Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?

Posted by Phoenix Woman on April 27, 2007

When he bombs a women’s clinic, of course. (And he is almost certainly a ‘he’.) As Zuzu sayeth unto all:

Had that bomb been found outside a post office or a school, the headlines would have been hysterically running on about ZOMG TERRORISM TERRORISM IS AL QAEDA INVOLVED? And the right-wing warbloggers would be pissing their pants and hyperventilating about profiling Arabs and banning Muslims from public life and dhimmitude and how if they had been there, they’d have stopped it with their concealed carry and their extra-super special powers of righteousness, just like they saw in a movie once and BOMB IRAN! and 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!! but they still have better things to do than join the military, but they’ll be happy to go into the woods and hunt Russians and shout WOLVERINES!!

But it’s an abortion clinic, so. Ho-hum.

For some reason, terrorism doesn’t count if it’s directed against women and their health care providers. It’s just not news, and the fact that it goes unremarked in the national media — and hell, even in the local media, as in the case of the Austin bomb — contributes to the idea that women are not important and that violence directed at women is not only to be expected, but to be dismissed.


4 Responses to “When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?”

  1. nicteis said

    Or also, of course, when he blows up planes full of civilians from countries we don’t like, like Luis Posada Carilles. Or is a member of the MEK, blowing things up in western Iran under CIA auspices. Or is a subsidiary of Al Qaeda attacking Iran from the east.

    There’s a reason why it’s called the War On Some Terrorism.

  2. MEC said

    There is still a deep strain of misogyny in our society: utter contempt for women and a casual assumption that women are worthless. Another example is SCOTUS upholding the ban on the so-call “partial birth abortion” procedure. The people who are so concerned about “pre-born life” are completely unconcerned about the women who could die or suffer permanent physical damage because of the ban.

    We also see the misogyny in the military’s response to increasing reports of the sexual abuse of female soldiers by male. The attitude seems to range for “what’s the big deal” to “they shouldn’t be in the military anyway, so they deserve what they get”.

  3. This bomb got very little in the national news and not even a lot of coverage in the Austin news, and it was a real bomb —- not a bomb threat or a guy wanting to buy bomb materials from an undercover FBI. Wow.

  4. Lina said

    I agree with MEC. And what’s worse, besides the view that women are worthless and their complaints about sexual harrassment both in and out of the government should be ignored, but the fact that we’re even the SOURCE of some crimes. I wish I had kept the article I printed from CNN that stated that VT shooter Cho’s first two victims were from a “relationship dispute”. It didn’t make major headlines until after the shooting later, and the media was all set and ready to name “the girl who started the rampage”. So eager were they to name her as the reason he went crazy, being an ex-girlfriend, and then to find out that they didn’t even know one another.

    Just another way to devalue women and make them the cause of man’s hatred, anger, and evil.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: