Quote:
Originally posted by alphaalpha
Says AMEN and would like to add that i think that a lot of women don't complain or stop such abuse cause they either
1) feel that something is their fault and internalize the abuse, whatever type of abuse
2) feel it is their place to do with authority figures say for some need to be loved/fit in. ~ and probably lots of other reasons
|
Exactly, the internalization of a poisoned system of values. They instinctively understand that it's wrong, but accept or even embrace it anyhow.
From there, it becomes a chauvinistic, jingoistic dilemma as well, because the push to defend and cover-up filters down through the various levels; peers and friends are compelled to defend peers and friends, the group, be it athletic, social or soror or frat, is compelled to defend the group, the administrators, group leaders or coaches are compelled to defend the institutional roles they serve, etc. Everyone wants to defend their "team".
And it's this aspect of cover-up that clashes with the view that the "media" is biased in exposing any hazing incident.
There's no consistency in that view because that's not how media propaganda works.
Dissident views are allowed only within restricted framework and boundaries, and hazing reflects a disturbing trend in what most would see as the normal "American Way". It casts negative light on the overall institutional agenda, which largely rests in limiting solidarity among the populce, so when incidents are reported, it's important to 'frame' it, usually by enlisting the aid of academics and intellectuals who simultaneously denounce the hazing incident at hand while *advocating* something along the lines of "young people wanting to be part of an indoctrinational peer process", which more or less allows the institutional role off the hook from any inherent dysfunction i.e. mindless deference to conformity and authority, at the expense of conscience and humanity.
That's why there's this huge propaganda machine in this country that serves to emphesize a human ideal of liberty, "family values" and tolerance that is in fact quite contrary to the real values promoting and shaping the broader societal agenda.
So our government can send Americans into the middle east, have them mass murder hundreds of thousands of people - men, women, children, families - and use the media here to sell it as 'promoting liberdy n' freedumb', and many people will believe it, and wave their flags, 'yeah team!' That's how it works. The government is the largest crime syndicate on the planet, and as Orwell put it, concerning how the ruling class must train the citizenry, it requires an excellent education in order to get the people *not* to see it, to recognize it for what it is.
Also, if you research hazing incidents found in print media, you'll see that the majority of reports are not picked up by the agenda setting television media. Why?
Most Americans don't read, they watch the tube, so for them, what's on tv is "reality". That level of media exposure only occurs if the incident is too shocking and ugly to disavow and marginalize, as was the case of the Glenbrook hazing, or the Mempham football camp hazing/rapes.
Regarding why so many women, young women won't report abuse, or resist participating in abusive patterns, be it victim or perpetrator, that is a complex issue.
In part, my take on it is, one, at the primal level, both genders are equally capable of right and wrong.
However, given that men historically established 'the rules', so to speak, and as women fought to gain a voice, a foothold within that system, more and more of them lost sight of the fact that women could play a significant role in altering and shaping a system wrought with male aggression.
So over time, the struggle became less about equality, tolerance and compassion, and became more so about women simply adopting and assimilating the male characteristics and value patterns that they used to see as immoral and contemptable.
Look at it in terms of the abductor/abductee syndrome, where the abductee can eventually some to empathize and admire their abductor. When you apply that to the large increase in, say, young women adopting the traditionally male driven pornographic view of sexuality in our culture, it makes sense.
Only, they naturally don't think about it in those critical terms, and the cultural affectation of playing the role of 'whore' is disguised under the trappings of just being "one of the guys", or being "sexy", or being "sexually liberated" - and that's the approximation that requires the most scrutiny. Many young women are duped into believing that "exploitation" is synonymous with "liberated". Well, not actually, they've just been successfully duped by the cultural into calling their mindless complacency by a more satisfying name.
And that's how it works in America; it's the euphemistic language, the propagandistic rhetoric that counts, NOT the deeds and actions. I'm generalizing of course, but I think it's largely apllicable.
Linear Mode
