Reacting with outrage at every piece of objectionable content published by the right wing media is a fool’s errand. You’d never be able to punch out once you signed on for the job. That’s particularly true of a site like The Daily Caller, a sort of Fox News meets Buzzfeed brining in their own piss-dampened diapers. But every now and again something comes out that rises above the ignoble baseline racism, xenophobia, and all around sociopathy that’s impossible to ignore, like this latest entry into the ongoing discourse about what’s to be done with the waves of Syrian refugees.
The site, taking a momentary respite for praising the rush of Republicans saying we shouldn’t take in refugees from the Middle East, (a bitter irony apparently lost on their largely Christian audience), says there are actually some exceptions to the prohibition: Namely, SILFS, or Syrians they’d like to fuck. In a post titled 13 Syrian Refugees We’d Take Immediately, Kaitlan Collins, a human woman, has compiled a series of photos of attractive Syrian women for us to imagine having sex with. To make matters worse, it’s just a series of embeds from a random Instagram account called Syrian_girls.
“While a growing list of governors are claiming they won’t allow Syrian refugees to enter their states, we think these women might make them change their minds,” she wrote. “They are Syria-sly hot.”
All a bit of good fun, to be sure, haha. Sure, we don’t want your people in our country, but the hot ones? Yes, they are welcome to come sit on our gray Republican half-boners.
In case the joke was lost on you, it’s funny because the concept of women fleeing their war-ravaged country being forced to resort to use their sexuality to provide for their safety is a classic bit of slapstick that stretches back throughout the entirety of war through history. Never gets old. Adding a bit of a modern twist to it, it’s been well-documented how often migrants from war zones are victims of sexual assault! Love it.
A study last year attempted to quantify just how frequently migrants and refugees from “complex humanitarian emergencies” become victims of sexual violence, and, you’re never going to believe this, unless perhaps you work for The Daily Caller, it’s a lot. “The findings suggest that approximately one in five refugees or displaced women in complex humanitarian settings experienced sexual violence.”
They go on:
Displaced women and girls are vulnerable to a range of sexual violence including forced sex/rape, sexual abuse by an intimate partner, child sexual abuse, coerced sex, and sex trafficking in conflict and humanitarian settings. Many studies have focused on the issue of rape as a weapon of war, leading to assumptions that armed actors and military personnel are the main perpetrators of sexual violence. Other perpetrators, however, may also include family members, NGO and humanitarian workers, trusted individuals, or strangers who take advantage of heightened vulnerability. As a result, women and girls who experience sexual violence may experience a range of long lasting physical, reproductive and mental health consequences of sexual violence.
A story in the Guardian from 2013 relayed how serious a problem sexual violence is for women in Syria, both at home, and once they make it out of the country.
The conflict has been distinguished by a brutal targeting of women. The United Nations has gathered evidence of systematic sexual assault of women and girls by combatants in Syria, and describes rape as “a weapon of war”. Outside the conflict, in sprawling camps and overloaded host communities, aid workers report a soaring number of incidents of domestic violence and rampant sexual exploitation.
Hard not to see the humor in that.
Syrian women are thrice at a disadvantage when it comes to recognizing their basic humanity: They’re probably Muslim, not from the United States, and the owners of female sexual parts. There’s not much scarier to a Republican than those three things, probably in that order.