ISIS handbook for sex slaves

[MsAmerica]

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

Here is a quote about the same subject (enslavement of women);

The genius of any slave system is found in the dynamics which isolate slaves from each other, obscure the reality of a common condition, and make united rebellion against the oppressor inconceivable.

Does anyone think that the author might be in any way dismissive of women, because the phrase does not specifically name them? Or have I just cherry-picked it to make a point?

It seems odd that women aren't mentioned in the first paragraph, but like "men compelled to work on Thai fishing boats" are mostly men (as Buffy says), and "sex workers" are mostly women, why omit the word women?
I guess it's assumed that "sex workers" refers to women, especially when trafficked.
I think the whole discussion is a bit OT though, nobody is discussing the content of the horrific ISIS handbook.

grim

ii know what green said and what you said

Its a really short fucking thread

You have not at any point discussed the OP...just how wrong you think green is

I dont understand why you dont get that

Lets go with green is wrong...they are the wrongest person in wrongville...i have never seen anyone more wrong in my entire life

Now grim what did you think of the OP?

I think ISIS are bad people.

grim

They are arent they

Okay, last comment from me (hurrah!). You could be absolutely, completely, one hundred per cent right there, Buffy. But it's a hell of a fucking leap. And calling the author's motives into question seems to somehow detract from the horror of what ISIS are actually doing right now, this minute. But I think it's part of a wider agenda, to ensure that even the author has to be called to account for Patriarchal subjugation of women, because, well, all men are like that, aren't they? ISIS are just an extension of every man's inhumanity to every woman.

But I did say 'last comment from me'. Am I just dragging this out, or do you want me to respond?

I didn't ascribe any reason or call any motives into question - although later on I've made some suggestions - again though, not finger pointing at any one of them.

I said it was interesting. Cos I think it is. I think the way that we use language is interesting, and potentially revealing, although in this case I'm not sure of what - doesn't make me any less intrigued though.

Honestly, I don't think there's a lot to say about the rest of the article - it's horrific, ISIS are unbelievably terrible, and I'm astounded that anyone reading that might think that packing their family up and moving to an islamic state that explicitly sanctions sexual slavery of women and children. Nothing to discuss, no defence could be made.

Fuck it. I'll reply to Buffy's questions. I'm a man, pontification is what we do.

Analysis of text and subtext is fine. Talking about the little things as well as the big stuff is fine. Discourse is good. At the time (after Green's first post), it seemed an odd point of focus, so I said so. I thought she had taken far too narrow a focus, and I think it was a valid point. It was not disrespectful, or rude, or insulting. It was point and counter-point. Normal public forum stuff.

So, to ISIS. Are they misogynists or misanthropes? Should a man ever write about this? Should he side-step the issue, and leave it to a female colleague? Are we, as men, too close to the root of the problem to get involved in such reporting?

I don't think it can be dismissed as easily as ISIS being unbelievably terrible, to be honest. In a way, this allows us to think well they are just a small group of absolute monsters - we just need to get rid of ISIS and this wouldn't happen.

Personally, I think this sickening handbook is just the logical conclusion of what you get when any group of men who don't believe women are fully human get themselves into a position where the ordinary legal rules of society no longer exist. A lot of what ISIS lays down in their handbook is already practiced by individuals all round the world but society makes it illegal and/or unacceptable for them to shout about it.

You just have to look at some of the stuff discussed on the so-called manosphere to see what many (not all obv) men think women are put on earth for and, frankly, it is largely just to service them in every way.

ISIS just have the freedom from consequences to actually come out and say it.

It read to me like a short introductory paragraph setting out very general and rather bland facts about slavery.

It then forcefully jumped to the photograph of the women called Noor giving specific information about her situation. I thought there was a useful dramatic effect between the generic opening statement and the specific case history which appeared after a mere 10 lines of introductory words and I think it was a well written piece for that reason.

Thereafter the word women appears to make clear this is about ISIL treatment of women.

I will go for option 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

Other options , such as the author being a misogynistic porn user , are of course available if one wants to put that interpretation on his writing. Personally I think that would an interpretation which is not justified from the 4 corners of the article.

Lass, a breath of fresh air and reason as usual!

Absolutely Frozen - brazenly codifying and 'justifying' their abuse of women in 'law' is the very far end of the same set of beliefs that a woman in a mini-skirt is asking for it.

It's extreme othering

You're right - it's not that these are just terrible people, and the rest of us are lovely, it's that these are the same terrible people we also have in our society, writing the rules for a country of their own - you only have to have a quick visit to an MRA site to read opinions that really aren't that far removed. Where ISIS other non-muslims, the MRAs other all women.

The acts of ISIS should be seen as both a unique event (as Nazi Germany was) so that we can fully give a voice to the victims and an event with many similarities to other situations so that we can both create and use international law.

Of course some of the attitudes to women held by ISIS exist in many other contexts, and trafficking is a gendered issue.

If ISIS were somehow uniquely patriarchal, the Trafficking Protocol would not predate the existence of ISIS, nor would it's official title by the Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persona Especially Women and Children.

If MRAs, SJWs and ISIS have something in common, it is that all undermine internationalism - the notion that for the past sixty - seventy years, we have been globally trying to build a set of human rights based on a consensus about what the world's problems are, including the oppression of women in common and specific ways.

The article acts as if we are surprised that ISIS would officially create a set of rules so at odds with human rights. Why should we be surprised? Very many people, and certainly ISIS, do not care about either human rights or international consensus building. That consensus seems to be breaking down everywhere.

Is it just me or are the ellipses at the end of answer 9 particularly fucking chilling...

I noticed something with regard to the language in the article's first paragraph. He may be painting a broad brush, but the first word he uses that references the sex of individuals is the word 'men'. Then he does a more general broadbrush. And only then does he mention women in an article about ISIS treatment of women. Just thought it was interesting.

Agree with Buffy regarding the insights that discourse analysis can provide. Agree with Lass that inferring much insight from the first paragraph of this article is stretching it a bit in this case.

Putting speculation aside, we could ask the author his view in this case - his Twitter handle is right there...?

I would rather we didn't, as I dislike the current trend of taking massive structural issues and putting them all on to the actions or statements (or famously shirt choices) of one individual, which is basically what ends up happening when you take things on to Twitter and asking strangers about stuff. It isn't like someone raising a point here where it is an example within a wider analysis.

And once it is directed at an Individual on Twitter it ends up overshadowing the central issue, which is the problems of slavery and trafficking.

And once it is directed at an Individual on Twitter it ends up overshadowing the central issue, which is the problems of slavery and trafficking

I think the analysis of what he could possibly mean by the 10 lines in his opening paragraph stretched to include he is probably a user of pornography is overshadowing the meat of his article.