Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gilad Atzmon: Women In Uniform

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Women In Uniform By Gilad Atzmon May 30th 2004 http://www.gilad.co.uk Now the Iraqis are truly liberated..... Some of them have been lucky enough to practice
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2004
      Women In Uniform
      By Gilad Atzmon
      May 30th 2004

      Now the Iraqis are truly liberated..... Some of them have been lucky
      enough to practice the most advanced forms of western bondage
      practice. Those Iraqis could never even dream of the possibility
      before the blessed American came and opened their minds. This is what
      liberation is all about. Toppling Sadam was just an excuse. From its
      very beginning, it was all about introducing the Arab people to the
      advance and beauty of American female domination and general S&M.
      As matter of fact I am pretty confused and not just because of these

      I have seen worse. I do find it pathetic that no one has yet come up
      publicly, to confront us all with the obvious fact that, at the
      centre of images of torture of Iraqi detainees, we find young females
      in uniform. The image of a giggling female soldier pointing at the
      pines of naked hooded prisoners is, no doubt, a novelty. In our
      western wars, women in uniform always had kept the most precious
      position. They were providing the fighting men with care, love, mercy
      and calmness. In their white nursing uniforms they were often
      described as an instance of sanity and humanity in the midst of a
      masculine flesh-mincing machine. Not anymore, under the command of Mr
      Donald Rumsfeld, Private Lindy England and her comrade, Specialist
      Sabrina Harman are serving as angels of death. Women in the American
      army have a new role, they are providing the enemies of America with
      sexual humiliation. They are providing all of us with the ultimate
      pornographic image of war.

      Let's face it, Private England didn't invent the notion of sexual
      abuse. Abuse has been here since time began. More than one victorious
      army celebrated its triumphant moment raping the defeated nation.
      Usually it was women who were the first to pay the price. We all know
      about Nazi platoons who brutally raped Soviet women all the way to
      Stalingrad. Soviet soldiers were not different when arriving on
      German soil. American GIs did it in Nam, Serbs did it in Kosovo.
      Apparently war is a horny event. The confrontation with death and
      blood leads the active participants towards a vivid and extreme
      realisation of the notion of life. More than a few London grannies
      would enthusiastically share their hot juicy blitz tales. Apparently,
      the engagement with young fireman in action, as well as young off
      duty American pilots, turned WW2 Britain into an explosive libidinal
      setting. War, as it appears, has some positive erotic connotations.

      But yet, `strategic sexual humiliation' is very new to us all.
      Moreover, it seems to be a `well orchestrated' new American
      doctrine. The Americans have always proved to be innovative in
      introducing evil strategies and destructive weapons. If they do
      something they do it big. But yet, it is hard to realise how they got
      so far this time. Thinking about the subject in military terms leaves
      me pretty puzzled. The story of 20th century wars does not provide us
      with any sort of historical background relating to tactical sexual
      humiliation. I cannot recollect images of naked Soviet soldiers
      sexually abused, neither by sporadic female SS officers nor by male
      Panzer platoons. We can neither remember any form of such abuse
      conducted by any Allied soldiers. True, Jews where stripped of their
      clothes before they where pushed into gas chambers but again those
      scenes had nothing sexual, erotic or pornographic in them, just a
      devastating practice.

      No doubt, these new American images are a complete revelation; and
      yet no one points out that we might be confronting an unprecedented,
      new image. No one points out that it is a female soldier at its very
      centre. No one dare say that the notion of femininity might have gone
      through a serious metamorphosis. We might confront here a newly
      devastating feminine role and yet hardly anyone stops to reflect
      about it loudly. This is probably the beauty of political
      correctness. Willingly, we are becoming slightly blind; imposing on
      ourselves a form of foolishness. It is a cheerfulness that is
      coupled with stupidity. This very idiocy is the ultimate condition
      of the post colonial western democracy. We would politely blame Blair
      and Bush for dragging us into wars; we will democratically protest in
      the centres of our big cities; we would raise questions about WMD;
      but we will turn a blind eye to the evident fact that the women
      around us, the core of our innermost libidinal desires, might change
      their spots. Somehow, they appear to be far more cruel than we have
      ever pretended to acknowledge.


      It took more than a while for Women's Groups to generate enough
      pressure to persuade orthodox Generals to allow their young sisters
      to become combatant soldiers. Those resistant orthodox Generals were
      always repeating the same laconic silly argument. A female soldier,
      they used to say, would confront some severe risks of sexual abuse
      when falling into enemy hands. In fact, they where completely wrong,
      it is very much the other way around. It is the male POWs who find
      themselves bare, naked, confronting relentless humiliation in the
      hands of those young enthusiastic armed ladies who entertain the joy
      of power beyond any recognised measure.

      Using those orthodox General's arguments, it would make sense to
      argue that men should be left out of the battlefield just to save
      them from the chance that they would fall in the hands of devoted
      female combatants. As it appears, both Private England and Specialist
      Harman enjoy the colour of war to the very limit. It might be that
      those Women's Groups were right all the way through. Women are far
      more qualified for the battlefield. Men tend to complain all the
      time, some of them prove to be cowards when asked to kill. It is more
      than likely that we should leave wars for women, for sure the food in
      the front lines will improve a lot.


      But the issue is slightly more complicated. Since, one should agree,
      that the sudden appearance of sexual humiliation in military life is
      a real novelty, we should ask ourselves what really went wrong?

      I can think of two possible answers:

      1. That American society is going through a severe process of
      moral and intellectual regression. Sexual humiliation of Iraqi
      detainees is just a single symptom.

      2. The introduction and presence of the female combatant in the
      firing zone turned the battlefield into a theatre of erotic

      The former is pretty obvious; America is going through a rapid
      process of moral and intellectual deterioration. The fact that
      America is the last country on earth to back Israel is enough to
      prove that something has gone dramatically wrong on the other side
      of the Atlantic. But again, leaving the Zionists aside, it is clear
      that the war in Iraq is involved with more than one immoral aspect.
      Actually, it is pretty impossible to find anything moral about it.
      For more than a while we are facing an endless stream of
      pornographic images. To start with real-time images of mass
      destruction and murder of innocent civilians - and to end with
      explicit images of brutal sexual abuse. The Internet is flowing with
      images of Iraqi women being raped by American GIs. Many of those
      images have now been found to be forged. They were commercially made
      just to satisfy the thirsty American market demands. The brutal rape
      of a defeated nation is transformed in Bush's America into
      hard-on-cash. This is no doubt a new form of a collective

      But we do not have to go that far. The genuine photos of abused Iraqi
      POWs that where shown repeatedly all over the American media say it
      all. While most American commentators appear to express deep disgust,
      we have a good reason to suspect their honesty. Dr. Susan Block, the
      American sex therapist says in an article about the subject that many
      of her clients "will say something to disgust them at first, only to
      confess a few sessions later that it really turns them on" (Bush's
      POW Porn, Dr. Susan Block , Counterpunch 14.5.04). While Block was
      referring in her article solely to Bush, I would suggest we attribute
      her diagnosis to the entire, allegedly devastated American media, and
      the political world. America is full of contrasts: on the one hand,
      an extremely conservative society and deeply sexually oppressed, but
      on the other hand, it has the biggest porn industry and by far the
      wildest one. In that very sense America, a place conceived on
      opposites, these images serves as a snap shot of some very
      devastating reality. I would say, a glimpse into the
      Lacanian `Real'. A gaze at the reality of brutally deteriorating
      society. An explosive image of volatile sexual domination. This
      reality is so terrifying and hard to acknowledge, that most of us,
      both men and women, cannot even articulate it verbally.

      The later option is leading towards even further complications. The
      fact that females, when protected with power, expose a completely new
      form of sexual domination and abusive practice is rather alerting.
      First, we have to ask ourselves whether we were mislead all those
      years, assuming that our beloved women are caring and loving. If this
      is the case, if women are in fact wild, brutal creatures, we must
      believe that the female peaceful image we were so used to was just a
      camouflage, or might even be a conspiracy. If women are brutal and
      monstrous we must assume that the very attractive image of them, soft
      and caring, is a direct outcome of the male patriarchal society. Now
      that women are liberated we can see what they really are. While a
      confrontation with the odd militant separatist feminist might
      support such a wild assumption, being surrounded with men-loving
      women makes it hard to take such an option seriously. As a matter
      of fact, here I want to declare: women are generally great, we love
      them all, in every shape and colour. Also, it appears, I am failing
      to produce an argument. True, but then, after seeing Private England
      in action I prefer to be on the safe side. The last thing I need is
      to have the feminist women coming up against me and cutting off my
      testicles in the middle of the night.

      Another way around the loophole raised by Private England et al. is
      to assume that there is something pretty particular about those
      strange women who join the armed forces in the first place. I think
      that many would agree that there is something unique about those
      women who want to be 'man'. I myself find it bizarre, mainly
      because `man' is a pretty vague concept. Most men do not have a clue
      what being man means, they simply can't be bothered. All we know
      about ourselves is that we like cars and computers. By the time
      we know how to entertain women our biology turns against us. From
      that stage, more or less, we are just running down the slope. We
      usually enjoy the down-hill journey, mainly because our female
      counterparts become sexually frustrated. Women are very amusing when
      defeated by their desires. By the time our women buy their first pair
      of stockings we are too tired to keep our eyes open after ten o'clock
      news. It is great fun being in the centre of the desire of the other
      without being able to do anything about it. Giving our pathetic
      condition, thinking of all those young women who want to be us, is
      really ridiculous. I assume that those poor militants, tom boys
      probably, hold a rigorous, deloused, picture of what man is all
      about. Mistakenly they endorse an awkward vision of man as a brutal
      and violent creature while in fact, we are deeply romantic.

      As we know, in most cases the impersonated version is far more
      extreme than the real McCoy. Those kind of tragic amplified
      misinterpretations can easily lead towards an radical strengthening
      of evilness. It is typical for marginal political movements to fall
      into this very trap. Zionism exceeded, far beyond most political
      movements of its time, in its interpretation of the notion of
      Nationalism. The result is devastating. A notorious bloodthirsty
      nationalistic society entirely occupied with daily murder of
      Palestinian civilians. Militant separatist feminists are no different
      at all. Like the Zionist they went too far in their demand for rights
      and equality. Unlike Zionist they are yet to assassinate their
      opponents. When one is stressing the importance of equality, the
      image of equality is often replaced with a claim for supremacy and
      even an appetite for hegemony.

      In general most marginal political movements fail on this very
      particular issue. In the long run those opposing tendencies leads
      towards a clear intensification of unbearably vulgar behaviour. I
      assume that Private England fail right there. She tried to be a man,
      but found herself exercising a brutal amplified version of her
      original prototype. We must admit that we have never seen a
      photographic image of a male soldier standing staring at a naked
      hooded woman, ridiculing the shape of her clitoris. It might be the
      right time for women to ask whether being man-like is a very clever
      choice. But yet, we should give some justice to Private England and
      Specialist Harman. We should mention that they were not acting
      alone; as a matter of fact they were surrounded by perplexed men,
      who very much like these two women tried to pretend to be men. Not
      that hard to understand, since it is almost impossible for one to
      impersonate oneself. In a social environment, where women are
      supposed to be "as man", men tend to forget what "man" ought to be.


      So now the Iraqis are truly liberated. They all know what America
      stands for. But then who is going to liberate the American people?
      Who is going to sustain those women who want to be men? Who is going
      to save the man who wants to be a man? Private England is probably
      sorted, we shouldn't worry about her, for the type of services she
      gave in Iraq for free she can make a fortune in down town Manhattan.
      In the end of the day America is all about money.

      God save America. Because if it is down to the Americans they don't
      have much time left.





      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.