Rape used as weapon in DR Congo war

reply to post by Aeons


The suggestion is choosing a path that may or may not result in death. You speak of it as though it were a certainty. A high likelihood is still not a certainty. Nor have I suggested the women stand on their own. What man sits idly by and permits the raping of his wife?

So I ask again, what do you suggest?

Men are taken out and killed, or overwhelmed by a group.

Again, not all men are trained to know how to stop a surprise raid of ten men who are trained. But even so that is why they subdue the men FIRST.

The first thing that needs to be challenged in this is the whole underlying notion of sexual purity. The rejection brought upon victims.

That is the FIRST place to challenge. Men in these societies need to rise above their cultural reaction. Not only is this better for the victims, it is better for their society and wrecks one of the goals of the enemy.

The anti-dote to this societal poison, which also takes away the REASON to use this form of terror to begin with. When it won't work to perpetuate the cultural destruction, then the use of it as a tactic will diminish.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


When I was 3 years old I sat in an ant pile accidentally and quickly learned that even though I was physically bigger and stronger, I was greatly outnumbered and went crying home to moma.

I've seen little Chinese women trained in karate that could kick some serious hiney. We're talking females who are 4 foot 9 inches and weigh what my 11 year old son weighs.

I'm not the kind of girl to whine about injustices being done or, like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind, "rely on tha kydnuss uf straynguhs"

Having been an abused female, I can tell ya, those big tough macho men back off pretty darn quick when you wallop them upside the head with a 9" frying pan. Stab them in the knee cap with a sharpened #2 pencil even and you might get a broken nose for your trouble but while they're tending to their wound, you can re-arm.

Women don't have to be helpless. No one has to be helpless. Saying that because they're bigger, stronger and better armed is reason enough to submit is tantamount to saying that because our government is bigger, stronger and better armed than the individual citizen is reason enough to obey their tyrannical oppression too. It's not. "When a long train of abuses ....."

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The foolz dont see the DEMONS THAT AWAIT TO RAPE THEM IN THE AFTERLIFE during their long long walk thru the DARKNESS. I cannot wait till they scream for mercy and no being is there to help them as no 1 was there to help their rape victims..........ILL BUT VERY FAIR

Originally posted by Aeons

The anti-dote to this societal poison, which also takes away the REASON to use this form of terror to begin with. When it won't work to perpetuate the cultural destruction, then the use of it as a tactic will diminish.

Yes it will. The other side of the coin is a society that accepts rape as a lifestyle and a tactic that moves from destructive to one of leisure and pastime. The abusers remain abusers and the abused remain abused.

reply to post by whitewave


Your tirade doesn't make women enmass suddenly into trained Ninjas with lasanga cooking skills, just all waiting for the potential of an army of men to descend on them.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aeons

The anti-dote to this societal poison, which also takes away the REASON to use this form of terror to begin with. When it won't work to perpetuate the cultural destruction, then the use of it as a tactic will diminish.

Yes it will. The other side of the coin is a society that accepts rape as a lifestyle and a tactic that moves from destructive to one of leisure and pastime. The abusers remain abusers and the abused remain abused.

That is already the case in most of the World. Only, they are married to their rapists and its considered normal. They also have no political or legal standing in society.

Your solution would only work in most societies if, you first either got the men to back off long enough to get women rights and legal protections so that you could get them training. OR....

the men have to have a mass die off in most of these nations, and then someone with training has to go in and show women how to fight. Then have the political systems changed by force.

Your attitude rejects the obvious oppression that women have existed under for thousands of years. That it isn't a simple, hey weakling grab a skillet and pummel those soliders and isn't in any way close to an effective or realistic solution.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons

Your solution would only work in most societies if, you first either got the men to back off long enough to get women rights and legal protections so that you could get them training. OR....

If we're in a war zone laws and rights are a moot point.

the men have to have a mass die off in most of these nations, and then someone with training has to go in and show women how to fight. Then have the political systems changed by force.

This almost makes it sound as though the husbands of the victimized women are complicit in their rape. If that is truly the case and these women are truly on their own perhaps the best thing for the region would be a mass extinction.

Your attitude rejects the obvious oppression that women have existed under for thousands of years. That it isn't a simple, hey weakling grab a skillet and pummel those soliders isn't in any way close to an effective or realistic solution.

My attitude reflects my experience and my knowledge of the women in my life.

The reason rights and legal protections are important to this discussion, is that one cannot get training or money to even pay for it, when you cannot work, are not legally protected when you do protect yourself, are not allowed to leave your house, and if you are victimized you are considered complicit in it. If you are victimized by your husband, it is a RIGHT he has not a right you have to bodily integrity.

Even the POSSIBILTY of training for defense isn't possible for most women.

When it is, society still rejects it. Therefore singling out women who pursuse it. Even participating in sports is frowned up for women the World over.

To expect that suddenly BILLIONS of women who are taught from birth to submit, and are kept pregnant and without means, are suddenly enmass going to find themselves in possession of ninja skills and combat training to fight off potential invasions is so far removed from reality you cannot possibly be serious.

You are talking about taking people who don't even work out, are busy beyond measure so have no time to pursue it, have societal and legal and family pressures to be weak, and a lifetime of training to avoid conflict with men, and are civilians and turning them into a 21st Century soldiers.

And you think that this is an obvious and simple solution.

And this is ignoring the fact that your solution is to completely bring every society into the industrial-military-complex as a preference for societies.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


I dont know about this "world over" position. Last I knew the champion skeet shooter in the U.S. was a woman. Last time I taught a concealed carry class there were 11 women and one man in the room.

Besides, law doesnt matter. Lord knows illegal activities occur every second of every minute. You mean to tell me that the very act of slaughtering and raping are actually legally sanctioned therefore permissible but raising an arm in ones own defense being illegal is impossible? It's ridiculous in the face of blatently illegal action to use legality as an excuse for inaction.

Now let us examine the idea that all the women instead choosing death would be better.

Well, first of all, then these men would simply take GIRLS. Who then grow into women.

Secondly, if a society suddenly finds itself in the position of a significant reduction in the number of females to males - say if 1/3 to 1/2 of the population decided that death was preferable to rape - what would that do to the remaining society. The children of a generation killed off.

Would those men left, just dry up and blow away?

Well, evidence of the past would seem to show that it is highly likely that this society of men would turn their violence to the exterior of their society in an attempt to find women.

There is an interesting piece of conjecture out their about why the Viking went from being an internally focused society to a pillaging society of males so quickly. The answer appears to be that the society had created a significant male to female ratio difference, through killing women when their men died and female infanticide.

So the "prefer death" solution doesn't work so well either.

reply to post by Aeons


I say if these men were to turn their attention outward they would be in for a bit of a shock. Warlords may be able to rampage with impunity over third world deserts but entering into a first world nation would be another task entirely.

Though there are many factors which will influence the outcome of this. One being certain nations propensity to accept and tolerate the brutish behavior of these individuals as we have seen with these little Shariah neighborhoods popping up all over Europe living largely isolated from the society that surrounds them.

Another factor would be the mobile mass recruiting and pillaging as they move about. But still, a million strong force with jeeps and HK91's wont stand up to well to carpet bombing and ICBM's.

I doubt there are many worldwide who would sympathize with or offer aid to this type of force. At least the type of aid that would make them a global 3rd Reich style threat.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Aeons

 

I dont know about this "world over" position. Last I knew the champion skeet shooter in the U.S. was a woman. Last time I taught a concealed carry class there were 11 women and one man in the room.

Besides, law doesnt matter. Lord knows illegal activities occur every second of every minute. You mean to tell me that the very act of slaughtering and raping are actually legally sanctioned therefore permissible but raising an arm in ones own defense being illegal is impossible? It's ridiculous in the face of blatently illegal action to use legality as an excuse for inaction.

World over. Yes. Indeed. One of the reasons women's sports isn't advancing as fast as mens is that their are far fewer competitors and teams and levels upon which to hone skills. Because sport participation is a First World, and a middle-class to rich First World thing for women. Of the women that participate outside of those, they are a select few who are supported by grants and still have way fewer opportunities to competitively train to improve skills.

Most of the World, women don't have even the slightest possibility to train for skills in defense let alone skills to combat an army.

And yes, defending oneself from rape isn't legal in many areas. If you did, you'd have to prove he was attacking you. With witnesses. How many rapists attack in public? And if they do attack with witnesses, you can assume that the witnesses are there WITH HIM. So if the woman hurts or kills him, SHE is the criminal.

In many socieites, men can pay their way out of rape. Women and the other hand are ostracized, or even forced to marry their rapists, or killed. Because the real crime is the rape. It is that you were raped, and then caused societal problems by being hurt or talking about it.

Further, when you don't have a job you don't make money. In many places women's property isn't their own. So even if you do many money, it isn't yours. So as a girl, you'd have to hope that your FATHER would pay for you to have traning in defense or offense, and he wouldn't do that because it isn't womanly and makes you bad marriage material. Which is your main worth.

As a grown woman, you'd have to have the TIME to do it. Which if your spouse isn't helping you with household and parental duties, you don't have. Even if you have money - which is probably legally his. Now, let us say that everything bucks societal convention. Now you have to find someone who WILL train you for real - not just barely at all. If you are even allowed to train in defense or offensive tactics. Sometimes, you cannot even GET to a place to train. You have no rights to transport, or the money to pay for it.

Now let us instead think, one lives in a more modernized society.

The reality that if suddenly an army of trained soldiers landed upon your city, and secured a community. They outnumber the men. First they remove the men. Then you expect that somehow the women would instead choose to fight instead of being raped. Which alot of them would. IF they weren't being held in seclusion in their respective houses. Which groups of soldiers then go into.

You think that these women, regular suburban women will somehow subdue an army of trained soldiers whose mission is to commit rapes. Individually.

How is it the logistical problem you are talking about isn't clueing into you?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Aeons

 

I say if these men were to turn their attention outward they would be in for a bit of a shock. Warlords may be able to rampage with impunity over third world deserts but entering into a first world nation would be another task entirely.

Though there are many factors which will influence the outcome of this. One being certain nations propensity to accept and tolerate the brutish behavior of these individuals as we have seen with these little Shariah neighborhoods popping up all over Europe living largely isolated from the society that surrounds them.

Another factor would be the mobile mass recruiting and pillaging as they move about. But still, a million strong force with jeeps and HK91's wont stand up to well to carpet bombing and ICBM's.

I doubt there are many worldwide who would sympathize with or offer aid to this type of force. At least the type of aid that would make them a global 3rd Reich style threat.

Nations don't care about women being brutalized. Not even yours.

Women and children are an acceptable offering to maintain less conflict.

You think that your nation will go to war to defend women?

Evidence suggests otherwise.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons

How is it the logistical problem you are talking about isn't clueing into you?

Right away I see you are making the assumption that the men will be rounded up and removed. I am not making that assumption. Again based on my experience and the men I know around me.

If I do not make that assumption conflict begins there and our two scenarios are vastly different.

Originally posted by Aeons

You think that your nation will go to war to defend women?

No, I dont expect the nation would. But if this warring mob is moving outward we are to assume the women are all dead. Are we not?

Are you under the impression that you and your buddies are somehow superheros in comparison to all the other men on the planet?

There is a reason why there are trained armies. And your local neighbourhood buddies probably aren't a militia force that trains regularly together.

[edit on 2009/10/23 by Aeons]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aeons

You think that your nation will go to war to defend women?

No, I dont expect the nation would. But if this warring mob is moving outward we are to assume the women are all dead. Are we not?

Just enough women in the society to create a significant male-to-female difference.

Hey, if they have enough resources, they might just increase the slave trade and instead turn to the black market. Thereby increasing the profits and horrors of the slave trade.

So still think that choosing death or rape is the better course. Or have you reconsidered that yet.

reply to post by Aeons


No, I'm under the impression that a state filled with hunters, competitive shooters, military veterans and lifelong outdoorsmen wouldnt simply march isingle file to their deaths.

Originally posted by Aeons

So still think that choosing death or rape is the better course. Or have you reconsidered that yet.

I still see it as the only course since none other has been offered.