Oh, Right-Wing Blogosphere, How You Make Me Look Like a Genius!

Just last night, I was mulling over and trying to suss out for myself what exactly is going on with men, between men, over the bodies of raped women.  And this morning, I awake to a conservative blogosphere full of outrage over reports of a paper by Tal Nitzan that seems to argue that Israeli soldiers don’t rape Palestinian women out of, in part, a motivation to send a message to the Palestinian people about their worth.

Now, I don’t want to get bogged down in talking about the Israeli/Palastinian mess.  I’m not even that interested in talking about the paper, because I, like most people in the world, haven’t read it.  Folks seem to be pretty creatively quoting from this news article in a way that makes it seem as if they’ve seen the article, but if it’s out there, easily accessed, I can’t find it.

And one would think that, if bloggers had found it, they would be linking to it in order to tear it to pieces.

But no, instead, based on a news report, we’re all supposed to contact The Hebrew University and express out outrage that… what? 

Scholars are speculating?

Anyway, any more than that, I’m not going to defend or deride Nitzan.  I haven’t read her article and I’m not going to be outraged based on wide-spread extrapolations from the interpretations of what she’s saying from one news source.

Anyone can have words taken out of context.  I could write a sentence that says “I love Stalin!” in the context of, say, writing a paragraph about how things can be taken out of context, only to find that folks who disagree with me would take those three words and paint me a neo-idiot.

No, what I find interesting is how you can see being played out something similar to what I was talking about last night.

See Stickwick here.  Her line of thought seems to be pretty representative, I think.:

In other words, it’s dehumanizing not to rape someone, and the IDF can’t win. I knew this student was a woman before I even read through the rest of the news article, because only a woman could conceive of a scenario in which a man is guilty no matter what he does. Unfortunately, as the rest of the article indicates, the bias of this student and her professors goes much deeper than this.

The other problem with the paper is that the author apparently sees rape, as most women do, in sexual terms while rapists see it in terms of exerting power. In a woman’s mind, someone she regards as a potential rapist refusing to rape a woman must mean that he finds her unworthy of sexual relations. In other words, she is unappealing in the extreme or less than human. In that sense, not raping is viewed as an insult. This line of reasoning, compounded with the author’s bias, led to the illogical conclusion that not committing a crime is an injustice in itself.

I quoted at length because there’s a lot to get at here.  For starters, you can see how there’s this tension between understanding rape as a crime against a specific person and about that rapist’s view of that particular person and understanding rape as a message to a larger group.  On the one hand, Stickwick is arguing for an understanding of rape that is just about one person committing a crime against another specific person.

And, from this perspective, claiming that we can understand Nitzan’s article in terms of women seeing men in a perpetual state of “guilt”–guilty if they do rape and, supposedly, guilty if they don’t.

But it seems to me entirely plausible that what Nitzan is talking about is what message rape (or lack thereof) sends to an entire community–“We don’t have to prove that you can’t protect your women, because everyone already knows it.”

And, in fact, if you look closely at what she’s saying, I think Stickwick tips her hand that she understands and is, in fact, sympathetic to what seems to be Nitzan’s broader claim–that rape (or the lack of) sends a message about who has power.

I know you skimmed over the sentence because it’s just so ridiculous and so easily disproven, but take a look at it again:

The other problem with the paper is that the author apparently sees rape, as most women do, in sexual terms while rapists see it in terms of exerting power. [Emphasis mine.]

Now, just for a second, ignore the fact that a person would have to be willfully ignorant of even basic feminist theory to make such a claim and look at it in terms of what she’s saying about how rapists see rape.  Women, she claims, make the mistake of assuming rape is about the particular woman (she typifies this as “sexual terms;”  I call it a mistake of particularity, assuming it is about you as a specific person), while the rapists see it as exerting power.

Yes, exactly.  And not just over his victim, but over her entire community.

So, if Stickwick can see, and clearly she can, that rape functions not just at the level of particulars, but also at the level of being a broader message about power, why is she taking umbrage at a scholar who also seems to be arguing that rape can be understood as a broader message about power?

That, my friends, is a question for the ages.

Are we really at a point where folks can, with a straight face, argue the exact same things as their ideological opposites and not realize that they are?

I guess so.
 

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Oh, Right-Wing Blogosphere, How You Make Me Look Like a Genius!

  1. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of awareness about current events, there’s just some basic historical ignorance rearing its head.

    If you want to know about rape as a tool of war in contemporary contexts and you have the stomach for it, Amnesty USA offers a brief fact sheet. Google “rape tool war” and you’ll turn it up. (I’d link, but I don’t want to be flopped in the spamulator.)

    And there’s only about a metric ton of historical research on rape as a colonial methodology of doing war and establishing imperial supremacy — from ancient Sparta onward,

    In other words, men have been establishing political supremacy through acts of sexual assault for at least 4000 years and anyone who has paid the least bit of attention either to the past or the present knows it. So what purpose is served to pretend that this is a new, controversial, and offensive idea — other than alerting others to the fact that the speaker is a clueless dumbass?

  2. Yes, rape and pillage.

    Not only are we going to kill your men, we are then going to rape the fuck out of your women. Working up a Number 6 on ’em, as Slim Pickins would say.

    But when a modern army doesn’t rape and pillage, shouldn’t that be commended.

    Actually I don’t think it should. It is nowadays expected out of any respectable military force. And the Israeli army lives up to that expectation. For pragmatic reasons, but also for moral reasons.

    Listen, if I come across a passed out girl in a room, I personally am not going to hop on for a ride. One reason may be because I’m afraid of getting caught or having my reputation ruined (as would be the case if the Israeli soldiers decided similarly). But another reason is that I think it morally repulsive, as do — feminists listen up here — most men.

    It’s not that I found her not-worth-raping, which is how Nitzan appears to gauge the reasoning of the IDF, it’s that they don’t want to rape.

  3. Hmm…that brings up another thought that I’m sure many someones smarter than me (including Lee) has thunk: rape, in the context of a colonial occupation, is a tool that has stages of institutional utility.

    First, it’s used in a military context to establish supremacy (a la Slim Pickens).

    Second, the policing of rape (through the laws of the conquering force) is an indication of who really is in charge. The power to define what acts of assault on what bodies will count as rape under law is a coercive weapon — if you want justice, colonized people, you will have to consent to the imperialists’ way of law. Likewise, the power to “manufacture consent” (as Sharon Block puts it, where the rapist can manipulate both victim and potential witnesses into a situation where there can’t be a strong or believable “no”) is a power largely denied to the unassimilated.

    Fnally, the mature settler-state, having institutionalized the violence in its structures, winds up with a bad case of rape projection. The conquerors cannot imagine themselves as rapists because they know that rape is an act of power-taking disguised as violent desire — and who would desire the degraded colonized, who has no power to take? No decent person — certainly not a decent soldier — would do such a thing. They could — the threat is always there — but they don’t. Yay, occupation force for being such decent guys! The colonized are then feared as the power-grabbing rapist who wants to prey on the women of the master class. No self-control, no decency, disorderly folks who deserve their ongoing subordination.

    Stickwick misunderstands Nitzan because she only understands rape in war as the first stage — Nitzan’s clearly talking about a mature settler-state.

  4. Pingback: Hey, I’m Celebrating Over Here « The Coyote Chronicles

  5. That theory is interesting and all, but does it actually fit in with the facts.

    I mean, did the Israeli army actually use a widespread “use of rape in a military context to establish supremacy (a la Slim Pickens)?”

    On your second phase, I don’t understand why the policing of rape is a bad thing? Heaven forbid that rape be policed. Or theft. Or murder.

    And on your third phase, heaven forbid that there is no rape?

    You rape. You’re damned.
    You police rape to try to keep it from happening. You’re damned.
    You don’t rape. You’re damned.

  6. As usual with verbal typhoons from the right wing, this is much ado about nothing. Without seeing the full report from Hebrew University, I can’t speak for the full context, and therefore the intent, of the paper’s author(s). If someone wants to give brownie points to the IDF for not raping Palestinian women, more power to them.

    Bridgett, you are spot on, methinks. As a tool of colonial subjugation, institutionally accepted (or encouraged) rape is superfluous in the occupation. The IDF has other ways of demeaning and degrading women, and most of them happen daily at checkpoints. For more on this dynamic, I suggest reading Broken Promises, Broken Dreams by Alice Rothchild. Her eyewitness and second-hand accounts of the daily brutality and humiliation of Palestinians by the IDF will be saddening and maddening to anyone with a shred of decency and a sense of justice. (For you pro-Zionist reactionaries out there, Rothchild argues convincingly that this behavior is no good for Israel, either.)

  7. I guess it depends on who you believe, Lee. The Palestinians and left-wing Israelis (the ones who don’t support the occupation) insist that it is a fallacy that “the Israeli army doesn’t rape.” The Israeli army and those who support the occupation insist that it never happened, or happened in isolated and disapproved instances, or was threatened but was not carried out or…well, they get squishier about their denials the more that one presses the issues. It’s war. Bad shit happens, by definition, and the victors pretty much define what will become the truth.

    Same thing with policing rape. The power is to decide when assault is prosecutable — not all assault victims or assault incidents are of equal interest to the colonial state. You’ll note that claiming the power to prosecute assaulters is not the same as stopping assault. After all, why stop assaults if what you want is the opportunity to demonstrate that some women are worth avenging and others not so much?

    And thirdly, did you miss the part where this was done by a colonial power as a means of instituting colonial order? Where the constant threat of sexual violence is built in to daily life, not just for the women of the colonized but the women of the colonizer? How can that be a good thing for women?

    Eh, hell. I could be full of shit. It was just a thought I thought. Not all of them are gold-plated.

  8. “Eh, hell. I could be full of shit. It was just a thought I thought. Not all of them are gold-plated.”

    Admission is the first step.

    I kid. I know I’ve laid a turd or two over here at times.

    Seriously, it will be damn interesting when this paper comes out to see what exactly the author means. We both could be working off false assumptions on what the author intends.

    I’m trying to avoid the elephant in the room, which is the whole Israeli/Palestinian brouhaha, because it’s almost the weekend, and I’m in no mood to rehash that whole thing.

    Oh, and I’m always right.

  9. “I think Stickwick tips her hand that she understands and is, in fact, sympathetic to what seems to be Nitzan’s broader claim–that rape (or the lack of) sends a message about who has power.”

    Well, no, actually.

    My “analysis” of Nitzan’s work, which I did not read, was admittedly a tad glib, but I do have some understanding of the function of rape in a military sense. My husband served in the special forces in two different national armed forces, has seen the worst kind of atrocities that can occur in a conflict, and also had a relative who served as a U.N. general in Golan Heights in the 1980s. I approached this topic from the perspective of what I have learned from him, and what I understand is that in armed conflicts rape occurs for many reasons, from simple hormones to hate-driven to ideological, as when Serbian soldiers raped Muslim women in order to produce more Serbian offspring and Muslims did likewise.

    If I understand your comments, then, yes, you are correct that rape is not always about power over an individual and is in fact sometimes about achieving political ends. But it’s supremely difficult for me to see how *not* raping serves specifically as any sort of political tactic, especially delineation of power. It’s absurd. I believe the only way to arrive at such a conclusion is to begin with a faulty premise, the most plausible (to me) being that the author was likely viewing rape in terms of the victims’ desirability or “worthiness” of being raped. It is possible that a thorough reading of the paper would disabuse me of this idea, but in all honesty it’s very unlikely that I’ll bother.

    I admit to being willfully ignorant of the basics of feminist theory, but I suspect it’s along the lines of “all power boils down to sex,” which would mean that my assessment that women see rape in terms of sex and men in terms of power would be tautological. My point about the article is that, coming from the perspective of the natural sciences (I am a physicist), whenever you reach a conclusion in which any action produces the same result, your theory is essentially useless.

  10. I admit to being willfully ignorant of the basics of feminist theory, but I suspect it’s along the lines of “all power boils down to sex,” which would mean that my assessment that women see rape in terms of sex and men in terms of power would be tautological. My point about the article is that, coming from the perspective of the natural sciences (I am a physicist), whenever you reach a conclusion in which any action produces the same result, your theory is essentially useless.

    Leaving aside, for the moment, that this is about as wrong as one could be about the theory and still be using words in that general family… one might note that willful ignorance of what one is talking about is generally frowned upon, even in the vaunted halls of the natural sciences. Particularly when said information is easy to come upon from a variety of different sources, many of which can be found with a simple google search.

    Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog, for instance, neatly covers just about everything one might want to know about the basics, including work on the subjects of rape, sex, and power. To write a glib analysis of something one hasn’t read and premise much of one’s reactions on arguments from a field one keeps oneself willfully ignorant seems … unprofessional, at best. After all, scientists are supposed to make their arguments based on logic, facts, and good sense.

    If, on the other hand, one is simply stating an opinion and just being human about an issue they don’t particularly care about (else why wouldn’t they bother to familiarize themselves with what they’re talking about?), well…

  11. “If, on the other hand, one is simply stating an opinion and just being human about an issue they don’t particularly care about (else why wouldn’t they bother to familiarize themselves with what they’re talking about?), well…”

    Mag, that was pretty snide, if not downright snobby of you.

    It leads me to suspect Stickwick may have hit a nerve.

  12. It leads me to suspect Stickwick may have hit a nerve.

    Yes, but probably not the one you’re thinking of. I hate it when people hide behind “Oh, I’m just being scientific about it” (with, of course, the subtext that the other person is simply being unscientific and unreasonable). Especially when the person is behaving in a patently unscientific manner.

    I also dislike it when people do the “I don’t know anything about it and I’m not going to bother looking it up, but I’m going to proceed to tell you how it’s wrong” thing. Give me your reasoning, tell me your opinions, but for heaven’s sake, do some basic research before you open your mouth. If you still disagree (and hey, with ideological stuff like this, that’s pretty likely), that’s fine.

  13. Eh, what’s scientific about attacking a strawfeminist? Even more, what’s scientific about admitting that one has created a strawfeminist in order to attack it?

  14. I admit to being willfully ignorant of the basics of feminist theory, but I suspect it’s along the lines of “all power boils down to sex,” which would mean that my assessment that women see rape in terms of sex and men in terms of power would be tautological.

    Come on! Admittedly, I’ve been drinking, but there is just no way that a woman who is smart enough to be a physicist could have gotten this far in life without being the least bit curious about femist theory. I just can’t believe it. It’s like meeting Big Food.

    Er… Foot. Meeting Big Foot.

    How can someone who likes to toy with the puzzles of the universe not like to toy with the puzzles of how humans interact?

    Anyway, my point is that Nitzan could very well be an idiot who believes that the Israeli army is somehow to blame and worthy of condemnation because they don’t rape Palestinian women. And she could still be right that the Israelis don’t rape Palestinian women as a way of reminding the Palestinians that the Israeli army doesn’t see the women as being worth raping.

    Those two things aren’t the same thing.

    But it’s fun for folks to pretend they are because it feeds a strong anti-ivory tower bent we have.

    But the thing is (and, as a physicist, I’d think our guest would be crucially aware of this)–sometimes you can want to observe something without seeking to change it.

    It may be that the act of observing does change the thing being observed, but that isn’t always, or even often the intent of the observation.

  15. Here’s hoping my html tags work here. If not, apologies for any confusion.

    To write a glib analysis of something one hasn’t read and premise much of one’s reactions on arguments from a field one keeps oneself willfully ignorant seems … unprofessional, at best.

    Given that I’m not being paid to offer my opinion on this stuff… well, yeah, it is unprofessional of me.

    How can someone who likes to toy with the puzzles of the universe not like to toy with the puzzles of how humans interact?

    I do, but 1) I have a big problem with the current state of thought in the behavioral sciences: to wit, it’s not terribly scientific; 2) I’m just not that interested in what feminist theory has to say. Granted, it’s possible this opinion has been painted by the fact that most of the screwballs at my alma mater were in the women’s studies department. But, it’s not just that. When you have exploding galaxies and supermassive black holes as your mind’s playgrounds, most of human behavior just seems impossibly silly.

    And she could still be right that the Israelis don’t rape Palestinian women as a way of reminding the Palestinians that the Israeli army doesn’t see the women as being worth raping.

    What would help here is a definition for “worth raping.” Could you venture a guess as to how the author defines it?

    Ironically, I think there is an iota of truth to the latter statement, but not in the sense that has been suggested. I don’t believe that it’s a deliberate tactic by the IDF to refrain from raping, but I can believe that these soldiers view Palestinians as dehumanized. I respect the blog host’s wish not to turn this into a debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so that’s not my intention here. But it’s hard not to view Palestinians as dehumanized when you see things like this and this.

    One thing that would be quite interesting, and would pique my interest in Nitzal’s paper, is whether she draws any comparison to the relative rape rates of the IDF and the Nazis. The latter certainly made no secret of their extreme disdain for Jews and their regard for them as less than human. So if the rape rate for Nazi soldiers was comparably low, then perhaps Nitzal has a case.

    …sometimes you can want to observe something without seeking to change it.

    I didn’t think that was the point, especially when, logically, there is no acceptable way to change it. This just seemed like another expression of the inexplicable self-loathing/self-flagellating facet of the Jewish community.

  16. The scholar’s name is Tal Nitzan. It’s a small but important courtesy.

    Sometimes, what others label “self-flagellating” could be alternately described as a quest to understand what’s going on and why. I’m not being self-flagellating if I offer a hypothesis about human behavior and its potential role in the recent rise in planetary temperature and test data to see if my hypothesis holds. I am trying to understand what’s going on and why. If I note that Israeli army personnel generally refrain from raping Palestinian women, I might want to understand (as a person of ordinary curiousity) why that was, if it had always been so, the reasons why this happened. I’d do some field research, I’d hit the library to find the relevant literature, I’d test a variety of explanations for this phenomenon, and draw my conclusion based on my evidence rather than my preconceptions. That’s how researchers do things.

    Nitzan’s a doctoral candidate. She wrote a good paper — meaning, at the doctoral level, that she defined a new argument, did some new field research, and drew a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time (sounds like a semester). It’s not surprising, then, that you don’t already know her work to be true. That’s why she is doing new research — to learn new things. The contemporary world of physics would be a sad backwards place if doctoral candidates in your field neither tested controversial hypotheses nor risked drawing brilliant conclusions based on limited evidence. In fact, I’m betting that most doctoral candidates in physics are encouraged to push the field, working on an initial proposition that they will later have to refine. I don’t see how Ms. Nitzan’s work is so out of step with what happens in every good doctoral program in the world. She’s doing what grad students do.

    And incidentally scientists (natural, behavioral, social) try to explain and understand a lot of things that we cannot change, like the past. Or black holes.

  17. When you have exploding galaxies and supermassive black holes as your mind’s playgrounds, most of human behavior just seems impossibly silly.

    To borrow a Fox News turn of phrase, some people might say that spending massive amounts of time, energy, and treasure examining distant celestial phenomena– while dire earthly human problems threaten to make the study of those phenomena irrelevant– is impossibly and indulgently silly. But I wouldn’t say that.

    I would say that getting one’s context for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict from an electronic den of knuckledragging mouthbreathers doesn’t speak well of one’s ability to gather information on complex social issues. Perhaps the social sciences are best left to screwballs who have the psychological fortitude and elasticity to deal with phenomena that are both immediate and unpredictable.

  18. BTW, self-flagellation has historically been a Christian practice, not a Jewish one. It seems to have been popular in early monasticism, and then to have enjoyed a brief vogue among the laity in the last half of the fourteenth century, probably in reaction to th effects of plague. Jews kind of frown on self-torture of bodies supposedly created in the divine image.

    Oh, you were being metaphorical? Then you need to learn not to confuse self-analysis and self-criticism with self-loathing and self-flagellation. They aren’t the same thing.

  19. “When you have exploding galaxies and supermassive black holes as your mind’s playgrounds, most of human behavior just seems impossibly silly.”

    Well, now I know why the profs in the rest of the STEM fields keep warning the grad students about the screwballs in the physics departments. Physicists have quite the reputation of being the embarrassing James-Watson shoot-your-mouth-off egocentric loonies of the hard sciences, which I keep cheerfully hoping is just a relic of the past and no longer true. I’ve been fortunate that this thread is the first time I’ve personally seen behavior supporting that reputation.

  20. The scholar’s name is Tal Nitzan. It’s a small but important courtesy.

    ??? In the sciences, we almost exclusively refer to authors of papers by their last names. Perhaps you were not aware of this. It is not a discourtesy.

    You are quite right that the question Nitzal attempts to answer is very interesting and worth persuing. But her conclusion is so bizarre and warped — if indeed the article is representative of what her paper concludes — that I strongly suspect it’s tainted by self-loathing.

    She wrote a good paper.

    You know because you’ve read it?

    The contemporary world of physics would be a sad backwards place if doctoral candidates in your field neither tested controversial hypotheses nor risked drawing brilliant conclusions based on limited evidence.

    No, you are quite wrong. It would be a sad backwards place if we did draw conclusions based on limited evidence. This is not how it’s done. We make a guess based on limited evidence. We draw a conclusion based on lots of supporting data and a lack of evidence to the contrary.

    And incidentally scientists (natural, behavioral, social) try to explain and understand a lot of things that we cannot change, like the past. Or black holes.

    I believe I already made a comment on this to the same effect. Did you read all of my comments?

    …some people might say that spending massive amounts of time, energy, and treasure examining distant celestial phenomena– while dire earthly human problems threaten to make the study of those phenomena irrelevant– is impossibly and indulgently silly.

    First, your pronouncement is a bit hyperbolic. The sciences — and humanity — have survived many world catastrophes, and will very likely continue to do so. But I would respond to such people that to have no interest in the workings of one’s larger environment would bespeak an unforgivable lack of curiosity and perspective. But this ignores the fact that much of what we learn in astrophysics is applicable to everyday, earthly phenomena, and has led to some important discoveries that are immediately relevant to humankind. We make important observations of physical processes in exploding galaxies and in close proximity to black holes that provide extreme laboratory conditions that we cannot possibly replicate on earth. For instance, without Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms the basis for study of black holes and exploding galaxies, satellite technology would be impossible. In a more broad sense, physical theory like general relativity influence philosophical thought in an enormous way, and help to distinguish between real science from pseudo-science. Astrophysical results also inform many other branches of science, including chemistry, biology, geology, and even medicine. It’s such a shame that this is not taught in high schools, so that the public has a better understanding of how the sciences contribute to everyday life.

    As for the rest of your comment, it is the weakest form of argument to counter a claim with an attack on the source. If there was a politically-neutral website showing the same photos, I would have linked to that instead of the knuckle-draggers. But even if Stalin himself were to present the photos I linked to, it would not change the reality shown in those photos. That reality is, once you lose the capacity to be shocked and sickened by human carnage to the point that you will dance around with blown up body parts in your hands, you have lost your humanity.

    Physicists have quite the reputation of being the embarrassing James-Watson shoot-your-mouth-off egocentric loonies of the hard sciences…

    I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Every department has its social embarrassments and eccentrics, but most physicists — as with the natural science community in general — are very respected at universities. Sorry if my “screwballs” comment hurt anyone’s feelings — that wasn’t my intent. But when you get professors making statements to the effect that rockets are phallic in shape in order to assert male dominance, how can you possibly take them seriously?

    I’ve been fortunate that this thread is the first time I’ve personally seen behavior supporting that reputation.

    This is generally why I don’t like to argue with women. The temptation to abandon objectivity and resort to ad hominem is too strong, and the argument goes nowhere. Playing with the boys is so much easier, which is why I prefer to work in a male-dominated field.

    Thanks for the conversation.

  21. The scholar’s name is Tal Nitzan. It’s a small but important courtesy.

    ??? In the sciences, we almost exclusively refer to authors of papers by their last names. Perhaps you were not aware of this. It is not a discourtesy.

    You are quite right that the question Nitzal

    Calling someone whose last name is Nitzan by a last name other than Nitzan is a discourtesy, however. Continuing to do so after the mistake has been pointed out to you compounds the problem.

  22. I’ve been fortunate that this thread is the first time I’ve personally seen behavior supporting that reputation.

    This is generally why I don’t like to argue with women. The temptation to abandon objectivity and resort to ad hominem is too strong, and the argument goes nowhere.

    Of course, there’s not a single whiff of tu quoque about that comment of yours now, is there?

    I find it very sad when intelligent women in male-dominated fields play the exceptionalist card, that they are special snowflakes who aren’t like those other silly women who can’t think straight. You’re buying into the status quo that denigrates women’s criticisms without a second thought.

    Also, your silly quibbling about “professional” and not being paid in response to a critique of you judging a whole field of study while confessedly deliberately maintaining a “wilful ignorance” of the field? Let’s say “unacademic” then, shall we?

  23. Pingback: Special snowflake watch at Hoyden About Town

  24. Pingback: Israel, Palästina, Vergewaltigung und die Spinat-Metapher « Der Mitläufer sagt…

  25. Pingback: Linkse Israëlische Sociologe bewijst academische idiotie. « Contradicere

  26. Pingback: Linkse Israëlische Sociologe bewijst academische idiotie. « Opinie

Comments are closed.