The recession is driving up recruitment rates for the U.S. Armed Forces. When men and women are laid off, they frequently turn to the one agency that is always hiring: the Army. But women, increasingly seeking out the Army for employment, are being turned away because of the struggles of the Army to accommodate their mentally and physically wounded. One woman I know who enlisted in January had her basic training canceled, while 2009 ROTC graduates in America's colleges have to wait until well into 2010 to take Officer Basic Courses, their first step towards deployment after graduation. This is not unique to women who attempt to enlist, but disproportionately affects women because of the recession.
Back in July, a U.S. fighter plane called the F-22 was essentially discontinued by the Senate, because Secretary of Defense Gates deduced that the U.S. owns enough. He proposed using the saved money to expand the Army by 22,000 troops. This was approved.
My knee-jerk reaction was "No more troops." The Army is requesting additional troops because, on paper only, it has bumped up against its Congressionally-mandated end strength (maximum size) of 547,000 soldiers. The Army is "full."
Active duty soldiers sustaining mental or physical injuries are classified as Wounded Warriors. There are 55-60,000 Wounded Warriors in the lengthy process of medical evaluation under the Department of Defense, but not yet discharged into the Department of Veterans Affairs. In limbo, these 55-60,000 are unable to deploy, while their numbers count against the Army's limit. The Army is 10% smaller than we think it is.
For now, Secretary Gates justified the 22,000-troop replacement force as a stopgap until the VA can process the backlog. While not a permanent solution, the recommended troop replacement will prevent women from being turned away from the Army with such frequency while the VA gets its processes back on track. Moreover, it shows that the administration is acutely aware of the weaknesses in the treatment process of Wounded Warriors.
And while the increased entry of women into the workforce during the recession necessitates this job creation, it overshadows the problematic recruiting practices in communities of color and lower-income schools. No Child Left Behind required that high schools give military recruiters access to students and student information. In my plurality-white high school in 2004, a signature-gathering campaign drove recruiters off campus, while nearby campuses with greater populations of students of color devoted entire buildings to the Army. Enlisting is presented to students as young as 11 as an alternative to college in a time when tuition and state deficits decimate financial aid, driving women and communities of color towards instant employment and away from higher education.
It's known that the U.S. Armed forces are trans-unfriendly, and can be a dangerous work environment for women. There is an unofficial Military Sex Offender Registry, and the Army launched its own Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program. A task force was created in 2004 that found that between 1999 and 2004, 67% of all reported assaults occurred on-post. Ann mentions that this NY Times article profiling women in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) glossed over the problems faced by women in the military. Congresswoman Jane Harman recounted that 41% of women at an Los Angeles VA hospital reported being raped by a fellow soldier in 2008.
For women who enter the military knowing the risks of sexual assault, or who are not offered the choice of a different career path, Secretary Gates' troop increase means a paycheck. The base pay for ROTC graduates (2nd Lieutenants) is $26,204.40 regardless of sex. At the very least, this represents entry level pay equity and an assurance of continued employment. Veronica at Girl With Pen showed how starting salaries straight out of college differ for graduates. Entry-level army positions can be financially equitable.
Women still cannot serve in the Infantry or Army Rangers. Since 2001, the floodgates have opened for women facing military threats-- the Army reports that 95% of positions are open to women. Women are allowed in combat theater, meaning the geographic region in which combat occurs. Because of the high operational tempo (exhausting pace of military operations), close proximity to Improvised Explosive Devices, and high exposure to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, women are, for the first time, being diagnosed at record rates with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Fortunately, as of June, Congress has the chance to take the tremendous step extending PTSD resources to all service members "in combat theater," instead of just those in "combat with the enemy." This expands those eligible for PTSD benefits to those on active duty who are not necessarily in the infantry: that means women. Every Monday, the VA publishes statistics about its unresolved benefit claims. That's how the VA's progress is monitored.
Post-Vietnam, 30% of servicemen and 27% of servicewomen were estimated to have PTSD. In today's wars, where women are increasingly exposed to trauma, a doctor at the VA's Puget Sound healthcare system estimates that servicewomen exposed to a trauma develop PTSD at twice the rate of servicemen exposed to the same. The expanded resources for servicewomen, both in benefits after combat and in mental resiliency training beforehand, should help. But knowing the VA's overwhelming workload, it is doubtful that they are able to cope with this new benefit eligibility.
More servicewomen are being diagnosed with PTSD, often with severe symptoms. Some encounter sexualized violence by other soldiers. They are unable to sustain employment or personal relationships, and are undeployable. The backlog before they are discharged causes a false estimate of Army numbers. Then, additional women seeking to enlist are denied entry. This pernicious cycle affects women at every stage.
Thoughts?
Related:
The New Generation of Women Veteran Activists
Support Women Veterans
The Combat Within: Female Veterans and PTSD Benefits
Women at war in Iraq
Friday Feminist Fuck You: The U.S. Army
Piestewa Peak officially named
Homecoming: PTSD, violence against women and other consequences of the unjust, illegal war in Iraq
Female Soldiers' Hell
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Fight Like a Girl (in Iraq and Afghanistan).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15553
Your post, and particular mention of recruiting efforts in white vs. "colored" areas reminds me of a great speaking engagement Cynthia Enloe had a while back, entitled "Women and Men in the Iraq War: What Can Feminist Curiousity Reveal?"
The link is below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXUCLahznqs
On another note about the military being an alternative to college: it doesn't have to be. I joined at 18, and while on active duty, pursued a double major in political science and women's studies. In fact, many Soldiers finish their degrees at local universities while on active duty.
I say all this not to defend the military for some of its action, but to say, really - the military, for all its faults, is more equal than people realize.
Hi Marc! We're friends on facebook :)
I just wanted to add some information re: recruiting and race in US mil service that I turned up while writing my thesis.
Black women are overrepresented in the service, making up about 30% of miltiary women despite making up about 13% of women nationally. This might be accounted for through regional differences (the South contributes more to military numbers than the North, and percentages of AA women are higher down South, etc) but explanations are variable. I was struck by interviews with African American Navy women in one of my sources: while they were frustrated by sexism and racism in the service, they felt certain that the situation was better within the service than it was in civilan life.
A theme in interviews with military people but women in particular is that rural and oppressed groups often use military service to escape poverty, lack of education, and other situations. While it's certainly a trade-off, it's been a useful tool to thousands of men and women.
To tack on to the college thing, I enlisted as a reservist at 19 and concurrently got a BA in Biology and Women's Studies at an Ivy. I deployed in the middle of it but it wasn't too disruptive.
it's true that women are not allowed to join the infantry or partake in combat (in Iraq and Afghanistan), but the fact is, there is NO frontline in either war.
I'm reading this cool book about women in the U.S military serving in Iraq. Some of them are able to participate in combat theatre (like you said), by being "assigned" to an unit rather than being attached.
I agree with the 1st poster. the U.S military is much more equal than people realize. If a woman wants to "fit in with the boys," she is expected to act like one and she ain't gonna get special treatment for being female.
as for sexual assault... unfortunately, it does happen and I wish the U.S military would do something about this. Enlisted women are fighting for this country and they deserve better than this crap.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have seen a HUGE increase in female soldiers and female pilots, so there's been many more female vets coming home with PTSD.
oops, I mean, being ATTACHED to an unit than being assigned. I got both words mixed up.
This is a fantastic and eye opening post, Ariel. Thanks.
In limbo, these 55-60,000 are unable to deploy, while their numbers count against the Army's limit. The Army is 10% smaller than we think it is.
There are a lot of jobs in the military that one can do and not be in a deployable status.
When the Iraq war kicked off my communications squadron had a remain behind (in the states) element of Marines that did not deploy for whatever reason.
Due to the fact that a lot of our communications equipment was sent back to the states for higher echelons of repair the RBE was essential in coordinating the repair and making sure Dell, Cisco and IBM got us out shit back.
There are also jobs like Legal Hasmat, barracks manager that someone can do without being deployable. One of the things you can do if you have someone who is injured and needs some time to heal is rotate them into Legal, or wherever.
How 'bout we just stop running around the world murdering brown people?
That could cut down a lot on the injuries, fatalities, and mental disorders suffered by our citizens.
um yeah, why don't you tell that to U.S Marines and Army soldiers who genuinely want to help Afghans and Iraqis?
Invasive war is incompatible with feminist action. As is, more broadly, taking control of people 'for their own good.' Period.
So be sure to also praise groups like the Promise Keepers who "genuinely want to help" wives and mothers. That kind of "help" is despicable and anti-feminist enough... and they aren't even killing their wards.
Opposition to the Taliban = Support for Promise Keepers? Good to know.
Subjugation is subjugation is subjugation.
I think we've arrived at the fascinating intersection of extreme libertarianism and feminism. One notes the typical characteristics of the extremist in both fields surfacing in cebes's commentary: unshakable belief in one's own rightness, dogmatism, and belief that anyone who doesn't share one's own views is arguing in bad faith. Bravo.
I haven't accused anyone of arguing in bad faith, but you do draw quite a lot of conclusions from a handful of sentences.
But perhaps you could enlighten me as to the (apparently proper?) intersection of authoritarianism and feminism. Here I've been thinking - silly me - that feminism is about liberation.
Affirmative action. Hate speech / hate crime laws. Right to an abortion (depending on whom you ask). Laws against discrimination in housing. Assistance for low income mothers and their children. Etc...
Libertarians don't believe the government should be helping with any of these things.
And - considering that I am not a libertarian in the American, Ron-Paul-esque sense - I am in favor of affirmative action, generally in favor but cautious of hate crime and speech legislation, in full favor of abortion rights, in favor of regulating housing, and quite solidly left on a broad swath of economic issues.
Opposition to inequality does not require brutal military action. If acts of military agression are feminist acts, that must make the first four years of the Bush administration one of the most feminist terms in American history.
This sounds like... those who support the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dude,
bigotry and dogmanitc thinking are not about what you beleive, but how
So yes, there can be people who are unshakable in thier beliefs for the wars, against the wars, for abortion, against the abortion, so forth and so on.
Heck, I have been reading stuff on a blog or in a book and been nodding my head in agreement and then a realization comes to me... the person I am agreeing with is bigoted and dogmatic...
Its kinda distasteful.
Not everyone joins to "murder brown people." Personally for me it was a decision influenced by how much I admire my father and it was made long before any "brown people" were murdered. I also think just calling anybody "brown people" is inane. I am brown. I don't get murdered by anybody, nor do I murder. In addition, many people join for personal reasons and deal with a lot of stress and hope they never have to pull a trigger on another ["brown"] HUMAN being.
I feel joining the military has made me feel more confident in myself as a woman. Hike 12 miles with a 60 lb pack? No sweat. Fire a weapon and score better than most males? Sure thing. If proving that I am equal with males in a field historically for males is not feminist, then gee, I guess I'm no feminist at all.
My comment was towards cebes...still new to commenting on here.
My problem is with the institution, and the way it is handled, more than individuals within it. See my reply to Marc below.
I know people who have served the military, and (although some presumably exist) I have never met anyone who joined with less than fully honorable intentions. Nevertheless, there are thousands of ways to improve oneself that do not require lending support to unjust wars by participating in an aggressor's military.
"There are thousands of ways to improve oneself" kind of exudes privilege doesn't it? Growing up where I did, sure, I could've gone to college, but many of my peers had a much harder time because they did not graduate top 10%/were minority/whatever. Yes, I had thousands of ways, but I wasn't exposed to Green Peace or whatever else there may be, and I still am naive, but what I knew--and many others know--is that the military is a viable option.
I understand disagreeing with the institution but saying stop murdering brown people seems like an attack on the individuals whose sad duty it is to pull the trigger.
No, privilege doesn't lead to self improvement. Quite the opposite, I'd think. Privilege tends to inure one to one's own faults, leading to arrogance. The people I know who work the hardest to improve themselves seem to come from the least advantaged backgrounds. But when I talk about self-improvement, I'm not talking about volunteering for the summer or backpacking around Europe. Education is important, sure, but working your ass off at a sixty-hour-a-week job out of high school is also an opportunity for serious self improvement, if it's treated that way.
If I could reconsider, I would now rephrase my original comment in a slightly different way. My intention is indeed to lay the burden of these unjust wars on the political situation and attitudes on the American government and, by extension, the American public... less so individuals in the military, and I see how that sentence gave that impression. By "we just stop running around the world" I mean "we" as a country, not projecting "we" onto the soldiers personally.
Yep. That's exactly why people join the military. To kill brown people. Not to serve the country, not because they dreamed of wearing the uniform, not to help people, not to better themselves. It's a biiiig conspiracy. And everyone in the military is white. And we all hate brown people. Right.
Yes, good intentions make everything better, I'm sure.
stop trolling and go somewhere else.
I'm not trolling.
People like you are to the anti-war, peace-loving Democrat feminists what the birthers and right-wing nuts are to the conservative Republicans.
Want to talk about the lives of women during combat and reconstruction? Fine. But do so thoughtfully and with actual points, rather than flinging rhetoric. It's the same shit that we are jumping on the Republican idiots for doing at town halls across America.
Actually, I'm expressing the what I understand to be the anti-war, peace-loving feminist stance. Okay, so I don't identify as Democrat, but that's because the Democrats are substantially more centrist than those three adjectives. We currently have a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President continuing multiple wars, staggering military budgets, and Guantanamo incarcerations. What major feminist reforms have been attempted, much less enacted? Thanks, Democrats.
So if your objection is that I'm not conservative enough to stand up for the Democratic party line, I have no problem with that.
If your objection that I'm using the word "murder," I would reply that unjust wars are definitionally murderous.
Honestly, I shouldn't need to spell out details about how unjust, illegal, globally condemned wars of aggression are fundamentally incompatible with feminist philosophy or practice. Or that the ongoing imperialistic stance of the United States in its dealings with the rest of the world, especially non-Western countries, is shocking and appalling to any sensibility that even approaches feminism.
If someone writes a post asking how to advise men so that they can make their date rapes less painful or traumatizing for their victims, I'll say: stop. raping. If someone writes a post writing about problems with military engagement, I'll say: stop. killing.
So, yes, I made an extreme statement in my first comment, but it should be no less revelatory for so being.
First, the president is in the midst of decreasing troop levels in Iraq in accordance with a timetable for orderly withdrawal from the country. You can have opposed the war in Iraq in the first place, and still consistently believe that we shouldn't immediately leave the country before Iraq's own security forces and democratically elected government can adequately maintain order, so that chaos and sectarian violence can be minimized.
Second, your fellow citizens believed in overwhelming numbers that declaring war on Afghanistan was justified, after it was learned that the Taliban-led government there supported the terrorists who executed the 9/11 hijackings. You may disagree, but there is a good-faith position to be taken that the war against the Taliban was fought in self-defense. The Taliban no longer rules the country but still has significant guerilla forces throughout Afghanistan. The ethical and wise thing to do is not just leave the country in ruins and let the Taliban come back, but to assist in the formation of a democratic government and reconstruction. And yes, to finish removing the Taliban's influence from the country.
Third, soldiers are not murderers unless they are convicted of murder in a court-martial (which occasionally happens). Any other use of the term is just inflammatory. This country would not exist without its armed forces: they are essential, and they are by and large lawfully performing their duty abroad.
I actually don't know why I bothered - you're definitely a troll, and otherwise are probably not worth having a discussion with.
Sadly, just because I hold a position that you happen to disagree with does not make me a troll.
First, yes, there is a consistent, non-hypocritical position that one should slowly lower troop levels and leave the country over the next two, four, ten years. It appears to be a position shared by Republicans and Democrats. Of course, it runs entirely against the self-determination of the Iraqi people, who have overwhelmingly wanted the United States to get the hell our of their country for years. But why should we care what they want? Democracy only matters when they vote the way we want them to anyway.
Second, the American public also overwhelmingly supported the President by some 90% following 9/11. They would have believed that nuking France was justified if the Bush administration made that claim in October 2001.
Third, criminals can absolutely be called criminals whether or not they are convicted. Hewing to legalistic language is foolish; this isn't CNN. Unless you are willing to agree that only convicted rapists can be called rapists (and therefore only convicted rapes are actually rapes)... in which case, we'll just have to disagree on that point.
Murder is a word with definition beyond legal matters: murder is the intentional, unlawful killing of a person. Illegal war - and make no mistake, both Bush wars violated international treaty and law, therefore violating the U.S. Constitution - leads to illegal killing. That's murder, like it or not.
As for this country's armed forces being "essential"... the size of the Pentagon's budget is ludicrous. Many other Western countries, peculiarly enough, manage to survive and prosper without routinely invading other countries or spending enormous amounts of money on soldiers and weaponry (nuclear and otherwise). How odd.
"Third, criminals can absolutely be called criminals whether or not they are convicted."
Talk about a "foolish" (and unconstitutional) statement! I am thankful that I live in a nation of laws run by people with a better grasp of what that implies than you have. The whole "convicted rape != rape," while true, does not apply here. In the case of "rape," the word can be spelled the same, but mean slightly different things: one has a precise legal meaning, the other is a more general term, but the connotations are similar. "Murder" and "killer" are not related in the same way, because they connote totally different things. One can be lawful, the other never is.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are legal wars duly authorized by Congress. They are not "illegal" in any consequential sense of the term; and no, international law does not count. Soldiers following lawful orders there are lawful killers, not murderers. If you don't understand that point, then you're really missing something fundamental.
Your final point is a good one: European and other nations have been free-riding on the American armed forces for far too long. It's time for those countries to pick up a share of the burden so we don't have to pay so much for it.
Actually, international law does count. When we sign a binding international treaty, that treaty becomes American law. If the President and Congress break an international treaty that the United States has signed, then they are committing an illegal act.
I am confused. Zie is not trolling. In fact, I agree with 100% of hir points. I am surprised to read so many blindly "patriotic," pro-war comments on this site. You can't save people by overpowering and/or killing them.
'I am surprised to read so many blindly "patriotic," pro-war comments on this site.'
Silencing is a great debate tactic. Just because I am not prepared call servicemembers "murderers" and to issue knee-jerk demands for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan means that I cannot be a feminist? Good to know.
Who has called all service members murderers? I consider the administration that took us into Iraq and Afghanistan murderers.
When you kill one person it's murder; when you kill thousands it's "war." Why?
What I think you should be reacting to is the political leaders, e.g. Congress and the Executive branch. They're the ones who declare war. The military is the hand that reacts, not the mind that decides. In the 1990's, my father ran basically nothing but aid missions. He dropped food and supplies from aircraft onto 6 of 7 continents. Somalia notwithstanding, under Clinton the military ran free clinics, did humanitarian engineering projects, and transported aid to brown people; under Bush, we're sent to fight them or "protect" them.
I think your anger might be misdirected.
I blame the politicians and military leaders more than troops on the ground, yes.
But "only following orders" has not been an acceptable defense since, at the latest, 1945. The modern soldier is ethically required to disobey unjust orders. Few are willing to jeopardize their careers, relationships, reputations, and freedom to stand up against their illegal orders, but some do.
Spc. Victor Agosto: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/06/12-3
Sgt. Travis Bishop: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/13-3
As is
I think you may be a bit confused. In war, killing is often legal. Under many circumstances it isn't, and that's when we're supposed to disobey the order. We are to obey all legal orders, and often that includes violence.
Whether those orders are moral is a question that's up to the individual; under current law, killing in war is very often completely legal. The 'only following orders' defense you refer to has not been successfull re: war crimes or violations of the Law of Armed Conflict or the Geneva Conventions since 1945, not re: any violent act.
I'm not going to look at those videos right now, but I am aware of people trying to avoid delpoying using the 'unlawful order' rationale, which is doesn't make sense to me. Deployment and orders which comply with LOAC, etc., are perfectly legal.
What jane said. You are seriously confused about the concept of an "unjust order" vs. an "unlawful order." The former has no significance: a servicemember is required to obey an order, regardless of his or her view of the morality of the situation. The latter is significant: a servicemember may not obey an order that directs them to commit a crime (including, of course, murder). Of course there are gray areas, but saying that "unjust orders are illegal," as you implied, is just wrong.
The vast majority of German soldiers were in fact not punished in 1945. "Just following orders" was ruled out as a defense against specific acts. It actually was a successful response to any hypothetical charges against an individual soldier for participating in an "illegal" war of aggression.
As a female Army veteran who has seen combat (I was Explosive Ordnance Disposal; a predominately male field), I also dealt with daily sexual harrassment and assault and was raped by a fellow servicemember. I was diagnosed with PTSD and given a disablity rating through the VA mostly because of what I dealt with in combat opposed to my sexual assualts.
That being said, there is still major issues with how the VA treats and diagnoses mental disorders and the majority of the time, sexual trauma is not treated as a service related injury. SWAN is a great organization that advocates in Congress to have military sexual trauma recognized as a service related injury and get the VA to render the proper rating and services to those individuals.
While pay scales are the same across the rank structure, women are still treated as lower rate than men. Women in the upper ranks are still ignored, treated as though they are ignorant, or viewed as sexual objects by both their superiors and soldiers. (This goes for women regardless of rank really). As a the only woman in my unit, I had to be better than all the men to be taken seriously and even then I was second guessed, questioned and judged in every decision or move I made. The book "The Lonely Soldier" chronicles the stories of 5 women and their experiences in the services and I related to every single one of their experiences. Also the book "Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America's Military" is typical of what most women will deal with at some point in their military career.
As far as what I've seen with the Wounded Warrior program, it has been a hit or miss for most. Some people get outstanding treatment depending on location, severity of injury, and other dynamics while some struggle to even have their injuries taken seriously. And the disconnect between the Armed Services and the VA can be substantial.
I got to the point personally where I will not work with or around the military because it is a completely unhealthy environment for me to be in. I have a great resume based on my military training but I have chosen to completely change my career path (which has rendered me jobless at the moment) to keep myself mentally and emotionally healthy. I try not to deter other women from making that choice but I talk frankly with women I know that are considering military service about what they may face.
The military does have its benefits but at this point, but those benefits came at quite the personal cost for me and many other women that I know.
Thank you for telling your story. I'm glad you're reaching out to women considering joining the military-- it's a gray area between being able to advocate for women's rights to equal treatment in the military and advocating that women should be wary of joining. Props to you.
one of the conflicts I've seen, experienced by BG Rhonda Cornum (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,438760,00.html) where reporting her experience as a POW, and elaborating on the trauma, fueled the argument against allowing women in the infantry.
I'll check out SWAN.
Thank you for this comment. I too am military, and after almost 8 years, I can't wait to get out. (Unfortunately, not until 2012.) I used to be stationed with a high-profile Navy squadron, and on tour the high-school age girls would ask all the time "What's it like to be a woman in the military?" And my stock answer was "Well, you just gotta learn to spit, curse, and swagger with the rest of the boys, and you'll be alright". Boy, do I feel like a freakin liar!!! I hate it, and what's more, I feel like the military has a greater proportion of Nice GuysTM than the general population-despite having all the sexual harrassment reporting procedures shoved down everyone's throat.
I have been wondering... what does NiceguyTH mean?
Is there any way you can tell these high school women the truth about your experience, maybe privately? Or when you're on those tours, are you under supervision and automatically in trouble if you say anything negative?
Sporty,
Thanks for this. As you say sometimes service comes at too high a personal cost. It's a shame that so many people forget the first lines of the NCO creed with it's emphasis on professionalism, and instead act in their own selfish interests. I saw the things you talk of as well. They were tragic.
It's a shame that a ladder out of poverty has to be so rough for so many people.
Ariel thanks for your post.
And Cebes, your rhetoric doesn't help matters. Intolerance breeds intolerance. Hatred breeds hate. Opression breeds opression. Opposition to war is fine, but unless you propose that there is no need for a military this post had nothing to do with the rightness or the wrongness of the wars in IZ or AF. This post was about shedding light upon the plight of women in the armed services. Whatever the outcome may be in the sand box this issue is far more important and doesn't get enough attention.
Well, I'm a Quaker and thus a pacifist, so I stand resolutely against all wars. What you have cited in this column is merely confirmation of why I believe it should not exist.
What I personally have always wondered about PTSD and long term consequences of warfare is whether they are any more or any less damaging on men than on women. Though men are probably more inclined to be macho and hide signs of emotional damage, I have always wondered what the response of each gender to catastrophic situations would look like if there wasn't some expectation that men needed to restrain their feelings. Men don't always healthily deal with trauma. I think that these same trauma events affect women much differently, but to a no less damaging degree.
So long as each gender has a different means of processing such things, means dictated by gender constructs, it's going to be very difficult to draw comparisons like these between men and women with any degree of certainty.
The major rationale for the difference, as explained to me by the Director of the National Center for PTSD in WRJ, VT, is this: the primary risk factor for PTSD is prior exposure to trauma. Considering that 1 in 3 or 4 women are raped in their lifes, combined with high rates of domestic violence, etc., women may be at a higher risk because they're exposed to more trauma.
ABSOLUTELY! And what's most critical here is that not only does the military fail to enforce its own mental health standards for enlisting, but those who apply (read: lower-income/communities of color) are more likely to have encountered trauma in their lives pre-enlistment. Vicious cycle.
I do wonder if the higher rates of PTSD are a result of the isolation many women in the millitary and particularly deployed face. Anything is harder to deal with if your don't have anyone to talk to. I can tell you from personal experiance that being one of less than a dozen women in a battalion can be very isolating, especially when the people you work with have little respect for female soldiers in general. I also suspect that PTSD among men may be somewhat under reported.
On the topic of sexual assault training,I'm a fan of the Army's new sexual assualt training. Instead of the usual always have a battle buddy, and remember sexual assualt degrades readiness speech, it emphasises that preventing sexual assault is a responsiblity of the whole millitary community. As in flat out tell soldiers if you see you fellow soldier harassing someone in a sexual nature it's your duty the intervene. It's more of a "We're not going to put up with this shit, because we're better than that" attitude, instead of the usual "females be careful or you might get raped." Hopefully it will be effective.