I'm obviously a little slow today, because I need something explained to me. How is it that allowing women to act as equal members of the military leads to men not wanting to help them if they're being attacked?

Does that mean that if a male soldier hears another male soldier being beaten, mugged, stabbed, or what not, he wouldn't help? Because male soldiers are treated equally?

As we say at my house, "Honey, there are so MANY things wrong with that . . ."

"Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women's rape to another level of terror."

This is so insulting to any man who has been raped or otherwise sexually violated. Rape is always an act of power-over. Always. The sex or gender of the person being violated makes no difference in terms of the "terror" they experience.

If she wants to talk about why women are statistically more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and how that is connected to the sexism that exists in cultures around the world, and how working to combat THAT might be a way more valuable use of time and energy than trying to curtail women's freedom in the name of protection . . . oh, wait, she sees it as an "inherent power differential." So I guess fleeing is our only recourse. My bad.

Of course, the most fucked up thing about this article is that it completely ignores the fact that most of the military women that are raped are raped by their so-called comrades, not by the "enemy".

[O]ur military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women -- which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted.

This is a lot harder than you people realize. The military spends fully two weeks of basic training playing recordings of women's screams at random times, so when the men jump up to help the sergeant can say, "Whoa, slow down with that intuitive inclination, kid. We'll worry about that assault later."

I love how the argument is always that women shouldn't be allowed in combat because men might rape them rather than men shouldn't be allowed in combat because they might rape women.

Since removing the victim, rather than the victimizer, from a situation seems to be the way to go as far as sexual assault is concerned, I propose the next goal is to pass a law stating that sober people should not be allowed behind the wheel because they could be hit by a drunk driver.

Oh wait, that would be restricting the liberties of the person NOT violating the law... That's a bad thing, right?

Also, I'd like to inform Ms. Parker that sexual assault is a horrible violation for anyone in any situation. Why is it so impossible to believe that sexual assault, when it happens to men, is just as damaging and just as wrong as when it happens to women?

manda, that is SUCH a good analogy (i.e. the one about sober/drunk and driving)

Can you imagine talking about someone being seriously injured by a drunk driver and then someone else saying "well, you should have known better than to go out on New Year's eve when you knew people would be drinking!" and then, "what do you mean I'm being insensitve, I only care about your SAFETY!"

I love your analogy too, manda. I get so exasperated by anti-feminists (especially women).

the fact remains that sexual assault happens to women at a FAR higher rate then it happens to men, esp in the military, so lets stay on topic here. basically, she wants to remove women bc "men cant control themselves" so might as well take women out of the equation bc you cant punish the men, its not their fault obviously. personally, i agree with her that there is a power differential btw men and women, its just not inherent (except for the fact that clearly, men are in general stronger then women). thats what we need to change, this idea that for some reason, men need to exert this "power" over women. as for raising to another level of terror, i think its clearly that rape is being terrorized, it has nothing to do with levels.

katie--

The argument is, I think, even more bizarre than that--it's not about rape in the military--it's about exposing our women to the risk of capture by the enemy, and exposing them to rape by them. I don't think the issue of "men can't control themselves" is even addressed. I don't even think the widespread prevalence of rape within "our" side of the military is even addressed. The article is bizarre.

Why is it so impossible to believe that sexual assault, when it happens to men, is just as damaging and just as wrong as when it happens to women?

Wasn't there a post a few weeks/months ago about a serial rapist of men and the comment by a doctor in the article about how rape *could* be worse for men than women mentally? If so perhaps someone should show that to Parker and see what she says, seeing as she thinks men can handle rape from another man cause they're *equal*.

I don't even think the widespread prevalence of rape within "our" side of the military is even addressed.

With the continued invisibility of sexual assault and rape within the American military forces, I was really glad to see Gary Trudeau at least raising the issue in Doonesbury recently (March 26-30), in the storyline about BD recovering from PTSD. Check it out at the Daily Dose: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070326.

Warning: The following comment contains extreme levels of sarcasm.

"Just because we may not "feel" humiliated doesn't mean we're not. In the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, we're wimps. While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men "rescue" women and drape them in floral hijabs."

If the other boys find out we let girls in our clubhouse, they'll tell everyone we're pussies!!!

"It is not fashionable these days to suggest that women don't belong in or near combat -- or that children need their mothers. Yes, they need their fathers, too, but children in their tender years are dependent on their mothers in unique ways."

Little known fact: When threatened, children can crawl into mom's vagina to hide from dangerous predators. Fathers lack this ingenous evolutionary trait (because they lack vaginas) and thus cannot provide their children with this unique benefit.

"Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults. It should be unnecessary to say that the military is not a proper vehicle for social experimentation but is a machine dedicated to fighting and, if necessary, killing."

Everyone knows women never, ever do these things. No woman in history has ever fought or killed anyone. Criminally speaking, the worst thing women ever do is lie about being raped. For some reason, they do that a LOT.

"But let's assume for the sake of argument that women, despite all evidence to the contrary, are as capable as men in any battle."

How about sharing some of that evidence to the contrary? Really, we'd like to see it. It's funny, but a lot of other countries have female soldiers in their armies, and they manage just fine. Actually, those guys seem to have more self-control or discipline than our guys--they spend time in proximity to their female fellow soldiers and somehow manage to resist the urge to rape them.
*gasp* Wait...you're not suggesting they're better than us, are you?!? How dare you! U.S.A roolz!

"If our goal is to prevail, shouldn't we also consider other ramifications of putting women in combat and other positions of risk? Those ramifications include women's unequal vulnerability to rape and injury"

Apparently the author thinks women have really soft bones and bodies, like a baby's head. Amazingly enough, men break just as easy as women. In fact women are rumored to have a higher pain threshold than men. Fancy that. She also seems to think men can't be raped, which is amazingly cruel and insensitive to male victims of rape.

"...as well as cultural attitudes toward women that may enhance their exposure to punishment or, alternatively, make them useful to our enemies."

If our desire to treat women like delicate little flowers who must always be protected makes them useful to our enemies, isn't that a damn good reason to ditch that attitude, rather than indulge it?

"Iran wasted no time dressing up Turney in Muslim garb and parading her before television cameras. More than her fellow male captives, Turney was required to confess repeatedly, to apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters and to write letters of contrition."

They're sexist assholes, so we should be too! Only we're much better and more enlightened than them, of course. We have to treat women like crap so the enemy won't think we're wusses. They treat them like crap cause they're evil and want to, and stuff.

"Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat."

Those silly women! If you allow them in or near combat, sooner or later one of them will end up tripping and falling on a random erect penis. It happens every time!

"Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women's rape to another level of terror."
More disrespect for the male rape victims. Sorry guys. You know that time you were raped? It didn't really hurt that bad, and it wasn't really all that humiliating or disempowering or traumatizing. Suck it up! At least you've still got a penis!

"What kind of man, one shudders to wonder, is willing to allow his country's women to be raped and tortured by men of enemy nations?"
That's totally our job! No poaching, ya enemy bastards! We had dibs!

"our military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women -- which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted."

Possibly because they're doing the assaulting? Do they also stand around and ignore the screams of their male comrades? I thought the idea of a military unit was to work together, watch eachother's backs, and so forth, not just to protect the wimmenz. Are we talking about the army here, or the Round Table?

Sheesh, what a tool.

Sorry for the massive post, but she was just begging for a fisking!

Damnit, Vervain, I just laughed so hard my tummy is hurting.

*grin* That was pretty much my goal.
I vent by snarking, and it's been a looooong week.

"It's funny, but a lot of other countries have female soldiers in their armies, and they manage just fine. Actually, those guys seem to have more self-control or discipline than our guys--they spend time in proximity to their female fellow soldiers and somehow manage to resist the urge to rape them."

Bang on, Vervain. Also: once military men are used to having women fight beside them, won't they be much less likely to rape enemy women?

What? The close of that article made no sense at all.

Oh my god, Vervain, that was brilliant.

Big props to Jessica for dropping Cynthia Enloe in there. I saw her speak last week at University of Idaho (you can stop laughing now...there are some progressive people there) and she would be jumping over tables at that woman.

Oooooh! Racism, sexism, and absolute stupidity all in one! Bravo, Ms. Parker! Bravo!

God Vervain, I wish I had that much snark in my entire body.

Vervain, that post is teh sexeh.

Well, she obviously didn't get this memo, courtesy of the International Committee of the Red Cross:

Women held for security reasons: Again, the number of women held for reasons of security related to armed conflict and internal disturbances is very small in comparison with that of men. This is due to general factors: male civilians are far more likely to be perceived as combatants or potential combatants, and consequently to be detained or interned, than female civilians. Women may be less exposed to this sort of risk than men and therefore less likely to be detained. Women are sometimes released after a relatively short time in detention for "cultural reasons", i.e. because the authorities detaining them think it is not culturally acceptable for women to be away from their families. In one Middle Eastern country where several female combatants were detained, the authorities were trying to contact their families so that they could be collected.

Wouldn't this seem like a good reason to allow women in combat? And also, I remember reading in one of my classes that American military women are more likely to be raped by their fellow American men in the military than by "enemy" troops, so her bullshit about rampant raping of American military women by enemy troops is, well, bullshit. In fact, when the first woman was taken hostage in the first Iraq war, the media and everybody else wringed their hands and speculated like a bunch of sickos about how she was probably being raped and brutalized by dem damned Arabs, and it turned out that she'd been treated quite well in custody -- she even gained weight because they fed her so much, and apparently the "damned Arabs" told her she was as brave as Sylvester Stallone and as beautiful as Brooke Shields. And, go figure, they didn't rape her. Sometimes I think columnissts like Parker think these things because they have their own sicko little fantasies of military women getting raped by the enemy.

Ms. Parker forgets that men who have traditionalist/gendered views re: men and women's "roles" are significantly more likely to rape and domestically abuse women than those who do not. Just a tiny oversight on her part.

Ismone, do you have a cite for that?

Protecting women from rape is a great goal. Acknowledging that women can be raped and men cannot be (or very, very rarely are) is a great thing. Using that knowledge and figuring out how to make sure women are kept safe is fantastic.

I think that anyone who saw what happened with the British soldiers the other week knows that Faye Turney "wrote" letters that her fellow soldiers did not write for the simple reason that she was threatened in a way that they were not: with rape.

Neverthless, NONE of this leads to the conclusion that women should never, ever be in the army. I mean, it's like looking at the world and physics and DNA and saying, "You know, there has to be a creator. Therefore, it's obviously the Hellenic version of creation with multiple dieties and wars between the gods."

Oenophile--My source is Gavin DeBecker's book, "Protecting the Gift." His first book in the series, "The Gift of Fear," may have the data as well. After a quck search online, I found this article which correlates more "pro-rape" attitudes with rigid gender roles. (I linked to the second page on purpose.)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v29/ai_14526333/pg_2

Attitudes are not acts, but DeBecker's book does refer to actual rapists and domestic abusers.

Just about any sociology/psychology textbook that does a good review of rape and DV will tell you the same thing.

You women are hilarious. You have no clue what WARFARE is.

You think there are rules.

Read about what happened to American P.O.W.s in EVERY F'ING WAR we ever fought.

Serving in the military is NOT the same as performing any job outside the military.

This is the ONLY job where killing people is the goal of every employee.

This is the ONLY job guaranteed to result in your death and painful dismemberment if you do it long enough.

Are you really that clueless?

Dogstar--this is an article about rape in the military.

Do you have a point?

No one here has said that being in the military is a safe occupation just like teaching kidnergarten.

And actually, no, more career military retire than are killed. And in wars in the early 20th century and before, more people died from disease than actual fighting--let alone "death and painful dismemberment" at the hands of the enemy.

Painful dismemberment. As opposed to humane dismemberment with anesthesia? Good to know.

I'm saying the same group of Americans who break down crying when some old fart they don't even know calls them "nappy-headed hos" are claiming they're tough enough to serve in the world's toughest fighting force.

Just seems a little strange to me.

The US military needs to be allowed to do the job the best way it knows how, and instead it's being told to "sensitivity-train" its members and add maternity wards onto aircraft carriers.

Patton was right when he said "War is won by making the other s.o.b. die for his country".

I just don't see the need to involve American women in something like that.

I would rather have them in a safer and more secure situation, like Rosie the Riveter.

Sometimes the old-fashioned way of thinking is better.

So are you claiming that soldiers need sensitivity training in order to avoid raping other soldiers or civilians. Interesting.

Ismone - They usually crawl back under their bridge if you stop leaving food out for them. ;)

Ismone-Judging by the statements Serving in the military is NOT the same as performing any job outside the military. and Sometimes the old-fashioned way of thinking is better.
I think Dogstar is saying that s/he thinks that women should not be in the military at all and then there would not need to be articles about women in the military getting raped.
I completely disagree with this, of course and think that, soldiers need sensitivity training in order to avoid raping other soldiers or civilians and also to not commit domestic violence, although I wouldn't necessarily call it "sensitivity training." Rates of domestic violence in the military are from 2-5 times higher than in the civilian population.

Mel--Yeah, I was being snide with him--but I think you are right that I shouldn't discount education--is DV really that much higher? God, that is awful.

I knew you were, I just wanted to make the DV connection, talk past him so to speak.:>
According to the Department of Defense it is 2x (but they only count married couples), the Miles Foundation, an advocacy group for victims of military domestic violence, says that it could be up to 5x. It is awful, but it (like the rapes of women in the military) just goes to show how we need to change how we think about "warriors," "war," etc.

So are you claiming that soldiers need sensitivity training in order to avoid raping other soldiers or civilians.

Um, no. But I'll give you two thumbs up for the magnificent way you made up stuff and then claimed I said it.

It is awful, but it (like the rapes of women in the military) just goes to show how we need to change how we think about "warriors," "war," etc.

Lol...

The day we "need to change how we think about 'warriors'..." is coming soon. I think it arrives a couple of weeks after we see the first flying pig.

The day we change how we think about war, you niave thing, is when war doesn't involve icky stuff like arms, legs and heads getting blown off.

What kind of man, one shudders to wonder, is willing to allow his country's women to be raped and tortured by men of enemy nations?

lol I love that she tries to blame it on men of other nations when it's our own red-blooded god-fearing meat-eating american men that are raping female soldiers.