I have ling been accused of “generalization,” of going from a particular incident/event to a larger issue. So be it. There are some matters and tendencies that are universal. Each human is unique, but some of their behaviors are characteristic over many generations. If they weren’t, tomes like the Bible would be useless. Anyway…….…
The culture of obedience is coercive and rape is its basic expression. Rape is the violation of one body by another. The gender, nor even the species of the violated, seems not to matter. (I still have not fully comprehended the significance of the relationship between the boy and his sheep in the autobiographical film “Padre Padrone”).
But, what I want to argue is that all males “benefit” from the coercive behavior of the rapist. What, after all, are females to be “protected“ from if not the threat of assault? How are females to be rendered compliant to the incompetent, who may well impregnate them, but cannot be relied on to help rear the offspring, if not for the promise of being secure from violation?
Rape is a triangular exercise. Which is why the Kavanaugh/Judge/Blasey event is so iconic. Brett needed a wingman and the event cemented a life-long relationship. They are all enmeshed in an association of guilt in which the glue is the knowledge of injury to an innocent victim.
The assault on and invasion and occupation of Iraq was the same event elevated to an international scale. The war was never able to be explained because the intent was to demonstrate USA prowess to other nations: a “resurgent Russia” and a “rising China.” If you have forgotten those phrases, I’d like to remind they were the theme of the 2008 campaign. Obama implied he wanted to make amends, but, in the end, did not deliver. Indeed, he confiscated the evidence needed to compensate the innocent victims who managed to survive the assault. And the Congress was/is complicit. As far as I know, the AUMF still has not been rescinded.
