This week in America there has been something distasteful about the joyful celebrations of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  More than distaste, it has been filled with macho and the elation of revenge.  Worse, it has obscured American's attention from how actually Bin Laden died.

I am among those millions of people around the world who are relieved that this terrorist responsible for repeated heinous acts that have taken thousands of lives, but I am also hearing   who are speaking quietly, as if it would be anti-American, about "being sickened," or "revolted" or "appalled" by the jubilation.  And we have more reason than might be immediately evident from news reports and White House announcements for our reactions.

Bin Laden is dead.  But he was unarmed when the US Special Forces stormed in on him, killed him and then buried his body at sea before we even knew he was dead not to mention before we even were able to ask how he was killed.  Follow the Pentagon and State Department announcements: first, it was stated that he was unarmed.  Then a few days later announcements included that an AK47 was nearby in the room.  Sometime after that, as some of us began to question the killing, we were told that a pistol was "within his reach."  

What we do know is that Bin Laden's courier was killed, but that although the President described firefights, no Navy Seal was fired upon. If Bin Laden was unarmed, surely he could have been taken as a prisoner.  Legally, it would then be the work of the International Court to try him and bring him to justice, for justice resides in our courts, or it is suppose to reside there. Whatever his punishment, it would not have resulted from a President authorizing vigilante justice.

Instead, from what we know today, the picture we are piecing together looks like he was assassinated—killed in cold blood. That is what the President of the United States referred to as "justice." That is what Americans celebrated in the streets for days.  With that, the President has dragged the US to a new low in our standards of justice.  Assassination follows from war crimes already committed by this President and his predecessor in Iraq and Afghanistan.

War crimes, assassinations and Americans flooding the streets celebrating vengeance, the President's ratings in the polls take a leap upward for his "strength" (read macho), pundits confident of his re-election, and congratulations from Dick Cheney. That sordid atmosphere leaves an air of suspicion surrounding anyone calling for real justice in relation to Bin Laden, the kind of mentality we experienced in the US with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when many of us knew that war against Iraq was a war crime and that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction there.  No matter.  Americans wanted revenge for 9/11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with that crime against humanity masterminded by Bin Laden.  They got it at the cost of 1.3 million Iraqi and almost 4,500 American soldiers lives.  Then the celebration of war virtually drowned out the massive global anti-war protests before the invasion in 2003.

As long as the US and its deadly military are the final arbiter's of justice in the world, we will all be dragged down and sink into its amorality.  That is why in Unmaking War, Remaking Men I have proposed a plan for a global peace-making military whose special forces would use the least force necessary to bring down leaders engaged in ethnic cleansing, genocide and other crimes against humanity.  Until we make that kind of change we will be doomed to macho revenge masking as justice.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita is the author of Unmaking War, Remaki

If Australia required defense, which it doesn't seem to as long as it pairs up with the US in its ongoing wars that are war crimes, would you want your soldiers trained by the Australia Defence Force Academy? After all, it took it a month to figure out that a crime was committed against a female cadet when what she thought was consensual sex turned her into pornography via Skype. 

The message to the future soldiers and military officers sent by the academy is that if crimes are committed against women, forget it. If your Minister of Defence will not let you forget it, then you at the academy take your time to figure out the charges and you do it so you won't put the boys out too much. 

Just a short court appearance and back to classes. Would you really want those to be the standards of protection in your military? It wouldn't make you feel too safe, would it? The US military is probably worse. That is why in Unmaking War, Remaking Men, I've laid out a plan for a Global Peace-Making Military.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita of Penn State University is the author of five books, the latest – Unmaking War, Remaking Men: How Empathy Can Reshape Our Politics, Our Soldiers and Ourselves is published by Spinifex Press, Australia and Phoenix Rising Press, US.

A "sex scandal" broke open at a military academy in Canberra, Australia, when some cadets viewed via Skype sex between a male and female cadet.  Newspaper accounts refer to the event as "consensual sex."

How can sex be consensual as claimed in this case when, as part of the act, the male cadet had arranged for other male cadets to watch in another room which was then streamed via Skype.  That turns the "consensual sex" into voyeurism and forced pornography.  But how can we count how many crimes were committed here when the initial premise of consensual sex is so flawed?

No worries – as there has been no discussion of charging the boys involved (one was under the age of 18, none behaved with adult maturity).  But the woman cadet upon whom sex for public viewing was had, was brought in on a disciplinary hearing on supposedly unrelated matters right after the event was made public.  She was even made to apologise to her peers which was interrupted only when one of the male cadets shouted ‘Slut’. And for days afterward, the Australian Federal Police had not yet determined if any laws had been broken.

But since the Skype scandal broke in early April, and it has been called the Skype scandal as if Skype had violated the law, the woman and military regulations, as if the voyeuristic boys and their buddy in bed in front of the Skype camera had no responsibility or involvement in the incident. Neither their names nor any other reference to them appear in Australian media accounts which name the woman by her first name and do not hesitate to represent her previous behavior as if it were the cause of this invasion of her right to privacy.   

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has been the public voice of reason and has expressed sensitivity to the woman cadet.  An investigation was immediately launched and six enquiries are currently ongoing.  But as of late April there still have been no arrests of or charges filed against the boys. 

A military culture of rape? some wonder.  The culture of rape is so normalised, so accepted that, in this case, we have yet to see a question of the boys behaviour or action on the number of sexually related crimes they have committed.  But if you follow the Australian reporting on this case, and if Australian media at all reflects its society, the military culture of rape is a reflection of an Australian culture of rape. 

There is more to the question of rape in the military than that.  The military's goal in training cadets is to produce killers and to do that, killer soldiers are trained to be remorseless for the act of taking the life of another human being.  Remorseless killers are grunts, they carry with them the gang mentality one might find on the streets, destruction for the sake of itself.  Whatever kinds of human beings these cadets were before they entered the military, their training for war, for why else do we have militaries but to fight wars (in the US our government makes up wars for our soldiers to fight and our armament companies to do business), dehumanises them to bring out the worst of human behaviour – the killing of another human being. 

While those of us outside the military tend to see the precision of military parades complete with smart, perfectly fitted uniforms, those representations are meant for us to gloss over the grunts underneath that come out in combat, not because they were born that way but because the military trains them. 

Yes, an investigation is taking place, but until we rethink the entire venture of making militaries and turning out killing machines named "the troops" for combat, we can expect little to change.  That is why in my latest book I've called for both ‘unmaking war’ and ‘remaking men’.

Kathleen Barry, feminist, sociologist and Professor Emerita of Penn State University is the author of five books, the latest – Unmaking War, Remaking Men: How Empathy Can Reshape Our Politics, Our Soldiers and Ourselves is published by Spinifex, Australia and Phoenix Rising Press, US.

It seems that every few years, some writers in the country of women feel the need to again examine the Jesus mythic legend from the perspective of one of the named women associated with it. Leslie Cannold’s The Book of Rachael is the latest of these.

While Ms Cannold became absorbed in answering questions raised in her mind about Jesus’ sister, the question which sparked my fourth novel, Rumours of Dreams, (Spinifex,1999) was: ‘Given what legend says happened to her, what was Jesus’ mother really like?’

Research necessary to writing a convincing novel set in a different culture 2000 years ago, as well as a culture dealing with an avowedly patriarchal religion, meant a thorough look at what theologians have accurately deduced about Jesus in his own time.

I was aware that in the Scriptures, there was little mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM), which suited well my own creative purposes, but completely unaware that theologians know little about the man called Jesus.  In fact, the only things they can agree on, is what the biblical texts do not say.

So, having established that fact and done the cultural research, I began my tale of the BVM by beginning with Jesus and his family, as does Ms Cannold. In Rumours of Dreams, we begin with the childhood friendship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene, who is similar in temperament to the Rachael created by Ms Cannold, and who is quite frequently mentioned in the biblical texts. Their meeting and subsequent friendship was the path that took me into Jesus’ home and allowed me to meet his mother.

In creating her personality and character, I looked at what the reality was of life for a young female in those times, especially a beautiful young female. If you do the maths, it is much more likely that the BVM was 13/14 when she was impregnated, rather than 18/19.  And as time has not yet visibly clutched her, almost every female of 13/14 is  “fair of face and form”.

In those times, with men making the rules, an “unchaste” female who was also unmarried was stoned to death. (An emphatic way to make a point, and one that could easily cause fear and panic attacks.) That was, as it still is today, an age of violence. It was, as it still is today, an age of rape. It was, as it still is today, an age of incessant war. It was, as it still is today, an age where poverty afflicted upwards of 35% of the population.

I wanted to find out who Jesus’ mother was because I believe humans cannot climb out of the violence/rape/war/poverty age until women equally share law-making power with men and both sexes realise the purpose of being human is to protect and nurture ALL the world’s children, while working with other living beings to honour our extraordinary Earth.

So thank you, Leslie Cannold, for being the latest in a long line of women writers (A Girl Named Mister, Grimes, 2010;  The Handmaid & the Carpenter, Berg, 2006; The Wild Girl, Beard, 1997; and etc) who pull at the mythic legend of Jesus, trying to find our place there. For me, there isn’t one because of the implacable patriarchy that surrounds it. But it is encouraging that we women always keep trying.

Sandi Hall is a the author of Rumours of Dreams. She is a novelist, playwright and a feminist activist.

A guest blog from Melinda Tankard Reist, first posted at ABC Unleashed.

Shaun Metcalf has been given a second chance at playing for the New Zealand Warriors after repeatedly kicking his 15-year-old girlfriend in the stomach in an attempt to cause her to abort their baby.

Metcalf, now 23, was sentenced to 18 months jail in 2004 where he spent five months before being released to home detention (despite the entreaties of the victim and her family).  He and his two rugby mates Geoffrey Ruaporo and Kyle Donovan tricked the girl into meeting them in a park where they set upon her. Three beefy blokes ganged up on a pregnant teen in an attempt to cause her to lose the baby.

Somehow the girl and her baby survived the attack – the infant was born four months later.

Metcalf has just signed a two-year contract with the New Zealand Rugby League. He says he’s sorry for what he did. I really hope that’s the case.

But there is something especially disconcerting about arguments used to restore Metcalf to the sporting life. Arguments which come close to violence apologism.

One of Metcalf’s key defenders and outspoken advocates is Celia Lashlie, described as a “social justice advocate and author”.

Lashlie put a case for Metcalf being returned to the game to the NRL in 2005, arguing, basically that we should just all move on.

We can all get caught up in the emotional image of young men booting a young woman in the stomach to cause her to abort her baby, but these were two young people… she got pregnant, he was way out of his depth, and he did a really cruel and dumb thing.

He was caught in the moment, and what he did was the equivalent of a young man putting a noose around his neck because his girlfriend tossed him out. He has to be allowed to move forward and put his life together, and I think the ability of the NRL and the Warriors to take this young man in and help him do that is role modelling and something they should get credit for.

Oh no, we wouldn’t want to get caught up in an image of young footballers playing football with the pregnant womb of a 15-year-old girl now would we?

Laskie wants us to be rational about this. Let’s not get overwhelmed by emotion because that would be distracting. The girl “got pregnant” - as girls often so magically do. He was a mere spectator - perhaps it was even her fault for letting it happen?

He was “way out of his depth?” But don’t lots of people find themselves out of our depth and manage to refrain from lashing out in obscenely violent ways?

“The equivalent of putting the noose around his neck”? No, it was the equivalent of putting a noose around her neck - and the neck of her child. Laskie paints the act as some kind of self-punishment. But he wasn’t assaulted. He wasn’t trying to protect the child he was carrying. It wasn’t he who might lose his life.

Note those he invited to the kicking session. Not school friends or family members, but his NRL mates. Because this is what footie mates do for each other, they help out a buddy in need and stomp on whoever needs to be stomped on, even a defenceless girl.

Cruel and dumb? Breaking up by text message is cruel and dumb. Attacking a pregnant girl with your thug mates isn’t dumb. This is not a footballer drunk and disorderly and urinating in public. This is a footballer engaging in a vicious, criminal, callous and pre-meditated act.

Lashlie’s comments trivialises the seriousness of this crime. They are an insult to any woman who has experienced violence. And that is already just too many.

Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra-based writer, speaker and commentator, with a special interest in issues affecting women and girls.