Female terrorists are seen as wild, emotional, uncontrollable forces who commit these [terrorist] acts as acts of revenge. The academics then fail to look at the political reason for the violence (without such it cannot be considered terrorism). In our society, we expect men to be strong, to fight, to be somewhat violent, but women are supposed to be the calm, subdued sex. We must not have a violent bone in our body . . .
Well, what is the difference between a man committing a violent act and a women committing a violent act? Are we not all fallen humans with violent tendencies? Why is a man's violence more legit than a woman's? . . .
I have a prof. who is currently working on a book about female terrorists. She often speaks of how they are overlooked in the study of terrorism, because they are seen as committing emotional acts instead of political acts of violence. This, however, is not the case. In fact another interesting tidbit, is that the female terrorists who commit an act of terrorism in Iraq do not get media coverage. In fact, usually afterwards, we cannot even find any information out about them! Interesting eh? Why are terrorist acts by men more important than acts by women?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
I thought this was an interesting question (excerpt from Daily Rantings of an increasingly cynical Fish):