Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted November 3, 2007.


Susan Faludi's new book is a scathing critique of the media's response to 9/11. In the wake of the powerlessness many Americans felt on 9/11, a myth was spun.
ftbragg2
fdfsdf

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the weeks after 9/11, novelist Barbara Kingsolver wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times that closed with these words, "The mortal citizens of a planet are praying right now that we will bear in mind ... that no kind of bomb ever built will extinguish hatred." She was promptly vilified by Rush Limbaugh and a slew of other right-wing commentators. Shortly afterward, the Los Angeles Times received a letter, among many others, from a collection agency owner who called Kingsolver's op-ed "nothing less than another act of terror."

This is just one of many episodes that Susan Faludi recounts in her new book The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. In this scathing critique of the media's response to 9/11, Faludi turns her critical eye to how, in the wake of the powerlessness many Americans felt on 9/11, a myth was spun -- one that stretches back to the time of America's first English settlers.

Faludi notes that the fixation on feminism began just days after 9/11 -- perhaps best encapsulated by the Houston Chronicle headline, "No Place for Feminist Victims in Post 9-11 America"; a seemingly out of place assertion that speaks volumes about the American fixation on a clear-cut vision of victim and hero, otherwise known as female and male. Indeed, while the bulk of the World Trade Center victims were male, it is the pictures of the woman being comforted by a fireman that we saw in the newspapers. And it was, as New York Magazine put it in a headline, the stay-at-home widows -- preferably pregnant at the time of the attacks, those "Perfect Virgins of Grief" that America's attention turned to.

As Faludi sees it, after 9/11, "We reacted to trauma ... not by interrogating it but by cocooning ourselves in the celluloid chrysalis of the baby boom's childhood." When search dogs at the site of 9/11 could not find any living humans to rescue, they became so demoralized that their handlers took turns hiding for each other's animals in order to simulate a "live find." It's a striking parallel to the American media's attempt to rewrite 9/11 as a moment of valor and glory, conveniently skipping over the sadness, the loss, the humbling gravity of a world in which America could be so vilified by those in other parts of the world.

Enter Faludi's concise and tirelessly reported critique. Drawing on hundreds of years of documentation and media narrative, Faludi's Terror Dream gives us insight into the revisionist myth that has ruled American catastrophe since its inception. From a 1678 sermon lamenting that men have become too effeminate to properly defend America, to the fear that feminism has effeminized a 21st century population, Faludi's narrative is a powerful wake up call.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri: What didn't make sense to you about our reaction to 9/11?

Susan Faludi: Immediately after 9/11, there was this desperate hunt for heroes in the media and the declaration that there would be scores of heroes to come of this. This was in contradiction to the reality of the nature of the catastrophe, which left very little room for anybody to rescue anyone. They estimate that there were about 19 people who survived in the World Trade Center who were at the fire line or above. 95 percent of the people who died were utterly unreachable.

People below the fire line for the most part unless they were infirm, walked out on their own two feet. Yet there was this rescue drama of early American male heroes, in this case firefighters, carrying damsels in distress down the stairs in our fevered imagination. Certainly on the planes there was no one to rescue. In the absence of that we invented hero and victim designations and we assigned them by sex. So the firefighter, in particular, the firefighters who died, were declared the heroes and the victims became the 9/11 widows.

OR: On top of the search for heroism on the ground, there was a need to the heroics on the planes.

SF: Which isn't to say that there wasn't a lot of courageous behavior, it's just that we had no idea what happened. The media took a few snippets of very fragmentary information and turned it into this drama of strapping football and basketball players hurling themselves at the hijackers while the women cowered in their seats. It's what we imposed on the story; we didn't really know what the story was.

OR: In fact, you write that what was depicted in the major media outlets contradicted what we did know. You write about the some of the comic book depictions of 9/11 and how the heroics played out.

SF: Yes, there's one that show only the male passengers vote on what to do to stop the hijackers -- which had this odd connotation that we had gone back to some kind of patriarchy where only the men were allowed to vote. Or worse, in some sort Taliban-like situation where the men make the decisions while the women sit behind a veil.

OR: What do we know for sure happened on Flight 93, particularly the women's role in the heroics?

SF: We know that one of the flight attendants, Sandra Bradshaw, called home and told her husband that she and other flight attendants were boiling water to hurl at the hijackers and her last words were that she had to run because they were about to charge up the aisle and see what they could do. So you have that phone call home and yet that phone call was elided over in the media accounts with a few exceptions. It was certainly given short shrift compared with some of the other phone calls that were much more enigmatic. Who knows what "Let's roll" means. Later the FBI report speculated that it meant that "let's roll the cart down the aisle." No one really knows. But the media made this a story of the male heroes and the possibility of female heroism was sidelined.

OR: One of the poignant things that you write about is our leadership's preoccupation with image after 9/11. There's a docudrama created of depicting Bush's valor after 9/11, Rove invites top movie and TV execs to a hotel to discuss the event, Peggy Noonan is comparing Bush to Superman. What do you make of all these narratives?

SF: It was as though what mattered to our political and media culture was not what we did but how we appeared as we were doing it. Instead of actual efforts to improve security, instead of actual strategies, military and investigative that might bring the perpetrators to justice, we seemed as a culture to be embarked on this prolonged effort to cast and produce 9/11 The Movie, the sequel where we emerge triumphant and super-inflated and muscular.

There were a number of meetings right in the weeks after 9/11 with those in the film industry -- meetings at a time when you would like to believe that our government officials had bigger things on their minds than seeing if Hollywood would cobble together a film about American heroism based on the splicing of old Westerns (which is what they ended up doing).

You would think that Bush and his cabinet would have better things to do than make themselves available for hours on end to be photographed by Vanity Fair. In his editorial note accompanying the cover story photo essay of Bush and his cabinet members, even editor in chief Graydon Carter wondered why they were so accommodating and he concluded, in this 21st century era of culture, that image is more important than anything else. There was little irony. He was basically proud that Vanity Fair was seen as the scene of image making.

OR: You analyze Kerry and Bush's fixation with their guns on the campaign trail. "Kerry's problem," you write, "was that he never fully grasped his role in that national play. Brandishing the gun was only half the protection script." Can you explain this?

SF: From the get-go, both Bush and Kerry seemed to be competing for the title of Daniel Boone-in-chief. Both of them made themselves available to the hunting and fishing media. Toward the end, when he wasn't granting any personal interviews, Bush made an exception for Field & Stream and Outdoor Life. He was extraordinarily accommodating, driving the reporters around the ranch in his pick-up truck, opening up his private gun cabinet, and bragging about all his guns.

Meanwhile, Kerry was running around to duck hunts every weekend, dragging these poor reporters in pre-dawn hours to watch him shoot wild animals, get blood all over his hands, and drop his g's to sound like a good old huntin' boy. But the Bush handlers are more skilled in intuitively understanding the cultural script and they understood that at the heart of American mythology is not only a brawny and rescuing cowboy, but a woman in need of rescue. The story doesn't work without that female weakness to set off male strength.

So we saw the Bush administration, during the 2004 campaign, playing off that. There was the ad "Wolves" where a young woman with a trembling voice provides the voice-over for an ad where wolves are stalking through the forest and this warbly voice says that Kerry won't protect the nation, but the message is more that she won't feel protected. Women won't feel safe if Kerry is the sheriff-in-chief.

More dramatically, the most expensive campaign -- roughly 17 million dollars -- that the Bush administration used actually saturated the airwaves in the last several weeks of the campaigns. This was the ad called "The Hug" in which Bush is seen hugging a girl whose mother died in the World Trade Center and the girl says, "He's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe."

OR: Didn't Kerry make a last ditch effort to buy some airtime, but it had already been bought out by Bush?

SF: The Jersey Girls [ 9/11 widows] had made two different ads in which they responded that we don't need a hug, we need actual policies that support our national security and answers to why that security did not hold up on 9/11. But even if those ads had run over and over in the last few weeks, I'm not sure it would have made a difference. The story of the Jersey Girls is women as outspoken and strong, independent, demanding answers and putting the lie to the male protective fantasy that the White House was offering. That was not part of the narrative that our culture wanted to console itself with.

OR: Soon after 9/11 you actually start to get phone calls to weigh in on whether or not feminists really have a place in post-9/11 America? It seems like a bit of a jump. What do these things have to do with one another?

SF: The first phone call was the weirdest and that was on the very afternoon of 9/11. This reporter who was doing a reaction story and he was based in L.A. I was living in L.A, so I guess he was just going through his Rolodex. I don't really know why he called me. It's not like I was going to have something to say about terrorism, airplane security or Islamic culture.

I think it was a time when peoples' filters were down; they were freaked out. This reporter blurted out something that evidently was on his mind, which was, "This sure pushes feminism off the map." He seemed almost gleeful about it -- Ha ha, you're agenda is gone. And certainly, in weeks and months ahead, in the conservative media especially, you saw that kind of gloating tone. It went beyond gloating to finger pointing, as if some American feminist had any effect on Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the rise of the Taliban. It was just bizarre.

The other calls I got were reporters doing trend stories which are usually based on something their editor thinks is true, or they have two friends who said it was true and that's about all the evidence they have. These calls went like this: Isn't it true that women are returning to traditional family arrangements, isn't it true that women want to be protected and that women want to bake cookies as a reaction to 9/11? There were lots of people who wanted to bring cookies and other things to the firehouse. My own mother did that. Everyone I know did that in New York. But that's an act of sympathy and condolence, not a trend to return to full-time home-making as the media was very eager to turn it into.

OR: You write, "They weren't investigating the possibility of a trend, they were trying to induce one." But something very real seem in the media was lack of coverage of women's role on 9/11.

SF: There were plenty of men and women rushing to the site to see how they could help. There were plenty of female first responders. There weren't a lot of female firefighters, but that's because the New York Fire Department is perhaps the most misogynist fire department of any urban fire department in America. Women fought a very bitter lawsuit in the late 70s to get the fire department to even begin to consider admitting. Then, women were treated in ways that just make your jaw drop. Their safety equipment being purposefully damaged, sexual assault, fellow firefighters urinating in their boots. So there's a reason why the NY fire department had .3 percent female profile.

Aside from the fire department, there were female police officers, female port authority officers, female paramedics and doctors. But afterward, we saw the reversion to language where we had firemen and policemen instead of firefighters and police officers in the media. When the women's rights organization National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW LDEF) made a very short film which highlighted a half dozen women and their courageous attempts on that day to be of some service, the media responded as if this were some kind of offensive. In the words of one conservative commentator, it was "obscene," and somehow desecrated the memory of the male firefighters.

OR: What has happened to female bylines in the media since 9/11?

SF: Geneva Overholser, former editor-in-chief of The Des Moines Register back in the 80s and early 90s and then was the ombudsman of The Washington Post. When she opened up The Washington Post on September 12th, she saw that they had expanded the opinion pieces from five to ten, but not one of them was a woman. As it turned out, that was no anomaly. Various studies and counts from different people, including me, repeatedly found that there was a dramatic decline in women's voices in the opinion pages of major newspapers and on the news shows. The White House Project found that in the first seven weeks after the attack, women's appearance as guests on Sunday morning policy news programs shrank by 40 percent. Even women who were the obvious choices -- like Senators Feinstein and Boxer -- who were heads of congressional subcommittees on terrorism at the time were not invited to do shows.

OR: You write that, "The unimaginable assault on our home soil was in fact anything but unimaginable." We've seen the sentiment of the phrase before. Slavoj Zizek says that this has happened over and over in our imagination, citing pop culture Hollywood films in which we have these great disaster epics. But you actually trace this to a more concrete historical parallel with captivity literature. How did you connect the two?

SF: I remember watching War of the Worlds which was so informed by 9/11. It was like taking 9/11 and turning it into an intergalactic Martian attack. The movie has the posters of the missing, people standing with their video cameras, and their jaws dropped, and it began in the New York/New Jersey area.

What also struck me was that the ending was a reprise of The Searchers. That started me wondering about why we were returning to the Western. At the same time, there was all this media commentary that kept referring to how the war on terror was a return to our Indian wars, back to taming the frontier. John Wayne kept coming up. That led me to our frontier mythology and captivity narratives. Our frontier mythology drops about the first 200 years. This frontier mythology that we live by, that we replay over and over again, is in direct contradiction to the actual experience of our original frontier trauma of Northeastern colonies. We sort of covered that all up with the triumphal Great Plains tale that is 75 percent concoction.

OR: Can you speak more specifically about Mary Rowlandson's narrative?

SF: For the first century and a half, all our bestsellers with the exception of Pilgrim's Progress, were captivity narratives. They by and large were told from the woman's point of view and were stories of how women taken captive grappled with it, not by being rescued by a man, but by rescuing themselves through a greater awareness of God, human weakness and dependency on God. It was a worldview shared by men and women and while women predominated in these early captivity narratives, these narratives were read avidly by both men and women. The Mary Rowlandsons were held up as an archetype for both men and women to emulate.

But ultimately, with the passing of Puritanism and with the repeated inability of male leaders and male husbands, to protect families in frontier towns, and with the society falling into a crisis over their inability to enact real security and protection, we begin to see the rewriting of these narratives into a fantasy narrative. In this narrative, the male hero comes to the rescue of the helpless and grateful maiden. The story is rewritten so that women taken captive are in danger of that most female of jeopardy's -rape--and the white man comes to the rescue. This is in the face of the reality that most Northeastern Native American tribes rarely raped captives. Though you couldn't say the same for the white settlers who raped Native American women.

OR: You also say that about a third of the women who were captured when they were young women, chose to stay with their captors.

SF: In the case of many of these tribes, life was more congenial for women. Especially in contrast to the Puritan society's narrow roles allowed women daily in public life.

OR: This specter of rape is recycled through the racist plantation novels, the Cold War, and the 1950s.

SF: Over and over again in periods where we feel threatened, or penetrated on home soil, we reflexively reenact this drama. So, for example, after the civil war, the ceded South in its humiliation over not being able to protect its home soil from Yankee incursions, puts on this rescue drama in which the Klan restores its honor by fighting a mythical epidemic of rape of virginal southern white women by black freed men.

And then, starting at the end of WWII, with the emergence of the Atomic Age, you see the cultural reflex in response to the knowledge and fear that we are no longer this isolated nation and that anybody can lob a nuclear bomb at us. You see this retreat into a fantasy of men protecting women in fallout shelters where men are toting all the guns and women are canning the peaches, and taking care of the children.

OR: And decorating the shelters.

SF: Yes, because it's very important to have wallpaper on your fallout shelter so you'll have something to look at while the bombs are falling. At the same time, you see all these protection fantasies being spun. In particular, the completely bogus sex crimes epidemic that J. Edgar Hoover and company declared in the 50s. Supposedly, we were being overrun by sexual deviants and young girls were in perpetual danger of molestation even though the actual crime records showed a decline in sex crimes during this same period.

OR: How do these early narratives shed light on Jessica Lynch's story?

SF: Jessica Lynch's story, or supposed story, is a classic "Exhibit A" of how this mythology plays out. It has all the elements of the American security myth: The strong inflated man, the helpless woman in need of rescue, and a rape story. The tale that we were told by the military and that was repeated by the media, was that special ops teams descended on this Iraqi hospital in the dark of night and waged a fierce battle with Fedayeen death squads, to rescue Jessica Lynch. Fedayeen death squads who, it was insinuated without evidence, had raped her.

The reality of the story which we know thanks largely to the British media, is that it was a bunch of doctors and nurses trying to take care of her, there was no battle, there were no Fedayeen death squads in there as the military knew because hospital workers had informed the American military of this. These were doctors and nurses who actually went to fairly elaborate lengths to take care of her. She herself corroborated this later. These were hospital workers who actually tried to return her to the U.S. forces, bundled her in an ambulance and were driving her when they were stopped at a checkpoint and U.S. soldiers shot so fiercely at the ambulance that they had to turn around.

OR: The rescue itself was very choreographed -- with live video feed and Rumsfeld and Bush being kept informed every minute of the way of how the rescue was going.

SF: Right. As if this were some critical strategic turning point in the war. Before the video, seemingly for the advancement of the video story, not the real story, doors were kicked down, even though hospital workers had tried to give them a master key. The military was certainly in a big hurry to release this film. It must have been the fastest turnaround in moviemaking history. The troops went into the hospital around midnight and the film was available and reporters rousted out of their beds to watch it by three a.m.

OR: Talk about the title of the book that was then written about Jessica Lynch: I Am a Soldier, Too.

SF: Former New York Times reporter Rick Bragg was contracted to write the "Jessica Lynch tells all" story. The book was titled I Am a Soldier, Too which is a line from Jessical Lynch's own mouth the night of her so-called rescue when the soldiers burst into her hospital room in Nasiriyah. One of them said, "I am a U.S. soldier and I'm here to rescue you. We're here to take you out of here." And her answer was, "I am a soldier, too" which is the one quote that she was allowed for months. And then she disappeared behind American hospital walls and the media and the military spoke for her for months. OR: That line seems to throw a wrench in the Hollywood script. She essentially tells the rescuer, "Yes, I'm just like you."

SF: The media compulsively seemed compelled to dismantle that line. For months, we saw these articles in which Jessica Lynch is essentially transformed from a soldier who enlisted twice, into this delicate little maiden who loved pink ribbons as a girl. One of the reporters drove to her hometown to interview anybody who knew her before the age of six. There were repeated interviews with kindergarten teachers and grammar school playmates.

OR: In reality, she's a single mother and her daughter is named after the first Native American woman to die in combat, Lori Piestewa.

SF: Who herself was a single mom and who went to Iraq as an act of support. She was actually excused from deployment because she had injured herself in a training exercise right before they shipped out. She was the one soldier who, in the mad dash to Baghdad when Jessica Lynch's own vehicle broke down in a sandstorm, pulled over and picked her up.

OR: And that got very little coverage in the news.

SF: I thought it was telling that the only real major profile I could find which ran more than a year after the ambush was a profile in Rolling Stone and it was aptly titled, "The Forgotten Soldier."

OR: Your book culminates in the conclusion that our inability to confront the vulnerability and humiliation that we've experienced that creates this hollow protection myth. Talk about how we see this with the firefighters of 9/11.

SF: This goes back to the earlier point of image and appearance trumping the truth of our circumstances. Rudy Giuliani stood before the 9/11 Commission and said, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that the firefighters who died in the collapse of the second tower had heard the mayday on their radios and chose to stay in the towers to "rescue other people." Now how in the world they were going to rescue other people when the tower was coming down, he never explained.

It's crystal clear from the hundreds of oral history accounts of the surviving firefighters that the vast majorities of the firefighters heard no mayday because the radios didn't work. That's something the officials had known since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center when those same radios didn't work and they were supposed to be replaced. The families of firefighters called, shouted and then screamed from the audience, "No. This is not right. Talk about the radios. The radios didn't work."

And then Giuliani gave this very revealing impromptu speech about how the firefighters gave us a story of heroism, a story we needed to get through this. He said that otherwise it would be a story like the Andrea Doria where we didn't triumph. So, basically, our need to see ourselves as triumphant rescuers trumps the need to grapple honestly with the tragedy and think realistically and practically about how to prevent it from happening again.

OR: That's one of those moments where you can't believe that he actually said what he said.

SF: And then got to run for presidential candidate.

OR: It's interesting after a crisis, who is allowed to say what. The firefighters are given this title of heroism, and yet that's not necessarily what they want. There seems to be little room for the true narrative even from those being lauded as the heroes.

SF: The firefighters submitted all of this testimony to the FDNY and then a lawsuit had to take place, and go to the highest court in the state before the city was willing to release the accounts of their own experience to the public.

OR: Similarly, many of the 9/11 widows who are so sought after by talk shows and mainstream media outlets became frustrated because their interviewers either aren't interested in the particulars of what they have to say, or they even attribute false quotes to the widows.

SF: Even the widows who were most accommodating to the media like Lisa Beamer who finally recoiled in dismay and horror that the press was making her out to be happy because her husband was a hero, so it was all worthwhile. When, of course, she'd rather have her husband alive and home with her. Or the 9/11 widow Liz Glyck who in frustration told one of the producers of a show that she did not feel her husband had rescued anybody on Flight 93 because the government was going to shoot the plane down anyway. And she went further, asking why the government hadn't made more of an effort to heroically protect its airline passengers.

OR: Your book presents a scathing critique of media since 9/11. We see imbalanced coverage with a few voices -- Peggy Noonan, Independent Women's Forum, "W for Women" being given a podium repeatedly in order to fulfill these trend pieces. This kind of reporting leads to some incredible journalism. The most shocking to me was The Washington Post's article on the "worry divide" -- emphasizing that women are more worried than men after 9/11. You write, "The Post jumped from the three couples to the existence of perhaps a few million couples like them and speculated that gender difference in reaction to 9/11 were 'rooted in the varying size, chemistry, and physiology of male and female brains.'" That just sounds like eugenics. Any ideas on how we can combat this kind of media failure?

SF: I wish I had some formula, because it's so dismaying. Every year it gets worse and worse. What we're seeing is a consumer culture that devours itself institution by institution. Educating an arm a citizenry with real knowledge, information and analysis was once a counter to cultural myth is now just another arm of commercial culture. Its role is basically to entertain and sedate us and not ask any questions. We don't really have much in the way of journalism; we have media. Media is a medium, the terms itself is content-free. It's suggesting a delivery system, not a rigorous eye on the world.

OR: What do you hope your narrative provides readers?

SF: I hope against hope, knowing how our culture is and knowing how difficult it is to spark a meaningful discussion in this era, that it will be one of many contributions to launching an honest examination and confrontation of this myth system we live by to our own detriment and peril. I would hope that we begin to grapple honestly with the set of cards we have in our hands instead of painting them over with 10-gallon hat heroes and cringing bonneted girls on the prairie.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, feminism, 9/11

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a San Francisco based writer and editor. She has written for AlterNet, The American Prospect, Salon, MotherJones, Truthdig, In These Times, Huffington Post, and Women's eNews.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Study the evidence
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Nov 4, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and decide for yourself what happened - 9/11 Research

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Study the evidence Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
» RE: Study the evidence Posted by: EvilMessiah
» Not endlessly, Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» Rhetoric 101 Posted by: EvilMessiah
And the Jersey Girls,
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 4, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
aware, strong women looking for answers, were attacked brutally by that f'in bitch Anne Coultergeist. Where was the f'in media when THAT happened? Where was the outrage? I am a woman, living in the same county as these women, and I was very proud of them. Coultergeist and the right wing media makes me a very angry woman. I don't condone violence, but there are certainly a few people I would make an exception for. In fact, I would participate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the beginning
Posted by: talkville on Nov 6, 2007 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"From a 1678 sermon lamenting that men have become too effeminate to properly defend America, too the fear that feminism has effeminized a 21st century population, Faludi's narrative is a powerful wake up call."

It's about Patriarchy, Matriarchy or Parentarchy or Nannyarchy. From then till now, "the American People" are the flock, the congregation, the children, led by the Wise Ones (or the Wise One) to glory.

Neither in Europe nor in the USA today can it be assumed that the ultimate goal of development for the last 500 years is the emergence of the full, social human animal; the ultimate goal, the dominating thrust has ever been Theological (and BOTH in the Church and in the State, separate or not. The ultimate goal is Purity, the incarnate Idea, and any number of analogs and constructions. The Body and the Flesh have continuously been hated, despised and rejected in the most sophisticated and clever disguises available to Metaphysics, Magic and Shamanism. And this despite immense on-going efforts that have been waged to develop the human part of the human animal. The DENIAL that man is natural is absolute and categorical and has lasted to our own day.

And throughout, it has been but flesh-and-blood men and women who have maintained control of the Story and the Law. And flesh and blood men, women and children who have been fed into the maw of Wars of every kind in order to make pure the world of the Patriarchs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Faludi - Might I suggest that you critique the media's non-investigation of the 9/11 event
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 6, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
itself and not just how the msm has framed the ridiculous government myth from a feminist perspective. You seem to accept this preposterous official conspiracy theory (one that has no evidence to support it, btw) at face value.

Or, better still, undertake your own investigation from a feminist's perspective. Actually interview the Jersey Girls and find out what they discovered during their 14-month campaign to get the events of 9/11/01 investigated and what they learned while attending the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Then, sit down and interview Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who has seen documents connecting prominent Americans to the crimes of 9/11. Ms. Edmonds gave 3 1/2 hours of testimony to the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and remains the most gagged person in the history of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

Next, interview April Gallop, who survived the "attack" on the Pentagon on 9/11/01 and has a very interesting and important story to tell.

While you're at it, look up Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was also at the Pentagon, and interview her about the events of 9/11/01.

Interview Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT who worked at a triage center near WTC 7 and listen very closely to her eye-witness account of what happened on that terrible day.

Finally, sit down with Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who was persistently thwarted in her attempts to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui by Dave Frasca at FBI headquarters.

My point here, Ms. Faludi, is that as long as you are going to focus your intellect and energy on the media's anti-feminist framing of 9/11, you might as well start with the media's ongoing cover-up of the actual event itself by highlighting the first hand accounts of heroic whistleblowers who also happen to be women. That is where the real story is.

Otherwise, it just looks like you are part of the continuing effort to critique the present era of American history as beginning on September 12, 2001 and avoid taking a critical look at the actual events of 9/11/01.

Writing about how the big lie of 9/11 is spun in the media without identifying the big lie itself is rather disingenuous, don't you think?

(Anyone from AlterNet care to comment?)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Angel1961 - Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Angel1961 - Posted by: Angel1961
» No, I don't really think so Posted by: Sissi_phus
» mental blocks Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Right ON, LDub! Posted by: realtruther
» conspiracy is spelled with an A Posted by: realtruther
Alternative Dream Part 1
Posted by: wawa on Nov 6, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excerpted from "KEEP HOPE ALIVE"

Chapter 10: THAT DAY


After returning home on Monday night from the BLAC/Brother Lawrence Addictions Center, Jack mindlessly ate two Lean Cuisines, then spent the rest of the evening trying to read.

He fell asleep just before dawn and dreamt he was on the blacktop running track at the middle school where Julianne taught seventh grade English, where they both roller bladed in the early mornings before the students arrived on campus.


Jack spent a ten-hour day at the BLAC, as its founder and administrator, and the mornings on the track were when the couple had their best conversations. He inhaled the aroma of tar as he wondered what was keeping Julianne from him.


He bladed for what seemed like hours, when a silver spandex-clad apparition with a golden helmet flew by, sharply turned, and with a backward stroke, called out,

“Hi, Jack, don’t look down; don’t look back; look out straight, Jack, look out straight, don’t look back!”


“Yeah, I can; I can do that,” Jack responded, but the apparition had already vaporized into the distance.

Then Jack rolled onto an exquisite grace, knees freed from bone-on-bone grinding and not an ache in his fifty-three-year old body that had been abused by two motor vehicle accidents and hours of overuse syndrome. Jack glided on the blacktop effortlessly for what seemed like hours, when suddenly, a roar of thunder assaulted his senses, and his eyes were magnetized upward, to view two fireballs thrown down from on high, miles from where he stood. He saw them hit the ground; one traveled east, the other west, and then they circled back around, burning a path straight towards him. Just before they collided, Jack woke up, not believing he had only been dreaming.


Not until after he had downed a pot of coffee did the phone ring. “Jack? Are you watching TV?” Maureen, the day supervisor at the BLAC asked, as she fingered the framed mission statement that sat upon every employee’s desk and on the north wall of every resident’s room:


‘Peace, peace, peace. God’s peace be upon you. But living today in a time of war, crying out peace, peace, peace, where there is no peace. Fearing age and death, pain and darkness, destitution and loneliness, people need to get back to the simplicity of Brother Lawrence.’ [Dorothy Day]



Brother L. was a monk in the 17th century, who lived in a monastery and was consigned to the kitchen. He spent his life baking bread, chopping onions, scrubbing pots and floors. He also ran all the errands, did all the shopping, and always brought back the finest of wine. He loved his brothers deeply, but they merely tolerated his many eccentricities, or he was totally ignored. Truly, I tell you, if ever a saint was born to bring hope to the addicted and those afflicted with obsessive-compulsive tendencies, he is the one. For Brother L. learned that by continually re-remembering the Lord, no matter what the activity, or where one might be, the Lord was ever-present and a holy habit was born, just re-remembering that.



Jack thrived on curiosity and spoke as he reached for the remote. “Mo, you know I never watch TV in the daytime; what’s up?”


“Well, isn’t Julianne visiting her sister in the city?”


“Yeah, in fact, today’s plan was to meet her sister’s co-workers on Floor 101 of the North Twin Tower.”


“Jack, turn the TV on.”


“Oh, Mo, I just did; my God, is it the end of the world?” He spoke as he hung up the phone and never heard Mo say, “I don’t know.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternative Dream Pt.2
Posted by: wawa on Nov 6, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jack knew in his bones that Julianne had been vaporized as he recalled a song he had first heard at a Bob Dylan concert in 1981:


See the massacre of the innocent
City’s on fire
Phones out of order
I see the turning of the page.
Curtain’s rising on a new age.
See the Groom still waiting at the altar.


And then, II Chronicles 6:1 welled up within him:

“The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness.”



copyright 2006,
Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pre-Post THAT DAY we call 9/11
Posted by: wawa on Nov 6, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before 9/11, I did not give too much thought for another beyond my rural community. I was apolitical, thought the world had already gone mad and there was nothing much anyone could do or say to change it. I lived a simple contended life in the rural South and have always been grateful to be an American.

But after 9/11, I wanted to learn why did a few-and back then it was but a few-people in the world hated Americans so much that they could cold bloodedly murder innocent people. I also wanted to do some good in the world and that lead me to the Interfaith Olive Trees Foundation for Peace and then to journey five times into Israel Palestine, put up WAWA, write two books and hundreds of articles challenging the conventional 'wisdom' and neo-con, neo-Christian Zionists.

WAWA
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women with 'Thatchers'
Posted by: wawa on Nov 6, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the events of THAT DAY we call 9/11 that woke this pampered physician's wife up to the fact on the ground that people in the world hated the U.S. so much, that they would target and murder innocent Americans.

I did not react with fear, but curiosity. I did not want to shop as President Bush encouraged us all to do if we wanted to help. I wanted my questions answered and the MSM was not asking them and Congress was not demanding them.

Seven years ago, I was your typical uninformed, misinformed American, but with diligence and persistence I have learned much. But, it was not until June 2005 and my first journey to the Little Town of Bethlehem: Occupied Territory did my rage erupt against the empire; the American governments allegiance to Israel's Military Occupation of Palestine.


When I was a child, my dream was to grow up and become the comic book character; Brenda Starr, the red headed, ace investigative journalist, and star reporter for the metropolitan daily, The Flash.

Brenda traveled the world solving mysteries and unearthing scoops. Brenda intuitively knew when somebody was not telling the truth. Brenda boldly went around the world searching for unusual and usually dangerous stories.


While Brenda Starr, is my muse, my role model and mentor is Dorothy Day, who agitated church, state and media in her time through her publication, The Catholic Worker, which persists today.


Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bin Laden changed our future - so can you
Posted by: allevin on Nov 6, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are entering a parallel existence to one that existence that was predicted by Bin Laden. Oddly, we are also beginning to parallel the ongoing horror and nightmare that exists in Burma today. Our slide into totla milatary dictatorship may never be as atrocious as the one in Burma, but if you read LIVING SILENCE by Chrisitine Fink, you will defintely notice how un-democratice our nation really is. See you in the silentsphere of fascism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have some serious problems that 9-11 truly represents......
Posted by: Pepper on Nov 6, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and this site wants to talk about feminism and 9-11??? How stupidly trite that is. We are dealing with the real possibility that 9-11 may have been an inside job that will carry major serious ramifications if it was.

This means :

1. Treason was committed

2. Murder, cold blooded was committed.

3. A conspiracy to do so was committed.

4. Violation of fiduciary responsibility by this gov to honor their oath of office to protect and defend, rather than take that trust and violate it with these horrific acts of betrayal.

5. Lies, deceipt, coverups and destruction of forensic evidence needed to discover what really happened.

6. Destruction of audio and video tapes, loss of black boxes from the planes.

7. Lies to the 9-11 commission told under oath told by leaders in the Pentagon that still have not been addressed by the investigators.

8. Missing video and transcript implicating Cheney in the dastardly deed are now missing form the Library of congress.

AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FEMINISM???? What for? Your dissertation doesn't make it very clear what relevance does this have compared to the importance of these other issues????? I am totally confused about the point of this commentary and why Alternet is even putting it out there???

Oh, thats right, you still think a bunch of arabs living in caves did this who couldn't even fly a twin engine plane. LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo! Posted by: hagwind
Privileged white men on the verge of a nervous breakdown
Posted by: hagwind on Nov 6, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An e-mail I sent to friends the evening of 9/11 was published as an op-ed in the local paper on 9/13. Even then I was disgusted by the commentators who, I wrote, "seemed so determined to inflict their own hyperbole on the people they interviewed." But there were a few exceptions. I still remember cheering for the (female) counter-terrorism expert from Georgetown University. Her (male) interviewer called the situation "chaos." She responded that she didn't think it was chaos. "But, but," said the interviewer, "the government buildings have been evacuated!!" "The government," she said calmly, "isn't the buildings."

I haven't lived with a TV since the very early 1980s, which is probably why I reached my saturation point very quickly. I went over to my neighbors', as much to be with other people as anything else, and of course the TV was on. After watching the towers fall down three times, I'd had enough. In the following days, I heard and read almost no mass-media news. I listened to music, went for long walks in the woods, and spent a lot of time talking with (mostly female) friends and colleagues, in person, by phone, and online. The strong impression I got in those early days was that white USian men were totally freaked out. Just about everybody was somewhat freaked out, of course, but the women and the black people I knew, and those I heard on public radio, were still taking care of business. I had several long phone conversations with colleagues in New York, whose daily lives had been totally interrupted by the events of 9/11. What intrigued me at the time was how the degree of freaked-out-ness seemed to increase the farther one was from New York or D.C., i.e., the less directly one had been affected by the actual events.

In a fairly short time the commercial media narrative overwhelmed our individual stories -- and the commercial media narrative was being driven by those freaked-out white guys. It is really, really hard to hold on to your own truth when you're continually saturated with messages that your truth is untrue, or at least that your experience is an aberration. On the whole, I think those who have fared best in the years since have been those of us who had already developed some facility at distinguishing ourselves and our experiences from the mythical homogenized "mainstream" -- and those of us who have known from early childhood that we were vulnerable to attack by people with more power than we had, which includes most people of color in this country and most women.

For me the enduring lesson of 9/11 has been just how scared those powerful people are, and the extent they're willing to go to make themselves feel safe. That's scary, especially to anyone who's already figured out that perfect safety isn't an achievable, or desirable, goal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"This sure pushes feminism off the map."
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Nov 6, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember hearing phrases like that too. I'm not sure why people would say that. It certainly was not true. The question is not what may have pushed feminism off the map. The question is what has feminism pushed off the map?

I do know that consumerized feminism has led to americans being more naive. Whatever feminism was meant to be is irrelevant, because it has been used to convince people to embrace fluff and hold it in as high esteem as what is meaningful. This article is a perfect example of it. Could there be a point to this article? Possibly. But all in all it is about as relevant as the deck chairs on... the roof of the North Tower. I'm sorry, but opium and the taliban are far more important issues when it comes to 9/11. Whether some people fantasized about firefighters rescuing damsels in distress doesnt matter. It is not relevant, and the only way that it will ever be relevant is if you simply discard reality and believe whatever you want to believe. (This, coincidentally, is the ultimate goal of consumerism.)

This whole 9/11 surface narrative was carefully constructed and marketed to the naive general public. Sure, there's about 5% of people who can see through it. But it's hard to get through to the rest of the public, because they are simply too naive and too trusting to ever be motivated to look past these shallow accounts of history. This article really is about as relevant as an article from 150 years ago describing Abraham Lincoln's hat and what everyone thought about it.

And had this article been about Abraham Lincoln, it would probably leave the reader with the impression that maybe he was shot because of his hat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great interview
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Nov 6, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Susan Faludi is such an interesting author and thinker. She has made clear a pronounced post-911 cultural trend: a rush back to patriarchy and the marginalization of women. And the complicity of the media. (I had to stop reading Vanity Fair for about three years).

Thank you for posting the interview. I'm looking foward to reading her book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: great interview Posted by: Basenjis
We fear the painted devil...
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 6, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But don't see the real danger. Take a look at what's happening in the precious metals and currency markets and stop wasting time with this terrorism crap. The dollar is plunging. Gold, siliver and oil are headed for the moon. That's the omen that Americans should be looking at.

The worst thing is that we have an idiot running the country who's going to have to deal with the coming financial crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dennis K is fighting for impeachment today-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 6, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why are we not talking about THAT?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good Question Posted by: EKSwitaj
"consumerized feminism" (Iconoclast upthread) and consumerized US foreign policy?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 6, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great interview. I guess I have to read the new Faludi book, however, as the evidence for patriarchy (I don't deny it) seems to explain everything for Faludi. (The answer to everything is an answer to nothing; answers make distinctions.)

What's the difference between a myth as narrative and a fashion as inducement? The msm myth of Islamofascism is in fashion. And so is the myth of patriarchy to be found under everyone's bed.

Is Faludi so diluting the significance of narrative that she turns it into a fashion to sell books? So-called feminists have been doing that now for 40 years. Confuses the heck out of me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» be fair Posted by: Coleman
What about widowers and non whites?
Posted by: paulocurry on Nov 6, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All you hear is 3000 Americans died on 9/11. The fact that 300 were from the British Isles is hardly mentioned. Ditto for Women and poor people many of whom were Puerto Rican..Dominican.. Jamaican ..Mexican etc. Are they not also human? The cleaners..restaurant workers. If they were undocumented did they get part of the billions? The idea that the richest people from New Jersey got huge payoffs and the poor next to nothing is disgusting! Also when it came time to replace the police and firefighters they advertised in the IRISH media....it was easier for a new immigrant from Ireland to be hired than a black, brown or female of any color !! I know this because I am Irish and find this racist behavior to be abhorrent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Irish? Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Irish? Posted by: VZEQICVA
9/11, 9/18, 10/9, and the rise of Hate & Fear propaganda
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 6, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm continually amazed at the amnesia surrounding the anthrax attacks - the anniversary passed unnoticed and unmentioned, didn't it? The first set of letters were mailed on 9/18 and there was little response. The second set went straight to Congress using high-tech weaponized anthrax spores - something that could only have come out of a biowarfare lab based somewhere in the U.S.

If people will recall, the panic of 9/11 was highly amplified by the anthrax attacks, which shut down Congress right as the so-called Patriot Act was passed. The FBI, after an initial vigorous investigation that led straight to a small number of U.S. biowarfare labs, shut down the investigation and replaced the lead investigator. The labs that were initially identified included the West Jefferson microbiological aerosol facility run by Battelle Memorial Institue in Ohio and the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in Utah (also managed by BMI, the world's largest private research corporation).

Thanks to the anthrax attacks, billions went into Project Bioshield, and those contracts flowed to Battelle via various primary contractors such as Bioport and Vaxgen. The FBI was initially investigating a financial motive in the anthrax attacks. This is all remarkably similar to the Tamiflu story - here, fear was whipped up over avian flu virus, and Donald Rumsfeld's old company, Gilead Biosciences, owns the patent on Tamiflu (He was their CEO until 2001). Rumsfeld made millions off of government contracts for Tamiflu.

Regardless of the government's incompetence (whether deliberate or gross, who knows?) in not preventing the 9/11 hijackings, the main story is how these terrorist attacks were manipulated for the financial benefit of corporate interests connected to the Bush-Cheney junta - everything from domestic surveillance contracts to massive military contracts for Lockheed, Boeing, and Halliburton-KBR, to the billions in fraudulent Iraqi reconstruction contracts given to Shaw, Fluor, Bechtel, Perrini, etc. etc. - that's the real story here.

As far as this article goes, it does point out the desire of the U.S. government to pump up the 'heroism and sacrifice' theme - though it is equally plausible that flight 93 was shot down by a U.S. military jet once it became clear that the planes were going to be crashed no matter what.

However, psychologically speaking, another main theme was to not allow any grief to be expressed, but instead to focus on themes of hatred, fear and revenge. This was done deliberately in order to get the public to support a military invasion of Iraq - an effort that the press cooperated with.

Despite all this, no Congressional hearings have been scheduled to look into the falsified evidence of nuclear and biological weapons in Iraq, nor to look into the falsified evidence of ties between the 9/11 hijackers and Saddam Hussein, nor to look into the FBI's aborted investigation of the 9/18 and 10/9 anthrax attacks. A bit odd, isn't it?

The silence, as they say, is deafening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Regression
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Nov 6, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In societies where the necessities of life are scarce or endangered, traditionally "male" characteristics of aggression, courage, and competition are generally admired because they are needed for protection. These cultures tend to have male deities and male leaders, and women are generally subjugated. In societies where the necessities of life are abundant, traditionally "female" characteristics such as nurturing, cooperation, and empathy are generally admired. These cultures tend to have female deities and leaders, and all members of the society are treated equally.

Interestingly, this approximates George Lakoff's study of the difference between the strict father conservative model and the nurturing parent liberal, progressive model. Conservatives tend to see danger behind every rock and believe humans are inherently evil with a need for punishment, while progressives tend to believe we are generally safe because humans are inherently good with a need for guidance.

At the end of the Vietnam war, with a feeling that world peace might be achieved, there was a definite movement toward the admiration of more "feminine" qualities. Lots of men began to be more nurturing and less domineering - and, in fact, there was a kind of "feminization" of our culture. Many of us thought that was a very great thing. But it was a threat to the patriarchy.

A number of years ago, I began reading in publications like The Nation that the Powers That Be were not happy about the collapse of the Soviet Union and that with the absence of a real enemy, some had to be created. The "rogue states" like Iran, North Korea, and Iraq were the targeted villains, whether or not they were a real threat.

Without threats to our national security, macho posturing is no longer important. The military industrial complex is unnecessary, and masculinity in its traditional form becomes an anachromism. 9/11 was an incredible gift that kept on giving in the form of male dominance.

Feminism hasn't disappeared, but it definitely has been undermined by 9/11 and the subsequent slide toward the caveman mentality. Note the almost universal use of "he (or even she) has balls" to mean courage, acting on one's convictions or even recklessness as a compliment. Or "he's a pussy" to mean weak and feminine. These expressions were always in the vocabulary, but I never heard women use them until very recently, and I certainly never heard them in the mainstream media - as when even Jon Stewart (who should know better) mentioned the "pussification" of education.

This is not a "fluff" matter. It has to do with the very core of our civilization and which attributes our society views as responsible, admirable, and worthy of promoting. The war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, the fearmongering about Islam - all of these point to a need for male dominance and protection.

Isn't it ironic that one of the very traits about Islam so denigrated by the neocons and their ilk is the subjugation of women? My wingnut friend (a man I love dearly) has just gone on and on about how badly women are treated in Muslim countries without a clue about how the theocratic Christians and warmongers in this country are trying to shove women back into the 1950s model of second-class citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I gave you a 5 Posted by: Overburdened Planet
» RE: egression Posted by: Basenjis
» Excellent Comment Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Thanks to all Posted by: LeeAnnG
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we are in the dark ages
Posted by: unity1 on Nov 6, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Raine Esiler in her book the chalice and the blade warned that as this dominator culture got close to the end point we would experience a resurgence in violence towards women - the feminine and we are

what I get from this article is two things the narcissistic culture was managed in this 9/11 event to further instill the lie that terrorists from outside had attacked - the lies the ossification of the evidence the lack of real investigation - and the alpha macho male preening himself all lead to the managing of a narcissistic cultures self indulgence at the expense of truth and justice and even humanity - and now - Americans are paying the price of this - with its facisit governments homeland security.

the second thing is - its the same old patriarchal story - the old way - the rise in macho alpha male BS at the expense of all life - the lack of humanity for the death and destruction that has been brought to bear on innocent peoples and which is still being threatened in the same alpha macho male way by the same bogus MO towards Iran - these good ol boys -red neck terrorists have little clue that the world has changed - so they do what they have always done never realising how transparent they are becoming to the rest of us who have woken up

the narcassitic culture and media have lost their humanity to their own mirrors

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Los their Humanity? Posted by: Cathyc
More 9/11 Fantasy at Alternet?
Posted by: stryder on Nov 6, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of anything remotely like a real “critique” or examination of corporate media offenses and wholesale snake oil regarding the event at 9/11 we get this. A jumble of sandbox delusions about “whether or not feminists really have a place in post-9/11 America?” and “female bylines in the media”

Is this really a “scathing critique” of media culture at 9/11 or is it more of the same red herring pretense? What of a real expose of media malfeasance at 9/11?

Example from BBC News:

“we was talking a few minutes ago about the Solomon Building [WTC 7] collapsing, well indeed it has. ... it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

Just one problem, the “Solomon Building” a.k.a. WTC 7 didn’t collapse till at least 20 minutes later. The reporter in question (Jane Standley) was obviously fed her lines far ahead and offbeat of the crime she covered at 9/11.

When corporate media feeds us this kind of transparent garbage, should we discuss “feminists” or who feeds and controls the media?

“Instead of actual efforts to improve security, instead of actual strategies, military and investigative that might bring the perpetrators to justice…”

“Instead” indeed. Where was the media in its own “investigative” mission? When did it EVER honestly question bogus government narratives that continue to maintain the biggest cover-up in U.S. history?

“I hope against hope, knowing how our culture is and knowing how difficult it is to spark a meaningful discussion in this era, that it will be one of many contributions to launching an honest examination and confrontation of this myth system we live by…”

No fooling?

What kind of “myth system” propaganda is this?

How sincere is that so-called “hope” when this story didn’t bother to mention the fact 9/11 remains a clear and present government COVER-UP? A 9/11 COVER-UP directly responsible for counterfeit “war on terror” aided and abetted by monopoly corporate media.

CIA VETERANS ON 9/11:

CIA veteran Ray McGovern:
“I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke."

CIA and U.S. Marine Corp veteran Robert David Steele:
"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war. … I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers."

CIA NIO officer William Christison:
“…a monstrous series of lies. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all… Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods."

CIA Division Chief Melvin Goodman:
"The final [9/11] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."

CIA Mid East Specialist Robert Baer:
"Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation…, we will never know what happened on 9/11."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's worse than that, stryder Posted by: higginslads
» Apollo! Zeus! Patrol! Posted by: dover23
» RE: Apollo! Zeus! Patrol! Posted by: higginslads
MAYBE SUSAN SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 6, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOW! Do we ever get anything right? That's the greatest collection of 'Monday morning quarterbackng' I've ever read. Other than the weather, Sept. 11 was not a good day. Too much went wrong . Too many people screwed up. But this book is unnecessarily harsh and highly opinionated. Not to mention late to arrive. The real evidence is in and most of us have read it. This book is simply another opinion of just about everything. I take a pass on it. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whole lotta horse shit
Posted by: johndoraemi on Nov 6, 2007 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess when you aren't interested in investigating how the attacks really happened, and just focus on your obsession to see everything in terms of a battle of the sexes ... you continue to perpetuate "this myth system we live by to our own detriment and peril."

Lots of talk about Iraq. No mention of its complete illegality as a war crime, something the Nazis were prosecuted for at Nuremberg.

Lots of talk about 9/11 Widows. No mention of the Press For Truth film, and the numerous unanswered questions that the victim's families gave to the cover up commission.

Interestingly, Phillip Zelikow, the man in control of the 9/11 cover up, and a co-author with lying National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and a member of the Bush transition team in 2000/01, and a member of Secretary of State Rice's staff -- this guy Zelikow was an expert in creating "public myths" which was his academic area of expertise.

The article above says how it's a hard hitting attack on the media. The Big Lie of 9/11 doesn't seem to be a target however.

This complicity after the fact -- or call it ignorance, or a propensity to believe government myths, or blind patriotism, or whatever it is floats your boat -- of a great many writers and media professionals has set us on a disastrous course. Even the "critics" don't actually critique what is truly wrong deep down in the propaganda, the unquestionable and beyond dispute myths of 9/11.

For example the author mentions Taliban / Afghanistan. No reference to Pakistan, the US "ally", the true sponsor of most Jihadi terrorism in the world. We shovel billions of dollars to Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence service was direcly linked to the 9/11 attacks, and the head of it resigned when exposed in the Indian press. The man accused of killing Daniel Pearl was actually bin Laden's financial chief, and he was linked to large wire transfers to "lead hijacker" Mohammed Atta.

Big cover up. The Pakistanis created the Taliban. Pakistan protected Al Qaeda. Pakistan takes orders from Washington.

Crimes of the State Blog

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GRIEVING IS NOT PERMITTED!
Posted by: Cathyc on Nov 6, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THOUGHT CRIMINAL wrote: However, psychologically speaking, another main theme was to not allow any grief to be expressed, but instead to focus on themes of hatred, fear and revenge. This was done deliberately in order to get the public to support a military invasion of Iraq - an effort that the press cooperated with.

He/she (though criminal) is right: The American people - like ALL oppressed people - must not be allowed to grieve!!!

Whatever you people (Good Americans/Good Nazis etc) do - you must not be NORMAL people and GRIEVE over your loved ones!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JUST ONCE, WOULD SOMEONE DEBATE ME
Posted by: Missing Piece on Nov 6, 2007 5:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have posted half a dozen times that 9/11 is a false flag, but instead of a reason to create a fascist state it is about peak oil.

If you were intelligent enough to figure out buildings don't fall at free fall rate and in there own footprint then I think you are more than capable of understanding peak oil.

You think things are bad now then just wait till the muhlas control the last remaining oil. Come on man, you figured out 9/11 can't you figure out that militarily we have to control the region. Imagine our military with out oil!

Do I agree with what they did and why they did it? No! but, unfortanetly you can argue what they did when you understand how many people will starve with out oil and lets face it, when Carter tried to get us to go green, we voted him out of office.

Please, Truthers here me, Its about peak oil and getting americans to support control of it. Things are going to get shitty, real shitty and we all need to know the truth, the whole truth even if it justifies what they did.

We all know Iraq is about the oil so why won't truthers admit that the false flag was committed to secure control of it. Once people here this, it will only confirm what they already know deep down, and they will start to believe truthers.

Good luck, just remember that its bigger than a false flag, its about the end of energy for the masses and a complete collapse of society, this is why the neocons think history will prove them correct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SICK of hearing about 9/11
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Nov 6, 2007 9:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I'm sick and tired of hearing about 9/11. It was one awful fucking day that's it. It wasn't Pearl harbor , we weren't attacked by an Empire or even a Nation state. But, the Preznit and his cheering gallery have taken this 1 day in world history and they have used it to forward their agenda at every level. The media for the most part has acted as enablers for this crowd and the so called opposition has been reducing to either whining every time its invoked or hiding. Pathetic. Bin Laden et al. couldn't have possibly hoped for a better result for so little effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just before that day
Posted by: geoffhutch on Nov 6, 2007 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my current super, at my biz in nyc, was a worker at the wtc before the events. he told me that the weekend before the collapses, he and all workers there were told that there was a new security system being installed at the wtc. they had the weekend off, and he said that there were lots of fbi everywhere. he seems to think that those days were used to plant explosive devices in the buildings. never before had the entire security staff been told to take the day off, and to not be around for this security enhancement- you decide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911
Posted by: DawudTEG on Nov 7, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard with my own ears on either CNN or ABC in the days immediately following 911, that he had nothing to do with 9/11. He was the first I know of to say that it must be the work of some american group. His comments were reported by several news agencies and these reports are listed in Paul Thompson's exhaustively detailed 9/11 Timeline
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

September 16, 2001: Bin Laden Denies Involvement in 9/11 Attacks
Edit event

Confirming earlier reports [Reuters, 9/13/2001] , bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In a statement to Al Jazeera, he states, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” [CNN, 9/17/2001] The US claims that he confesses his role in a video message two months later, but the contents of that video are highly disputed.

Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden, Al Jazeera

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
September 12, 2001: US Denies Any Hints of Bin Laden Plot to Attack in US
Edit event

The government’s initial response to the 9/11 attacks is that it had no evidence whatsoever that bin Laden planned an attack in the US “There was a ton of stuff, but it all pointed to an attack abroad,” says one official. Furthermore, in the 24 hours after the attack, investigators would have been searching through “mountains of information.” However, “the vast electronic ‘take’ on bin Laden, said officials who requested anonymity, contained no hints of a pending terror campaign in the United States itself, no orders to subordinates, no electronic fund transfers, no reports from underlings on their surveillance of the airports in Boston, Newark, and Washington.” [Miami Herald, 9/12/2001]

Entity Tags: Bush administration, Osama bin Laden

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

September 28, 2001: Bin Laden Again Denies Involvement in 9/11 Attacks

Bin Laden says in an interview, “I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States (see September 16, 2001). As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.… Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year.… They needed an enemy.… Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.” [Daily Ummat (Karachi), 9/28/2001]
Entity Tags: Osama bin Laden
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

article was intersting, posters too paranoid
Posted by: whealeydj on Nov 10, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Article about Faludi was interesting but too many of the comments want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories. It was the American reaction to 9/11 revenge attack on Afghanistan war and the the invasion and occupation of Iraq where we Americans have gone astray. If feminism means rebuilding countries we attack I am for that. The conspiracy I am interested is the one that got us into Iraq-- by the Cheney Rumsfeld Feith Cabal. Trying to prove any 9/11 connection to Bush Cheney will be difficult and counter productive. Few believe it so like jfk it is time to move on to fighting war and tyranny not trying to prove conspiracy. 9/11 conspiracy may have happened but what about Bush reaction that started 2 wars and threw out the Bill of Rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement