BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women

Subject: Domestic Terrorism Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 08:51 AM

In the wake of the supposed "liberation" of Afghanistan, and all the talk of the importance of women's rights there, I thought some here might find this article of interest (from the Common Dreams News website):

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1113-07.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:32 AM

Click here for link
It's an interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:54 AM

I said this previously, but it bears repeating:

That is a little like comparing Niagara Falls to a leaky faucet.

Sure, both are "running water", but it simply is not the same thing. Not even close.

*NO* woman is safe in many restrictive fundamentalist Muslim nations. Not unless she stays at home, obeys her male head of household with *no* error, and insures that not even an inch of skin ever shows. If she fails, she risks being *stoned to death*. Not 7 since 1977...7 in the last month alone (if one combines all the zealously fundamentalist Muslim nations).

I'll take the US version of "terrorism against women" over the pain and suffering that women daily deal with in many fundamentalist muslim nations any time.

I can tell my Father/Husband/Brother to screw off if I like here, and not fear being *legally* killed for it. I can travel without a male member of my family, and not fear being *legally* killed for it. I can wear what I like, and even if I *do* break the law, I do not have to fear being *legally* killed for it...

*ALL* without so much as a trial in many cases.

No, the US is not perfect for women (or anyone else, for that matter)...but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives in repressive fundamentalist Muslim nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:52 PM

While all terrorism is abhorant, you eloquently state the differences Celtic Soul. Well Done&Kindest regards, Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:04 PM

I see. You mail anthrax to Congress and it is terrorism. But you mail anthrax to an abortion clinic, and it isn't terrorism?

Can't have it both ways.

It is true that in some Muslim countries (not all) that women can be killed legally, with impunity. It is also true that, while illegal, many women in the US are murdered with impunity as well.

We seem to have a profoundly disturbing double standard here.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:20 PM

Bravo, Celtic Soul, you fucking genius, you.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: SharonA
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:29 PM

GUEST: Of course mailing anthrax to an abortion clinic is terrorism (as is the act of making threats to mail it); no one said it wasn't terrorism.

Now, about killing women: "with impunity" means "with exemption or freedom from punishment, harm or loss"; the only murderers in the US who are not punished are the ones who haven't been caught or who have abused the government's legal system in order to get away with their murders. This is not at all the same thing as having the government support and even perform the murders (e.g. the Taliban arranging for its agents to run airliners into buildings full of people). I don't see a double standard. If and when the people who sent anthrax through the US mail are caught, there will be no impunity for them regardless of the destination of their letters.

Celtic Soul (re the US vs. repressive fundamentalist Muslim nations): Hear, hear! Let's not forget about the forced castration of female children in many countries. How repressive is THAT – to be so concerned that a woman not be tempted to stray from her husband that men are willing to risk the deaths of their young daughters, just for the sake of taking away any chance these girls might have of ever experiencing pleasure in intimacy.

And, of course, girls have no say in the choice of their husbands; they're just traded off for as much merchandise as their fathers can get for them, while the safety (from abuse) of the young women in their future homes is not of primary concern.

So females in these repressive nations are not even safe at home. The hell with all the rhetoric about how women have to hide their faces because they are prized like pearls; they're treated worse than cattle, and apparently considered less valuable.

Yep, the US ain't perfect, but it's preferable to some places. I'm not sure what GUEST's point is. Yes, we have zealots here who are willing to terrorize and kill abortionists for their beliefs, but again, they are acting outside the law. The zealots will quote statistics to support the view that each abortion is a legally-sanctioned murder. Other zealots will say that contraception is murder-before-the-fact. Yes, it's true that the US is not a safe place for some of the embryos and fetuses of irresponsible women who can't say "no" to casual sex, but if the alternative is to have the government say "no" to so much more, and to say it for ALL women, I'll still take the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:30 PM

Something perhaps worth looking at:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:59 PM

Terrorism is terrorism. What does it matter who does it or where. People who mail anthax to and threaten abortion clinics should get the same treatment as people who mail anthrax to and threaten the white house!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Owlkat
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:05 PM

I'm sorry, but I think something basic is being missed here. I hope this doesn't sound too long winded, but I think it is important to say...
It is clear that women in fundementalist Islamic countries are vulnerable to explicit state sanctioned oppression and death. However, in western society women are targets of the same, but it doesn't seem nearly so bad because it happens in an implicit way.
In western films, books, television, and music videos, there are unending images of violence and death of women in obscenely cruel detail. The pornography industries make billions while women's shelters hold bake sales to pay the rent.
Keep in mind that the violators of abortion clinics aren't just attacking an affront to their religious beliefs. These clinics represent an essential part of the women's movement to take back control of their sexuality, fertility, but most of all, the choice to decide what they will do with their own bodies. This is an intolerable position for a fundementalist to deal with, since he can no longer claim property rights to the female body. It's about time. But, the attitude seems to be, as usual, "If I can't have her, than nobody will." And anti-choicers seldom get legal penalties of any serious consequence for their violence, oppression, assault, and murder.
The courts award male violence against women with wrist-slaps, if the cases actually make it through the "justice" system. Legally, the actual sentences handed out for killing women reduce the seriousness of the crime to almost misdemenour status.
Resources to protect encourage women in western society are always a secondary consideration after state funding allocation for such considerations as weapons,and corporate subsidies,
Whether you are willing to open your eyes and look or not; it is a very sad fact that domestic violence and terrorism resulting in injury or death in a fundamentalist state, whether Muslim, or Christian is still a norm, reflected in the absence of any real legal, or political consequences.
In western society, men also disenfranchise, abuse, hurt, terrorize, and kill women and and with the state's implicit approval, commonly get away with it. Pointing a finger at someone else and claiming that their excessive barbarity excuses your own is no excuse at all. These expressions of rage at someone else's apparent backwardness are simplistic and tedious. Proclamations that "we are so much better than them" are commonly used by those afraid to look at the mote in their own eyes.
Respectfully
Owl

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:38 PM

Owlkat, I certainly feel as strongly as you do about violence against women; it should not be tolerated by any society, explicitly or implicitly. I think and hope that most of my fellow US citizens agree with me on this. There are many injustices in the world, and many in my own country. We in the US are not perfect, legally or culturally.

However, our failure to adequately protect everyone in our society does not equate to "the state's implicit approval" of acts of violence. The last time I checked, the legal penalties for murdering a woman were the same as for murdering a man. And most people I know -- people who might well sit on juries dealing with these very issues -- would be inclined to treat both crimes with equal seriousness, and issue the same penalties regardless of the sex of the victim. You have drastically overstated US society's acceptance of violent crime against women, and I think this overstatement hurts your credibility, and possibly your cause. I would suggest that you consider whether more temperate statements would make your point more effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:52 PM

2 things: one, "forced castration of female children" - I'd like to see you try to find any female with the right apparatus for that operation. I think what was meant was mutilation.

And the other, Celtic Soul, you shocked me, and that's not easy. OUR government DOES support acts which in a more enlightened culture would be considered terrorism, it's implicit in the acquittals for murdering mere abortion doctors or women or blacks or anybody else that is downtrodden. It supports them EXPLICITLY by naming vociferous anti-abortion extremists to positions of power, like Attorney General or Surgeon General, or by getting rid of anybody who like Joycelyn Elders didn't support the religious anti-sex attitudes by (for example) promoting abstinence over masturbation. And so on. Again, yes it's illegal to kill people, but boy is it tolerated and even encouraged by our people AND our government. Not to mention how atheists are treated, the putting of Christian god stuff on our money and in our courts and schools and Pledge of Allegiance (which shouldn't be mandatory ANYWAY, it's not the FLAG that we should honor, it's that which it represents)... you can't even testify in our courts without invoking some supernatural being, our president prays when he ought to be acting (OK, and he acts when he ought to be thinking, but that is a separate issue) - I mean, what other industrialized nation's leader calls on the supernatural to help them do their job???!? We're a LAUGHINGSTOCK outside our borders, and with reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: SharonA
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:05 PM

Owlkat, I agree with Whistle Stop. I would like to read statistics or see links that support your statements, particularly your claim that "anti-choicers seldom get legal penalties of any serious consequence for their violence, oppression, assault, and murder." Please, if you would, provide us with more information on this. Thank you.

I must say, though, that I don't think anyone here has been "pointing a finger at someone else and claiming that their excessive barbarity excuses your own". Some of us are saying that we women have it better in the US than in (more) repressive nations, but we're not saying that we are better. There's a big difference!

Speaking of links, here are some links about female castration, or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), about which I spoke earlier in this thread. These sites, in turn, have links to yet more information:

Female Genital Mutilation in Africa, Middle East and Far East

Female Genital Mutilation in North America and Europe

FGM Network

This is one form of abuse against women – in the US and elsewhere – that particularly outrages me. If anyone reading this doesn't know what it's all about (or even if you do, and want more info), please check it out. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: SharonA
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:10 PM

Mrrzy: You're right; I should have said "female circumcision", not "castration". Mea culpa.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:37 PM

From Madison Ave, Hollywood and our court systems, it is just more subtle, but it does exist.

A few years ago I wrote an op/ed piece on the fact that in Wyoming a man can still get more jail time and fines for stealing someone's cattle, than he will for beating his wife, which is considered a misdeameanor. That beating syndrome most often ends in murder and still the laws are not changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:04 PM

As to legal protections to anti-abortion terrorists, try this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortionappeal010328.html

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: DougR
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:32 PM

Sharon, one cannot provide substantive back-up for opinion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Gypsy
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:48 PM

I do understand your stand, CS. But, while it is terrible what happens over there, it doesn't excuse what can happen here. The article was well written, and i think that the terrorist attempts on AB clinics is unconcienable.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:52 AM

Celtic Soul,

Part of the problem lies in the ways that misogynist violence is accepted in this country as a quid pro quo, both politically and in the media. American fundamentalism's extremely negative attitudes towards women, which both politicians and journalists benefit from presenting as mainstream, moral majoritarian, or populist to an ignorant public hostile to social change for women, isn't what Americans would consider reasonable, any more than we view the Afghan fundamentalists views of women reasonable.

Yet, because so many religious, political, and media people put a liberal face on extremist right wing fanatics, and give them legitimacy by claiming them to be populist, grassroots "men's movements" we see the sort of disbelief you are expressing in your post.

I'm going to follow up with an article from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) website, which illustrates what I'm talking about. Hopefully, people might be able to start making some of the connections between these shadowy right wing extremists and the Republican party loyalists which support and nurture them.

I heard the "Whaddya Know" guy on public radio refer to the fundamentalist ministers Falwell & Robertson as "the American Taliban" the other day. Funny, yes, but in a wincing sort of way because it has that ring of truth to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:54 AM

Far-Right Militias and Anti-Abortion Violence When Will Media See the Connection? By Laura Flanders When the Oklahoma City bombing captured the attention of the mainstream media, some women's rights activists expected that the attack would end mainstream media's reluctance to report on violence against abortion-providers and other domestic terror threats. That reasonable hope was dashed.

With its first reporting of the Oklahoma story, the New York Times (4/20/95) ran a list headlined "Other Bombings in America", which spanned four decades and included some attacks that claimed no injuries or lives. But none of the 40 officially documented bombings that have targeted women's clinics in that period was mentioned.

Media investigations of where right-wing militants get their violent ideas generally ignored the Army of God manual, which recommends 65 ways to destroy abortion clinics and includes an illustrated recipe for making a "fertilizer bomb" from ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. The manual turned up in 1993, buried in the backyard of an anti-abortionist indicted for arson and acid attacks on nine clinics. But headline-writers avoided describing it as a "Manual for Terrorists," as the New York Times identified a militia document in 1995 (4/29/95).

The first person convicted of violence against a women's health center ignited a gas can in a crowded New York City clinic in 1979. Since 1982, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, there have been 169 arson and bomb attacks on women's health centers in 33 states. In the '90s, when five workers in such clinics have been murdered, people calling themselves "pro-life" publicly advocate violence as a way to make legally sanctioned abortion impossibly unsafe.

In January 1994, the Supreme Court agreed with pro-choice groups that anti-abortionists could legitimately be investigated for conspiracy, but influential media have been harder to convince. In fact, the national media's gentle handling of the anti-abortion story has amounted to a quasi-conspiracy itself.

See No Terrorists

Four days before the first abortion provider was killed in Florida in 1993, directors of women's health centers in that state and Texas held a news conference to call attention to an organized campaign of terror that was striking clinics across the U.S. The New York Times (3/6/93) portrayed that event as a pro-choice publicity stunt: "Like a conclave of unreconstructed Cold Warriors, [pro-choicers] appeared intent on fighting new battles, to avoid becoming victims of their own success," the Times' Felicity Barringer wrote.

When Dr. David Gunn was shot three days later outside his clinic in Pensacola, rather than investigate the feminists' claims that Gunn's killing was part of an organized strategy, the newspapers of record reported the death as if it had been fated: "A Collision of Causes", the Washington Post labeled it (3/13/93); "Separate Visions on Bettering Lives Collide" was the New York Times' headline (3/14/93). Dr. Gunn and his killer were presented as somehow equivalent: both men were "consumed by abortion," according to another Post story (3/12/93) that was headlined "Doctor, Accused Killer both Impassioned".

The World Trade Center bombing, a month earlier, had been reported without the talk of "impassioned" victims and terrorists "colliding." Nor were advocates of anti-Western terrorism turned into credible media commentators.

But after Pensacola, anti-abortion zealots, even criminals, were regularly sought out by media for their views. Many news organizations quoted John Burt, the regional director of Rescue America, the group whose anti-choice demonstration Michael Griffin attended on the day he shot Gunn. The Washington Post (3/13/93) cited Michael Bray, "another Project Rescue leader," without mentioning that Bray was a convicted clinic-bomber. (He'd targeted several abortion clinics and the offices of the National Abortion Federation and the ACLU.)

In late 1993 (12/8/93), Nightline's Ted Koppel hosted an in-studio discussion of doctor-killing. His only guests were Helen Alvare, a representative of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (which issued a statement post-Pensacola comparing the violence of murder with the "violence of abortion"), and Paul Hill, director of the anti-abortion group "Defensive Action," which advocates killing doctors on the grounds that abortion is violence.

Ted Koppel echoed this definition of violence when he opened the show by comparing the number of legal abortions with the number of murdered doctors--what he called "the latest casualty count from the battlefield between the pro-life and the pro-choice movements." Although terrorism is one of Koppel's favorite subjects--FAIR's study of Nightline counted 52 programs on the topic in 40 months (Extra!, 1-2/89)--the word "terrorism" was never used by him to describe anti-abortion violence. Instead, a sympathetic Koppel said that Hill's advocacy of murdering doctors raised a "very, very difficult moral question." (See Extra! Update, 2/94.)

Hill, like Griffin, was a protege of John Burt, whose group issued a wanted poster for Dr. John Bayard Britton, Gunn's replacement. The poster "exposed" Britton "for the butcher that he is." Seven months after his appearance on Nightline, Hill gunned down Britton and James Barrett, his escort, at the same Pensacola clinic.

See No Agenda

With all the media's familiarity with these "pro-lifers," it's surprising that Koppel, the Washington Post, the New York Times, et al. have had such a hard time cottoning on to the fact that militia men and anti-abortion zealots can sometimes be one and the same.

Not all anti-abortionists are advocates of violence, nor do all militias put stopping abortion on the top of their list of goals. But while it would be wrong to lump both groups entirely together, it's equally indefensible for mainstream media to have kept militia who target federal agents, and the anti-abortion militants who target feminists (and women, especially poor women), so far apart.

John Burt, a former Klansman, borrows tactics like his "wanted" posters from the KKK, and says that "fundamentalist Christians and those people [the KKK] are pretty close." (The Progressive, 10/94) Paul Hill told USA Today (3/7/94), "I could envision a covert organization developing -- something like a pro-life IRA."

Anti-abortion activists like these share agendas, rhetoric and tactics with the militia. Others, like Matthew Trewhella, director of Missionaries to the Preborn, have formed militia groups of their own. Trewhella pastors a church-based militia whose priority is defeating abortion. He's also a member of the National Committee of the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP), what Covert Action (Spring/95) calls "one of the largest poltical manifestations of the theocratic wing of the Christian right."

In 1994, Planned Parenthood released a video showing Trewhella speaking at a Wisconsin state USTP convention. "What should we do?" Trewhella asked. "We should do what thousands of people across the nation are doing. We should be forming militias." According to Planned Parenthood, the USTP sold a Free Militia manual on how to form an underground army. Defending the "right to life" against "legalized abortion" is the first of the manual's stated reasons why one should take up arms.

Following the December 1994 shootings of two health clinic workers in Brookline, Mass., Reuters ran an investigative story, "Chilling New Link Suspected Among Anti-Abortion Activists" (1/13/95), that connected Brookline murder suspect John Salvi with militia activism, but the Reuters piece was overwhelmingly ignored.

See No Link

In December 1994, NBC refused to air a segment of the program TV Nation in which Roy McMillan of the Mississippi-based Christian Action Group said that assassinating Supreme Court justices would be justifiable homicide, and that the pesident was in "probable harms way." TV Nation producer Michael Moore believes that the airing of the segment could have led to arrests that might have prevented the Brookline clinic killings. "It's a federal offense to say the president should be killed," Moore told USA Today (1/16/95). Eventually the interview aired on the BBC in Britain, but not in the U.S.

Long before the Oklahoma bombing sent reporters scrambling for militia information, mainstream media had Planned Parenthood's research. "All the national networks and the major dailies have had our material for over a year," Planned Parenthood's Fred Clarkson said in May 1995. But most national news outlets skipped the story. Last fall, in the wake of Paul Hill's arrest, Newsweek went so far as to commission a special investigation of rising right-wing violence, including anti-abortion militants and extremist militias.

After the Oklahoma City suspects turned out not to be Arabs, the networks' favorite terrorist experts were flummoxed, so producers had to find other people who knew something about militias. And national news outlets did turn to researchers like Clarkson and others who could draw the lines between various violent far-right movements. A news producer at one major cable network, however, rescinded an invitation for Clarkson to appear just hours before the scheduled broadcast. "He said they couldn't have someone from Planned Parenthood on about militias," Clarkson told Extra!, "because they'd have angry pro-life viewers calling in and they didn't want to take that heat."

That kind of intimidation does influence how these issues are covered. New York Times columnist Frank Rich has been one of the few journalists to pick up on the Planned Parenthood's information about Trewhella's involvement with militias--his column "Connect the Dots" ran April 30--but it's a connection that his own paper has been loath to make. After a May 15 press conference, Clarkson heard from reporters that the "evidence of a link" between anti-abortion and militia activity was inadequate.

"For some reason, the same blind eye that's been turned to the domestic terrorism we call clinic violence remains turned that way even when we have militia groups among whose major issues is being opposed to abortion," Clarkson told FAIR's CounterSpin radio show (5/19/95).

"When people say can you prove a link between militias and anti-abortion groups, I have to say no," said Clarkson. "There's no link. They're the same people in very many cases.... Abortion is part of the agenda. It's not a separate issue, it's the same."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:20 AM

Mrrzy, Owlkat and Gypsy...

You all have very good points. But consider for a moment the original posters comment: "In the wake of the supposed "liberation" of Afghanistan, and all the talk of the importance of women's rights there, I thought some here might find this article of interest".

Our unnamed Guest, the originator of this thread, drew the comparison him/herself. My intent was to point out that it is an unfair comparison. Yes, you are absolutely correct, there is injustice here, and in any and all Western nations. But compare the 2 for a moment.

The women of Afghanistan and other repressive Islamic fundamentalist nations have been forced from jobs, some having been Professors at Colleges, some Doctors, and still they were made to go sit in houses where windows are painted black so that no one can see in (and conversly, they cannot see out). Not some of the women...all of them. They are stripped of all ability to make *any* decisions for themselves, and forced into what I believe to be nothing less than slavery, prized for nothing more than their ability to produce sons. They are killed *with impunity* in the streets for no more reason than that their Burqas are blown by the wind and flesh exposed. And the suicide rate since the Taliban enforced these *laws* upon fully half of their populace has skyrocketed amongst that half.

You are correct, our system is not perfect. However, if given the choice, I'll take the US over any such repressive culture. In the US, the injustices are not a built in *part* of the legal system. They occur when "justice" slips through the cracks. If I like, here, I could become a lawyer, and work to change the things that need changing. There, if I so much as mention a word against the Governmental system, I will likely be killed. The comparison that the original poster made is not a fair one.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:37 AM

Celtic Soul,

You have totally and grossly misinterpreted my original post. That post was intended to draw attention to the terrorist attacks against US women, as the title of the thread clearly states.

It is *you* who have chosen to obfuscate and de facto justify the terrorist attacks against US women by American fundamentalists, including anthrax threats and bombings, by choosing to steer the conversation away from the discussion at hand, and focusing instead on those bad guys in Afghanistan.

This is a subject germane to current events, and the breast beating going on about the importance of women's rights vis a vis right wing fundamentalist attacks on them. It is a subject germane to current events, because abortion clinics have been bombed, and health care workers murdered by right wing fundamentalist religious fanatics, using the very same tactics that the 9/11 terrorists used.

While the FBI might be loathe to admit that the same person(s) responsible for the anthrax attacks in the wake of 9/11 may well be the responsibility of those same right wing militias which have been targeting abortion clinics and providers, it doesn't mean some of the rest of us don't feel there is a very strong possibility they are one and the same.

Because we are at war against Arab terrorists, is no reason to ignore our homegrown terrorists, who, may I remind you, are also the same terrorists responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing? Waco? And on and on ad nauseum?

Arabs pose much less a threat to me as an American than the American terrorists living in our midst, and the current hysteria is conveniently ignoring that fact completely, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Grab
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 09:00 AM

Maybe I'm not getting the point here. We all know that anthrax warnings are now the "threat du jour". Every institution and then some has been sent warnings, most of which are hoaxes. In Britain, there's been several hundred of these hoaxes, delivered to anyone who could be a target of some group. Global companies, banks, biological research centres, etc, etc.

So there's nutters out there sending these warnings - right? So how is this especially a women's rights issue? It's just the same militant anti-abortion campaigners as always, with a new method. And letters are cheap - any asshole can fire off a letter or phone in a bomb threat. Difference is that where there was some limits in what you believed from the crank calls and letters, everyone's on a hair-trigger with the anthrax scares, so the sensitivity to these has peaked. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that the _overall_ number of crank calls/letters hasn't increased, it's just that they mention anthrax instead of the Book of Revelations, bombs or shotguns.

Note that I'm not saying these anti-abortion campaigners aren't raging loonies. I'm pro-abortion personally, and I think that not forcing women to bear unwanted children is an essential right. But the anthrax threats don't make this a new issue.

I also think that dragging religion in is a mistake. It says "these ppl believe they have a good reason for attacking abortion providers", and excess of religious zeal makes them more misguided than evil. Stick to the base fact of "these ppl insist that we must do what they say or they will kill us", and you've defined them as terrorists without publicising their cause.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 09:37 AM

Celtic Soul, just because something else is worse, doesn't mean that the first something isn't bad. Running water IS running water, remember the Little Dutch Boy?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: SharonA
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:57 AM

DougR says: "Sharon, one cannot provide substantive back-up for opinion."

Huh? I was asking Owlkat for statistics and/or links to support his/her statements, including the statement that the legal penalties incurred by anti-choicers for their violence, oppression, assault, and murder are seldom of serious consequence. I assumed this statement was based on fact and I wanted to know the facts, since I'm unaware of the individual cases and the sentences handed down for these crimes. Are you saying that there are no such statistics, that Owlkat's opinion has no basis in fact? Please clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:13 AM

Why do I have a feeling we're not all going to shake hands and agree to disagree here?

One huge problem in the abortion debate in this country (I live in the USA) is that each side insists on defining the other side's motives for them. The pro-choice side insists that the other side's motivations are "controlling and oppressing women" and the pro-life side insists that the other side's motivation is "valuing personal convenience above human life." Neither is an accurate portrayal of the other side's true motivations, and thus each side is waging an intense campaign against a straw man, and each side feels justified in using inflated and scare-tactic rhetoric. And of course each side claims the moral high ground.

Until the two sides can lower the volume and intensity of their shouting and actually listen to what the other side is saying, and take it at face value without looking for hidden motives, this will continue to be an ugly shouting match.

None of which (of course) excuses violence against clinics, or doctors, or their clientele. This is completely unconscionable and must be made to stop immediately. It is rightly described as "terrorism." That's exactly what it is. This is not to say that women in certain countries don't have it worse. Obviously you're better off being a woman in the USA than in Saudi Arabia or in Afghanistan under the Taliban or even in an "enlightened" gulf state such as the Emirates. BUT BUT BUT that doesn't mean that clinic bombings are not terrorism. They are.

There. Guaranteed to make nobody happy. But at least I am able to have my say, thanks to the political freedoms we enjoy here in the evil West.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST,Butch at work
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:19 AM

I am sorry, but I refuse to believe anything set forth by a GUEST who will not give identity. If you want me to listen, give your name! If you afraid to do that then I find your "facts" supect. If you will identify yourself, then I am happy do enter into converation with you.

I too agree that there is terrorism against abortion clinics, and I am anti-abortion. I do not support, or condone any violence against the clinics, their workers, doctors, patients or supporters. This truly is terrorism. So is bombing the Olympics, bomb threats against industry, spiking trees in the rain forest (which can result in death to lumbermen), bombing or killing anyone with political intent. Why should I place one before the other in terms of condemnation?

It is also correct that one is not "better" than the other only because of lesser degrees. It must be said however that at least in this country there are laws to protect our society and it's members. This is what makes our system better. We do not have violence against women written into our laws.

Are our laws always enforced correctly? NO! But the other great thing about our country is that we can get off our dead asses and vote to place people in office who will enforce our laws, we can use the press to berate prosecutors who fail to do their jobs, WE CAN RUN FOR OFFICE OURSELVES! All of these things make our sytem better than most even if our results are not perfect.

If you can find a place better than this to live, I would go there. If you can't then work for change here.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST,Guest, SINSULL
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 12:51 PM

I am amazed that the Taliban has not replied to western documentaries on their treatment of women with an "Inside US Prisons" documentary. Legalized rape, extortion, slavery...make an interesting evening on PBS. Of course, this is an equal opportunity disgrace - men do not fare any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 01:03 PM

Well Sharon? Has Owlcat provided what you wanted?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:07 PM

GUEST,

How do you like your own medicine

In light of the fact that Bin Laden is wrong, I would also like to point out that GUEST is also wrong.

I am sick and tired of people dressing every issue in the presently over-used flag by associating their issues with this over-reported current event.

No Celtic Soul has not totally and grossly misinterpreted your original post. You yourself diluted and tarnished your point by bringing Afghanistan into it.

Yes women are treated badly in certian Moslem countries but it is a gross and total exaggeration to say that it is equally bad here.

It is *you* who have chosen to obfuscate and de facto cheapen the terrorist attacks against US women by American fundamentalists by drawing silly parrallels with a totaly different culture 10,000 miles away.

Most people here seem to be in sympathy with your cause. Your tactics seem to be the problem.

Here are two things we all seem to agree upon.

1.Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism.

2.It has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

Lets leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST,dharmagirl
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:29 PM

Might I point out that terrorism in this country and in countries across the world is carried out by men. I wouldn't be surprised if our guest were male, judging by the way he is trying to divide and conquer the women on this thread who have offered intelligent debate and facts about the treatment of women across the world.

Until all men are united against terrorist acts against women and in offering full equality, these attacks, in whatever form they may occur, will continue. It's up to the men. Most women will chose freedom if given the choice. hg

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:37 PM

Jack...

Thank you for very succinctly penning what was in my head when I sat down to reply.

It is because GUEST drew the parallel to Afghanistan that I said that the comparison was unfair. The fact that there are injustices Stateside is a fact, and I do not deny it. Why then can we not simply pen them as injustices without having to draw that comparison to the issues occuring in the Middle East?

GUEST, had you done so, you would have had my support. By drawing an unfair comparison you lost this reader.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:19 PM

No I'm not obfuscating, and anyone who read the article I provided the link to can ascertain that pretty easily.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of being overly concerned with the terrorism against Afghan women "over there" when no one seemed to be aware of the fact that nearly 500 anthrax threats alone had been made against abortion clinics just since 9/11. Anyone familiar with anti-abortion terrorism will tell you that is a very alarming, and deeply disturbing increase in the number of anthrax threats to abortion providers in a very short span of time.

I mentioned it to allow for some discussion of what is happening here as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and the anthrax attacks on the east coast.

Celtic Soul, and a few others, seem to have misinterpreted the context, possibly because they didn't read the article I provided the link to, or perhaps they didn't like my insinuation of a double standard regarding advocacy for women's rights in Afghanistan, while remaining silent about the terrorist threats to women here.

But the response to my original post has been excellent, IMO. It is great to see people talking about these issues now.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: SharonA
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:33 PM

DougR: Not yet!

Jack: Nicely put!

Dharmagirl: Not all terrorists are men. Ever hear of Patty Hearst?

Granted, the ones we're hearing about in Afghanistan are men, but what do you expect from a regime that forbids women to work? But we don't know whether the anthrax mailer(s) might be male or female.

As to your assertion that most women would choose freedom if given the choice, that really depends on the culture, and on how deeply the culture of repression has been drummed into them. Lots and lots of people (men and women) are more dedicated to their culture or to their religion than they are to human rights.

As to GUEST trying to divide and conquer the women on this thread, you can relax; GUEST has no power over us! If we're divided, it's because we have differing opinions; all that means is that we can think for ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:48 PM

Hear, hear, Susan!

dougR

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: DonMeixner
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:16 PM

Well as I reread this I become more confused. Do I understand that, in perhaps oversimplified terms, If something is wrong and it can't be made to be perfect doing the best you can to remedy the situation is just as bad as doing nothing?

This I know. It is not possible to change a thousand years of cultural bias and archaic custom overnight. Much as I may wish, the stroke of the pen won't give women equal pay for equal work. Genital mutilation won't go away overnight. And spousal abuse won't disappear even if it is illegal.

The desire for the old ERA wasn't universal among women. Many women, some friends of mine, voted against it because they thought it was anti-family. Imagine that. The practioners of genital mutilation was more often women than men. Only a strongly entrenched tradition could cause this to be continued by the very people who suffer the most from it. And as bad as spousal abuse is, it goes both ways sometimes. Not in equal measure but it does happen. A battered wife is very likely to return to the batterer. The law doesn't compel her to return, it is cultural bias and many phsycological intricacies that return the battered wife or husband or child to the dangerous condition they were in. Some incredibily stupid laws still on the books contribute as well.

There is no light switch that will solve this, these, dilemas. It will take time and continued commonsense to do the trick. In the meantime bad things will still happen but they will diminish over time.

For my part I will continue to do the best I can and I'm sorry if its not good enough, its still the best I can do.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:23 PM

Don,

I didn't post to suggest people weren't doing what they "should"--I was calling attention to the fact that there is a very real and serious terrorist threat to women, here and now, and that no one seemed to be talking about it, much less discussing what could be done to deal with that threat.

I raised the issue to see it discussed, not to dictate to others what I think people "should" do.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:30 PM

GUEST penned: "Celtic Soul, and a few others, seem to have misinterpreted the context, possibly because they didn't read the article I provided the link to

*I read the article*

, or perhaps they didn't like my insinuation of a double standard regarding advocacy for women's rights in Afghanistan, while remaining silent about the terrorist threats to women here".

I think we may be beating a dead horse...but I will try one more time and then leave it to rest in peace.

It is not a double standard when the issues are so divergent. It's like comparing apples and oranges, or pointing out the speck in your neighbours eye while ignoring the log in your own.

The little bits of "terrorism" you are relating are *nothing* compared to the daily horror that is the life of *every* woman there. Anthrax threats (and I have yet to hear of even one actually being more than merely threat) to clinics are simply not in the same league as the imposed slavery of *EVERY* woman in that country. Is phoning in bomb threats or anthrax threats wrong? You betcha, and I think that anyone who does such needs to be found and brought to justice...but the thing is *I CAN* make that statement and *I CAN* defend a womans right to walk into an abortion clinic unmolested because I am allowed out of my house alone. I remember when I was a kid getting hauled out of class to stand outside in the cold because of bomb threats called into the school. It is *not* the same thing as actually living through a bomb. That is the difference. All women there *live* the terror...in this country, *some* women live with the threat of it, and it is *ILLEGAL* here. There it is *LEGAL*...a part of their very legal system. I don't know how to make that any more clear.

I ask that we politely agree to disagree, as I will never see it as even close to being the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:22 PM

Sharon you are too funny! Patty Hearst a terrorist? I'll take on Patty Hearst and you can go fight the Taliban or the radical anti-abortionists! Patty Hearst never oppressed me!

I do find her anti-feminism oppressive, however!!!!!LOL hg

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: DonMeixner
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:33 PM

Guest,

Thats how I took your original post. I think this stuff needs to be discussed openly and often. I just felt that many where yalking and few were listening. But then thats the human condition ain't.

Good question and a good thread.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 10:45 AM

Celtic Soul,

It is quite clear you do not wish to discuss the issue of domestic terrorism against US women, but that you would rather discuss the appalling oppression of Afghan women, which I too find wholly unacceptable. Just because I raise the issue of anti-abortion terrorism in the current context of discussions of wars on terrorism here and abroad, doesn't mean I am equating anti-abortion terrorism with oppression of Afghan women. The meaningful context here is terrorist violence, not oppression of women. Terrorism isn't tht easily equatable with oppression, although the two travel hand in hand.

Since you seem more interested in discussing Afghan women, perhaps your worthwhile contributions could be better addressed in a thread about the plight of Afghan women where we could discuss both that important issue, and the one I have raised here?

Don,

Well, when people first begin discussing a subject that hasn't previously been talked about much, things are muddled and confused. But it is my belief that we learn how we want to sort things out by discussing them.

In my view, the idea that the pro-life and pro-choice camps are both extremists really isn't accurate. I equate anti-abortion violence with the sort of violence carried out by the Klan in the wake of emancipation. There was always a lot of de facto support for the activities of the Klan in our society, otherwise it couldn't have functioned as it did for as many years as it did.

Regardless of one's personal beliefs about when life begins, and whether it is morally right for a woman to have an abortion, the murderous terrorist campaign being waged against women and their abortion providers is wholly unacceptable. I think arguments such as the one that mousethief puts forth, makes it appear as though the militant rhetoric of one side is equal to the actual violence of the other--an insinuation often made regarding the issue of abortion, and one that I believe has the effect of numbing people, and forcing them to dismiss the actual violence and very real threat of continued violence against women and abortion providers.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 10:47 AM

Sorry--above should have read"...and one I believe has the effect of numbing people, thereby causing them to dismiss the actual violence..."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 11:01 AM

As to anti-abortion terrorism not having anything to do with Afghanistan, that rather overlooks where the focus and resources of the US Justice Department, US intelligence agencies, and US law enforcement is currently at, isn't it?

I raised the issue of anti-abortion terrorism not being taken seriously in this country. No one here seems to be able to dispute that fact.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks a number of people here felt they had clear ideas of how the US would declare a war on terrorism and then be able to win it. We have heard repeatedly from them that we should just believe in our government, and believe that the righteousness of our cause would win the day.

Yet, the continued presence of terrorism on US soil is the much greater threat to many more Americans than the threat of terrorism by foreign agents in our midst (and please, spare us the "tell that to the victims of 9/11" defense). Yet, people seem to be totally forgetting that threat to our national security. And more frighteningly, not demanding that law enforcement, the justice system, and the intelligence agencies do something about those terrorists living in our midst.

Why is that do you suppose?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 11:33 AM

Guest, I disagree with your assertion that violence against women and oppression against women and terrorism are different. Virtually every terrorist cell in the world is based on the oppression of women.

Morever, the mutilation of women in the service of controlling their behavior aka "female circumcision" is a terrorist act, in my view.

The power to define these acts needs to be taken over by female points of view. If men such as yourself insist on controlling definitions of such male actions, other points of view will be destroyed.

My hypothesis can only be disproven with full female equality. I assert that with such a condition, terrorism as we know it will no longer exist. The only way to disprove this is to afford us full equality!!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 11:51 AM

Relax harpgirl, I'm a feminist too!

While I agree with your point that virtually every terrorist cell in the world is rooted in a society which condones the oppression of women, I wouldn't agree that oppression works the same way terrorism works. And I think those are important distinctions to make to fight against both effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST,dharmagirl
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 12:41 PM

I am quite relaxed sir! It's Saturday! I do consider such patronization an excellent example of subtle interpersonal oppression however!

I also get tickled when men claim to be feminists! I consider it an example of how men seek to control feminist definitions of action, thought, and feelings! I don't take them seriously. I do appreciate men who believe they are feminists, though. They are undoubtedly trying harder to offer equality to women than the average male oppressor.

Any man who doesn't afford women equal definition of reality is an oppressor, in my view! It is quite radical, I know. But necessary....hg

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST,dharmagirl
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 01:10 PM

"The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of terrorists!" Laura Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Terroris Against US Women
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 01:43 PM

dharmagirl,

It appears that you have presumed I'm male. Why is that?