This news item made my stomach turn: Cassandra Hernandez, a female Air Force airman was raped, reported her attack and then subsequently became a court-martial defendant, herself.
The story goes down like this: Hernandez was at a party, where she was drinking. She says that three male airman raped her. She went to the hospital and filed a report accusing her attackers. Due to stress and harsh interrogation tactics by the Air Force, she eventually refused to testify against the airmen.
The Air Force then charged her with underage drinking (of which she admits to being guilty, but that's hardly the point, now is it?) and, along with her three attackers, "indecent acts." I had a hell of a lot of trouble finding an official definition for "indecent acts," and the best one I came up with is a "form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic translation seems to be "a sexual act, particularly one that is not generally accepted in society, such as sex with multiple partners."
So. The woman was raped. By three men. She reported her rape. She was harassed by her superiors, to the point where she became too afraid to testify. The Air Force took this as meaning that the sex was therefore consensual (which isn't what it means at all), and charged her in the case of her own rape. If she loses her case, she could be publicly registered as a sex offender.
Sounds like it couldn't get any worse, right? But it does. How? The three alleged attackers were offered sexual assault immunity to testify against Hernandez on the indecent acts charge. Having at least half a brain cell among them, they accepted.
Hernandez is writing to her congresspeople and her Governor, Rick Perry, in a desperate plea to end this madness. Once you finish throwing up, crying, breaking things, etc., I strongly suggest that you write, too.
IMPORTANT CORRECTION: Apparently, the correct action to take is to write directly to YOUR congresspersons. You can find the information to write to your Representative here, and the information to write to your Senators here. It is a good idea to include one of the links to articles about the case, so that they know specifically what you are referring to.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Air Force Charges Victim in Her Own Rape.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5771
WTF is the u.s.air force thinking. OMG! Hello Governor Perry...
You'll have to forgive me, but I have no idea what the efficacy of writing the Governor of Texas would be in a military matter. Congresspersons is probably more effective; she's apparently written to the entire delegations of North Carolina (where she's stationed) and Texas.
Apart from that, it sounds like rape victims in the Middle East being charged with adultery when they can't pony up the requisite four witnesses.
Wow - I'm writing Rick Perry right now; this is disgusting.
But, and the only but - why the fuck didn't she testify? Harassment is harassment, but can't she get some protection, a la witness protection?
According the article, she said:
"The pressure of the judicial process was too much for me, and I felt like no one was looking out for my interests."
Well, ok, yes - that's why you testify. In your own interest.
What happened to her is deplorable, the subsequent treatment perhaps even moreso - but I can't not say I think she should have testified.
I'm not sure, either, norbizness. I tried to find information who one should write in this kind of circumstance, and couldn't find much other than what was in the article. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know. Would we write to our own congresspersons? To the delegates of TX and SC? If anyone knows, please tell me.
Joe, criticizing her actions in this situation is extremely callous. I would generally prefer that rape victims testify, as well, but what they go through makes that a hell of a lot easier said than done. Until you are raped (something I would never wish on anyone) and testify in court against your attacker, please abstain from making these kinds of judgments, particularly on a feminist site. In fact, I imagine that most rape victims who have testified would be extremely hesitant to criticize those who don't, because they know what an arduous task it is.
Joe, I realize this is a personal question, and you're under no obligation to answer.
Have you ever been raped? If so, did you report it? Did you have to face the full brunt of the law and the scrutiny thereof? Have you had to deal with pressure and intimidation from those above you while you are still trying to recover from one of the most traumatic events there is?
If the answer to those questions is no (or really, even if it isn't), I'd ask that you not judge her. Testifying in a rape trial is terrifying and difficult by all accounts. Adding in the intimidation from superiors in the armed forces (which is not traditionally the most friendly environment for women) makes it even worse.
Sometimes people just can't put themselves through the additional pain and heartache and humiliation while they're still trying to recover from what they've already experienced.
this is incomprehensible.
this is incomprehensible.
Joe, welcome to your privilege. Please to be examining.
sorry for the double post.
There seems to be a paranoia spreading that a woman can, at any time for any reason, accuse a man of rape and his life will be ruined, while nothing bad will happen to her. Whenever you talk about rape, someone brings up false rape charges, and when you tell that person those aren't common, they'll bring up the Duke case or (before that) Kobe Bryant or something. Conveniently forgetting that that the men in those cases are moving on with their rich, privileged lives while the women receive death threats. But the "common wisdom" more and more holds that the men are the victims when rape is charged. I've heard more and more people calling for prosecution of "false" rape charges, and this is the realization of that. It's horrible, but I'm afraid it's only the beginning.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
This is so ridiculous I don't even know what to think about it.
As norbizness noted, it would be more effective to contact the Representative from where Hernandez lives since this is a military matter.
The only good thing about this is that if enough people make a big deal out of it (and I hope they do), justice can be served. The Air Force doesn't want to scare away people from enlisting especially at a time like this. It's pretty disgusting that the only reason the Air Force would seek justice on this matter would be out of their own self interest.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
So. I guess I'm wrong. But: this post takes severe liberties on what happened - ie, she says she was raped, therefor she was raped.
Um, fuck no.
The initial "She says that three male airman raped her." does not equal the later "The woman was raped."
Think it's never happened before? Think that those who say they are raped are necessarily infallible? Three words: Duke lacrosse team.
The fact that she refuses to testify is objectively to her detriment.
Three words: DUKE. LACROSSE. TEAM.
Will there be any moment in time where those accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty? Has no one here learned a lesson from the Duke case? Simple because she is a woman does not mean she gets protection.
And no, I'm not defending her harassment or scrutiny or what she had been through.
But, I am wary of making an accusation of rape a verdict.
Another person to write to may be Secretary of the Air Force:
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is the civilian head of the United States Department of the Air Force, a component organization of the Department of Defense. He reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force.
The man currently holding this position is a Michael Wynne, the Undersecretary is Ronald Sega. I don't have an address for either of them - can someone else's Google Fu locate one?
I'm not even going to talk about how this makes me feels. I just can't.
No, it's perfectly clear what this is. It's an outrage. Where do I drive the truck bomb?
Disgusting.
It's one thing to intimidate a woman who has been raped out of testifying, but to punish her for daring to report a crime? Beyond the mentality that would rather see rapists go free to save face, this added bullshit is just excessive cruelty.
I mean, what the hell are they really trying to accomplish with these pithy charges? Underage drinking? "Indecent Acts"? Give me a fucking break. And immunity for the rapists so they can pursue said minor charges! Who the hell are they kidding? In a situation where four people were involved in what they refer to as "indecent acts," the only one they're interested in punishing is the woman. It would be blatant sexism on their part if the situation was exactly what they're presenting it as. Given the reality of what actually occured, it's just plain misogyny.
Rape is no big deal to these assholes. Just one more reason for women not to come forward when it happens to them.
Oh, flaming hell - I tried to check, every time I hit post, to see if my comment had actually gone through even though it registered as an error - and it always said it hadn't. And now it's repeated half a dozen times. I apologise.
Also - Joe? I... Oh, never mind. Go to hell. (The Air Force clearly believes the sexual event took place, or they couldn't be charging her... they're not denying that it happened.)
They're trying to create more guys with attitudes like our dear Joe's, is what they're trying to do, MizzMegan.
And look! It works!
Joe, you're gonna smoke a pile of turds in hell for that one.
Joe, Marle predicted your comments. So you're still offensive, but not very original.
I also do not want any flame wars on my post. So cool it and consider yourself warned.
"Also - Joe? I... Oh, never mind. Go to hell. (The Air Force clearly believes the sexual event took place, or they couldn't be charging her... they're not denying that it happened.)"
I won't indulge you - but, geez. It's not like I'm acting as a holy chalice of reason. I'm sorry the comments weren't working.
As for "sexual event" - OK. So it happened, but that doesn't make it rape. Or am I violating some ethic in saying that?
I certainly don't agree with the reversal, not at all - refusing the speak is not grounds to infer consent, at all. But that doesn't mean we automatically infer the lack of consent.
And, OK, I'm a man. I understand. But that doesn't mean I have no say. Men get raped too, and men are the majority of those accused of rape. I mean, who got the short end of the stick in the Duke case?
This is absolutely disgusting.
BTW, the governor's the wrong person to contact; he works purely on State level. You want to hit up the highest in the chain of command on the Base.
Are you freakin' serious?
If you're going to be writing members of Congress, be sure to include members of the Armed Services Committee in each house.
Joe, just because someone misidentifies their attacker doesn't mean they weren't attacked. Do keep up.
I agree that they're admitting the act happened--I may be wrong with state to state laws, but in my state if a woman is under the influence, she cannot consent to sex. And they're charging her with underage drinking...and having sex
I just noticed something: The attack occured in Pope AFB, NC. Why is the governor for Texas listed? Is that her home station?
In my own personal experience, the Air Force is a hypocritical group of jackasses. They bring up "indecent acts" against certain people, but will turn a blind eye to others. They punish people for living outside their set of moral codes, but will sell pornographic material in their base grocery stores.
The fact that she is the subject of a court martial herself, makes me so angry. The sad part is that I am not at all surprised.
The problem here is in the manner in which many military branches decide to punish the people serving under them. In a civilian court, this would not have happened. So why is this apparently acceptable in a military one?
Malaika, are you sure about that? I ask because there have been a few different answers on this post. If you are sure, do you know how to contact them? I only saw bio info on that page.
The point of contacting the governor is publicizing the case. I know (personally, from when my husband got fucked over in his immigration proceedings) that various levels of government are generally very cordial to each other and can often be willing to do each other favors. And if that doesn't work, Rick Perry talking about the case would sure as hell embarrass them. But yes, I would like to contact the most effective person.
Can we not talk about the Duke case? Please? This case is sickening enough all on its own. And if we could stop engaging with Joe's entitled, hostile ignorance, it would just about make my day.
And yes, her home state is Texas.
First of all, Cara I must have missed the day you got introduced as a contributor but you have been doing a bang up job. I am puking, throwing and breaking things, etc. This shit used to happen all the time when I was doing feminist work in, like patriarchal dictatorships (Egypt, Swaziland, etc.), but here? Oh wait, I almost forgot...
God I hope she gets a good JAG lawyer.
And suddenly every rape case could be just like the Duke case. I knew this would happen, but it still pisses me the fuck off.
As a sexual assault survivor who chose not to report at all, I can't fault the girl for not wanting to testify. I'm impressed she had the courage to say anything cause I sure as hell didn't.
And yes, Joe, men are raped. And I'd wager to say most of the men that are raped are raped by other men. And since most women who are raped are raped by men, that would make most rapists men. Which is probably why most of those accused are men. You might want to try another argument cause I don't think that one really estabilishes what gives you the right to say this particular woman should've testified. Your assertion wasn't offensive because you're a man, it was offensive based on the assumption that you've never reported a rape only to be put on trial while those you accused walk free all because you were pressured not to testify.
I think the issue here has nothing to do with whether or not she was raped so bringing up the Duke lacrosse team is pretty pointless.
Even if she never reported a rape but had consensual sex with 3 men and then got put on trial for it while the men were granted immunity it would still be fucked up. The fact that this all started because she reported a rape just makes it more fucked up.
Joe wrote:
"Will there be any moment in time where those accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty?"
Um, in case you missed the point of the post, Joe, I think you can derive your answer from the conduct of the AF thus far. That is, unless you had put your "bizarro" hat on before you read the post, and somehow hallucinated the words *Air Force dishonorably discharges men on basis of allegations; Assumes guilt not innocence.* I didn't see those words, did you? And puhleeze, the defendants in the Duke case are getting lucrative job offers and are local heroes. Or didn't you know, because you live under a rock of your own making?
Or by *assumptions of guilt*, did you mean, assumptions among the discussants here? Because I'm quite sure we're not doing significant damage to those men by merely discussing the situation; that is, compared to the damage that has been done to Ms. Hernandez, whose career and autonomy are now on the line, while the men in question are getting immunity.
And if you do believe something DID HAPPEN Joe (since the AF is not disputing it, as you say), and you REALLY think it might have been *consensual*, can you imagine a scenario in which it would make sense, and would be fair, to grant the co-participants immunity in exchange for testifying against one particular party, who just so happens to be the only woman involved, and a woman who alleges she was raped? Give me a break. As MizzMegan says, it would be sexist at minimum, even if you did think it was consensual...but it's so blatantly illogical that it reeks of something more sinister.
A court-martial has been scheduled for Sept. 24 at the air base adjacent to Fort Bragg, Drohan said, and it will be open to the public.
I would suggest that anyone who is near the Fort Bragg area appear for her court-martial.
Joe,
What's your point? Does one incidence of lying mean that all people are lying? At the very least, a person should examine the number of people who make such a claim and figure out the percentage that are lying. IIRC, it's something like 2% of women who lie.
The chances that this woman is telling the truth are extremely high. Also, let's examine what we know of this case: she was examined. Presumably, the genetic material of more than one man was found inside of her. Presumably, those men are the now-witnesses in question - otherwise, why have them as witnesses?
Now, let's put this together. Occam's Razor states, in one manner, that when two situations are equally likely (and we now that they are not - the woman is likely telling the truth), the one with the more simple explanation is probably correct.
One situation: she had sex with three men all at once while the others watched; thought this was a rocking good time to screw a guy while his buddies ogled them; managed to find three men who share the same fetish; and then went and claimed that she was raped.
Situation 2: she was gang-raped and was too traumatised to follow through (as are most rape victims).
Think it through. Presume her to be at least moderately rational. I'm sorry, but, for her to be lying, there has to be some really screwed up stuff going on. Even if she is lying, then, the men should be charged, too. Except they aren't.
---
The Air Force, IMHO, has a really horrible history of dealing with women. IIRC, a lot of women were raped in training camp in Colorado a few years back. The incidence of rape is something like 40% there, and most women never even report it.
This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted.
before anyone goes shouting "accusing doesn't make it rape" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "false rape charges", which always happens when talking about rape, please understand a few things...
i am a female in the US Navy. the military takes accusations of rape VERY seriously. a charge can not even go forward w/o medical examinations. she sought medical attention. we are briefed to no end on what to do if you are sexually assaulted. DO NOT shower, or clean yourself in anyway, etc, and get to the nearest MTF ASAP.
second, a case won't move forward w/o enough evidence to support said claim. especially in the military. there are counselors who are trained to work w/ vicitms, and personnel in place to help collect the evidence needed. the Sexual Assault Victim (SAVI) Intervention teams on military installations are volunteers trained to handle these situations.
there are numerous steps to take to even file a small charge. you can't just walk into a JAG office and claim rape and go directly to trial.
the point is if it went forward, there is a good chance that there was plenty of evidence to support the descision to go forward.
all that aside...when a low ranking person (airman is only E-3) makes such claims, it follows chain of command like anything else. meaning, every person b/t her and the top rung will meet w/ her...probably all stressing how serious this charge is and how it can tarnish the name of the military and damage the careers of said accused. it is not an easy task when you are trained from day one to fear these higher ranking people. especially the air force, who draw harsh lines between rank. the fact that she was under too much stress to testify does not surprise me, working in joint service facilities, at all. it is difficult to pursue simply accusing someone of mistreating you...let alone something as horrible as this.
also, on indecent acts...the military believes that ANY sexual contact outside of good old missionary 1 man to 1 woman intercourse is an "indecent act". sodomy, oral sex, etc, is punishable under the UCMJ, and alcohol related incidences are a top priority now, w/ the new trend being toward dishonorably discharging anyone for under age drinking. this is a horrible and harsh fact, and can actually make it difficult to seek justice in cases like these.
i hope i offered some insight.
one more thing...
in the military...sadly...under the UCMJ, which takes priority over civilian law, you are basically guilty until you can defend yourself out of the big shit heap you are in.
Can people please not advocate violence here? You don't know who is watching and taking note. I understand this case brings out the most visceral reactions, but advocating violence is not acceptable. The offending comment should be redacted to preserve the integrity of the community and out of respect for the hosts.
Evolve. Discuss. Peace.
and yes...a representative is the best course of action for concerned civilian personnel.
i would have to check, but it seems the Inspector General could be brought into this if there is enough of a case put together to present to him.
Whose representative, ouyangdan? Hers or our own?
Joe, you're right. Just because we're men doesn't mean we get no say. So as a man, I'd like to say: shut the fuck up, you unspeakable bastard.
You have no idea how much damage you cause just by thinking the way you do, do you?
There are monsters among us, Joe. There always have been, and there always will be. But they're not the problem. Not really. Monsters hurt on the individual level. The real damage is done by a system full of people like you.
If these three men are guilty, then they are monsters. They gang-raped a woman, and that's horrible.
However, maybe they didn't. As you say, innocent until proven guilty. Maybe it was three entirely different guys - or four - or two - or whatever, and she was too drunk to tell.
All beside the point.
The point is that the Air Force is clearly making an example of her for daring to report her colleagues. A patriarchal power structure is putting an uppity bitch in her place, and warning other uppity bitches that this could happen to them.
And do you know why they get away with it, Joe? Because of people like you. People who look for the "right" behavior from the victim, and question her honesty if she's even a little bit "wrong".
It's possible to falsely report any crime. However, rape and sexual assault are the only crimes I know of where we assume that the victim is lying until she's proven honest. If a burglary case can't be brought to trial because there's insufficient evidence that a particular burglar did it, we don't assume that the victim lied about being robbed. If a thug is found Not Guilty of assault, we don't assume that the victim wasn't beat up.
Only rape. That's what you're doing, Joe. And you're justifying it, as everyone like you does, with a single well-publicized case.
Go ahead and write to whoever you want to. It might even help. In the larger picture, though, you're the problem.
i'm so confused. Who determined that the three attackers be offered immunity? What is that process?
The Air Force took this as meaning that the sex was therefore consensual (which isn't what it means at all), and charged her in the case of her own rape.
If they've determined it's consenual, how can they file any rape charges against anyone? Or are they trying to get her on miscounduct? (Sorry if this stuff has been answered already).
They are charging her on misconduct, Azliza. As for the immunity, I'm not sure of the exact process, but it's pretty standard civilian procedure to grant lesser criminals immunity for their help in convicting greater criminals-- which is particularly offensive and insane in this case.
I know I'm being way, OT, but something else is bothering me here:
She's old enough to die for her country, but not old enough to have a drink? WTF?
Meanwhile, privileged chickenhawks in colleges get away routinely with underaged drinking ...
I know I'm being way, OT, but something else is bothering me here:
She's old enough to die for her country, but not old enough to have a drink? WTF?
Meanwhile, privileged chickenhawks in colleges get away routinely with underaged drinking ...
Oops ... sorry about the double post. I got an error message which led me to believe the first post didn't "take".
*
it's pretty standard civilian procedure to grant lesser criminals immunity for their help in convicting greater criminals - Cara
Indeed. But granting immunity to people accused (n.b. Joe ... I said "accused") of a greater crime to go after someone accused of a lesser crime? That just don't pass the sniff test ...
The thing that really makes me think the Air Force is covering up and actively trying to punish her for reporting the incident is their giving immunity to three people in order to charge one, who is accused of exactly the same crime. That is ridiculous and, in my estimation, reveals the fucked up attitude of those involved. Allowing a defense attorney to interview her without representation, if that is true, further reveals this “punishment�.
That said, I am surprised you all feel so free to declare that a rape took place as if it were proven fact. It probably was a rape, but I would have thought you all have learned a lesson by now about the difference between an accusation and proven fact. I guess not.
Although this story is indeed sad and disgusting, it does not suprise me. Being an active duty member of the military, I have constantly felt that sexual harassment (and I'm not even touching on sexual assault or violence such as rape here) goes on daily. During the last four years I have served HONORABLY alongside men in the Marine Corps,and have been labled a "slut", "bitch", "DYKE"! for being a WOMAN! I have even had to slam a door on a drunk Marine's foot to keep him from breaking into my barracks room at 2 am (to rape me, perhaps?)! The military is in need of a huge makeover in sexual policy. Women in the armed forces are not protected, respected, or even treated in a half-way decent matter. That is why I have chosen to stay in. I want to evolk change. The politically correct, unenforeced policies that are suppossed to protect women are in truth half-assed attempts to fool a conservative public. The truth of the matter is that women are violated on a daily basis, and as a result of the lack of attention given to these situations, women are made criminals because of their victimization. Women are not respected, and therefore not treated as human beings, let alone service members risking their lives for America's causes (whether justified or not). I beleive that this woman was raped and that she is paying the price for being a woman in a male-dominated field.
Military law is different from civilian law. Court martials apply military law, not civilian law.
As a result, the "normal" rights and privileges of defendants are different.
I don't know enough about the specifics of the UCMJ to explain further. But I wouldn't be surprised if the military law carries an obligation to report certain types of wrongdoing, which she may have technically violated.
That doesn't make this any less slimy. But if you were wondering (as was I) how the fuck this is even theoretically possible I think the UCMJ would be the place to start.
The idea that testifying is "objectively" in the interest of a rape victim is preposterous. By testifying (and pressing charges at all), a rape victim subjects herself (outside of prison,it's overwhelmingly a herself) to vilification, intimidation, in-court humiliation, and possibly retaliatory violence. The fact that the perpetrator might get convicted in the end isn't much of a counterbalance to the world of shit the victim exposes herself to by coming forward.
Against this background, while I don't want to make this about the Duke case, I don't see how we get from recantation (which is all, to my knowledge, the woman in that case ever did) to lying? When a woman recants admidst death threats and public vilification, it seems like there might be other hypotheses to discount before we can draw the conclusion that she was lying from the start (and wasn't there an e-mail in which one of the Duke men admitted it? I remember reading that, in any case.)
A woman files charges alleging that three men gang-raped her. The fact that three men engaged in penetrative intercourse with her is not disputed by anyone, including the three men. They get immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against her on charges of "Indecent Acts" arising out of the very conduct she reported when she filed rape charges. Here, again, the assumption that she's not testifying in the rape case because she's lying seems to be one of the less probable interpretations of the events.
By the way, the definition of "rape" under the UCMJ is:
Art. 120(a) UCMJ. One might be foregiven for drawing conclusions about the attitudes of institutions that do not deem "sexual intercourse by force and without consent" with one's wife to be worthy of punishment.
"This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted."
All the really good points you made in your comment were somewhat negated by this self-defeating statement, oenophile.
“Against this background, while I don't want to make this about the Duke case, I don't see how we get from recantation (which is all, to my knowledge, the woman in that case ever did) to lying? When a woman recants admidst death threats and public vilification, it seems like there might be other hypotheses to discount before we can draw the conclusion that she was lying from the start (and wasn't there an e-mail in which one of the Duke men admitted it? I remember reading that, in any case.)� – Elise
The accuser in the Duke case told many different, contrary stories, and even recanted on the night of the party (so it had nothing to do with threats). And no, there was no email where a Duke man “admitted it�, regardless of what you remember reading.
And now back to our previously scheduled subject…
"This is one really good reason why women should not be drafted."
All the really good points you made in your comment were somewhat negated by this self-defeating statement, oenophile.
(Rolls eyes) Whatever.
So my good points are less valid? Wow. I wasn't aware that the validity of one's points can be NEGATED just like that. Amazing how truth works, isn't it?
So, humour me: you think that women should be drafted into such an environment? Women are much more likely to be raped than to be injured or killed in the line of duty.
Would you support the draft of a particular group of people who, by their inclusion in that group, had a 40% chance of being shot? Of receiving injury? Of being killed? Why should rape be different?
Turns out there was an e-mail. I just found the article. Here's an excerpt:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10092
Not drafting women into such an environment is certainly one possible solution, though it does not do much for the women who volunteer. One other solution, which does not seem entirely unreasonable to me, would be to reform the institutional culture that allows these conditions to persist.
many years ago (e.g. 1982) i spent the summer working in the home office of my representative (a very cool woman). i helped with constituent services and a lot of the letters we received were from servicemen & women. There were a lot LESS women in the service then, but i remember seeing a number of letters back where the writer wanted assistance with issues SUCH AS THIS ONE. We'd evaluate the letter and then we, the staff would write a letter to the governmental entity -the army, social security etc. We had a tickler file and we'd check up periodically until we had some sort of answer- or ideally a resolution.
If enough representatives and senators write this standard letter of inquiry to the Secry of the Air Force, the Secry of Defense etc, it does get attention. We found that we got faster and better responses if the petitioner had other reps writing concurrently.
Even now a LOT of people doing constituent services are women - and i'd hope they would have some sympathy though i know that there are plenty of women who think that "only women who ask for it" get raped. However a lot of the most right wing women i know nonetheless KNOW women who have been raped and who weren't "asking for it". (I know it's inconsistant, but rigid thought processes like this often crumble when one sees enough exceptions to the rule to determine that their rule of thumb on things like rape is flawed and untrue.) I think that a letter like this would get priority.
A letter that includes addresses and names of the involved Secretaries & Undersecretaries makes it really EASY for said constituent relations staff to turn right around and pop a letter out ASAP.
We also found that if local VFWs got involved, that too helped press the point. I'd suggest writing your local VFW & AMerican Legion and ask THEIR members to write on her behalf...on the basis of "What would they do if this were their daughter?"
I know that appealing to these rather right wing patriarchial groups may not appeal to all, but if the goal is righting an injustice, well...politics make strange bedfellows...and i'm depressed by this all enough to make me willing to write to the old fart vets on my nice "ladylike" stationary if that's what it takes to help.
And THEN we'll go after the folks that let this abomination of a charge occur in the first place.
Wow, I am supposing the military cares so much about rape and treats it so severely that it would rather side with the rapists rather than victims, as to ensure not to ruin any careers.
But this certainly isn't the first time this has happened. The Air Force has a long history of sexual assaults. But it's not such a new theme, is it?
I KNOW for a fact, having spent a few years in the military as a journalist, that underage-drinking is not a crime worthy of UCMJ actions, or whatever "acts of indecency" she might have engaged it.
I still have many contacts in the military and will be giving the base's public affairs officer a call as a freelance journalist tomorrow and report back.
And if anyone would like, I'd encourage you to call his office as well. I'd be happy to supply you with a number.
"Whose representative, ouyangdan? Hers or our own?"
Both, perhaps?
"If these three men are guilty, then they are monsters. They gang-raped a woman, and that's horrible."
Also, it's horrible no matter if the victim is a woman or not.
"The military is in need of a huge makeover in sexual policy. Women in the armed forces are not protected, respected, or even treated in a half-way decent matter."
For that matter, why aren't these attacks recognized as troops attacking their own country's military?
Thank you very much for this info, Bailey. I'm going to add it into the post, now.
Wow, I am supposing the military cares so much about rape and treats it so severely that it would rather side with the rapists rather than victims, as to ensure not to ruin any careers.
But this certainly isn't the first time this has happened. The Air Force has a long history of sexual assaults. But it's not such a new theme, is it?
I KNOW for a fact, having spent a few years in the military as a journalist, that underage-drinking is not a crime worthy of UCMJ actions, or whatever "acts of indecency" she might have engaged it.
I still have many contacts in the military and will be giving the base's public affairs officer a call as a freelance journalist tomorrow and report back.
And if anyone would like, I'd encourage you to call his office as well. I'd be happy to supply you with a number.
I find this whole thing to be so disgusting, I can't even handle it.
As for the Duke case and the Bryant case (I will admit I didn't follow the details too closely), how can we be sure that recanting indicates lying? We know about those cases what was fed to us through the media. Maybe if Bryant's accuser had a PR rep lit the one Bryant can afford, she wouldn't have been vilified by the media and seem like a big liar in the public eye.
As for the military, it is clear what they are doing. Not only are they punishing the woman for reporting her attackers, but they are also punishing her for being a woman. It is worse for her to get caught drinking than a man because she is a woman. If the sex was consensual (which I don't believe for a moment!), then she should be punished for having sex, right? The military doesn't care about women; it's the oldest boy's club there is. I mean, where else in the civilized world is it not rape if it is your wife?
I'm curious, Elise, why you think that women ought to be drafted (and raped) while we work on changing the culture.
Because I never said that we shouldn't change the culture. I simply said that the CURRENT culture is not something that women ought to be forced into.
I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of the nit-picking that goes on here. It doesn't make you look smart or feminist; it makes you look like you have nothing better to do with your time than to harp on people to make yourself look better.
Please check the correction at the bottom of the post for information on how you can take action.
Perhaps this, too, is "nit-picking", but you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone should be drafted; nor are women (or men, come to that) currently drafted in the US (the "backdoor draft" of "stop-loss orders" is another matter, since it requires people to stay in the military beyond their commitment rather than requiring them to join).
Nor do I think that anyone else was specifically advocating a draft of women (or men). People were responding to your comment that women should not be drafted because of the current military culture, and it appears I'm not the only one to assume (and it's not a leap given your usual antics) that you were suggesting that the culture itself should not be changed, given that you did not suggest that it should be.
"Men get raped too, and men are the majority of those accused of rape."
You forgot something: The majority (99%?) of rapists are men. Just an honest mistake, I'm sure.
And Oenophile, I completely agree with the first part of what you said, but the second part smacks of victim-blaming. First of all, we don't have a draft. Neither men nor women are drafted into the armed services in this country.
Second, denying women the opportunity to serve in this capacity because men victimize them is completely backwards. It's not different from telling women to avoid going out in public alone in order to avoid being raped/assaulted. How about punishing the actual perpetrators rather than restricting the movement/choices of the victims? Maybe MEN shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, since they're so likely to vicitmize their female comrades.
That would never fly though because the majority of service members are men and who could imagine restricting men in that way?
tangentially off topic:
I just read this story aloud to my two (male) roommates, and one of them reacted the same way I did (puke, cry, hurl things, etc) and the other one, who is a nice guy (not to be confused with Nice Guy (tm)) was puzzled by the situation. He couldn't understand why she had reported it then refused to testify, and thought that might mean she was lying. I mostly calmly explained that testifying, etc, after an assault was often just as traumatic and more prolonged than the assault. He brought up the possibility of false accusation, and cited the Kobe Bryant case (which I less calmly explained to him was actually rape), but he seems to think that there are a significant number of vindictive women who would pursue false rape charges to the end, and I couldn't seem to find the right words to convince him of the small chance of that happening. He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him? I read this site all the time, but I just don't have the vocabulary to talk coherently about these issues.
tangentially off topic:
I just read this story aloud to my two (male) roommates, and one of them reacted the same way I did (puke, cry, hurl things, etc) and the other one, who is a nice guy (not to be confused with Nice Guy (tm)) was puzzled by the situation. He couldn't understand why she had reported it then refused to testify, and thought that might mean she was lying. I mostly calmly explained that testifying, etc, after an assault was often just as traumatic and more prolonged than the assault. He brought up the possibility of false accusation, and cited the Kobe Bryant case (which I less calmly explained to him was actually rape), but he seems to think that there are a significant number of vindictive women who would pursue false rape charges to the end, and I couldn't seem to find the right words to convince him of the small chance of that happening. He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him? I read this site all the time, but I just don't have the vocabulary to talk coherently about these issues.
I still don't understand. They're charging her with raping herself or something? I'm completely confused.
I served in the Army National Guard and NEVER got a solid class of instruction on what to do if you are raped. It differes ALL based on your commanders.
In the military the rape protection regulations are years behind civilian law, as poor as those are. Women are often pushed into hidingthe rape before they even report it just becasue of military culture.
This is not only just one of many insults to women service members but this goes above and beyond seeing that she is being charged. However this is just more of the same for women when dealing with the US military.
This is just one reason why groups like SWAN, the Service Womens Action Network are begining to shape in order to give women who have served in the military a way to navigate the waters of it. It is absolutly needed for some women to have a place to turn after the military turns on them.
This is just one more reason I think our ramoant militarism as a culture is hurting more than it will EVER protect anyones freedom.
Lindsey, they are essentially charging her with having sex. Did you read the links? Maybe they explain it better than my post did?
Angiecita, not off topic at all. Very frustrating indeed. Not specific to the topic of rape or rape accusations at all, but two great threads / posts I feel have the potential to help men understand some of women's experiences more generally are the *everyday misogyny examples* thread at Bitch, Ph.D. (it's an old post but I believe the link is still up as it's one of her favorites / "classics"), and Chris Clarke's post entitled something like STFU at Pandagon, which is also at least a few months old now.
As for understanding the horror / trauma of rape and the retraumatization that comes with prosecuting one's rapists, I have no Internet resources to recommend, but some rape prevalence statistics or rape conviction statistics might help (with the understanding that rape is significantly underreported) put things in a more reality-based perspective for him, as might some autobiographical writing from women who have been raped, whether that be in blog or book or film form or whatever. It all depends on how invested you feel in helping him "get it."
"He also seems to be laboring under the (adorable) impression that when a woman reports an assault the accused life is immediately ruined, because everyone believes her. Anyone have advice for how I can explain this to him?"
I don't know how much this will help, but try pointing him to the recent OC case and that the idea of treating a victim like a perpetrator isn't new.
Remind him that the most asked question about an alleged rape is "what was she doing/wearing?"
Make sure he knows about the long list of restrictive things that women are told by everyone - from parents to co-workers - to do to prevent rape, despite dubious results, at best.
And lastly, remind him that the woman in this case didn't really have the choice of not being surrounded by guys like him throughout the trial. Ok, well, I wouldn't put it that way - I'd mention recent scandals within the military instead.
Most importantly, stay focused on the goal and try not to get sidetracked. The goal: to make it clear that military personnel who are raped by their comrades are often stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Not the goal: to get mired down by the question of whether or not this particular woman is a victim or not. If you get him to concede the larger point, he will probably concede the minor point the next time the subject comes up, but may hold out this time - no matter what - for pride's sake.
Also not the goal: don't let him sidetrack you into complaining about false accusations.
If you think he has any bit of compassion, make this about you and what you would feel in this situation and getting him to understand what that is like. But be careful not to let him paint you as some crazy; have some well known and/or universal examples to use in case he tries to make this about you having "problems."
Don't let him turn this into a debate for debates sake. Nip nitpicking in the bud by bringing it back to the goal rather than responding point by point.
And take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm ok at online debates, but often bad in person.
Plus! good luck! and remember that this may not help. Sadly, it likely won't make an immediate difference. It may give him food for thought, though, and help down the line.
The story is not making sense from the article. She says she was attacked but managed to flee with half of her clothes on, even got a medical exam. Now, because of the refusal to testify, the new charge is she was performing an indecent act (what does that constitute by the way, and why can't the male also involved in the act be prosecuted as well) witnessed by 2 men? I understand an act normally not punishable can become an "indecent act" via its occurrence in public or in front of others, so the presence of the men, who previously were charged as rape victims, are now potentially the impetus for her indictment?
'The night of the alleged assault, she was taken to the hospital and eventually given counsel and therapy, but the stress of it was all too much.
She says after a defense attorney with the Air Force harshly interrogated her without representation present, she backed off and decided not to testify.
"It got very bad, I was getting calls late at night. She was in tears, and she was going back and forth on everything," Hernandez said.'
The timeline on the whole incident is fucked up; you're not told how soon after the incident she was interrogated, how soon after the interrogation that she decided not to testify. They say her advocate was not present; for how long?? I am highly sympathetic to her, if it it happened the way she says it happened, it's terrible just to think about it, but the story as written has so many holes and discrepencies, it's hard to determine the details. Is the immunity of the men absolute, or can mitigating evidence or claims, such as the interrogation by the airforce laywer without Cassandra's advocate, be used to get a new trial against the men, or at least postpone the upcoming courtmartial? Sorry it's a lot to throw out there, but there is a lot here that I'm having trouble following.
OK, I get that people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore we shouldn't assume that these men actually did rape her (although we can use stats on how infrequently rape is falsely reported and how frequently it is unreported to conclude that it is likely), but regardless, they should not give immunity to the men in order to catch the woman! What the hell? Even if she wasn't raped, she wasn't guilty of anything more than what they were guilty of, unless they just want to punish her for trying to report the alleged rape, which it sounds like they already did.
Oh, in which case they would be considering her guilty (of lying) without a trial. So yeah, I can't see any way that this is fair, but I can see ways that it might well be grotesquely and misogynistically wrong.
Wow, did anyone else catch this at the end of the article:
"If convicted on both counts, the woman could face up to a year in jail, reduction in rank, a cut in pay in allowances, a possible bad conduct discharge and be required to register as a sex offender, her defense lawyers said."
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!
It sounds to me like she's being charged for having consensual sex* with another consenting adult* not child molestation, sexual assault or anything else that could possibly be considered a sexual offense by any normal, rational person.
If I have sex with someone tonight am I going to have to register too?
*according to the charges brought against her and disregarding her previous accusations
Wow, did anyone else catch this at the end of the article:
"If convicted on both counts, the woman could face up to a year in jail, reduction in rank, a cut in pay in allowances, a possible bad conduct discharge and be required to register as a sex offender, her defense lawyers said."
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?!
It sounds to me like she's being charged for having consensual sex* with another consenting adult* not child molestation, sexual assault or anything else that could possibly be considered a sexual offense by any normal, rational person.
If I have sex with someone tonight am I going to need to register too?
*according to the charges brought against her and disregarding her previous accusations
thanks for the advice (and sorry about the double post!)
I vaguely remember the "STFU" post on Pandagon, but can't seem to find it again. And the Bitch PhD post was a really good example of how pervasive and accepted casual misogyny is in the world we live in.
I hope I didn't give the impression that my one roommate is an awful person or anything. He's actually quite nice, I just wish he did the dishes more often. He just hasn't been exposed to feminism much. I think one of his problems is that he judges situations based solely on his own experiences, and those experiences don't include the blatant misogyny women face every day. I tell him about harassment on the bus or the train, or that super creepy customer at work that says things that are almost offensive, but not enough to ban him from the coffee shop, and he believes me, but thinks they are freak occurrences. Since he would never harass a woman on the bus, in his world view, those people don't exist.
He's gotten a lot better, though. I guess I didn't realize that your average Joe Blow really does think that feminism is all about man hating and promoting women above men. Once I explained to him that feminism is about equality for everyone, that it's about getting equal pay for women, and also about telling men that it's ok to have and show feelings, it was like a little light bulb went on in his head. I think he'll get there, it's just going to be a long road.
angiecita-style feminism: changing one person at a time through run-on sentences and occasional bad spelling.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/13/how-to-not-be-an-asshole-a-guide-for-men/