I don’t hold with “slut-shaming.” Nor do I hold with those who say women shouldn’t go to dangerous parts of the world–after all, our security in Iraq rests upon having female soldiers and Marines (and, occasionally, Navy women) who are willing to conduct searches of Iraqi women at safety checkpoints.
As far as torture is concerned, I think women could be very good at taking the pain, since we seem to have a slightly higher tolerance for it.
And then, there’s this comment from Retriever:
It’s interesting that people selectively focus on the gender of the victim of the crime, as if only women can be raped.
It may be recalled that one reason the Taliban gained credibility in parts of rural Afghanistan initiay was precisely because they opposed the practice by Afghan Army and police of rounding up local boys for the amusement of perverts in their HQ. Whatever one may think of the Taliban now, rural families back then perceived their boys as vulnerable to rape.
I raise this issue because certain people are trying to use this horrible Egyptian crime to suggest that women should not be allowed to report in war zones. Just what would people with this point of view say to our heroic American servicewomen already serving in far worse hellholes? Where they face similar fates if captured?
I am not arguing for callousness. But for respect for women already serving who are, quite frankly, a lot braver than the average one of us. We worry about getting mugged. They serve their country (or, in Logan’s case, try to report first hand on dangerous events) while I just blog about it.
The fact is, most of the world is filled with people who are half civilized and life is risky. I don’t think cowering in fear or keeping women locked up “safe” is the answer. I prefer “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…”
UPDATE: Women and girls in Egypt are saying “enough!”
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Sorry, we can’t hear them through the bags on their heads. And hey, your President agrees with us!
our security in Iraq rests upon having female soldiers and Marines (and, occasionally, Navy women) who are willing to conduct searches of Iraqi women at safety checkpoints
There is a small difference: they’re all armed, and trained in the use of the weapons they’re armed with, and also with unarmed combat should that need arise.
Of course, then there’s the question of is it a good idea to be reporting from the middle of a mob? Given the nature of mobs, I’m thinking the answer is no.
Let me clarify. If an individual woman wants to be the hot-shot reporter from the war zone, more power to her. I do not think that we should be so paternalistic as to outlaw those risks. Likewise, there have always been women who have disguised themselves as men in order to risk their lives for their country and their beliefs, on the front lines of a battlefield.
What irks me is that we do not so much as even tell these young women that they are more at risk than their male peers. (Risk is a probability issue, so for those saying that men also get raped – fine – but be aware of the probabilities. Also be aware that most males who are raped are underage; far fewer strong, healthy adult males are raped than are adult females.) The hard-left feminists are more than happy to say that women have “rape schedules” and have a particular fear of rape when walking home alone at night, or while at a party, but flatly refuse to apply the same standards to other situations. It’s asinine.
Rape is not the only risk reporters face–particularly in the Middle East. Go ask Daniel Pearl’s family . . .
I dunno, Roxeanne. Is a sexualized beating worse than another kind of beating? Is a rape worse than another kind of brutality or torture? And is informing young women that they must be careful at parties, and on public streets, tantamount to not informing them that North Africa–and other war zones–are awful places, particularly for women?
I wonder how much of her judgment in going into the crowd was colored by the fact that US lefty mobs and media are usually on the same side…?
LMA: no… not what I meant. “A” does not preclude “B”, but when you talk only about “A” and say that “B” is repressive and a symptom of the patriarchy, there’s a problem.
My question – unanswered – is why we warn women about frat parties as a matter of course but consider that warning them about the dangers of a war zone is taken to be some sort of anti-feminist act.
I’m not saying to forbid women anything, but I’m a huge fan of giving people information so that they can make a decision that they feel comfortable with. A woman who knows that she faces the real, elevated risk of rape, much beyond what she would see on a college campus, can think, “On the balance, that’s a chance worth taking” and decide to be a superstar international reporter. (Go, girl!) If the worst happens, there’s less self-recrimination – not that she was asking for it or any other b.s., but that she logically assessed the risks. (At least for me, looking back on my decision-making process has helped me to avoid some serious self-recrimination – I don’t think, “I should have known”, I think, “I knew I was taking this risk, and I knew it was worthwhile because of A, B, and C, so deep breath, and onward.”) If she feels like the harm or the magnitude of the risk was not presented accurately, she can try to change the discussion to be better serve the next group of women who try that.
That process cannot happen when we shut down the discussion of risks that women take in the professional world that are different or greater than the risks men take. Those decisions run the gamut from taking time off to be with a newborn, taking on debt to go to professional school (schools costing what they do, servicing the debt does influence the “when” of starting a family, or how many children to have – that this is also a man issue doesn’t change the fact that women’s childbearing years are more limited), or taking a high-risk job requiring either physical force (that for most women, even spectacular athletes, just isn’t what men have) or the risk of rape.
Obviously, I’m not advocating that we make those decisions for women, just that we don’t shut down discussion out of a misguided notion of political correctness. (And, I know this is your blog, but I do consider verbal slights of hand, such as “And is informing young women that they must be careful at parties, and on public streets, tantamount to not informing them that North Africa–and other war zones–are awful places, particularly for women?” to be shutting down the discussion, because it’s a disingenuous interpretation of my remarks.)
Sorry for the rant, but please consider my perspective. I’m in a situation in which I mentor a lot of teenagers and early twenty-somethings; my parents are always willing to examine the downsides of things with me, because they care and want to make sure that I’m not making mistakes. Yet I run into young people all the time who have been stuffed full of rainbows and unicorns that they are incredulous at the notion that things might not turn out exactly as planned – even when “exactly as planned” has about a 1% chance of happening and massive risks. It’s like it’s more important for the alleged “adults” to feel good about themselves by spouting bromides than it is to do the hard work of guiding people through a cost-benefit analysis.
And that’s not even about physical violence or rape – it’s about money and careers and normal stuff. When it comes to violence, it’s even more unconscionable (IMHO) to, in the immortal words of the Queen of Swords, to “blow sunshine up someone’s a–“.
Not that we need to be total pessimists and stomp on people’s dreams, but basic common sense would dictate that we give people an accurate description of the risks and let them figure out if those risks are worthwhile, and what contingency plans can be made, and what precautions can be taken to avoid them.
Let’s see. 1) I agreed with most of your post, and perhaps should have been clearer about that. I only had two caveats, which I expressed above. 2) My question was actually sincere, rather than an attempt to distort what you said, because I am not sure where you got the idea that Ms. Logan thought there was no risk of being assaulted (in either a sexual way or a non-sexual way) in Cairo. Does any journalist reporting from a war zone actually think that? Particularly in a part of the world where journalists have been targeted in the way they were in Cairo before Ms. Logan got beat up?
We agree more than we disagree, here: we both think that young women are served very badly by the dominant culture–both in terms of managing their relationships with males and in terms of keeping their risk-profiles low WRT physical assault.
The fact is, North Africa can be a very dangerous place–even for males who look like they might be American or Northern European. They get killed there sometimes for their pocket change. Add the risks of being a woman nearly anywhere on top of that, and then the fact of its being a war zone–and the situation becomes very dangerous, indeed.
But I’m not sure Ms. Logan was unaware of any of that.
Agree. 🙂
My complaint was with the “feminists” (like Jill Filipovic) who excoriate anyone who points out, “Hey, riots can be inhospitable places for men and women, and Middle Eastern countries can be inhospitable for women – maybe CBS should have kept her safer, maybe she could have reported out of the riot….”. They do this while yelling about Superbowl Sunday and domestic violence, which is why I’m appalled.
By the way, I think that John McCain is a testament to the horrific treatment that men can receive in armed conflict – that he cannot raise his arms above his head, even forty years later, demonstrates how much at risk everyone is.
The human body is so very fragile, and human nature is so very twisted.