Male “heterosupremacy” to blame in brutal rape and murder of young Iraqi girl

Posted by: ST on July 10, 2006 at 7:30 pm

That is, if you believe the unrestrained male-hating rants of uberfeminist Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (direct link here), who blames male “heterosupremacy” and the controversial song “Hadji Girl” for the rape and brutal murder of 14 year old Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi. It should be noted that one soldier has already come forth as being a witness to this crime. It should also be noted that yours truly, as would any decent American, strongly condemns the actions of the troops in question (assuming what the witness is saying is true, and unlike Haditha, this looks like a sure case of guilt).

Here’s how Seelhoff starts off:

A couple of weeks ago there was a highly-publicized controversy over a video which appeared on UTube of a U.S. Marine performing a song entitled Hadji Girl. The song had been performed before thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq who could be heard wildly cheering and laughing in the background.


The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the song and performance, as did the Marine Corps, announcing an intention to investigate, and the guy who wrote it and performed it apologized. And “explained.” See, he said, and his defenders said, and the defenders of all the wildly screaming and laughing troops in the audience said, and Michelle Malkin said, it wasn’t really about Marines killing civilians, no, no, it was about “insurgents” tricking Marines, using beautiful girls to lure them into traps and ambushes. But the Marines in the song outwitted them by making sure the blood spurted from between the decoy’s eyes instead of theirs! Don’t you get the humor? It was a joke! I mean, the chorus of the song came from a movie made by the creators of South Park. You people have no sense of humor.

Malkin, who – among others, asserted that the song was about a beautiful girl leading a soldier to an “insurgent” ambush, was 100% correct.


It is so transparent. It is so obvious.

Abeer Qasim Hamza made the fatal errror of refusing the “advances” of Marines. She had to have known, said they, that she was hot. She had to have known, said they, what she was doing, sashaying through that checkpoint every day. And she turned them down. Ignored them. Rejected them. Acted like she was scared. Who the hell did she think she was? What. They were there all the way from the United States to defend her and her family, and she thought she could get away with that kind of bullshit?

After they raped her and killed her family, they blamed it on “insurgents.” And in their minds, that wasn’t really a lie. In fact, to men under male heterosupremacy, beautiful women who refuse their advances are always “insurgents.” They are deceivers, evil vixens, jezebels, dangerous, and deadly, decoys scheming to lure them into traps. They deserve to be raped. They deserve to die.

As Allah notes in the comment he inserted in the midst of quoting Seelhoff’s opinion piece at the Hot Air blog, as far as it is known, none of the suspects who’ve been charged have made any official public statements about the incident. As far as we know, the troops in question merely saw the opportunity to take advantage of a young woman alone – we know nothing beyond that point (outside of the horrible outcome, in which al-Janabi and her family were murdered). Seelhoff is engaging in a massive amount of conjecturing above (and below, as you’ll soon see). This is by no means a defense or excuse for the heinous actions of those charged, but instead a pointing-to- of the larger ‘point’ that Seelhoff is trying to make here beyond the actions of a few troops who do not represent the vast majority of fine men who serve our military with honor and great distinction.

More (emphasis added):

I’m not surprised by this; it makes perfect sense to me. It will make perfect sense to any honest and clear-thinking woman who has experienced this same murderous hatred at the hands of a man she has spurned or ignored (something most women have experienced sometime or other.) I don’t think any of the men who did this were personality-disordered. I think they were men under male heterosupremacy who had the opportunity of a lifetime: the opportunity to get away with raping and killing and getting revenge against a beautiful young girl who had rejected them.

In other words, what she’s saying is that these men were just being, well, males and they were doing ‘what males do’: rape women who either can’t defend themselves or have no one around who can help them do so.

She continues:

What disturbs me, and scares me, are all the Americans, including women, who defended this song, defended this performance, and bought the public explanations – thousands and thousands of them. All the Americans who thought this song was funny.

What disturbs me and scares me are all the Americans who will suggest this is some anomaly, who will chalk this atrocity up to “personality disorders.” All of male heterosupremacy is personality disordered. It is soul sick with a sickness unto death. These young men just danced what was choreographed for them.

Got it? The rant is not just against males, it’s a rant against their heterosupremacy. If you look up heterosupremacy on Google, you’ll find that, in the gay community, the predominant definition for heterosupremacy is similar to what you’d find for white supremacy – namely, that heterosupremacists, like white supremacists, feel they are superior to the gay and lesbian community and strive to ignore their very existence. I’m guessing from reading this opinion piece that Seelhoff is a lesbian who hates straight men, because of her liberal use of the word “heterosupremacy” to describe men. To man-haters like Seelhoff, being born a male is bad enough, but being a straight male is even worse – it means, to her, that you males out there have some type of sick supremacist personality ingrained into you that means you are destined one day to commit a horrible crime against a woman – just because you ‘can.’

Memo to Seelhoff: While you’re busy in the coming days, weeks, months, and years counting the many ways that male “heterosupremacy” is supposedly a “personality disordered” [sic](something you, BTW, contradicted yourself on in your opinion piece – read it again carefully and you should be able to see it even through your mindless hate), keep in mind that the truly evil men in the world are far outnumbered by those who willingly put themselves on the line for you everyday: policemen, firemen, the military- men who are the fathers, brothers, nephews, cousins, friends: the protectors of all women – even women like you who would just as soon spit on them as to look at them. You’re alive and free today because honorable decent men generations past and present took a bullet (or voluntarily risked taking one) so you’d have the right to express your warped opinions. Think about it.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


22 Responses to “Male “heterosupremacy” to blame in brutal rape and murder of young Iraqi girl”


  1. stackja says:

    ST this “heterosupremacy” is nonsense. Men respects women and other men. Disrespect is disrespect.

  2. NC Cop says:

    I love the way she writes it as if she was standing right there and knew exactly the chain of events that occurred.

    I believe Haditha was their latest rallying cry and that seems to have fallen apart. If these Marines are guilty then they will be punished, but lets wait until the trial is over, shall we?

    Once again, the left demands fair trials for terrorists, but then convicts it’s own military before a trial has even begun. Absolutely disgusting.

  3. Amy Proctor says:

    The rape and murder of the little girl seems to be real, unlike Haditha and all the rest. The US military needs to stop recruiting the MTV generation because for sure it isn’t church going Young Republicans who are committing “war crimes”. Ban liberals from the military.

    There’s no doubt that the military has a high testosterone atmosphere, but it usually makes men respect women more, not the opposite. We also have to remember that just like with any segment of the population, you’re going to have your share of losers who refuse to ascribe to the military value system. It truly is a matter of liberalism in the military.

    The personality disorder, if any, is liberalism, not “heterosupremacy”.

  4. forest hunter says:

    If the moronic Cheryl Seelhoff’s thinking were indeed a reality of truth, then how does her analogy of Hadji Girl and rape, play against the NYT’s of the world and thug-hugging in general?

  5. curiousgyrl says:

    “As far as we know, the troops in question merely saw the opportunity to take advantage of a young woman alone ”

    Of course,if you read the news articles, you’d know that she wasn’t alone, but with 3 family members, including both parents. Who are all now also dead. And that Iraqi I witnesses describe a raid involving as many as 10-15 solidiers. Even the confirmed-by-American-reports 5 soldiers requires a plan, not a happenstance opportunity

  6. Um, not that my minor error changed the point behind what I wrote, which of course you didn’t address (or perhaps didn’t get).

  7. curiousgyrl says:

    Actually you may have missed my point. I apologize for not being more clear.

    It is relevant to heart’s assertion that the crime is part of a broader cultural problem or if it is a singular anomaly, as you suggest, knowing whether this event was a conspiracy involving a larger number of soldiers or a crime of opportunity which was what you asserted. It seems clear that it was NOT a crime of opportunity and that the crime and possible cover-up may have involved large numbers of people.

    As for your larger point, I think it’s a bad political strategy. If you support the war, support it, but accept that crimes like this happen pretty frequently in wartime for pretty much all of human history. It seems like a losing battle to argue that this is anomalous in the face of vast historical and mounting contemporary evidence. If you’re honest, you should argue that the price is worth it, a la Albright on sanctions.

    (PS–I’m not sure what I did besides show up to deserve the broadside wrt my intellect, but it makes you look bad.)

  8. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Once in awhile some nutcase does something really heinious. There’s bad apples in every walk of life. To assign some broad brush theory to every male, on serious reflection, is exactly what it seems; an attempt to latch on to some issue or another for your “agenda”.

    – A femenist “womyn” thinks nothing of this sort of intemperate nonsense, trying to condemn the entire male group, while the political gaggle she belongs too, screech how unfair, and even racist it is, to “profile” all Muslims as even “potentially” being a threat.

    – Whats wrong with this picture. If you’re dealing with the revisionist Left, it’s biz as usual. the ironies march onward.

    – Bang **==

  9. Lorica says:

    First, do we know for a fact that this song is about an actual event, or is our “witness” just attempting to be the next Cindy Sheehan?? I guess before I start judging these situations, I should wait until all the evidence is in, not just someone making what could be false accusations. I don’t know maybe I am missing everyone’s points, and I will have to admit, until this is actually in the courts, I am not going to listen to the BS that the MSM likes to blab on and on and on about. – Lorica

  10. curiousgyrl says:

    Lorica–yes, you have missed the point. no one that I’ve read has suggested that the song describes an actual event.

    Bang–“Once in awhile some nutcase does something really heinious..” Or in this case, up to 15 nutcases. With back up to cover it up, while only 1 US soldier came forward initially. How can you argue this is a singular event in a military that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Mai lai, on and on. I’m not trashing the US military in specific; this happens in all wars. I’m just saying if you’re for the war, you’re for this. You have to defend it as means to a greater end, not act shocked.

  11. curiousgyrl says:


    also out of curiousity, what do you mean by this? “or is our “witness” just attempting to be the next Cindy Sheehan??” I’m not fluent in the conservative take on Cindy, except ya’ll dont like her. Is there something in her story she lied about or falsely claimed to have witnessed?

  12. Lorica says:

    What I am saying is I distrust the motives of the majority of people who are attempting to make our troops look bad. I lost all respect for Cindy after she came back to Crawford early from her ailing Mother, and went on and on and on about how they now had caterers. Also why did she feel the need to write a book?? Why did she feel the need to go to Venezula or New Orleans?? What does that have to do with Casey, her Son?? How does her recent actions honor the memory of her Son?? I distrust her motives, just like I distrust this eye witness. Yes it looks bad for these Soldiers, but that doesn’t equivocate to the “whole war is wrong”. Too many on the left, Seelhoff included, believe that Iraq is wrong and that these types of incidences are the ill gotten fruit of an illegal war. These types of things happened in France in 1946 too. It is at these times, checkpoint watching in times of war, that Officers need to stand on troops.

    It is not Male Heterosurpremacy, that causes these things to happen. In fact I will go so far as to say in defense of Male Heterosurpremacy is that it alone has cultivated true romance, and galantry. Juliette didn’t fall in love with Romeo because he was a mamma’s boy. The love and appreciate of beauty launched 1000 ships. It was beauty that tamed the Beast. Heterosurpremacy is written thru out our history, now all of a sudden it is a bad thing. I think doth thou protests too much. – Lorica

  13. curiousgyrl says:


    thanks for making my point. I dont agree with you, but unlike “sister,” you’re at least honest. I think you are deluding yourself, however if you think “true romance and galantry” are all that “Male Heterosupremacy” has on tap for the girls back home, but I’ll leave that for another post.

  14. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Nice job of the old leftist ploy of “parse and cherry pick”, taking anything you can out of context, curiousgyrl. Since you didn’t address any of my points, I’ll take that as a graceful surrender.

    – I would just add this. If even 10% of the male population acted in a totally uncivilized manner in the ways we’re discussing, which they do not, that still wouldn’t make it a “post-modern troupe” trend, nor would it prove it too be a enherent male trait.

    – I’m going to guess that the “y” in your “womyn” nick, is indicative of mysogomystic feelings, stemming from a bad personal experience of one sort or another. For that if it’s true, on your behalf, I can extend my condolences.

    – However extending that to an all compassing “all men are….”, is just projecting a personal agenda.

    – Bang **==

  15. curiousgyrl says:

    Bang–sorry to leave you hanging. I didnt address your other points becuase they seemed less than relevantto my argument, but I’ll pay attention to you if you want.

    I’m not saying all men are rapists, and I haven’t heard anyone say so. I’m also not arguing percentages with you; neither of us have evidence. I’m saying this crime is the predictable in war, and acting surprised is dishonest. If you are for the war, you had to know that this would happen and think it would be worth it. What I want to know is what makes this sort of thing justified in your mind? Lorica says its just the way things are so we might as well like it. Ok, fine. What’s your angle?

  16. Big Bang Hunter says:

    Sweetie – If I were craving atention I’d do something like go on TV and call Bush worse than Hitler, or hang with third world dictators and praise them for building armies while their citizens starve.

    – But to answer your question. I deplore aggression, in any form. My 68 years of experience has taught me that the problem isn’t “enherent aggression”, it’s time, and ego. If people knew they would live for 500 or a 1000 years, you’d see war’s all but end. I’ll leave you too your own concile to devine just why that should be so. Bon Appitite’

    – Bang **==

  17. Lorica says:

    Gyrl you had a point??? If you do please come to it and stop wasting my time with your lib double speak. Never seen any have so little to say, and take so much time saying it. Also my point is backed up by modern society. How many of the 112 pound 25 year old near supermodel girls that you know hang out with 350 pound beer swilling, pot bellied, meat eating neanderthals??? I can give you that answer right now, NONE. It ain’t their personality that makes them girls do a backward glance at a man in jeans now is it?? So don’t go all liberal on me about points being made. When your logic, comes into alignment with reality then we can talk, until then, you don’t have a point Sweetie. – Lorica

    Ohh yeah and it is Romeo not being a Momma’s boy that makes your heart go thump thump thump. :x

  18. curiousgyrl says:

    Ok, bye ya’ll. Its been real nice.

  19. Lorica says:

    Take Care it was good chatting with you. :) – Lorica

  20. Big Bang Hunter says:

    Lorica – What you always get when you scratch a Liberal…. No “there” there….

    – Bang **==