Here’s one of the funnier articles I’ve seen from The Onion, and it’s only just outside the boundaries of reality. It’s surely something that Titania McGrath could have written. The entirety of the article is below:
NEW YORK—Decrying the label as “shamelessly sexist,” media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting issued a statement Monday condemning the American press for only referring to Alabama-born jihadist Hoda Muthana as “bride of ISIS soldier.” “Ms. Muthana is an accomplished ISIS member in her own right, having joined one of the top terrorist organizations in the world at the age of only 20,” said FAIR spokesperson Keith Finneran, explaining how terms like “ISIS bride” and “wife of ISIS soldier,” routinely used to refer to Muthana in news headlines, are derogatory in that they credit the woman’s hard-won contributions to the war on infidels to her husband. “To be identified simply by her role as a bride is disrespectful and does a great disservice to all she has achieved for the caliphate. You wouldn’t call a man ‘husband of ISIS fighter,’ would you? So show Ms. Muthana the same consideration.” Finneran clarified that you shouldn’t refer to Muthana as a “female terrorist” either, because the countless hours she’s allegedly spent online calling for the death of Americans makes her just as much of a terrorist as anyone else.
Very clever. Sadly realistic.
Too bad we never got to know the whole Hoda Muthana. Maybe it’s the wardrobe.
Thank you for the good laugh!
Yoh!
Sad and funny.
It’s a shame the Onion published this themselves, for I have no doubt they could have freelanced it out to Vice, Buzzfeed, HuffPo, the Guardian, NPR, BBC…
Oh man, I actually didn’t read your blurb before the article at first and thought it was real as I read it. Only after I read the excerpt and then read the beginning of your post did I realize this was satire. It truly does seem completely in line with something that would be said by a “woke” organization or activist.
I can’t believe I just became one of those people who fell for an article from The Onion. I never thought that would happen.
But that is the beauty of it, no? News media does too frequently ‘wife’ otherwise very qualified and accomplished women. And here, the only reason the usual folks aren’t calling it out is because these ladies are being rather accomplished at something unpalatable. Props to the Onion, for sure, and feel no shame! This was well done.
Actually, it’s the opposite of what you said that makes it funny. From what I just read on Wikipedia and from everything she has said, she literally was just an ISIS wife. She never fought. She was married to at least three different ISIS fighters. As far as I can tell from news articles, ISIS doesn’t let any women fight; they’re either prisoners or wives. She may have tweeted some stuff, though she claims now that even her tweets were actually done by other ISIS men who took her cell phone.
She literally was nothing but the wife of several ISIS terrorists. She didn’t “accomplish” anything, palatable or unpalatable, besides actually going over there to join them.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear- no one on the left was clamoring to call her something else (also, I doubt whether most folks have looked up the wiki to ‘properly’ interpret the Onion piece). Joining them, however, is an unpalatable accomplishment, imo.
Then again, humor is in the mind of the reader here, and as we are both amused the Onion has succeeded.
Ah, yes, of course, no one was clamoring for that. I just found it funny that I became something I’ve always laughed about: a person who believed a story from The Onion. And I did so because it seemed plausible.
Is joining ISIS an accomplishment? I imagine they’ll accept any Western woman. It’s quite a “coup” (heh) for them.
A few years ago there was a British miniseries about Western men and women joining ISIS, The State. It was said to be very well researched. You’d be surprised about the wives.
How does becoming ‘the wife of several ISIS [fighters]’ differ from sexual slavery?
Serial widowery?
Because they sort of volunteered for it. Of course, they were most likely lied to.
Very funny. I had a related thought when I heard about those two recent ISIS brides, one from the US and one from the UK, who want to come back home. They’ve been rejected by both countries. I have yet to see any mention by the MSM as to the extent each participated in terrorist activities. Are they mostly prevented from doing so because they are women? I suspect no one really knows. Still, it is so sexist to assume they weren’t active participants.
The one from the U.S. was announced as not being a citizen but her family here says that she is.
As I understand it, her father was a Yemeni diplomat who was posted here. The only exception that the constitution makes for “Born here, you’re a citizen” is if parents are diplomats or some such. The 14th amendment says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so diplomats are subject so no citizenship. But it appears that her father was fired/quit/something from his post two months before she was born and having proven that, they gave her a passport because they determined her to be a citizen. She has said she wants to come back and accept whatever punishment the justice system metes out.
Rats. That should have read “are not subject”.
I can’t find any mention of female ISIS fighters. From the various stories I’ve read of women going to join ISIS, they simply become wives of some male fighter. Women who are caught are either kept prisoner or married off to the male fighters. I can’t find any acts of terrorism or fighting committed by female ISIS members (though that’s not absolute proof), but perhaps there are some women out there who have committed a terrorist act or two “in the name of ISIS.”
Considering ISIS’ philosophy regarding women, I would be very surprised if ISIS allowed them to fight alongside the men.
On what basis do we consider her standing in court?
As it currently stands, a US citizen who declares for or joins a designated terrorist organization does not lose their citizenship. Ted Cruz introduced a bill in 2017 called the “Expatriate Terrorist Act,” but it was only referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and hasn’t seen any movement since then, so it’s basically a dead bill.
However, things become more murky if a citizen is seen to be an “imminent threat,” or becomes a senior member of a foreign terrorist group. During the Obama administration, several US citizens were killed by drone strikes on foreign soil, and the DOJ at the time considered this to be legal. A DOJ memo drafted in 2010 said it’s legal to kill an American citizen if they posed a “continued and imminent threat” and are part of a group against whom Congress has authorized military force.
I don’t know where the DOJ stands now, and the debate over the Obama administration DOJ’s decision has been a very heated one for years. In fact, the administration itself sent mixed messages over the years, although several American citizens were killed by targeted drone strikes on foreign soil throughout that time.
It’s not sexist to assume that a patriarchal society would not have wanted the women to fight – as Christian societies didn’t until quite recently. Young women are there to incubate the next generation of jihadis.
The UK MSM mentioned some pretty shocking things- that the woman had seen severed heads in a bucket, for instance. I don’t think they are holding back.
Yes, it is unlikely they went into battle with a rifle alongside the men. However, they would likely be used as suicide bombers, bombmakers, and the like. It does seem reasonable to consider the level of their involvement. On the other hand, the mere fact that they joined the enemy willingly, rather than being abducted or having their town overrun, is reason enough not to let them back in.
Foreign Policy online has an article today (Mar. 4, semi-paywall) subtitled “Victim narratives and sensationalist reporting undermine female fighters’ agency.” They seem convinced that women ISIS fighters, foreign and otherwise, have done a variety of nasty things better left undone. While it’s entirely possible that the “ISIS brides” now in the news are no more than that, there do seem to have been opportunities for them to take a much more active role.
I thought they were submissive wives?! I thought they think men are superior?
One reason I admire the PKK is that women take an equal role & they are not religious – except in the Marxist-Leninist way.
We (NZ) have our own Jihadi, Mark Taylor, the ‘bumbling Jihadi’. Who is in captivity in Syria and currently wants to return to NZ. Since he is not a citizen of any other country, and there’s a UN resolution (yes we still do believe in those!) that forbids leaving anybody stateless, we probably should take him back. Why should anyone else?
When interviewed by a reporter, he said he would have liked to buy a woman, but even an old one cost $4000, a decent one could cost from $20,000 to $50,000. (!)
One of his family here, who hadn’t heard from him for a year, suggested he may have suffered some brain damage as a child. I guess this could explain his remarkable frankness with the reporter.
cr
He looks like he has impaired cognitive ability. Lilely from birth/childhood, exacerbated by an overdose of religion (reportedly was a born-again Christian before becoming a Believer).