Tag Archives: stereotypes

Bradly Manning, ‘manhood’ and The Impossible Dream

As the tension over how bad Private Bradly Manning was going to be punished  by the government subsides, we are left, not only with the task of protecting him from further torture, but to stand by him in his quest to find and realize his real identity.

After Manning came out, I read many comments posted by readers on the main stream media online (The NYTimes, WaPo, etc), initially with apprehension, expecting the typical scorn for his honesty. I’m  surprised by the support he has received by a big swath of the public, despite the nature of his confession.

It comes  at  a circumstance incompatible with the needs of an individual, the war-like scenario of his initial transgression. His confession is  mind-boggling to me because it challenges deep rooted stereotypes at a time where there is not much space to ridicule the issue. Let me try to explain.

Fist is the issue of ‘manhood’. Here we have a man who has renounced his manhood, something that ‘typically’ would bring scorn and ridicule to any man who does that.

Typically’, he would be considered (for wanting to be a woman) the opposite of a ‘man’, a ‘sissy’ (the implication  being that to be a woman is to be weak and cowardly, of course). A ‘sissy’ is a cowardly and ridiculous man, girl-y (in Arnold’s world), not a ‘real man’; and yet, few would dare call Bradly Manning a coward or a ‘sissy’. You may disagree with him, but NO ONE can call him a ‘coward’ or a ‘sissy’ without soiling his/her own mouth in the process. In any OTHER circumstance he could be ridiculed for being ‘sissy’, but not here. Manning is no ‘sissy’.

Few of us have the courage to intentionally expose ourselves to TORTURE for the benefit of the many. He did it while wearing stilettos, in his mind. Well, probably, at some point.

The other issue is the context in which the confession comes. It didn’t come from, for example, a politician caught wearing a wig or any other situation that would have rendered the person an object of ridicule. No. It came in front of the eyes of the world as they were witnessing the torture of a human being for the ‘crime’ of showing us the barbarities that our government commits in other nations in the name of ‘freedom’. The world was watching how the rights of a human were being trampled under torture. There’s no much space to ridicule that human being under those conditions, is there?

Manning put us between a rock and a hard place: if, on one hand, you admire him for showing the truth and withstanding torture, but on the other you hate ‘gays’, what you gonna do now? Approve his torture for being transgender? How do you separate the two issues under this condition? How can you ridicule him and say he’s ‘sissy’ under this conditions?

So, some questions in my mind are these: Can Bradly Manning’s ‘manhood’ be questioned?Is he less of a man than, let’s say, the Arnold? If you can’t call him ‘sissy’, because he has shown that he is not ‘cowardly’, does that means that you must accept his ‘manhood’ despite him renouncing it? What is a ‘man’?And, does it matter one way or the other?

Because, while he was tortured, he was a ‘man’, as he still is until he gets the ‘gender re-assignment’. He was a ‘man’ in the eyes of the tortures because Manning is physically a man.  And, if at that time they thought that Manning was ‘gay’, they must have been shaken, at some point, by the courage and endurance and bravery of that ‘sissy’ man. I know I would have.

When I speak here of ‘manhood’ I’m doing it in the cultural sense of the word.Think of all the adjectives used to describe a ‘man’, socially speaking, not in terms of ‘sex’, but in terms of gender. Gender as in, you know, the socially expected attributes of a person based on the sex of that person: rational (men) vs emotional (women), etc etc etc.

I think that our hero Bradly Manning has, unintentionally, re-cast in our minds our images of what is a ‘gay’ or transgender person and a ‘man’. I think that we, as a society, have paused and blinked at the enormity of Manning’s actions. I think he has shaken our old stereotypes. And something good has come out of that, I think.

A person’s valor and courage is measured by his/her actions, not by the color of their skin, nationality, or gender, whether re-assigned or by birth. And a ‘real man’ is someone who fights against injustice.

Our hero Bradly Manning, with his actions and ‘confession’, has confirmed that.

New York Times article equates mentally ill with Middle Eastern Terrorists

“What drives suicidal mass killers”

“For years, the conventional wisdom has been that suicide terrorists are rational political actors, while suicidal rampage shooters are mentally disturbed loners. But the two groups have far more in common than has been recognized.”  By ADAM LANKFORD


Why would the editor of the NY Times publish that article? It can’t be because he is ignorant about what constitute a stereotype. That just can’t be the reason; don’t try to convince me that there is a possibility for that to be the case, you won’t succeed.

I bet you anything that if I were to opine in the paper’s comment section (which, by the way, the editor doesn’t allow comments on that article) that white law professors in Alabama are racists ignorant fools because they attack anyone who is not white and ‘normal’ as evidenced by the article ‘What Drives Suicidal Mass Murderes’, the editor would recognize it as racist and stereotyping opinion and would refuse to publish it.

So, it’s not ignorance about what constitute a stereotype. So what could it be? What mysterious force

mysterious force

mysterious force

could have prompted that good man to publish such a troubling stereotyping article where people with emotional problems HERE are equated with terrorists from over THERE.

Hmm, lemme guess..could it be that the NY Times wants to scare you into supporting the upcoming legislations to control guns?


Be afraid, be very afraid of this man. He took your big soda away from you. What is he planning now?

We know that the MSM is a tool for politicians when the two are in agreement. The laws being discussed by our ‘lawmakers’  must be so draconian that the Times  is using its favorite tool, fear, to sway your support to whatever our fine ‘leaders’ are concocting.


Expect laws hinting that people with mental illness will be subjected to surveillance, their movements limited in our society and other abuses.


We, those in the mental health system ARE THE EXCUSE that our ‘leaders’ will use to pass legislation for gun controls.

The secret to success is knowing who to blame.


They need to portray you as the worse of the worst to justify what is coming.

LOOK HERE AGAIN: Gun control is the least, THE LEASTof their desire! They don’t care! They don’t care if you go shooting everybody when you find yourself in front of the sheriff who is evicting you so that the bank can keep your home and money. THEY DON’T CARE!!!

THEY  –   JUST  –  DON’T  –  CARE!

They feed off the NRA!!


Not only the MENTALLY ILL, but YOU who may get angry when in the year 2013 you will be shaken down to give your blood to the bankers!!!!!


“Over the last three years, I have examined interviews, case studies, suicide notes, martyrdom videos and witness statements and found that suicide terrorists are indeed suicidal in the clinical sense…”

MY GOD! HAVE YOU NO SHAME IN YOU!? I’m just laughing, what else can I do? He is a law PROFESSOR!…Not even a SOCIAL WORKER or a PSYCHIATRIC NURSE!!!!  What the heck is he doing making clinical diagnosis?!


“In fact, we should think of many rampage shooters as nonideological suicide terrorists.”

Now, if this guy has taught lawyers and judges in Alabama, just imagine what treatment the mentally ill and anyone with non-mainstream ideas receive in those courts.

I could go through the whole article, but I’m going to assume that you can see clearly that that article is the product of a sick, obsessed mind, a terrorist without guns who has the power to hurt people without shooting a single bullet.

Ok. I over did it there. I’m sure you get my drift.