed the male-posturing, violent, punitive, brutal model of engagement repeatedly and it has never led to the ostensibly desired aim. Repeating the same behaviour over and over and expecting different results, as the man said, is the definition of insanity. In other words, the men who keep patting themselves on the back for being so “in touch with reality” are actually those whose behaviour pattern is delusional, contradicts observed facts on the ground. They repeat compulsively a formula which does not work.
I could draw similar examples from industry, economics, and agriculture, where the brute-domination approach to complex systems repeatedly fails to achieve desired results and instead produces not only failures, but wildly unintended consequences. In each case the men who make these delusional planning decisions do not pay the price — it is paid disproportionately by women and children.
An alternative explanation is that the planning is not delusional; that the true objective of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan was to create a political vacuum, a failed and shattered state, to destroy any chance of democracy, and to exterminate large numbers of civilians; that the true objective of Israeli hawks in Lebanon is not to make Israel more secure but to destroy Arabs or use up a surplus of munitions and materiel or create a climate of fear for domestic electoral purposes. Or that the true objective of agribusiness is to destroy farmers’ livelihoods, ruin soil, degrade watersheds and place control of world food production in the hands of a tiny elite of technomanagerial corporadoes.
Against the definition of madness above we have to put the systems theory axiom, that if an engineered system repeatedly achieves the same result over time, we should conclude that its engineers intended this result — whether they cop to it publicly or not.
So which is it? Is the masculinist elite that perpetuates these destructive behaviours mad, or bad?
3 August 2006, 7:10 pmJames M:
De: I can’t thank you enough for insights like this. And thanks also for your reply to my last question, which was very generously informative and thought-provoking.
Back to the issue at hand, I was just thinking today about the “violence-as-rational, diplomacy-as-delusional” meme, and what a powerful, ingrained, and difficult-to-combat one it is. Democrats trample over one another in efforts to exude toughness in response to it, as when Karl Rove made his cynically-calculated and tactically-brilliant remarks about them wanting to “offer therapy to terrorists.” They take the bait every time.
But, at the risk of rehashing a debate I suspect has come up before, I want to ask a question about the language you used: Is it accurate to describe this as a male trait, or a male fantasy, as you do in your second paragraph? Does that run the risk of essentializing the characteristic in question, as if to say it has some intrinsic relation to the XY chromosome?
I for one am a male who has always preferred the diplomatic / conciliatory route. Yet the women in my family, from my same gene pool, have all embraced the meme you described, at least when it comes to foreign policy … just like Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin, et al. Have these women adopted a trait which is quintessentially male, going against some supposed true feminine nature? Have I become female-identified by favoring the opposite approach? Does Ann Coulter perhaps possess more testosterone than my sissyfied beta-male body, thus possibly explaining her Adam’s apple? (Sorry, couldn’t resist a bad joke.)
Of course I understand that the system is male-dominated, and so males deserve much of the criticism. And maybe you use “male” as a necessary generalization, with the allowance for exceptions. I also understand that proponents of the meme use it to frame their objects as either strong (i.e male) or weak (i.e. female), so it obviously serves as a gendered construction which reinforces male power … but I’m asking, is it right to call it a “male fantasy”, or to say that “men claim …” when women also have bought into this fantasy, and women also make similar claims? I see it as a fantasy which reinforces male power, but not one that’s necessarily “male.” Am I splitting hairs here?
I ask not to play gotcha, but out of curiosity about the language used in discussions about gender. I’ve come to appreciate the concern for precision in language (to the extent that such a thing is possible) that people like you and Stan employ in your writings, so I’d just like to hear your thoughts on why you chose that particular wording.
4 August 2006, 12:04 amJames M:
P.S. Re-reading this sentence — “I for one am a male who has always preferred the diplomatic / conciliatory route” — reminds me of something.
Being the weird little kid I was, when I was in 2nd grade I actually established a conflict-resolution practice, where I would counsel other kids about how to peacefully resolve their disputes. Of course, as an elementary-school kid, I didn’t know the words “conflict resolution,” so I made a little sign that read
JAMES MINTON: FIGHT SETTLER
and taped it to my desk.
4 August 2006, 12:14 amElki:
Israel, is once again behaving like the big school bully, and getting applauded along by the US and UK.
My solution would be for all people to withdraw from that part of the world and make a home where it is peaceful. Let the big bullies, warts and all have it out with themselves, they haven’t got anything better to do - obviously.
4 August 2006, 6:15 amDeAnander:
James M — “male” is often a shorthand (when writing in haste) for “masculinist,” and a sloppy one at that.
I think women can definitely subscribe to a masculinist ideology. cf Right Wing Women for a start: women may conclude that their personal survival chances are better with a masculinist social structure w/in which they can find a defined and secure niche. but beyond that, women who are attracted to men may find that masculinity has a glamour of its own — that the Tough Guy archetype is valorised and encoded in this very personal, emotional matrix of self-definition, desire, etc., so that to challenge it would pull out the props from under their own self-assessment, self-worth, etc. I’m thinking here of Peggy Noonan’s retch-making gushing over Making America a Man Again post-911: surely all her swooning over burly fire fighters and (faux) Cowboy Bush was at least in part a way of saying “look look look how Womanly I am.”
there’s a lot of defining Self negatively by contrast with the Other, and it’s not always as simple as We Hate Them Because They are Not-Us… sometimes the sense of self collapses w/o that Other as the reliable foil. who am I, if I am not Not-You?
I think women who cheerlead for warmongering males are staking a claim on their own status as the preferred mates and dependents of those alpha males — seeking a sense of safety in a scary world, wanting to believe in the protection racket (Our Guys Are Good and Will Tak3 Care of Their Women and Kids), and finding reassurance and validation of their own femininity in the maintenance of an overconformist (thanks Stan) masculinity. and then there are intersecting tropes of r
4 August 2006, 8:55 pmDeAnander:
… oops hit a bad ctrl sequence, premature post…
… tropes of race and class. Warmongering women may be declaring a racial or class allegiance in their support of warmongering men.
Lastly women — in my personal experience, even extending to my own behaviour in younger days — may seek to escape the Taint of femaleness by adopting masculinist stances (which have been valorised as rational, see above), so as to disavow the stereotypically female “defects” of emotionalism, soft-heartedness, vacillation, etc. One way that conforming women can try to escape the social stigma of femaleness even while overconforming to beauty and dress codes is to “talk tough” and fall into line with masculinist social attitudes — joining in the blaming of rape survivors, turning off their empathy to victims generally, displaying nationalist blood lust, etc. An older (Edwardian) sensibility would find this “unwomanliness” disturbing but it seems to be a harmless form of pseudo-rebellion permitted to respectable women in late C20 - early C21. (Kinda like SM and porn are harmless forms of pseudo-rebellion permitted to gays and women? they reinforce rather than challenging masculinist sexual mores…)
There seems to be a pecking order in wingnut gender and race and nationalism: a white woman is a “ballbusting bitch” if she acts domineering around white men, yet she can become a wingnut cultural heroine if she pulls a Lynndie England and dominates brown men — so long as she still permits white men (Graner) to dominate her…
Perhaps women of the aggressor culture in wartime become uncomfortably aware of the brainless brutality and sadism of which their men are capable, and some respond to this by stepping up their Stand By Your Man behaviour, so as to avoid any risk of getting “on the wrong side of” the riled-up male power structure? One of the classic triggers for battering males is “you took the other person’s side in an argument, therefore you are disloyal to me, therefore you deserve to be beaten.” There is heavy pressure on women to conform to the attitudes and opinions of dominant males in their lives, or face accusations of disloyalty (you’re either with me or against me)….
any and all of these might influence women to cheerlead for warmongers… I’m sure there are lots of other possible reasons, maybe others can comment?
4 August 2006, 9:10 pmRobin Hering:
Re: Lynndie England and dominates brown men — so long as she still permits white men (Graner) to dominate her…
Ann Coulter also a good example. Racist but always the scant attire and cleavage (although I’ve been thinking lately that certain scant clothing is a mode of controlling males; very handy for teenage girls around naiive adoloescent boys).
Hillary, too. She positions and postures to prove she’s on board with AIPAC, West Asia project, but grand stands opposition to Rumsfeld’s „methods“.
Re: any and all of these might influence women to cheerlead for warmongers…
Here’s an in-depth and interesting essay that covers women in war situations. Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296
Re: the term, “masculinist elite“
I find myself thinking in terms of the various four-quad „personality types“ models or four temperaments models, instead of gender. The choleric type (smashes square pegs into round holes for expediency) seems prevalent among these executors. I’d think this type can insinuate itself into power most easily by its nature, especially under current fear, frenzy and lawlessness. Look at them, human wrecking balls all, except for melancholic, introspective Wolfowitz, who’s gone, and Condi, sanguine butterfly shoe shopping during a hurricane and useful for PR but not negotiation. John Bolton and James Baker smashing vote recount in FL, in person, Bolton smashing the UN, Negroponte smashing up limits on domestic surveillance and interrogation practices; all the others… and now rottweiler Ohlmert clear cutting a path to Syria’s door with a message for Iran.
It seems to me, looking back, that two consecutive stolen elections were an imperative for them to follow through reshaping West Asia/Caspian Sea, after Clinton flanked the region, established Bondsteel in Bosnia and harassed Afghanistan. Now the petro meters are blinking red, and only two years left, U.S. elections-wise, I’d expect much more violence to wrap things up. They need the final keystone of the whole structure, occupation of oil-rich Khuzestan province of Iran and securing the sensitive Strait of Hormuz. It looks like do or die, to me, so I expect human bodies to be fed into the meat grinder at an accelerated rate. Also pretty much now convinced that the long-term plan is to Outsource Everything, including the military, so they’d dispense with as many U.S. troops as possible because they’re a political and fiscal liability when they come home…
Maybe they use a nuke on Syria for demo purposes, freeze everyone in place, or certain parts of Iran, considering they can’t occupy certain territory in the aftermath.
Questions for Stan: On a continuum from, say, mindless, choleric Boykin to introspective Wes Clark, where Clark is clueing in a little bit, and I think he quit Axciom, how much military brass would prefer a more traditional America with a Constitution, Bill of Rights, peoples’ control of the commons vs. destructive, greed-frenzy, capitalist behemoth empire? I ask because it seems to me if we could get their attention early on, they’d be more helpful than hurtful when the U.S. social fabric breaks down. Strausscon contempt for humanity means they’d bomb populations anywhere, even in the U.S., right?
I’d love a universal stand-down order right now, tell Bush to go to H*ll, to do the right thing for all the world to see. Although Washington dithers, and the genie seems too far out of the bottle at this point, We the People could begin to ask the commanders, ourselves. Only 40 years of oil left, and a lot of it will go to feed production in India/China, anyway. We need our Corps of Engineers and Halliburton worker bees here on this continent and everybody worldwide to share solutions with each other. Not war.
5 August 2006, 12:09 pm