Have you been feeling the urge to wave your arms wildly and yell “We are NOT making this up!”?                                                           

First, there was the pornography discovered in Osama bin Ladin’s  computers —and  herbal viagra found among his medicines. Media wags smirked he had to “satisfy” his youngest wife, Amal, the Yemeni who’d been married off to him (over objections from his other wives and even his mother) at age 15, when he was 43. Don’t you bet she’s enjoyed heaps of marital satisfaction? Pundits also wondered how his fundamentalist brand of Islam’s severe repression of women--imperative because we’re sexual Jezebels--could coexist with porn and sex drugs. After all, in his 2002 “Letter to the American people,” bin Laden sneered  “You plaster your naked daughters across billboards to sell a product without any shame.”  (Had a point there.)  But exposing and commercializing the female body for male titillation and shrouding it as a movable bolt of cloth to protect men from “temptation”  are flip sides of the same coin. Neither bunny suits nor burkhas factor in what women want.

Porn  actually needs sexual repression and demonized women in order to proliferate. Take sexuality out from under a rock and let it dance amicably in the sunlight of equality--and porn loses its audience. So, sorry guys, bin Laden’s porn stash is no contradiction.

Then there was the (now former) French presidential candidate, millionaire Socialist,  and  International Monetary Fund executive—the one who seems to confuse himself with Berlusconi. Where to begin here? That Dominique Strauss-Kahn (for short, DKS), 62, managing director of the IMF, allegedly did to one African widow what the IMF does to her continent?  That a 32-year-old Guinean émigré working as a hotel chambermaid while trying to raise her daughter with dignity might not burn with the mutual lust DSK’s attorneys argue was—honest-to-god—consensual? That claiming this is a set-up by DSK’s French political rivals—mais c’est absurd? That the power elite boys in global business and European politics have dismissed what they drolly termed Strauss-Kahn’s “womanizing,” for decades? That being indicted for criminal sexual assault, attempted rape, forced oral sex, and unlawful imprisonment are not the peccadilloes French men are pooh-poohing as American puritanical exaggeration? Interestingly, French women don’t agree; 1000 feminists signed a petition that ran in Le Monde, denouncing DSK’s defenders and their “sudden rise of sexist and reactionary reflexes, so quick to surface among part of the French elite.”

My French must be rusty, since I forgot “womanizing” apparently translates as  the preferred euphemism for “serial rapist.” Yet DSK’s “open secret” in Europe includes a history of allegations: sexual assault, molestation, groping, abuse of power, sexual harassment. Names are even named: the economist Piroska Nagy, his IMF subordinate; the journalist Tristane Banon, the Socialist parliamentarian Aurelie Filipetti, and on and on—provoking only the occasional wrist slap from his brothers or, once, his apology—to the IMF, not the women. Now, NY investigators are being flooded with calls from women saying they too were sexually assaulted by Strauss-Kahn, and other employees at the same NYC hotel are reporting his advances to them.

Plus ça change. Here comes the long-suffering political wife (his third), Anne Sinclair,  supporting him. This is now such a cliché that it has its own TV series, The Good Wife. But Sinclair, a former journalist and heiress who’s financed his political career, takes her defense waaaaay out. When, in 2006, L’Express asked if his reputation pained her, she replied “No! I’m even proud of it. It’s important to seduce, for a politician.” (Leaving aside quaint notions of solidarity with other women, Sinclair’s opinion of the electorate is unnerving.)

As for French horreur that DSK was subjected by police to a “perp walk,” I haven’t been so proud of the NYC Police Department since 9/11!

Ooops, take that back.

See, meanwhile, we have the ongoing trial of two policemen for alleged burglary, official misconduct, and oh yes rape.  A woman on the verge of passing out came to them for help, saying she’d drunk too much. The defendants claim the sex was—surprise!-- “consensual.” They brought her home, undressed her, claim they left, yet apparently lodged a false call from her asking them to return, and returned while she was still passed out. One, Officer Kenneth Moreno, says  the semi-comatose woman “came onto” him, so he thought she was initiating a “relationship.” I did not make this up. Nor did the New York Times.

But I am still proud of Melissa Jackson, chief judge of Manhattan Criminal Court, who denied Strauss-Kahn bail.  Please pay attention because you won’t catch me saying this very often: Hurrah for U. S. justice!

Well, that didn’t last long. 

A male judge, Michael J. Obus, reversed Jackson’s decision, so DSK is out on bail, though tenants at the Manhattan luxury building where Mme. Sinclair immediately rented two apartments refused to let him reside there, even temporarily. (But hey, he’s resigned from the IMF, poor baby, having to settle for a separation payment of only $250,000.)

And there’s Ahhhhhnold. The Californicating ex-B-movie star won the governorship in the first place only  because his wife, Maria Shriver, stood by his side (see Good Wife, above  ) during a campaign rife with “rumors and allegations” about his, yup, “womanizing.” It didn’t hurt that she’s a Kennedy clanmember who put her reputation on the line for him,  sacrificing her journalism career in the process.  Now, safely out of office, Schwarzenegger confesses that he did father a child a decade ago with their housekeeper, Mildred Patricia Baena, who worked for the family for 20 years. She was pregnant by him while Shriver was pregnant with their youngest son. But gee, Schwarzenegger has apologized. 

Did I forget to say that the two NYC cops have apologized, too? Bill Maher (reliably obnoxious about women) and Chris Matthews (who’s already had to apologize publicly for sexist remarks) shared guffaws about how if you “mess around” with the maid like Strauss-Kahn, it’s best to have her consent first, as Schwarzenegger—they assume--did. But because Ms. Baena didn’t run screaming from the room as the hotel maid managed to do doesn’t mean she consented. When one party is a rich movie star/famous politician, and the other is a Latina housekeeper in his employ, the sheer imbalance of power precludes the possibility of genuine consent.  This situation, too, is spun as consensual, with added implications smearing Baena as mentally  imbalanced. Blaming the Victim remains a popular sport. 

Rounding out the week was the Yale fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon, whose alums include both Presidents Bush. DKE’s  activities are now suspended for five years, for marching across campus chanting at women students, “No Means Yes!” and  “Yes Means Anal!”   (So much for our slogan, “What part of No don’t you understand?” Now we have the answer. They don’t understand the “No” part.) The DKE International Fraternity’s statement implied women were humorless, and whined that a 6 week suspension of pledging activities would be sufficient, since the chanting, while “inappropriate and in poor taste” didn’t warrant a 5 year punishment. Still, Mary Miller, Dean  of Yale College, is enforcing the 5 years.

“Inappropriate.” “Consensual.” “She came onto him.” “Womanizing.”  “No sense of humor.” “Rumors and allegations.”  “Conspiracy to frame him.” Phrases we all, men as well as women, by now ought to recognize immediately, which would save us from repeatedly falling over platitudes with an air of great discovery. For that matter, the next time Wikileaks guru Julian Assanges claims the rape charges against him are lies, the two women “consented” to sex without condoms, and he’s being framed by the CIA, can we  please think twice about his online “heroism”?

Californians who voted for Schwarzenegger on the basis of Shriver’s defense now feel conned. Not that she’s to blame; he lied to her, too. In fact, maybe we should try a new approach to the Good Wives: Do them a favor and  just not believe them. Why think their teary testimony could be honest in such circumstances any more than that of the battered woman who calls 911, then changes her story, insisting she broke her own nose--for fear of what her batterer will do to her after the cops leave? We could also commercially terminate The Terminator, who’s returning to movie making:  women and men of conscience can  boycott all films of his, past and future.

But here’s the good news.

Ten or 15 years ago, a widowed émigré maid would likely have been too terrified to fight back or report such an ordeal to her employers. The hotel would probably have hushed it up for fear of  a powerful guest, but had the police been called, strings would have been pulled in the DA’s office to quash the arrest. Other alleged victims of the same man now are coming forward when, years ago, they dared not. Ten years ago there were fewer women judges on the NY bench, and fewer women deans anywhere, much less at Yale College--and women students might not have lodged a complaint about offensive chants in the first place. And there was a time when Maria Shriver, a lifelong devout Catholic, would not have considered meeting, as she’s doing, with a divorce lawyer.

But the best news is that  the press—traditional and new media alike—covered these stories at all.  That ought to be a given—but it wasn’t until fairly recently. And though press commentary was sometimes flippant or sensationalistic, news reporting was largely fair and respectful. And that would never have happened without years of women writing outraged letters to networks and newspapers, without pressure from groups like The Women’s Media Center.

So in the teeth of ongoing gross misdoings, all this is, nonetheless, strange good news.

Seriously.

Until tomorrow’s headlines, at least.

Robin Morgan’s latest book is Fighting Words. She is a contributor to Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed and to September 11, 2001: Feminist Perspectives. www.RobinMorgan.us

I’m a slut

but  but

but I’m not  I’m not

I’m a slot

I’m a slut

but but

what what could it mean

am I a slut?

but but

he said you’re a slut

he said look at your butt

you’re a slut

I said

but but

she said she’s a slut

no buts about it

just a slut

all smut

they all said she’s a slut

no doubt about it

but but I said

I said but

I’m no slut

I’m no slit for your bit

I’m not here for you

so fuck off and stop doin me in

he said but but

no slut here

no fear

he said but but

she said but but

they said but but

I’m not the butt of your names

your words are not my words

no fuckin way

so shut up

I’m no slut

I’m no slut walker

I’m a walker but bein a walker

don’t make me no slut

so butt out

get outta my mind

I’ll think what I want

I’ll do what I want

I’ll walk at 3 am if I want

I’ll wear big boots and kick butt

I’ll cut my hair short

I’ll leave it long

but I won’t do pussy on the street

because I’m not here for you

you pussy stalker

cos I’m no slut

you say but but

you look like a slut

you must be a slut

if you’re out a 3 am

if you don’t look girlie

you must be a fuckin feminist

they’re all sluts

that’s what they are

and I say

you got it boy

you got it girl

I’m a feminist

now fuck off

I’m no slut

d’you hear

try again

I’m no slut

they all said but but

Susan Hawthorne is the author of six collections of poetry including Cow and Earth’s Breath.

This week in America there has been something distasteful about the joyful celebrations of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  More than distaste, it has been filled with macho and the elation of revenge.  Worse, it has obscured American's attention from how actually Bin Laden died.

I am among those millions of people around the world who are relieved that this terrorist responsible for repeated heinous acts that have taken thousands of lives, but I am also hearing   who are speaking quietly, as if it would be anti-American, about "being sickened," or "revolted" or "appalled" by the jubilation.  And we have more reason than might be immediately evident from news reports and White House announcements for our reactions.

Bin Laden is dead.  But he was unarmed when the US Special Forces stormed in on him, killed him and then buried his body at sea before we even knew he was dead not to mention before we even were able to ask how he was killed.  Follow the Pentagon and State Department announcements: first, it was stated that he was unarmed.  Then a few days later announcements included that an AK47 was nearby in the room.  Sometime after that, as some of us began to question the killing, we were told that a pistol was "within his reach."  

What we do know is that Bin Laden's courier was killed, but that although the President described firefights, no Navy Seal was fired upon. If Bin Laden was unarmed, surely he could have been taken as a prisoner.  Legally, it would then be the work of the International Court to try him and bring him to justice, for justice resides in our courts, or it is suppose to reside there. Whatever his punishment, it would not have resulted from a President authorizing vigilante justice.

Instead, from what we know today, the picture we are piecing together looks like he was assassinated—killed in cold blood. That is what the President of the United States referred to as "justice." That is what Americans celebrated in the streets for days.  With that, the President has dragged the US to a new low in our standards of justice.  Assassination follows from war crimes already committed by this President and his predecessor in Iraq and Afghanistan.

War crimes, assassinations and Americans flooding the streets celebrating vengeance, the President's ratings in the polls take a leap upward for his "strength" (read macho), pundits confident of his re-election, and congratulations from Dick Cheney. That sordid atmosphere leaves an air of suspicion surrounding anyone calling for real justice in relation to Bin Laden, the kind of mentality we experienced in the US with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when many of us knew that war against Iraq was a war crime and that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction there.  No matter.  Americans wanted revenge for 9/11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with that crime against humanity masterminded by Bin Laden.  They got it at the cost of 1.3 million Iraqi and almost 4,500 American soldiers lives.  Then the celebration of war virtually drowned out the massive global anti-war protests before the invasion in 2003.

As long as the US and its deadly military are the final arbiter's of justice in the world, we will all be dragged down and sink into its amorality.  That is why in Unmaking War, Remaking Men I have proposed a plan for a global peace-making military whose special forces would use the least force necessary to bring down leaders engaged in ethnic cleansing, genocide and other crimes against humanity.  Until we make that kind of change we will be doomed to macho revenge masking as justice.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita is the author of Unmaking War, Remaki

If Australia required defense, which it doesn't seem to as long as it pairs up with the US in its ongoing wars that are war crimes, would you want your soldiers trained by the Australia Defence Force Academy? After all, it took it a month to figure out that a crime was committed against a female cadet when what she thought was consensual sex turned her into pornography via Skype. 

The message to the future soldiers and military officers sent by the academy is that if crimes are committed against women, forget it. If your Minister of Defence will not let you forget it, then you at the academy take your time to figure out the charges and you do it so you won't put the boys out too much. 

Just a short court appearance and back to classes. Would you really want those to be the standards of protection in your military? It wouldn't make you feel too safe, would it? The US military is probably worse. That is why in Unmaking War, Remaking Men, I've laid out a plan for a Global Peace-Making Military.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita of Penn State University is the author of five books, the latest – Unmaking War, Remaking Men: How Empathy Can Reshape Our Politics, Our Soldiers and Ourselves is published by Spinifex Press, Australia and Phoenix Rising Press, US.

A "sex scandal" broke open at a military academy in Canberra, Australia, when some cadets viewed via Skype sex between a male and female cadet.  Newspaper accounts refer to the event as "consensual sex."

How can sex be consensual as claimed in this case when, as part of the act, the male cadet had arranged for other male cadets to watch in another room which was then streamed via Skype.  That turns the "consensual sex" into voyeurism and forced pornography.  But how can we count how many crimes were committed here when the initial premise of consensual sex is so flawed?

No worries – as there has been no discussion of charging the boys involved (one was under the age of 18, none behaved with adult maturity).  But the woman cadet upon whom sex for public viewing was had, was brought in on a disciplinary hearing on supposedly unrelated matters right after the event was made public.  She was even made to apologise to her peers which was interrupted only when one of the male cadets shouted ‘Slut’. And for days afterward, the Australian Federal Police had not yet determined if any laws had been broken.

But since the Skype scandal broke in early April, and it has been called the Skype scandal as if Skype had violated the law, the woman and military regulations, as if the voyeuristic boys and their buddy in bed in front of the Skype camera had no responsibility or involvement in the incident. Neither their names nor any other reference to them appear in Australian media accounts which name the woman by her first name and do not hesitate to represent her previous behavior as if it were the cause of this invasion of her right to privacy.   

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has been the public voice of reason and has expressed sensitivity to the woman cadet.  An investigation was immediately launched and six enquiries are currently ongoing.  But as of late April there still have been no arrests of or charges filed against the boys. 

A military culture of rape? some wonder.  The culture of rape is so normalised, so accepted that, in this case, we have yet to see a question of the boys behaviour or action on the number of sexually related crimes they have committed.  But if you follow the Australian reporting on this case, and if Australian media at all reflects its society, the military culture of rape is a reflection of an Australian culture of rape. 

There is more to the question of rape in the military than that.  The military's goal in training cadets is to produce killers and to do that, killer soldiers are trained to be remorseless for the act of taking the life of another human being.  Remorseless killers are grunts, they carry with them the gang mentality one might find on the streets, destruction for the sake of itself.  Whatever kinds of human beings these cadets were before they entered the military, their training for war, for why else do we have militaries but to fight wars (in the US our government makes up wars for our soldiers to fight and our armament companies to do business), dehumanises them to bring out the worst of human behaviour – the killing of another human being. 

While those of us outside the military tend to see the precision of military parades complete with smart, perfectly fitted uniforms, those representations are meant for us to gloss over the grunts underneath that come out in combat, not because they were born that way but because the military trains them. 

Yes, an investigation is taking place, but until we rethink the entire venture of making militaries and turning out killing machines named "the troops" for combat, we can expect little to change.  That is why in my latest book I've called for both ‘unmaking war’ and ‘remaking men’.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita of Penn State University is the author of five books, the latest – Unmaking War, Remaking Men: How Empathy Can Reshape Our Politics, Our Soldiers and Ourselves is published by Spinifex, Australia and Phoenix Rising Press, US.