Sex Abuse in the Military - Page 4

On April 17 2012 21:01 sunprince wrote:


It wouldn't be a problem if our military held women to the same physical standards/requirements as men, instead of the current policy of having two sets of standards.

On April 17 2012 21:01 sunprince wrote:


It wouldn't be a problem if our military held women to the same physical standards/requirements as men, instead of the current policy of having two sets of standards.

On April 18 2012 01:42 Jibba wrote:

It depends on the position. Not all areas of the military are open to women and they will never have multiple physical standards.

We see this same argument made with regards to FBI physical standards, but the standards have nothing to do with what's needed for the job. They're set as a bar for the top x% of each sex, but contrary to action movies, FBI agents don't do a whole lot of running around and jumping so those physical attributes don't matter. I'd imagine the exact same is true for many positions in the military.

On April 17 2012 18:56 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
First a story of three women in the military. Stephanie Schroeder joined the U.S. Marine Corps not long after 9/11. A year and a half later, the Marines diagnosed her with a personality disorder and deemed her psychologically unfit for the Corps. Anna Moore enlisted in the Army also after 9/11. Moore was a Patriot missile battery operator in Germany when she was diagnosed with a personality disorder and dismissed from the Army. Jenny McClendon was serving as a sonar operator on a Navy destroyer when she received her personality disorder diagnosis.

But aside from being all disgnosed with personality/psychological disorders, these three women have on other thing in common. They are all victims of rape duing their stint in the military.

CNN did a thorough study on this on all branches of the military and saw a glaring pattern of dismissal by psychological reasons immediately following rape and sexual assault cases. As for the three women earlier, here are their accounts:



As far as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) is concerened, a personality disorder is a long-standing, inflexible pattern of maladaptive behavior and coping, beginning in adolescence or early adulthood. That means women like Schroeder, Moore and McClendon had a pre-existing personality disorder when they joined the military. Someone with personality disorder tends to get fired from jobs, get in trouble with the law or at school or is unable to maintain relationships. It therefore "makes absolutely no sense medically for people to be diagnosed all of a sudden after being sexually assaulted as an adult in the military to say 'No, you've had this all along,'" says Bhagwati, of the Service Women's Action Network.

The complications are easy to see. First, like in all rape cases, there will always be "false cases" where the female victims are merely getting back at their former lovers or just decided after the fact that what they did was wrong. Of course rape cases always give primacy to women, as it is among the few criminal cases that require no actual legal witness to progress, and can proceed just by mere account of the victim. This is where the second complication comes in. In the constraints of the military operation, the heirarchy of priorities is a matter of grave importance, and as such, internal problems, such as rape among the ranks, has to pass through the messy process of bureaucracy first, often resulting in being buried among the "military files". The third complication is how DSM classifies its assignment for various disorders. DSM is taking a lot of flak already for its qualification of ADHD, some even going as far as accuse it of being arbitrary, and worse, peddling paranoia as the characteristics it lists for someone to qualify for ADHD may in fact include most people. The same case is often true for other psychological disorders.

But when you look at it closely, these complications are actually opportunities for a productive dialogue and positive change in the conduct of society. Namely, the military should conduct a more thorough psychological review of its members. This is beneficial not only to filter cases such as rape, but also to ensure that its members are fit for the taxing task of being in the military. Also, there has to be a proper avenue for review of cases on sexual abuses in the military. The case here is compounded mere beyond the usual "abuse in the workplace" because these women are volunteering their lives in the service of the country. There has to be a proper protocol and procedure in the military first to prevent such abuses from happening, to deter any possibilities of such, and to ensure that abuses will be meet with fast and just penalties. Moreover, there has to be an extended procedure by the military to look into the psychological well being of abuse victims.

What do you think about this issue TL?



NOTE: An earlier thread on the same topic was closed by motbob mainly because the first few replies immediately jumped on USA bashing. I pmed motbob on reopening the thread with a more focused and discussion friendly OP. So please discuss with the intention of sharing knowledge or discovering knowledge or contributing to the addition of positive knowledge. Thanks.

CNN

On April 17 2012 23:48 Kickboxer wrote:
Why do women need to be in the army, again? I'd like to hear some strong arguments for this, apart from the trendy platitudes on how we're exactly the same. I can give you some pretty hefty ones against it. Firstly, putting a small number of females within reach of a large group of testosterone-filled, sex starved young men who are trained to kill each other is asking for rape. If that sounds insulting to your worldview, you will at least have to admit it is disastrous to morale and the dynamic of relationships at an army base - and especially in combat. Secondly, I'd wager that period and the mental and physical changes that come with it present an inconvenience that cannot be justified in life-or-death situations. Most men can barely handle this when it is their girlfriend spazzing out. Thirdly, women fail at unarmed combat against men, period. I know this because I've been doing k-1 for years, and sparring a much more skilled woman close to your weight is laughable. The term "manhandled" wasn't invented by sexists. Consequently, they also fail at keeping up with male soldiers in any kind of exhausting physical situation, or one that requires strength.

I will never, ever understand why women lobby for such things. You don't see men fighting for their right to give birth to children or breast-feed them. Some roles were simply meant for one sex or the other. I think we can all guess which sex was built for combat...

These women willingly put themselves in a situation where they are surrounded by young males who are trained to be violent and aggressive, and who are absolutely deprived of sex, the strongest urge produced by the male brain. Then, they are unable to fend them off in a physical confrontation although fighting is supposed to be their job. Well, doh.

User was temp banned for this post.

On April 18 2012 06:12 jjun212 wrote:
Instead of reporting it to your immediate superiors; in cases of rape... aren't the Military Police supposed to be contacted instead? Although they are in the same force as you, they are technically a separate body that is trained to deal with cases like these.

I know in the case of being on a destroyer in the middle of the sea, you can't do that but if you're anywhere else; aren't MP supposed to be there?

I mean if they can't handle rape charges, then Military Police is the most worthless unit then.

On April 18 2012 06:36 Kich wrote:
...Wouldn't it make more sense to deem the rapers psychologically unfit for duty and remove them from the equation?

On April 18 2012 06:36 Kich wrote:
...Wouldn't it make more sense to deem the rapers psychologically unfit for duty and remove them from the equation?

On April 18 2012 06:36 Kich wrote:
...Wouldn't it make more sense to deem the rapers psychologically unfit for duty and remove them from the equation?

On April 18 2012 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
It still blows my mind how a woman will decide to enter the military knowing there is a 50% chance of getting raped. That is just so awful.

On April 18 2012 07:05 Sosha wrote:


Obviously dismissing the OP and those cases and comparing to current/todays statistics I really don't think the odds are that high, and actually are prolly a lot lower for military girls than civilian girls. The ratio in the military, yes, like 6:1, but still - for the most part the military is supportive of its members.
I feel as though through my experience in a year so far, with all the training/teaching they give us, seems that our girls don't put themselves in those critical situations. Sometimes though..

On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote:


Why do people like you never understand that the majority of soldiers in a army do NOT have combat roles. Logistics, HR, intelligence etc etc are enormous parts of an modern military and it is in those areas most women and also men serve.

On April 18 2012 07:12 mastergriggy wrote:
Why were those two people banned on the first page? They brought up valid points.