ISIS handbook for sex slaves

[MsAmerica]

www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/05/slavery-isis-rules

[Room101isWhereIUsedToLive]

Fucking. Depressing.
Especially number thirteen.

[GreenTomatoJam]

Those who control modern slaves—whether men compelled to work on Thai fishing boats, domestic workers trapped in the homes of their Saudi employers, children ordered to beg in Senegal, bonded workers in India, or sex workers trafficked in the West

Interesting that men get a call out, children named, but the word 'women' isn't used. We're domestic and sex workers rather than maids and prostituted women.

[Grimarse]

Ah, you jumped in a little early, Green. Pop down to chapter 2;
...non-Muslim women and girls in sexual bondage.
Human Rights Watch has interviewed Yazidi women and girls

Chapter 3;
...enslaved women and girls who are not Muslim
...captured non-Muslim women

Chapter 4;
...captured non-Muslim women

In fact you seem to have singled out the one excerpt that does not specifically address women by name. Why?

[GreenTomatoJam]

Because that's the bit that the author of the piece wrote - the rest is the rules from Isis, or specifically about the rules from ISIS.

I think it's interesting that the rules are entirely concerned with women, but the first paragraph that sets up the piece in relation to slavery in the rest of the world, avoids the word 'Woman'.

I don't know if it's intentional, but it almost feels like trying to balance the fact that below are horrific rules for women, by pointing out the male/child slavery first, and avoiding using the word 'Women' in that paragraph when at least 2 forms mentioned are majority women.

[Grimarse]

So who wrote chapters 2, 3 and 4, if not the author?

[scallopsrgreat]

I think its significant that the opening paragraph of an article that is supposed to highlight oppression against women, doesn't mention women. Why would that be?

Not sure where chapters 2, 3 and 4 are though?

[Grimarse]

But he hasacknowledged women, specifically, by name. In chapters 2, 3 and 4. Right before the ISIS excerpt. Can you not see that?

And let's not make this personal. It doesn't reflect well on anybody.

[Grimarse]

Scallops, my bad. I meant paragraphs, not chapters;

Paragraph 2;
The self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS,... Human Rights Watch has interviewed Yazidi women and girls who have escaped ISIS captivity. They describe a system of organized rape and sexual assault, sexual slavery, and forced marriage.

Para 3;
The excerpts from the ISIS pamphlet printed below—... Yet by treating captured non-Muslim women ... injunctions against slavery and rape.

An author has written an article about the horrors of ISIS and made it entirely about crimes inflicted upon women. And yet the OP sees fit to question the semantics of the opening chapter. It is beyond parody. And I genuinely believe that some of you cannot see that.

[Grimarse]

I will continue to discuss the issue raised in the OP, rather than individuals. You may do as you wish, Buffy.

[Grimarse]

Ok, hypothetically, can you see the word 'women' bolded in my earlier post? Who wrote that?

[RufusTheReindeer]

grim

You aren't discussing the OP you jumped straight in with comments about green

I lurk a lot and rarely see you discussing, you seem to nit pick more

[Grimarse]

He could have done it for the following reasons;

1. He consciously wishes to exclude or diminish the plight of women under ISIS, because he views women as less than human, and not worthy of his focus,
   
2. He unconsciously wishes to exclude or diminish the plight of women under ISIS, because he has been raised under Patriarchy, which views women as less than human,
   
3. It is a lead-in to an article who's sole focus is on the plight of women under ISIS, and he wishes to paint a quick broad-brush wider picture about slavery as it affects the wider population.

[Grimarse]

Rufus, in my first post I was careful to quote directly from the article where the author had mentioned women specifically. The OP had quoted an incomplete sentence in order to try and make a point. I was making a specific counter-point.

[GreenTomatoJam]

Lets try this with something else...

Title: Now to make bread

There are lots of carbohydrates in the world that form a large part of a person's diet. Rice in Asia, roots in Africa and wheat products in Europe. (*this may not be accurate)

When making bread yada, yada, yada




See how that first paragraph, is a bit of a non sequitur - how the article is about bread, but my first, scene-setting paragraph is about other types of starch? Sure, I go on to talk about bread for the rest of my 'article'

That's what I'm saying is happening here, and I think it's odd. I think it's odd to start an article about women, with a paragraph which goes out of its way to not mention women.

[Haudyerwheesht]

God number 13 is just horrific

[GreenTomatoJam]

Yes, I quoted a single sentence from the first paragraph (not the OP btw)

Modern slavery takes many forms, but most slaves are forced to work in the shadows. Those who control modern slaves—whether men compelled to work on Thai fishing boats, domestic workers trapped in the homes of their Saudi employers, children ordered to beg in Senegal, bonded workers in India, or sex workers trafficked in the West—usually shun publicity because treating human beings as mere chattel can be criminally prosecuted and cause moral revulsion.

There's the whole paragraph - still no mention of women - I'm not mis-representing anything - the entire first paragraph on an article about women being bought and sold and abused as sex slaves, sets the scene about other types of slavery still present in the world. When doing this, it mentions men, and children in specific forms of slavery, but not women. I think that is odd.

I don't know if it's subconscious, editorial (doesn't like using the word 'Women' too many times in one article?), an attempt to be PC (doesn't feel maids/prostituted women are acceptable terms).

I do think that it's an odd choice.

[Grimarse]

which goes out of its way to

Aha, I see what you are saying there. But you are taking a statement in isolation, and ascribing reasoning for it that is completely against the whole purpose of the article. If the author wanted to minimise, dismiss or somehow denigrate the plight of women specifically, then what do you think the point of the article is?

[RufusTheReindeer]

grim

Nope, you didnt talk about the OP at all, just greens comment

For whats its worth i am not actually disagreeing with you, its just that you said you were discussing the points in the OP...and you arent

[Grimarse]

Rufus, Green said this;

Interesting that men get a call out, children named, but the word 'women' isn't used.

I pointed out that if she had read a little further, she would have found 'women' repeatedly. And then I provided quotes. And all written by the report's author.