EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
Popular content
Today's Top News
Equal Opportunity Requires A Paradigm Shift
As part of the observance of International Women's Day this year, the United Nations, has chosen "Equal rights, equal opportunity: Progress for all." as its theme. Sadly, in large measure achieving these ideals is still very much a work in progress.
While to be sure, there has been much progress in the last few decades, women still hold only a small fraction of elected offices. Women earn pennies on the dollar earned by their male counterparts while juggling the overwhelming burden of caring work for no pay at all.
In parts of the world, women are raped and murdered when they go to fetch water and firewood for their families. Schools for girls are fire-bombed and acid is thrown in the faces of girls who have the temerity to want an education.
When women are raped, they are accused of being adulterers and are stoned to death or in other ways killed to salvage their family's honor. In many countries, young girls are still forced to undergo Female Genital Mutilation.
Abortion is still illegal, unsafe and/or inaccessible for many women and hundreds of thousands of women die unnecessarily from childbirth related reasons. Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be attacked by fellow soldiers than by any enemy and women, particularly in Southeast Asia, are all too often victimized by sex traffickers and forced into prostitution near military bases or are trafficked into domestic slavery.
There is a word for this and it is misogyny. Unfortunately, we live in a world where things mostly operate on the notion that power comes from winning battles and controlling resources and people. Implicitly in such a system, you can not allow those you want to control to become equal. And in this world, there is a long history of men asserting control over women.
The only way this changes is to redefine empowerment. Imagine a world in which we lay claim to power that comes from the worthiness of how we conduct our own lives and how we connect with the world around us, rather than insisting that we must control things. For there to be equality of rights and opportunity, that is the paradigm change we will need to make. And in doing so, we can begin to become fully empowered and leave the damage of misogyny behind us.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllWomen have been subjected to this kind of vile crap since humankind walked out of the jungle in my opinion, and it will indeed take a paradigm to leave this behind. But a first step tis to free the men from the dictates of both fundamentalist religions and obsolete customs, and that is not easy. People hold fast to what is familiar. To what their parents and their parents believed. The culture itself must deliberately change, probably through enforcing modern laws until the change settles in. The women too will have to change and try not to go allow with these barbaric acts, as best they can.
Gary
"Women have been taught that, for us, the earth is flat, and that if we venture out, we will fall off the edge. "
-- Andrea Dworkin
"But a first step tis (sic) to free the men from the dictates of both fundamentalist religions and obsolete customs, and that is not easy."
But those religions and customs offer a very simple and easily realizable definition for manhood, prescribing a set of atavistic behaviors that encourage males to see their well being as possible only in the oppression of those weaker than themselves - women and children.
Good observation.
q
quickstepper
"But those religions and customs offer a very simple and easily realizable definition for manhood, prescribing a set of atavistic behaviors that encourage males to see their well being as possible only in the oppression of those weaker than themselves - women and children."
In other customs and religions manhood and being a man is defined by the fact that women and children are to be protected and cosseted. They are to be defended and treated with respect. So you really have to define who, where and which you are referring to.
"So you really have to define who, where and which you are referring to."
I think that it's pretty clear that I'm referring to the men as described in gdgoodman's post: "Women have been subjected to this kind of vile crap since humankind walked out of the jungle in my opinion, and it will indeed take a paradigm to leave this behind. But a first step tis to free the men from the dictates of both fundamentalist religions and obsolete customs, and that is not easy."
Yes, there are cultures in which the men hold to the values which you describe but those aren't the cultures that tolerate the problems for women that are described in the article.
q
Yep! I should have posted this under Gary's. As I told Hamster elsewhere...it's Monday! Sorry about that.
Sioux Rose
GARY: Your out-of-the-jungle analogy is about as naive as your former acceptance of the offical 911 storyline. Written history goes back only a few thousand years at best, and yet skeletal remains of human-type creatures goes back over one hundred thousand years. Some civilizations have been buried under the sands and the waters, and two sets challenge your thesis. First, many Indigenous societies may have had different roles for males and females to play, but decisions were often the result of the elders of both genders. Second, there is enough evidence of pre-history to suggest a phase of matriarchal societies.
Ideally, both genders, like the two oars needed to guide a boat up river, would be utilized in a balanced way with the specific aptitudes and predilections of each equally valued. THAT is the type of world and society I work and argue for; and it begins with consciousness. Until ideas alter (along with their false religious roots), progress will resemble the boat forced to operate with only ONE oar navigating. It then circles going no where. In my view, that defines the evolution of much of humanity... its left brain macho force has been great for warfare and endless technological devices designed to conquer nature and Her elemental kingdoms. But where is the consideration for life, for sacred ecology, in this (M.A.D) rush to alleged progress?
The key is written into nature and the manifest world from the minutest levels of its construction right up to and through the revolutions of enormous orbital spheres: BALANCE.
Sorry my dear. Can't agree. No doubt you can make a small, insignificant difference by adapting the present paradigm by seeing the lack of value in traditionally held(cultural) views. The truth according to widely held concepts.
However, to my view to create a paradigm shift one has to come to new terms for reality. A shift in consciousness heretofor not acceptable to present cultures with influence. Particularly the US and it's fellow travellers.
Reality in my view is only ever available to us humans in the here and now, concepts in the past/future model are merely the work of collective imagination. Or more succinctly, collective hypnosis.
Ergo, no paradigm shift until a large number of us begin experiencing life in the now.
thank you...
It seems unlikely that equality will ever be achieved by women copying male behavior and male activities in US society, and it seems even more unlikely that such a development would result in a net benefit to the general welfare. Capitalist economic systems reward bullying and aggressive behavior which a number of men excel at, and societal improvement will not result from women becoming as aggressive as men but rather from the political/economic system rewarding such aggressive behavior less and nurturing and cooperative behavior more. So closing the gap means either that women become as sociopathic and agressive as men, creating an even more vicious and hostile social environment, or that a more socialistic system is adopted that can better reward nurturing and cooperative behaviors (note today's CD article on Bolivia).
kivals
Same question.
Is there a country in the world where women are more equal or have more defined rights? (not rhetorical)
I am not going to write a long essay here, but if one looks at the more socialistic countries of Western Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, and at the other socialist experiments around the globe, it appears that more socialistic governments provide greater equality for women in terms of outcomes. As for theoretical rights, those that exist on paper but are rarely exercised and have little effect on outcome, I do not think it really matters. For example, impoverished African-American youth in the US have the same rights as the most prosperous CEOs on paper, but few are ever allowed to exercise those rights as typically their appointed attorneys cajole them and threaten them until they agree to a plea bargain. Having rights on paper and being able, in a practical and real sense, to exercise them are two different things.
So if I were a woman I should be a European if I wanted the most equality?
"Having rights on paper and being able, in a practical and real sense, to exercise them are two different things"
Oh so true! Our lawyers should be strung up in many cases.
"it appears that more socialistic governments provide greater equality for women in terms of outcomes"
I know thats not the case in China, North Korea, Venezuela and some others, but otherwise you might be right.
Womens rights is an area where if I speak too much I'd only expose my ignorance. Thanks.
Compare China to pre-communist China and you will find much greater equality for women. The same holds true for North Korea. And in Venezuela, under Chavez, women's rights have made great progress. Comparing apples to apples is much more helpful than comparing apples to oranges.
kivals
I was comparing them to us and Europe, now. Apples to apples. I believe you will find out in the end that Mr. Chavez is not exactly what you think unfortunately.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I have been to some of the countries in Far East just these past two months and I might be able to help you out. There is still some gender discrimination but some of it is not as bad as the US but we must be careful here. See, unlike the US, competition is intense out there even if all our jobs go to them and unemployment and poverty are rising there too when you look at it all by class. What makes it hard to compare is that women there have been used to not directly fighting back but are confident that their better education skills will help them prevail in the end and it does happen sometimes. That's not to say that women are not fighting back their male counterparts. They are but some of them are also dangerously crediting yuppie capitalism for giving them the power they have and laying blame on their older traditions. Maybe Kivals is right that communism in China wasn't so kind to women but I would caution that the yuppie style capitalism that some Asians, more so the younger ones, are falling for is a silent killer that makes them feel powerful but will have more devastating economic consequences that will make the US Great Depression look like child's play if they continue. Some of the older traditions might have been too patriarchal in nature but some of them could have been adjusted rather than being tossed out for yuppie capitalism. I haven't been to Venezuela so I can't comment on that.
I probably could have worded my comment above more clearly, but what I was trying to convey was that Communist China provided greater rights for women than pre-Communist China. The Sun Yat-sen period after the last emperor and before WWII did support Westernization, but women still were cast in a very submissive role (but in a much better position than during the Qing Dynasty). The Communists supported much greater equality for women and, though they never achieved complete equality, they made significant progress. I am not sure how this yuppie period will play out with regard to this issue, as Chinese society is evolving rapidly now, not necessarily for the better.
Good points!
Comparing more socialistic Western European countries with less socialistic Western European countries, and more socialistic South American countries with less socialistic South American countries, and more socialistic East Asian countries with less socialistic East Asian countries would be comparing apples to apples. Also, comparing a country before a significant move left, or right (e.g. Russia in the 1990s), with the same country soon after the shift would be comparing apples to apples.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: You make a powerful point, and one that I agree with. I know you refer to the hordes of fundamentalists as merely "useful idiots" to the Republican cause, so in general I think you give the power of religion short shrift. It is there that the premise of inequality begins. Can you imagine how young girls feel when GOD is only spoken of in terms of a masculine-HE-pronoun? Combine that concept drummed in from a tender age with religious delusions that demand women OBEY their fathers or their husbands, or SUBMIT to them, etc. Add to that the actual facts of society such as lower pay and sometimes longer hours, and the awful statistics of violence/domestic abuse when women seek to get away from dangerous men. Often law enforcement takes the side of the male. It's changed some, but hardly enough! We're supposed to show good humor at all the sexist jokes, and the constant reference to "blow jobs." To many men women really are the weaker lesser sex there to service them one way or another. It's an insidious Neanderthal current that flows through mainstream culture.
Until society as a whole APPRECIATES the more YIN values that I attribute to Venus, and gets off the make-war bandwagon that's broadcast through our culture in so many ways (including Hollywood movies, TV dramas, blatant propaganda, and its more covert species of the same thing) it remains a Sisyphus-like effort to try to bring more balanced values to bear on all aspects of our lives and culture. I totally agree that women emulating macho-male constructs of behavior is an awful "development." I had that very debate with the then-editor of Ms. Magazine more than 10 years ago and she did NOT get it. Sometimes I think those chosen to act as editors are too deeply immersed in the status quo to understand viable alternatives to it! That point is made evident by content published by a periodical such as "The Nation." It, too, doesn't move the conversation beyond allowable parameters.
In this article, by Lucinda Marshall, there is NO mention of the U. N. CEDAW Treaty that was first introduced and signed by 20 countries on December 18, 1979 in NYC, and was effective as of September 3, 1981. CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Although the U.S. is a signatory, the treaty has NOT been ratified in this country. There are only seven or eight countries in the world that have NOT signed this treaty, including Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Vatican City (with whom Nancy Pelosi was on the phone when drafting the health insurance reform bill in the House). So, this is the company kept by the U.S.
In 1979, it's important to remember that Jimmy Carter had a Democratic congress, too! It's also important to remember that Jimmy Carter, despite all of his good works around the world, does not really believe in CHOICE! However, already, in 1979, the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, was under attack, so to speak, by the religious right, under the direction of Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum. The ERA has never been passed in this country. Other right wing women's groups, e.g. Concerned Women for America, also have worked diligently to slow progress for equal rights.
The ERA was originally written by the suffragette Alice Paul in 1921, and first presented to congress in 1923. In 1972, the ERA was voted on, and passed in both houses of congress, but ratification by the states was necessary for the ERA to become law. The deadline for ratification was June 30, 1982. At that time, only 35 states had ratified the ERA -- ratification of 38 states was required in order to become law. On July 21, 2009, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from NY state, reintroduced the ERA into the House of Representatives. Sometimes, this bill is referred to as "The Lucretia Mott Amendment."
Susan Jacoby points out in her book, The Freethinkers, that Elizabeth Cady Stanton lost some of her standing in the women's movement when she took it upon herself to rewrite the Bible -- "The Women's Bible." Elizabeth Cady Stanton understood the origins of patriarchy. She was a radical in many ways, and her thought processes are worth taking the time to read. She and Susan B. Anthony's letters, etc. have been published and are available.
On April 25, 2004, I attended an enormous rally in Washington, D.C. for women's rights and for CHOICE. The organizers asked us to sign into the event so that they could more accurately tally the numbers attending. Most of you are aware of how the media downgrades the numbers attending progressive events. The tallies proved that more than a million people were there in D.C. supporting the rights of women. When Hillary Clinton was asked, later, she said the numbers were NOT enough. We needed MORE! Fellow citizens, that's the Dems for you -- in a nutshell -- we will never be able to gather enough people for them to enact anything even relating to the public interest and "we the people." If the Democrats had all 100 seats in the senate, they would still find a way to fail us.
Doesn't anyone look around and wonder WHY 52% of representatives in the government of The Republic of Rwanda are women, and only 17% of our congress, here in the U.S. are women? Is anyone really surprised when the women in congress, for the most part, support the status quo?
To read the Declaration of Sentiments, drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, for the Seneca Falls, New York Convention of 1848, go to:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.html
Sadly, today, some countries around the world are using the example of the U.S., not ratifying CEDAW, to exit the treaty! This is 2010 -- isn't it?
In addition, I'd like to recommend Michael Haneke's new film, The White Ribbon. The film is a meticulous examination of patriarchy, and the various hierarchies that fit beneath the patriarchal summit!
Kay Johnson
"Doesn't anyone look around and wonder WHY 52% of representatives in the government of The Republic of Rwanda are women"
One reason is that most of the men are dead. It was a horrific slaughter.
Is there a country in the world where women are more equal or have more defined rights? (not rhetorical)
I've read that, of the world's countries, Sweden has the most women in leadership positions.
barredowl: I found that same fact when I did some additional research about women's representation in governments around the world.
Veritas: I put together some stats for you!
From: Statistics On Rwanda
1) During this period of terrible slaughter, more than 6 men, women and children were murdered every minute of every hour of every day. This brutally efficient killing was maintained for more than 3 months.
2) Between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the 100 days of genocide. Up to 20,000 children were born to women as a result of rape.
3) More than 67% of women who were raped in 1994 during the genocide were infected with HIV and AIDS. In many cases, this resulted from a systematic and planned use of rape by HIV+ men as a weapon of genocide.
4) There are 10 times as many widows than widowers – almost 50,000 widows of the genocide. There are 5,000 widowers.
5) 75,000 of survivors were orphaned as a result of the genocide.
Therefore, it's quite an accomplishment that women make up 52% of the Rwanda government.
If you read Matt Kennard's article about Bolivia, you will discover that Evo Morales appointed women to HALF his cabinet positions, and 1/2 of those appointed are Indigenous.
Of the 349 members of Sweden's parliament, 164 are women -- 47%.
In Norway, 37.9% of seats are held by women.
Some other stats I found from 2001:
Although Swiss women had to wait until 1971 to be allowed to vote, they now make up 23% of federal MPs.
South Africa -- 30%
Vietnam -- 26%
China -- 22%
Kay Johnson
That was very kind of you. Interesting.
Rawanda was a place we should have acted and didn't. The UN was useless.
So you feel that if women are in political positions, women are in better position overall I see.
Bolivia is an interesting place and I really don't know much about it. I was in Venezuela a couple of times on bridges a few years ago and I'm very familiar with whats going on there. I still get mail from there when they can find someone to mail it outside the country.
I'm still thinking if I were a woman I'd rather be an American or European, no?
If I had a choice -- I would live in Europe. The countries of Europe actually have family values -- beginning with universal health care, for all their citizens. That means that no one will go bankrupt if they get sick, or are hit by a truck, so to speak. Social safety nets in Europe help parents to take care of their children -- rich and poor, BTW -- receive the same help, paid family leave, childcare, etc.
Sadly, the U.S. is NOT family, woman, or child, friendly -- IMO.
I would have posted more stats, but I didn't have time to jump from site to site. I couldn't find one singular website that offered the stats I needed in order to answer your question.
I do know that France passed parity laws -- that require equality in government -- numbers of females/number of males. But I couldn't find current stats.
Thanks for taking the time to read, and to reply!
My pleasure. Interesting.
Sioux Rose
KAY: Thank you for adding so much to the forum. You are exceptionally well-read and up on a number of issues and contribute much to this venue as a result.
I made it a point to previously explain the archetype of Athena on NUMEROUS occasions in this forum. Based on Jungian psychology and books by Jean Shinoda Bolen, I explained the type of female like Ann Coulter or Barbara Bush who identifies with the patriarchal constructs of civiization. These types are more interested in being close to power, a behavior explained in myth as Athena's professing that she was born through the head (thinks like) of her father (patriarchs) Zeus; and thus denying her tie to women, she negates the value of the nurturing presence of a Mother. There are women who identify with militarism, and are under the influence of the archetype of Mars, too. They still remain an anomaly. Similarly, men who don't want to be tough or fight or show the "manly" forms of aggression that American society has been TAUGHT to worship, likely identify with the thinker planet Mercury, or that of the arts and expressions of creativity, Venus.
Just as many notes together make music, or many colors coalesce into white light, humanity is a prism composed of a number of psychological prototypes. This model makes a variety of latent themes available as energetic expressions for both males and females. What's worth noting, however, is that only ONE of these has been given dominance in our society and it's seen in the vast majority of policies and where enacted priorities stand. Just as a recent CD article attested, the military budget remains THE sacred cow. If I were a (cosmic) lawyer, I'd close my case on that item alone!
Here we go with the generic stuff.
I now live in Anti Abortion heaven, where the hate is fueled in churches.
That is where so much of this stuff seems to begin.
We have the Ann Coulters, the Palins and Mom Tebows. They are all women.
If we are solely to talk about right and wrong, then must win the battles in our conversations, when topics come up, the powers that be shut you down like you did not exist.
For once, stand up and see their reaction.
When they know we have voice, only then will we be heard. On any scale.
Love
Zero
How different would this world be if women were in charge. More respect for Mother Earth, peace instead of wars, understanding of others instead of hatred for those different than us.
Bullshit
Power is power. Have you heard of Golda Meir? Or Indira Gandhi? and what they did when in power? Imelda marcos?
No.
The systems of power all over the world are defunct. The moral standards in the political dance have been reduced to nothing.
You play the game you are in.
Change the game.
Love
Zero
Imelda Marcos was not in charge, at least officially.
Margaret Thatcher was, and she was to Reagan as Blair was to Bush 2. Madelaine Albright's comment on ~500K dead babies and young children in Iraq is infamous. Barbara Bush has a similar attitude.
Sioux Rose
ZERO: Your thesis is a fair enough tautology. Who has erected a system that sets up society in terms of the privileged and the lessers? It is often MALE brotherhoods, and for most of the Western world, white christian male brotherhoods. Women, like people of color, who manage to move up the ranks in these patriarchal configurations take on the values of those positioned to support their ambitions. That you can find evidence of those few women who also abused power hardly changes the reality of misogyny as experienced by MILLIONS OF WOMEN.
You and Max Payne take certain anecdotes as a basis for deconstructing the larger factual case made by Lucinda's article. I suspect this is the moral version of a knee-jerk reaction on the part of men who feel subliminal guilt for what they KNOW to still be a highly racist, sexist, and class-based society.
What some in this forum don't get is that making it ONLY about class still manages to keep women "in their places," a premise built into the whole basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. THAT is the first place where the unity of the whole breaks apart, and from that first slice of the privilege pie emerge all the others... those damaging ism divisions that have kept people fighting (under the profitable direction of their elite masters) for centuries. And the cost screams all around us in the form of polluted rivers, dead extinct species, motherless children, solderis with PTSD, money needed for worthy goals gone missing to pursuits of empire, etc. ad nauseum.
I agree that the game plan must change, but passing so adroitly over the WOUNDS women have experienced (and still do) is NOT particularly sensitive on your part, nor humanitarian. I think YOU could change your game plan a bit, too.
I acknowledge what Lucinda wrote and agree with what she says but my only issue was where she left out women marginalizing each other. The reason I believe that this cannot be ignored is that there are men who will look at that weakness and try to exploit it as well similar to how some exploit the weaknesses of subservient women to their ends. I have seen men using divide and conquer on women and there is no doubt in my mind that it can constitute misogyny even if he did it for cash grabbing purposes.
Sioux Rose
MAX: People adapt to a system that leaves them with few choices or benefits, and some of the adaptation process is psychological in nature. In our Mars-oriented society, warfare takes place on all sorts of levels. I really believe in win:win forms of negotiation as we don't all want the same thing. That's where the skillful use of negotiation and compromise come into play. The game plan in the US makes things appear more either/or, black/white, good/bad, etc. and so the women you've observed who turn on each other are mostly responding to the intense competitive nature of our society. I am not making excuses for such behavior, but recommending that we look at human weaknesses within the larger context of those types of systems in which all are raised and ultimately programmed. The vast majority conform in a sort of of obedience, or rebel in any number of ways. Both come with a price.
A universal Will-Heave is taking place. We are entering the Age of Woman.
The male who murders even one woman has murdered himself many times over.
There will be fear and many will come to love by this way.
All women are mothers. There are no daughters.
In Creator Intelligence, SHE IS BEING. Out of the Womb-Word of Will, this POWER that is come among.
Who am I? I am Son Of My Mother, nothing is higher than this. So that, who murders woman murders My Mother.
"In parts of the world, women are raped and murdered when they go to fetch water and firewood for their families. Schools for girls are fire-bombed and acid is thrown in the faces of girls who have the temerity to want an education."
And why is that, Lucinda? Is it because those men are evil and need to adapt our "modern" ways?
Or is there a huge part of the story *intentionally* missing so that you can build yourself a hero-narrative in which you play the hero?
Why do non-Western cultures play the one-dimensional dupes in the stories of upper class progressives? Does this harsh judgement of other cultures make colonialism easier to stomach?
I sympathize with this author and what she is writing about the unfair treatment of women but there is something critically important that she left out. When it comes to work and pay, there are cases of women marginalizing each other on it and my wife was once treated shabbily in one of her previous jobs. Surprisingly, it took her male manager to settle the score when one of her former female coworkers tried to frame her for a crime she did not commit. Neither my wife nor her former coworker were making anywhere close to what the male manager who settled the score was making. He was very nice to my wife and even to the coworker, he put her to different tasks after finding out that she was lashing out at others due to her personal stress. Men marginalizing men I can understand but when women marginalize each other ruthlessly, it's a mystery because I expect them to use their unique strengths to avoid conflicts and trouble as much as possible.
Not all men are misogynists and oppress women. Not all men believe they must control others nor that equality is a threat.
In fact I would guess that it's only the few and it would be these same men who through aggression and violence abuse other men as well. The influence of these men in society is in far greater proportion than their numbers would suggest.
Further, misogyny is not a women's issue, it's a humanitarian issue and as such men and women should unite in the cause against it.
Through his words he became one of the most powerful forces in history. Who was he? He was a beast of beasts, who loathed all women, most especially his mother. He murdered many women. These women suffered long, slow, gruesome deaths. He especially enjoyed forcing live serpents up into their private parts. Who was he?