Sexual assaults on women in the military are on the rise, and it's safe that the military is attributing it to a better reporting program rather than an actual rise in crime. This means that military officials were aware that women in service were being raped and assaulted. 2,947 sexual assaults were reported last year, but women who work in fields dominated by men are less likely to report an assault, and much less likely to report an assault by someone they work with. For women who have been assaulted and do report it, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a major problem, and Veteran's Organizations have made help available, but with the morals and ethics we expect of our soldiers, this really shouldn't be happening in the first place.
Just a friendly reminder: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. It's time for women to band together. One my first actions will be to attend the Mother of a March on May 14th, the day after Mother's Day in Washington DC. We'll be meeting in Lafayette Park at noon. It's time, ladies.
And let's not forget about the mothers of these men and women:
3,380 US Soldiers killed in Iraq
25,245 US Soldiers wounded in Iraq
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I've got some great articles about the military industrial complex and how it effects and maintains hegemonic masculinity if you're interested I can dig them up. It's really quite deep. To (over)simplify, the military is the ultimate boys club - it both creates and maintains an ideal construction of 'soldier' which is exclusively male. Women are allowed in, but are not allowed full participation (i.e., no active combat) and are often subjected to abuses (conscious or unconscious on the part of the perpetrators) by their fellow soldiers. It's not a new phenomenon as you are probably well aware. We're just, as you said, seeing more reporting of it.
It does not surprise me in the least. Given that between 30-40% of college aged men respond (on various survey instruments) that, for instance, it's OK to demand sex from a woman under certain circumstances, it's no surprise at all that when you take a man predisposed to that attitude and you put him in a hypermasculine, violent culture, that rape would be a result.
That's grim and upsetting subject matter.
Men are asshats.
creeeeeepy and very believable. Do you remember how many pregnancies came out of the Gulf War? You may have been too young to remember. Sometimes sexual abuse is the coercion, even if it's not actually forceful rape. I know, I know, I sound like a lib, now. ;o)
By the way, when's the protest coming up?
That's completely unacceptible.
Laura,
If it's not too much trouble, I would love to read them. With some military experience, I can say you are 100% right about the male dominated environment. I've seen a lot of conscious abuses, and the way some of them talk about their wives is just - let's say vulgar. The military has a culture which allows this to exist and expects women to accept that it is not only present, but prevalent.
It's okay to demand sex under certain circumstances????? Wha the hell are their mother's teachign them???? This is absolutely mind blowing.
Daniel,
I do believe that all men, at some point or other in their lives, are indeed, asshats.
Saur,
I remember the war, but not specific stories, and obviously this one hasn't been highly publicized. Of the women I know currently in the military 1/3 have been assaulted or raped by a male soldier. This war has increased the risk. Women ae taking knives with them everywhere they go. They're afraid to be alone.
"30-40% of college aged men respond (on various survey instruments) that, for instance, it's OK to demand sex from a woman under certain circumstances"
???!!!
Jesus, we're doomed. Seriously, I'm not feeling good about the chances of this country these days. I cant tell if it's because I've been reading too many gloomy books, or if it's because I'm actually paying attention. I'm starting to think that there's a collapse coming, and it's going to be an ugly one.
Dave,
I'm right there with you. I think we've been paying attention for a while now and it's all starting to catch up with us. I have little hope. I'm going to DC Monday to try and restore faith that there ARE people protesting and trying to call attention to the things that are going on. I think all of the liberal causes need to band together in their anti-Bush agenda - the anti-war crowd, the environmentalists, the impeachers, etc... Lables only divide. We need to work together for the common good.
I have to correct myself - the statistic I cited (30-40%) was from about 10 years ago. I remember it from some of my psych classes. As I tried to find a confirming citation, I found more recent fitures. I am trying to find an updated figure, but it appears it's dropped to about 15%. Articles like this tend to get me in a tizzy; I'm usually more careful than that. The questions are usually worded as such: If a man pays for an expensive dinner, it's OK for him to expect/demand sex (strongly agree... disagree...) or If a man has had sex with a woman before, then forcing/coercing her cannot be considered rape, yada yada.
15% is still an unacceptable number, but it's a far cry from what it was in the mid-80s. Maybe those feminist schooling initiatives did some good eh?
UWL: I'll dig them up when I get a chance.
Daniel: I wouldn't generalize that badly. That's like saying all women are emotional. But I agree with UWL, most men on some occasion or another have at least acted like an asshat.
Here's one such article that cites some of the older (1980s) data.
Laura,
Tyhanks for the correction. 15% is still way too much.
Thank you for the friendly reminder concerning the more rigid traditional gender roles in the militaries of fascist regimes. I guess you have in mind the German military under fascist dictator Adolph Hitler, which was an appalling display of world domination and conquest, with attrocities against Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, and Evangelical protestants who hid them. Tell me, teacher, do you have other "regimes" in mind?
I'm sure you will take my disdain for your gross fallacies of overgeneralization and demonization as evidence that I'm for the suppression and abuse of women. I won't let you even start there. I'm against what has happened and is happening against women in the military. However, there needs to be a sane and reasoned debate over the important role of women in the military and how to protect them. Your emotionally driven attempt here doesn't help.
The military has traditionally been male dominated since the beginning of human history. Given your flawed premise, it would mean all these militaries, with their strict traditional roles of men and women (i.e. the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, French under Bonaparte, the English and Americans) were part of "fascist" regimes.
There's another reality check: Having women in combat with thousands of horney men in the very worst of conditions is a recipe for trouble. It is the sad fact of human nature that when men are away from their women for months on end, in the dreariness of war, the potentialities are higher that they will be act out their masculine drives with women in the fox hole.
Again, we need a reasoned debate about this topic and not excuse criminal behavior. We also need to avoid every impulse to feminize the military. Militaries exist to kill people and break things, and for the women who partake in such activity who can handle it, fine. Don't try to politicize that which has been the darker side of human nature.
It has nothing to do with being "away from their women" and everything to do with being men and women. Seeing as how modern warfare is pretty exclusively done with "equalizing" weapons, there's no reason other women couldnt be as effective on the battlefield as men (it's a myth that women would make the world a more peaceful place, as anyone who's been around 12-year old girls knows)(dont believe me, ask this woman).
Still, I'll agree that women shouldnt be on the battlefield, but more because of our (as in "our side") emotional vulnerabilities than because they need "protection". We're all grown-ups, and it's an all-volunteer army, and if women want a "daddy" to watch over them, they can (and sometimes do) ask.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that nobody should be allowed to gather in homogeneous groups for any length of time, as it almost always leads to bad behavior.
UL,
If I even try to answer your comment I will have an aneurism. Instead I will have some tea. Peace be with you.
The attitudes within our military and our government are embarrassing, and for anyone to suggest that rape is inevitable when men are away from their women is unacceptable.
UL - We don't use fox holes anymore.
UL: You might not be "for" the oppression of women as you profess, but your attitudes about men and women show that you're perfectly happy supporting the status quo which results in the oppression of women. Which, to me, is supporting the oppression of women.
Your antiquated views of men and women and your "boys will be boys" mentality regarding what is happening disgust me. These are the same arguments that are used in Islamist countries to argue for women being secluded - it's for their own protection because men simply can't control themselves.
The answer is not "feminizing" the military any more than the full inclusion of black soldiers was "blackening" the military. We don't need a feminization as you call it (whatever that means), we need a military whose leadership actively promotes the fair and equal treatment of all soldiers and punishes those who do not comply. Just like they had when they integrated the military.
Equitable rights are at the heart of this matter. I agree that any woman who cannot handle the pressures of combat duty shouldn't be there - but that should be true for MEN as well. And that is for the military to evaluate and decide, not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of a person's individual abilities. Right now, it's not that no women have simply not qualified - it's that they are explicitly barred from active participation. This has a very real impact on their futures in the military. Someone who did not serve active duty is far less likely to be promoted to leadership roles and far less likely to get the kind of respect that combat veterans get - not to mention the unequal pay for the subsequent jobs and promotions that combat veterans have open to them vs. non combat.
And I just want to point out that your dismissal of UWL's post as "emotional" while your critique is "rational" is also a typical misogynist way of seeing the world.
I must be missing something, and I'm sure someone here can set me straight.
Why is the "boys will be boys" argument acceptable for teens having sex in high school, but not teens or young men in the military?
One might argue that the teen girls in high school are willing. But I would submit the argument that they are only willing because they believe many lies about their relationship with the high school boy. They are now encouraged by their peers to submit to - or even offer themselves - in the name of exploration and sexual freedom. They don't see the emotional repercussions. Perhaps they are not so willing in the military because they have matured beyond the boys.
I'm not condoning rape. Not in any sense of the word - statutory, forcible, or date rape. It is wrong, horrible, and devastating. But I wonder how many reported rapes are really rapes and not disgruntled ex-girlfriends, or those who willingly had sex but regretted it later. I've seen it happen in college dorms - a lot. We can't deny we've seen it in the national news several times, too. Add the anger and other emotions involved in being on active duty in a war, and we're set for all sorts of accusations - false and real.
I say the sexes should be separated. Maybe they should be separated in high school too.
"Why is the "boys will be boys" argument acceptable for teens having sex in high school, but not teens or young men in the military?"
Who said it was? Also, we're talking about a (theoretical anyway) difference in maturity levels. A 15 year old boy and girl have less common sense (and psychological studies show, less ability to really comprehend future consequences of present behavior) than most adults. That said, there are a lot of 18-19 year olds in the military as well - and one could argue that they're still immature. And that's true.
Therein lies the conundrum of the military in general - how do you teach your troops to respect each other as human beings while teaching them to devalue the human dignity of the 'enemy'? The military had similar issues when they started integrating, though rape was not among them specfically - but retaliation against those who did not 'belong'. I suspect that when (not if, when) 'don't ask, don't tell' is overturned, we will see similar problems with the integration of gays.
Laura,
I don't know, but I will say this: Last year I worked at the last remaining same-sex military school in the country. The college was to be intigrated this year, and I'm sure it has been, though I haven't checked. One of the high school students said something to me that was QUITE disturbing. I reported it, but NOTHING was done. The young man said, "These girls should be expecting to be raped bext year, and if they are, they get what they deserve."
in a nutshell, he is more retiring than resigning from being PM, he is remaining as an MP until the next election, there is no real reason why a part from he has been in charge too long and gone rather stale, there is no conspiracy theory involved, just political shelflife.
Laura:
I would suggest you really read what I have to say, and think about it instead of reacting emotionally over something that doesn't exist. I'm not spending any more time on this.
However, to the others, I want to be clear on something. Women in battle and the nature of male sexuality are a concoction for trouble. You may not like this, but men and women though different in capacity have offsetting sexualities that are designed for, lets say "compatability." Get a grip here. Admitting this does in no way promote the oppression or the sexual abuse of women. If you do take it as such, then I submit to you, you are looking for a fight. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
What I'm calling for is putting the fighting man in a position so that he can best succeed in fulfilling his military objective and come home safe to his family. The entire culture of the military must promote this, which includes the responsible suppression of the male sex drive during the time of war. This certainly includes harsh consequences for criminal behavior.
The crux of my complaint is this: why make it more difficult for the soldier with social experimentation? Why mess with something that has been proven to work for over 5 millenia? I'm not saying remove all women from the military. Remove women from areas that pose the greatest risk: on them and on the male soldier. My hats off to those ladies who can hold their own in harm's way, however, this should in no way be normative for the battlefield culture.
The battle field where men are killed and maimed is no place for feminist social experimentation. I find it a despicable and a deplorable view of human life not to mention the downgrading of military objectives. It is the action and intention of female chauvenism at its worst. Enough is enough.
UL: Actually, I am reacting rationally. It just so happens that where you see 'naturally occurring' sex roles for men and women I see social constructions that, through millenia of social reinforcement, merely seem natural. I'd call on you to give a read to Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble" if you're curious how that might work. She's pretty convincing (a bit dense for casual readers, but you seem the type to be up for social philosophy).
"The battle field where men are killed and maimed is no place for feminist social experimentation."
They used to say this about the factories too. And where you see social experimentation, I see social justice.
I have to ask...why would a woman want to join the military in the 1st place?
The Danger of Standing Armies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/rossi8.html
the same reason a amn does: to protect, to serve, to defend. Why should a woman be denied the right to do so?
Exactly: Anyone who feels able and willing to serve, and who meets the physical and mental requirements for doing so, should have the right to fulfill their civic duty to defend their nation. I mean, after all, if what we're fighting for is justice and democracy worldwide - our military - the tool we have chosen to further those goals (much to many of our collective dismay) should adequately reflect those same goals. To treat any soldier the way women and suspected gays are treated is to completely deny the American ideal for which we're supposedly fighting - individual liberty and equal opportunity.
Laura:
Since when is the male sexual appetite and warrior instincts a multi-millenia reinforced "social construction?" I hope you're not intending to sell this. I'm sure Captain Kirk, because of the "Prime Directive" wouldn't interfere with a society of emasculated or feminized males. But, he also wouldn't live there.
Laura, your opinion, though seemingly rational, is not supported by reality. The gender trouble I see is an arbitrary construct developed by feminist utopians who wish to equalize gender roles. I have no idea if Butler intends to do this or not. Perhaps I'll take a look at it.
Any argument, no matter how sopisticated, that doesn't represent the reality of what it means to be male and female is utopian and dangerous, for either gender. I see misogyny or misandry and self-destructive for any culture.
I might add, your assume my assertion of the emotionalism in this post is a sign of misogyny is very telling of you. Could it be that you are a misandrist? Or perhaps a misologicianist?
Since when is the male sexual appetite and warrior instincts a multi-millenia reinforced "social construction?"
Well, if you believe it’s an instinct then that’s your bag. But there is substantial (and growing) evidence that children learn and model gendered behavior based on reinforcement. If you teach a boy that it’s appropriate to play with trucks and not dolls, and that it’s OK for him to run around and get dirty and play rough – then that’s what he’ll end up doing. Boys are socially rewarded for aggressive and assertive behavior while those behaviors are socially punished in girls. Believe you me – I got plenty of social ostracization for not being “lady like”. Boys are rewarded for their sexual promiscuities, girls with healthy sexual appetites are labeled “sluts”. Girls aren’t born with some innate instinct to be quiet and dainty and chaste any more than boys are born with an innate instinct to roll around in the mud, fuck everything that moves, and make machine gun noises with their mouths – that’s learned behavior. There are very few differences between the genders that are attributable only to biological sex. (Actually, in one recent post I did, my friend AuntieHeathen posted some great data on supposed differences between men and women in science and mathematics – see it here.
Any argument, no matter how sopisticated, that doesn't represent the reality of what it means to be male and female is utopian and dangerous, for either gender.
Actually, what Butler does is look at how gender is permformative and furthers the notion that the dichotomous male/female is more of a continuum than an absolute division. There are men with 'feminine' characteristics (and no, not all of them are gay) just as there are women with more masculine attributes. Gender doesn't fit neatly in a this/that category.
I forgot, you’re a very absolutist person and you don’t deal very well with ambiguities. Your reality is based on your perceptions and if you perceive that men and women are essentially different in significant ways (other than the obvious possession of certain physiological attributes) then that’s what you’ll see. I, on the other hand, see a world where the attributes commonly encouraged in males are learned, and thus, could be unlearned (in the case of teaching men that women are not objects for their sexual lust).
And, to point out what I see as you being dismissive of women as emotional is not misandrist. I’m not saying all men do that. I’m saying you do.
UWL: I realized that a lot of the readings about gender and the military came from an edited volume used in my Gender and International Human Rights class a few years back: It's call the Women and War Reader, and it's an excellent compilation. There's a few other articles I know I have around (some of them electronic if I can find them) - but you might want to start there. It's fairly inexpensive and provides an overview of various areas of the issue (war, refugee problems, peace movements, women in the military..)
Laura:
You said: I forgot, you’re a very absolutist person and you don’t deal very well with ambiguities.
Yes, I am a very abolutist person, but I deal quite well, with ambiguities. If they are sophisticated fallacies meant to obfuscate reality to promote a warped agenda, I deal with them by exposing them to logic like sunlight to a vampire. They scream, shrivel and run away, much to the chagrin of their creators.
You continue: Your reality is based on your perceptions and if you perceive that men and women are essentially different in significant ways (other than the obvious possession of certain physiological attributes) then that’s what you’ll see.
Of course you believe that. But your sophisticated undergrad response puts you on a slippery slope. If reality is based on perceptions, your perceptions of me and my perceptions are based on your perceptions, which leads to an absurdity. You cannot address "the real problem" in me, since what you see in me is based on your perceptions of me. If this is how you want to view reality, go ahead. This disqualifies you from addressing anything with substance. All you can do is bitch and complain. And soon, people tune you out.
Again: I, on the other hand, see a world where the attributes commonly encouraged in males are learned, and thus, could be unlearned (in the case of teaching men that women are not objects for their sexual lust).
Again, of course you do. Some ladies are looking for "Barby Doll" men. And, if they look hard enough, they will find them ripe for the picking. However, this only proves that there is a push to feminize men--to remove the distinctions between men and women, er uh, more like, remove the distinct "masculinity" of men. There is no "third sex." The move is definitely to feminize. And, when males are not given the right to choose this and are molded and formed into some feminist utopian ideal, I find that despicable.
I will agree that treating women as sex objects are learned and is entirely despicable as well. However, instead of feminizing males, teach males to be virtuous and have self-control-- treat women as equals with dignity.
In order to do this, though, parents must adopt...moral absolutes! (gasp) This is the basis of right and wrong, and the treating of women as sex objects is definitely wrong. However, the sexual identity of young males, and the appetite for sex with a female is entirely natural and must be taught as such, always within the confines of virtues.
A morally ambiguous universe (perceptions determine reality) rejects this absolutist approach, but has inadequate means to build internal restraints in males if they reject the existence of morals. Those who reject moral absolutes are in no position to cry "foul." All they can say is, "I don't like it." So what is that to an oversexed male? The lady isn't going to like him?
The results of a moral relativism are hardly adequate. Either they excuse deviant sexual behavior by not calling it deviant and remove the moral absolutes, allowing people to "express" themselves; or, they must reduce the risk to women by feminizing men, creating a feminine culture.
Finally, And, to point out what I see as you being dismissive of women as emotional is not misandrist. I’m not saying all men do that. I’m saying you do.
Gee, so you're not a misandrist since you weren't making a generalization of all men. Good. Then you were taking an unsubstantiated snipe at me, or those who think like me? Shocker. So you're a misologicianist. I thought so.
As I was thinking about how to respond to this, I ran across “Inherit the Wind” on Showtime and this quite struck me as quite appropriate: “It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, Mr. Brady”
Regarding absolutism: Here is the fallacy in any absolute argument of right and wrong – you must, by definition accept them as constant and universally applicable. If something is absolutely wrong, then it must be absolutely wrong across all times and places. But that in itself is impossible (and, in fact, has never happened). For example, not two generations ago it was considered legal (and acceptable) in most states for a man to demand sex from his wife. It was his legal right as husband. In some cultures, this understanding still persists. We, in this country, now define this as rape – but it took the women’s rights movement to bring these so called “private” matters into the public sphere and draw attention to them and declare them unacceptable. The act hasn’t changed, our collective perception of it has. The general consensus is the basis of law. If consensus about what is right and wrong never changed, neither would our laws.
On to your notions of gender and your assumption that women are innately less suited for war:
First, I challenge you to provide me with definitive proof of biological differences between the genders in terms of their fitness for the military. What women lack, biologically, in skeletal structure (stronger arms and upper body) they more than make up for in agility and stamina. Especially in modern warfare where fighting is done from a distance and requires only the ability to out maneuver the enemy and proper training to handle your weapons, these physical differences are inconsequential.
I challenge you to find me proof of the physical or biological advantages of being male in modern warfare.
Second, your notion that women warriors somehow goes against the gender roles that you see as innate or instinctual is dead wrong. (I challenge you to read this article from Behavior Science Research and you might check out “Women Warriors” by David E. Jones.) For this to be true, again, it would have to apply across time, place, and cultures – because what you are trying to aruge is that it is a human trait, not a cultural construction. How then, do you explain the existence of women warriors as normative in certain cultures? If being a warrior is innately tied to a static male instinct, how can this be? There are many examples of women taking up arms alongside men. A’isha, one of Muhammad’s wives led the charge against Ali in the 7th Century. Women have often taken part in nationalist wars in Asian and Africa (Algeria is one example). Sure, these are individual women. But for your assumptions to be correct, they weren’t just individuals with an aptitude for war, they were defective as women because women aren’t supposed to do that.
Then we have examples of societies with large portions of warriors being women. One example is the Sarmatians of the 5th and 6th centuries B.C. Russian archaeological work indicates that 20 percent of female Sarmatian burials in that time period were buried with the armor and weapons cross-culturally associated with warriors (Jones, 8). Across times and cultures, there existed women generals and soldiers (China, Inca, Europe), all women troops (India), female commanders (Yoruba, Arabia, Cheyenne). These are not isolated anomolies, they occur across times, places, and cultures. We are left, not with the assumption that there is some biological difference that makes men ‘natural’ warriors, but rather the assumption that definitions of male and female and of what makes a good warrior are culturally defined and located in specific times and places rather than universal across all.
As much as I love debating these types of things (and that's not a snide remark, I really do enjoy it). I am done with this line of argument.
As for be being a "mysologist". That again, would imply that I somehow generalize my comments to all logists rather than, as I stated, your individual comments. And if you want to see what I say as a "swipe" at you, that's your own perception (your own reality if you will) and you're welcome to it.
Post a Comment