|
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:
Schroeder says a fellow Marine followed her to the bathroom in April 2002. She says he then punched her, ripped off her pants and raped her. When she reported what happened, a non-commissioned officer dismissed the allegation, saying, "'Don't come bitching to me because you had sex and changed your mind,'" Schroeder recalls.
Moore says she was alone in her barracks in October 2002 when a non-commissioned officer from another battery tried to rape her. When she filled out forms to report it, she says, her first sergeant, told her: "Forget about it. It never happened," and tore up the paperwork.
"It felt like a punch in the gut," Moore says. "I couldn't trust my chain of command to ever back me up."
McClendon says she was aboard a Navy destroyer at sea when a superior raped her on the midnight to 2 a.m. watch. After reporting the attack, she was diagnosed with a personality disorder and deemed unfit to serve.
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
|
The military will always find ways to protect senior ranks and maintain harmful masculinity norms. Just look at DADT : (
|
I agree, there has to be a better system to deal with these things, especially in the military. I am sure this is not unique to the military or America, but as a society as a whole, it is our obligation to ensure that everyone are given equal protection of law and not be subject to abuse becuase of our differences, whether in gender, race, religious beliefs, creed, culture, etc.
|
Sounds like it's taken straight out of a bad movie.. absolutely horrendous  Would've hoped our society had already progressed beyond the point where testosterone pumped morons got to cover each others backs to get away with crime.
Also, I find it ironic to call for proper mental checking of people wanting to have as their job to kill other people...
|
On April 17 2012 19:12 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The military will always find ways to protect senior ranks and maintain harmful masculinity norms. Just look at DADT : (
You should know that leaders in the military, including the ranking officer in each of the army, navy, airforce, and coastguard supported repeal long before it finally got passed. As did the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and a majority of active service members.
It's probably better to look at this as an organization going out of its way to protect members of the in-group. It's much more like the way the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks.
|
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women (the weaker and opposite sex) amongst people trained to ignore morals (to you know kill and stuff without any real reason) and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
Best thing to discuss is why have all armies not be outlawed. That would solve the problem. Anything else is just words in the wind. End war... end killing... end rape. Well killing and rape will most likely still happen but at least it would be at a reduced rate.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
Israel2209 Posts
I think that some non-commissioned officer or a sergeant should not have enough authority to dismiss rape charges.
And why are the female soldiers reporting it to them in the first place? You don't go to your boss when a co-worker rapes you, you go to the police. There must be somewhere else soldiers can report this to? The military police?
And in case the entire military tries to hide this by discharging them under false claims like the article suggests, there should be an external system that can handle that as well. For example the Israeli defense department has an external body headed by a civilian with authority to investigate any part of the military, and any solider and their family members can file complaints directly to this body on any matter.
|
On April 17 2012 19:29 Noam wrote:
I think that some non-commissioned officer or a sergeant should not have enough authority to dismiss rape charges.
And why are the female soldiers reporting it to them in the first place? You don't go to your boss when a co-worker rapes you, you go to the police. There must be somewhere else soldiers can report this to? The military police?
And in case the entire military tries to hide this by discharging them under false claims like the article suggests, there should be an external system that can handle that as well. For example the Israeli defense department has an external body headed by a civilian with authority to investigate any part of the military, and any solider and their family members can file complaints directly to this body on any matter.
That's the main problem. The system is set up so there isn't an external body, and they report it to their officer instead.
|
On April 17 2012 19:23 MooseMasher wrote:
Also, I find it ironic to call for proper mental checking of people wanting to have as their job to kill other people...
it's not their job to kill other people but to protect the people of their country, i hope everyone protecting me has a healthy mind.
On April 17 2012 19:23 Omnipresent wrote:
... the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks.
wtf? when did they shield child molesters?!
|
On April 17 2012 19:35 gugarutz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:23 Omnipresent wrote:
... the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks. wtf? when did they shield child molesters?!
...for much of the twentieth century the official policy in use was to persuade families who reported abuse to the church not to go to the law, to move abusive priests to a different parishes following reports, and not to report the crimes to local law enforcement but rather to handle the matter internally.
|
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous.
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.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 19:32 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:29 Noam wrote:
I think that some non-commissioned officer or a sergeant should not have enough authority to dismiss rape charges.
And why are the female soldiers reporting it to them in the first place? You don't go to your boss when a co-worker rapes you, you go to the police. There must be somewhere else soldiers can report this to? The military police?
And in case the entire military tries to hide this by discharging them under false claims like the article suggests, there should be an external system that can handle that as well. For example the Israeli defense department has an external body headed by a civilian with authority to investigate any part of the military, and any solider and their family members can file complaints directly to this body on any matter. That's the main problem. The system is set up so there isn't an external body, and they report it to their officer instead.
Which sounds like exactly the thing thats wrong.
Every system needs a controlling body that is _not_ part of the system to prevent corruption, otherwise they only way to report problems can be the exact person causing those problems... and he's not likely to report to the higher ups that he is either corrupt or simply incompetent.
Sad for the women but i hope it will cause some good changes...
+ Show Spoiler +though i have a bad feeling it will be swept under the carpet like so many other soldier-related problems
|
On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous.
No-one can defend themselves from every threat at every time. You are supposed to be able to utterly rely on your comrades in arms, and not to need to defend yourself from them. If soldiers can't rely on each other in combat then military operations fall apart.
The problem isn't that these women didn't "defend themselves", it is that some soldiers raped them.
If those soldiers are willing to do that to people they serve alongside, who have military training, what would they be willing to do to the civilians they encounter on deployment? And what reaction would this level of indifference in the response of the command to accusations engender in a population already unhappy with the military presence?
|
On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women ... amongst people trained to ignore morals... and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
How very true.
Also as stated in the first post I believe, rape accusations do not need witnesses or anything else, just the testimony of the "victim". Maybe false accusations in the military are as common as outside of it, so the superiors treat those with a grain of salt.
|
I would like to contradict the claim in the OP that this is not the usual "abuse in the workplace". You see this is where the real problem, the real seed of discrimination lie. Once we begin to rationalized degrees of opportunities and incidence of abuse, then we begin to normalize certain abuses. I daresay call for total equality between genders, with abuses to women, regardless of the mitigating or aggravating circumstance met with utmost punishment. You see this is not an if-but situation, there is no conditions to these. It is a simple matter of one, usually a man, taking advantage of power simply because he can. That is why this is a serious and black and white issue.
|
On April 17 2012 21:06 Kuni wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women ... amongst people trained to ignore morals... and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
How very true. Also as stated in the first post I believe, rape accusations do not need witnesses or anything else, just the testimony of the "victim". Maybe false accusations in the military are as common as outside of it, so the superiors treat those with a grain of salt.
You mean about as common as for other indexed crimes, once cases in which guidelines for determining if a report is false or not are not followed are ignored. (2-3% in the largest and most rigorous studies)
|
The DSM-IV is a classification; somewhat influenced by the current state of psychology in the US but it's not a book written as a law, it's just guidelines. If you want to accuse someone of failing to identify the symptoms, you should blame the professional who isn't using his experience and better judgement. Otherwise it would be like accusing the Bible of being responsible for child molesting by priests.
For me it's just look like the professional had an order and he followed it. It's the army after all, the brightest mind of our time aren't soldiers.
|
On April 17 2012 21:06 Kuni wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women ... amongst people trained to ignore morals... and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
How very true. Also as stated in the first post I believe, rape accusations do not need witnesses or anything else, just the testimony of the "victim". Maybe false accusations in the military are as common as outside of it, so the superiors treat those with a grain of salt.
This line of thought could make some sense if, you know, there was any logic in women doing something that, as seen by this and multiple other articles, only causes them more harm.Aside from petty, unrealistic dramatic motives like love related revenge, they have absolutely nothing to gain from reporting a rape, quite the contrary, so pardon me if I remain skeptical about these accusations being untrue.
|
On April 17 2012 21:14 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
I would like to contradict the claim in the OP that this is not the usual "abuse in the workplace". You see this is where the real problem, the real seed of discrimination lie. Once we begin to rationalized degrees of opportunities and incidence of abuse, then we begin to normalize certain abuses. I daresay call for total equality between genders, with abuses to women, regardless of the mitigating or aggravating circumstance met with utmost punishment. You see this is not an if-but situation, there is no conditions to these. It is a simple matter of one, usually a man, taking advantage of power simply because he can. That is why this is a serious and black and white issue.
I see your point, but surely you understand that the conditions of being in the military and being in the middle of war is somewhat different than the usual 9-5 pencil pushing job in the city. That's exactly the reason why I wrote there is a need to review the process of conducting psychologicals tests among the members.
|
On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous.
Plenty of men are defenseless against other men.
There is no reason to be sexist.
|
On April 17 2012 21:05 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. No-one can defend themselves from every threat at every time. You are supposed to be able to utterly rely on your comrades in arms, and not to need to defend yourself from them. If soldiers can't rely on each other in combat then military operations fall apart. The problem isn't that these women didn't "defend themselves", it is that some soldiers raped them. If those soldiers are willing to do that to people they serve alongside, who have military training, what would they be willing to do to the civilians they encounter on deployment? And what reaction would this level of indifference in the response of the command to accusations engender in a population already unhappy with the military presence?
But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem. Also rape is common when you put females in a male dominated place it allways has happened and it will continue to happen, nomatter how wrong it is that is a fact.
we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 21:54 ElementEighty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:05 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. No-one can defend themselves from every threat at every time. You are supposed to be able to utterly rely on your comrades in arms, and not to need to defend yourself from them. If soldiers can't rely on each other in combat then military operations fall apart. The problem isn't that these women didn't "defend themselves", it is that some soldiers raped them. If those soldiers are willing to do that to people they serve alongside, who have military training, what would they be willing to do to the civilians they encounter on deployment? And what reaction would this level of indifference in the response of the command to accusations engender in a population already unhappy with the military presence? But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem. Also rape is common when you put females in a male dominated place it allways has happened and it will continue to happen, nomatter how wrong it is that is a fact. we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations
B.I.G is saying that "the military is no place for women".
Keeping women out of the military because men might rape them is no better than keeping blacks out of schools because whites will harass them (Little Rock, 1957, comes to mind).
|
On April 17 2012 19:35 gugarutz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:23 MooseMasher wrote:
Also, I find it ironic to call for proper mental checking of people wanting to have as their job to kill other people...
it's not their job to kill other people but to protect the people of their country, i hope everyone protecting me has a healthy mind.
I dont quite agree that is what western military forces is being used for, but let's not argue about that. I was just pointing out that killing another human being is a horrible act, and people training hard to do it (for any reason) are probably not entirely sane.
By no means does that make them less responsible for rape and other (war) crimes they might commit. I was just bringing it up to show on how many levels this situation (women being raped being labeled as mentally ill) is fucked up.
|
On April 17 2012 21:54 ElementEighty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:05 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. No-one can defend themselves from every threat at every time. You are supposed to be able to utterly rely on your comrades in arms, and not to need to defend yourself from them. If soldiers can't rely on each other in combat then military operations fall apart. The problem isn't that these women didn't "defend themselves", it is that some soldiers raped them. If those soldiers are willing to do that to people they serve alongside, who have military training, what would they be willing to do to the civilians they encounter on deployment? And what reaction would this level of indifference in the response of the command to accusations engender in a population already unhappy with the military presence? But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem. Also rape is common when you put females in a male dominated place it allways has happened and it will continue to happen, nomatter how wrong it is that is a fact. we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations
I don't want to give up that easily I guess. I think we just have to set the parameters so that we can avoid and discourage these things from happening.
|
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
|
On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
What other motives could they have?
Also, rape cases rarely have witnesses and depending on the time it took them from it happening to them finding the courage (rape is causing great psychological harm, it's not like "hey boss, i just come from being raped") to talk to the superiors, there might not be physical evidence.
|
On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
That's why there should have been an investigation into each report...
With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists.
Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do.
Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape.
|
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
|
On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Being skeptical shouldn't equal dismissing the accusations and assuming that the women are liers.
Making a case takes effort and hard evidence can be hard, maybe impossible, to find. But it's worth it because even a slight risk of being declared guilty is a huge deterrent.
|
NCO's and Officers look after their own and protect the unit reputation at all costs. I'm a veteran and the process was sickening. Some guys of rank could repeatedly get in trouble without loss of rank or any action of consequence taken against them. Disciplne is left to the disgression of the commanding officer or in practice the 1st sergeant.
When i made NCO it was like a big welcome into a frat, your supposed to enjoy your new status inflict the same punishment you suffered through and all i could do was count days till my time was up.
This story is easily believable and all the more sickening for it. An outside force should be provided for these kind of reports and investigation should be untamperable. I never dealt with rape reports but racism allegations were treated in the same manner, laughed off or ripped up by the top, in favor of status quo.
|
So if they cannot defend 1vs1 in a bathroom how are they supposed to do in real combat? If I enlisted in the military and deployed into a warzone where physical strength is of critical importance then I'd make sure first that I am at least in the same condition as my fellow soldiers are. Gender doesn't matter. They were unfit for duty.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
Best thing to discuss is why have all armies not be outlawed. That would solve the problem. Anything else is just words in the wind. End war... end killing... end rape. Well killing and rape will most likely still happen but at least it would be at a reduced rate.
You can't be serious?
|
On April 17 2012 22:43 scarrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
Best thing to discuss is why have all armies not be outlawed. That would solve the problem. Anything else is just words in the wind. End war... end killing... end rape. Well killing and rape will most likely still happen but at least it would be at a reduced rate. You can't be serious?
And what exactly is so bad about not having war? I dont think rape would cease, but the world would be a better place if there were no wars between any nations.
|
i am currently active duty in the US army, and these kind of things do happen. it's really a shame. i've been serving in my current unit for a little over a year and i've seen something similar to these events happen a few times. i've known two woman who have been raped and diagnosed with some sort of mental condition afterwards, but in this case i actually noticed the difference, so i don't think that they were "personality disorders," but unfortunately after the incident they were most definitely not fit to serve, as sad as that sounds. however, in both cases the victim's chain of command helped and acted as they should, rather than just ignoring them. the army takes this kind of thing very, very seriously and these isolated events definitely do not show how the army, and the DoD as a whole, view these incidents. if the next level up in your chain of command won't help you, you have every right to just skip over them to report these kinds of matters to their higher ups. unfortunately this is not always possible, but you always have a chaplain who you can call to help you with these kinds of things. every chaplain i have met i would 100% trust to deal with these matters in a very serious and urgent manner.
it's really a huge shame that a service-member could do this to another service-member and give the military a bad name like this. it's also a shame that people will look at isolated events like this and assume the military as a whole does not care about these matters.
|
I feel stunned to see how many people seems to think that women are unfit for the military. I mean, shooting people doesn't require much physical strenght. On the other hand, if find it extremely disturbing that every military body is consituted of some of the most uncivilized people in the world. I don't say that out of spite for the soldiers, but from not only my experience but also from the way these people are trained.
When you think about it, isolating people from the world, training them to obey without thinking and preparing them to kill can't make them better. So if a soldier is already half insane, or violent, it will necessary enhance such tendencies. In my mind the biggest problem is the isolation from the society. If they don't think they belong with the civilians, that mean they don't think they have to abide by their rules.
|
On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape.
I wouldn't call 3% very low...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
The true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex.
|
On April 17 2012 21:57 Gigaudas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:54 ElementEighty wrote:On April 17 2012 21:05 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. No-one can defend themselves from every threat at every time. You are supposed to be able to utterly rely on your comrades in arms, and not to need to defend yourself from them. If soldiers can't rely on each other in combat then military operations fall apart. The problem isn't that these women didn't "defend themselves", it is that some soldiers raped them. If those soldiers are willing to do that to people they serve alongside, who have military training, what would they be willing to do to the civilians they encounter on deployment? And what reaction would this level of indifference in the response of the command to accusations engender in a population already unhappy with the military presence? But you can't utterly rely on your comrades, its the human nature that is the problem. Also rape is common when you put females in a male dominated place it allways has happened and it will continue to happen, nomatter how wrong it is that is a fact. we can try as hard as we want the world will never be perfect, and woman will allways be putting themselves at risk in these situations B.I.G is saying that "the military is no place for women". Keeping women out of the military because men might rape them is no better than keeping blacks out of schools because whites will harass them (Little Rock, 1957, comes to mind).
haha nice one
|
On April 17 2012 22:40 Muki wrote:
So if they cannot defend 1vs1 in a bathroom how are they supposed to do in real combat? If I enlisted in the military and deployed into a warzone where physical strength is of critical importance then I'd make sure first that I am at least in the same condition as my fellow soldiers are. Gender doesn't matter. They were unfit for duty.
Welcome to the 21st century. At this time, very little combat involves physical strength as firearms (note 1) and combat vehicles (note 2) and aeroplanes (note 3). Combat is also restricted to only a few places in the world so you need not remain vigilant against enemy attacks when you are outside these regions, and many wars that may have seemed interminable in your hometime have long since ceased - England, Spain and France are allies now.
1. Picture a crossbow the length of your forearm that is light enough for a child to carry and easy enough to use for a child to use, which can fire dozens of bolts in a single second over a range of hundreds of feet.
2. These are like carts covered in great suits of armour mounted with many cannons. Unlike carts, they have no horses to pull them and are driven by an internal mechanism which converts fire into movement.
3. These are like combat vehicles, but have been equipped with giant wings so they can fly far above the battlefield. They can also be used to break sieges by flying right over the walls.
|
On April 17 2012 21:58 MooseMasher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:35 gugarutz wrote:On April 17 2012 19:23 MooseMasher wrote:
Also, I find it ironic to call for proper mental checking of people wanting to have as their job to kill other people...
it's not their job to kill other people but to protect the people of their country, i hope everyone protecting me has a healthy mind. I dont quite agree that is what western military forces is being used for, but let's not argue about that. I was just pointing out that killing another human being is a horrible act, and people training hard to do it (for any reason) are probably not entirely sane. By no means does that make them less responsible for rape and other (war) crimes they might commit. I was just bringing it up to show on how many levels this situation (women being raped being labeled as mentally ill) is fucked up.
You don't have much direct exposure to anyone in a military, do you? Statements like "people training hard to do it (for any reason) are probably not entirely sane" are offensively, provincially ignorant.
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/8/1024.abstract
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/russian-soldiers-sold-for-sex/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
http://news.yahoo.com/bai-ling-reveals-dark-memories-chinese-army-220710504.html
Your knee-jerk ignorant anti-Americanism is on display in almost every post you make.
|
On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex.
It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports.
+ Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
|
First of all, I'm sorry for the reply in the first thread. My sister is a victim of sexual abuse in Iraq where she was a nurse so it is difficult for me to be not emotional about it. Nonetheless, I think this is a good opportunity for discussion, especially between Americans who are on one end of the war, and Middle East Asians, who are in another. I am curios about something. I try to understand that war itself might be inevitable, but I think there should be conducts of war, especially if one country or military force is so much stronger than the other. So my question is, why is it that the military seems too easily deny abuses on its own rank. The sexual abuse cases on American soldiers (it might be any soldier, but since American military is the most prominent in foreign wars, I have to give that as an example) raping women of other country as well as from its own. But almost all of the time, the military denies this, rejects the complaints, and even try to be silent about it. Is there a code that when you are a soldier you are exempted from law? In the case of my sister, she filed a sexual abuse case to 3 soldiers in Iraq in 2007 when she and another nurse were on duty in a local hospital. Then these 3 American soldiers went it to do random inspection, while the rest of their team, was outside securing the area. This is where the soldiers tried to take advantage and touched my sister and her friend on their private parts. Luckily my sister and her friend thought fast enough and used the public broadcast system to call for emergency. The soldiers just left in a hurry and even looked at my sister and her friend threateningly, as if telling them something bad will happen to them if they reported it. You can also understand the gravity of this situation in a Muslim country where there are standards for women. But since there was no actual penetration, and just touching, my sister and her friend found the courage to report it. The military unit assigned responded to the summon that they will conduct an independent investigation. As you know, foreign countries have no soveriegnty over crimes commited on their land by US soldiers, and they are investigated and tried in a US court, or military court. Our only resort was the International Court, but that would be laborious for us. A few days later, the said 3 soldiers were no longer part of the unit, and were transfered to a different unit, location, country, whatever, we really don't know. As you can see, victims of sexual abuse are left with nothing, not even the dignity of being heard in the proper court of law. It is wasy to understand why it is the system in the US military why these abuses are common.
|
Thorough screening for personality disorders doesn't seem realistic - the military is somewhere where the dysfunctional people (mostly) function. These women might actually have personality disorders, but if there honestly wasn't a thorough psychiatric evaluation (done externally) before the ruling and expulsion then of course it's sexism/foul play.
More than anything this draws attention to the psychological state of an army. Wasn't there an article/interview with an ex-military contractor who said that the good soldiers were complete sociopaths? Would fit the trend (and stereotypes) if most female soldiers were borderline/histrionic/antisocial. I guess this is going with the 'blame the victim' mentality (which I hate), however.
Obviously this also highlights a basic rule: nothing can police itself. The idea that a soldier has to go through the chain of command to report harassment/rape by a colleague is fucking ridiculous and prone to failure; what if the rapist is senior or important? If military police don't operate independently of the basic chain of command, or if they aren't contacted to deal with such cases, this kind of terrible shit will happen.
|
If i was a woman that had been raped by an officer, I'd have taken my gun and shot the asshole.
|
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 17 2012 22:40 Muki wrote:
So if they cannot defend 1vs1 in a bathroom how are they supposed to do in real combat? If I enlisted in the military and deployed into a warzone where physical strength is of critical importance then I'd make sure first that I am at least in the same condition as my fellow soldiers are. Gender doesn't matter. They were unfit for duty.
I have a friend who's really freaking good at submission wrestling. Imagine all the guys who would have to leave the military due to risk of being raped if he joined!
|
On April 17 2012 22:32 aTnClouD wrote:
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
Its because as a country we actually report on half the stuff that goes on in there, most other countries just let it slide and say nothing, but it happens a lot everywhere else. Its not an isolated incident by any means.
On subject of the OP: I think its time for an FBI investigation, but it will only occur after a girl dies unfortuantely.
|
On April 18 2012 00:04 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:32 aTnClouD wrote:
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up. Its because as a country we actually report on half the stuff that goes on in there, most other countries just let it slide and say nothing, but it happens a lot everywhere else. Its not an isolated incident by any means. On subject of the OP: I think its time for an FBI investigation, but it will only occur after a girl dies unfortuantely.
While you are right that some country (including mines) are letting thing slips under the carpet, the real reason is that the US is still the biggest army of the western world. Thus events like this are statistically bound to happen more. Furthermore the US Army acting as the policeman of the world is putting themselves under scrutiny.
The same thing happened in the french railroad company a while ago but nobody talked about it.
|
On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess?
I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
|
+ Show Spoiler +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.
What the hell man? It is the womans fault? By that standard any male that could whoop your ass is free to have at you? You willingly put yourself in that situation and after all they are just following their base urges.
Women don't even occupy combat arms positions: my unit for instance, entirely male. It is this kind of sexism that allows shit like this to occur.
|
Seems like typical TL jumping on something and causing a sensation without hearing two sides of the story. In those three cases how many were prosecuted? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
|
On April 18 2012 00:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess? I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
The number is actually higher if you understand the definitions being used.
False rape accusation ≠ unfounded rape accusation. Unfounded accusations, which run at 8% according to FBI statistics (compared to 2% for most crimes), include accusations where the victim merely thinks it was rape (but technically no laws were violated) or if there's no evidence of rape. False accusations only include situations where it's more or less proven that the accusation was a deliberate lie.
Ultimately, false rape accusations are unusually high compared to other crimes, but the vast majority of rape accusations are still probably legitimate. The main problem is, as you alluded to, the fact that society and the media presume that men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.
|
On April 18 2012 00:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:34 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. It's consistent with the number of false reports of other indexed crimes, and people don't comment on how very sceptical they are of the reports of other those crimes. It means that 97% of reports are not false reports. + Show Spoiler +I have heard a man in a criminal court give his account of an event in which he claimed that he had consensual sex with his victim, and his response to questions regarding his accuser's account. There was no physical evidence or witness statement in that case. No independent witness or recorded physical evidence doesn't mean that someone's story can't fall apart under investigation.
By the end of the trial, there was no doubt of his guilt. Luckily, the police didn't agree with the "No witnesses or hard evidence = no case." or he might still be terrorising his daughter-in-law.
(Don't hang around with law school kids, they will drag you along to see trials)
You do realise I only objected to the fact that 3% should be concidered "very low", right? In all other regards I agreed with you, making your anecdote rather weird to include in a post, but okay I guess? I guess it's my background in the field of medicine that makes a 3% risk of ruining a persons life seem anything but "very low". Or to put it in another way: It means that every time we arrest 100 people on the charge of rape, 3 of them will have been innocent and run the risk of being social stigmatized despite their names being cleared during the investigation. I'm surprised how we as a society dare convict people if the percentage of false claims are truely that high for most crimes.
Sorry for the confusion, the anecdote wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Psychobabas, who the original quote was from.
The 3% is not the percentage of wrongful convictions, it is the percentage of total reports which are found to be false. The vast majority of false reports are found to be false without having resulted in a conviction - that's what investigation is for.
In rape cases, it would probably be a good idea to delay publishing names/details until after the verdict due to the stigma associated with the accusation.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 18 2012 00:28 sunprince wrote:
The number is actually higher if you understand the definitions being used.
False rape accusation ≠ unfounded rape accusation. Unfounded accusations, which run at 8% according to FBI statistics (compared to 2% for most crimes), include accusations where the victim merely thinks it was rape (but technically no laws were violated) or if there's no evidence of rape. False accusations only include situations where it's more or less proven that the accusation was a deliberate lie.
Ultimately, false rape accusations are unusually high compared to other crimes, but the vast majority of rape accusations are still probably legitimate. The main problem is, as you alluded to, the fact that society and the media presume that men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion. I was using the British Home Office study for the 3% figure, as it discarded classifications reached improperly.
|
On April 17 2012 23:49 Gigaudas wrote:
I have a friend who's really freaking good at submission wrestling. Imagine all the guys who would have to leave the military due to risk of being raped if he joined!
You don't need to be physically superior to everyone to deter rape. Simply being a reasonably tough target serves as an effective determent even if you might lose to someone in a fight, because it increases the risk of the rapist failing (often with severe consequences).
This can be seen in prisons; the toughest guy in the prison doesn't rape everyone else, and no one can defend themselves all the time, but all of the guys who are unusually tough go unmolested.
There's simply too much risk to attempt raping someone unless you're sure you can outclass them physically. The thing is, we shouldn't allow female soldiers who are outclassed by average male soldiers, but we do allow them due to double standards in military fitness.
|
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree.
|
On April 18 2012 00:37 FrankWalls wrote:
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree.
probably because, like the 3 women in the OP, raped female soldiers know nothing will get done even if they did report it. and most will be too embarrassed to report it anyways
|
I think this is not something new. If you see what kind of people join the army you almost expect something like this happen.
|
On April 18 2012 00:42 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 00:37 FrankWalls wrote:
just from the OP it is pretty hard to tell if this is a significant problem. i mean yeah its a shame for the 3 girls mentioned, but there are fucked up people in every phase of life. my problem is that there aren't really any statistics or accounts given besides the three listed in the OP, so just from that it doesn't seem like it's something that happens to a high degree. probably because, like the 3 women in the OP, raped female soldiers know nothing will get done even if they did report it. and most will be too embarrassed to report it anyways
that's very possible, but if there's no other stories or stats, then it's hard to make a case for something. of course rape is wrong, but idk im not gonna jump the gun on it being a problem just by 3 women's testimonies that cover a full decade of military service
On April 18 2012 00:45 Heouf wrote:
I think this is not something new. If you see what kind of people join the army you almost expect something like this happen.
yeah the creepiest kid from my high school joined the military so i get where you're coming from haha
|
i remember when i was in basic training one of the E6 drill sergeants of another platoon got demoted to an E1 because of sexual abuse allegations towards the end of our training cycle.
as a previous poster stated, it's definitely an issue that the military takes seriously. I'm pretty sure each of the service branches have systems set up where reporting doesn't have to necessarily go through the direct chain of command in the case that the chain of command is compromised in that the offending party is in the chain of command or defended by the chain-- There's a stigma attached to female service-members that do make the reports, because of the possibility that the accusations might be false, but in all the training classes on the issue of sexual abuse victims are still instructed to make the report.
system isn't perfect, and justice isn't always going to be meted out in every case unfortunately =\
|
On April 17 2012 21:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. 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.
Yeah I've always found that ridiculous, on the field the women will have to accomplish the same things than the men.
On the rape subject, nothing surprising sadly. You take lots of men, few women. You give the men impunity. You know what is going to happen. Actually rape on men is even more frequent.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2012 21:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. 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.
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 18 2012 01:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:01 sunprince wrote:On April 17 2012 20:54 B.I.G. wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, but I feel the military is no place for women. Not because of sexist reasons but war and whatnot doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, and these are just examples on how that could turn out..
Edit: It seems to be a survival of the fittest, and if some of these women arent strong enough to defend themselves against the others then I just think its to dangerous. 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. 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.
As it turns out, this is true. Even the more intensely physical jobs do a lot less physical stuff than in training. If you train ABOVE the level you work at, the work is easier. Just like most professional fighters train for hours a day, and fight for hours a month.
In the Infantry, morning PT was pretty much always the hardest part of the job, physically. And yeah, women aren't in all the jobs, including several of the most physically intense.
|
PT requirements have always had a degree of stagger. I see no reason for women to have to perform equally to men to serve.
(I left in 97)For instance a 34 year old male, and a 18 year old male have different standards on PT test.
For 18 years old it used to be 42 pushup,under 2 min, no quitsie/52 situp, same/ 15:54 2 mile run.
A 34 year old entering service would have the same test, but would have a low bar performance wise.
These standards may have changed but even men are not just '1' standard for basic infantry MOS.
A 34 year old ex-canadian hockey player went thru basic with us and smoked me on the run at 18, hence my choice of ages.
Every NCO involved should be charged. Justice doesn't factor race, or gender. Physical standards aside.
|
Oh man, all the places I think should be safe and have stable surroundings are not safe at all...
|
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: Show nested quote +Schroeder says a fellow Marine followed her to the bathroom in April 2002. She says he then punched her, ripped off her pants and raped her. When she reported what happened, a non-commissioned officer dismissed the allegation, saying, "'Don't come bitching to me because you had sex and changed your mind,'" Schroeder recalls.
Moore says she was alone in her barracks in October 2002 when a non-commissioned officer from another battery tried to rape her. When she filled out forms to report it, she says, her first sergeant, told her: "Forget about it. It never happened," and tore up the paperwork.
"It felt like a punch in the gut," Moore says. "I couldn't trust my chain of command to ever back me up."
McClendon says she was aboard a Navy destroyer at sea when a superior raped her on the midnight to 2 a.m. watch. After reporting the attack, she was diagnosed with a personality disorder and deemed unfit to serve. 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
I think the direct attack on the DSM is a little uncalled for, especially the insinuation that many psychological disorders are easily misdiagnosed. As someone who is trained on matters of the DSM, I recommend at the very least removing the bit about disorders other than ADHD being easily misdiagnosed. I do agree that ADHD is over diagnosed, but attacking the DSM has no pertinence to this discussion because you reference it with regards to the personality disorders and then try to say well we cannot use the DSM at all. You contradict yourself. Furthermore, the current version of the DSM is IV-TR not just IV.
As for the actual issue, if the women have DNA proof of rape, then this is a severe case of negligence on the military's part.
|
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.
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.
|
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 06:12 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.
Honestly, best bet would be go to the hospital, really. They can get directly started on gathering evidence, get a counselor in to talk to, contact relevant chains of command, and contact the MPs. All with minimum effort on the part of the assaulted soldier.
But yeah, calling MPs would also probably work, although nobody really trusts them.
|
...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?
That assumes that all of the leadership is psychologically fit for command. Which, sadly, tends to not be the case. They're not all bad, but there's enough bad eggs and politics that it doesn't just work that way.
|
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?
Well, they wouldn't be psychologically unfit, but rape is still a crime and they should be tried.
|
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 06:36 Kich wrote:
...Wouldn't it make more sense to deem the rapers psychologically unfit for duty and remove them from the equation?
It doesn't really matter, it is still a crime and they will be tried as a result.
|
currently serving in the US Navy.
As far as "taking actions" or "envoking procedures" to prevent this sorta thing from happening, well, more-or-less is somewhat impossible. It's like a crime in general, like robbery, yea we can have 'watches' or security everywhere, but that sometimes makes the criminal employ alternate means to accomplish the crime. IE, you can have cops on a corner looking out for a gas station to make sure its not robbed - and prolly wouldnt be, but the one on the other side of town would be etc..
Same situation for rape in the military. Now I am really shocked that these rape cases actually happened in the military, like military member v military member. It's still not uncommon, even by todays statistics for our girls in the Navy/military to still be victimized by rape, but we definately take measures and practices to prevent it. April, actually, is our sexual assault prevention month - which therefore we take extra "classes" and briefs about sexual assault. Also after some case like this is known to have happened to a fellow sailor we get briefed more etc..
But they teach/train us to act as a cohesive unit or a family. To look out for ur fellow shipmates and watch their backs etc, a pretty common theme in the military these days (at least in the navy), which is why I was surprised that those rape cases happened inside the military - although like 9 years ago.
rapes a disgusting crime.. definately dont stand for it. Protect our women, of every race, origin, religion and background.
|
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.
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 07:05 Sosha wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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..
Even a 25%..10% chance increase seems totally overwhelming. I've luckily never been a victim of rape, but from what I gather, it is basically the worst thing that can ever happen to a person.
|
Why were those two people banned on the first page? They brought up valid points.
|
On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
I'm assuming he is referring to combat roles.
I don't understand why women are allowed into frontline combat, police work, and fire fighting. A soldier is not gonna give you time to pull your wounded brother out of harms way because he sees your a woman, a meth head isn't gonna punch you softer because your a woman, and a fire sure as hell will not burn slower so you can save that kid from the fire because you have a vagina.
If a woman can meet the standards awesome let them in and protect them from all the sick fucks who do shit like this but don't lower standards and endanger lives.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On April 18 2012 07:12 mastergriggy wrote:
Why were those two people banned on the first page? They brought up valid points.
Please use website feedback if you have an issue with moderation.
|
On April 18 2012 07:27 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote: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. 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. I'm assuming he is referring to combat roles. I don't understand why women are allowed into frontline combat, police work, and fire fighting. A soldier is not gonna give you time to pull your wounded brother out of harms way because he sees your a woman, a meth head isn't gonna punch you softer because your a woman, and a fire sure as hell will not burn slower so you can save that kid from the fire because you have a vagina. If a woman can meet the standards awesome let them in and protect them from all the sick fucks who do shit like this but don't lower standards and endanger lives.
Afaik in the US military, women are barred from all combat roles.
|
On April 18 2012 07:37 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:27 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2012 06:04 FreddYCooL wrote: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. 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. I'm assuming he is referring to combat roles. I don't understand why women are allowed into frontline combat, police work, and fire fighting. A soldier is not gonna give you time to pull your wounded brother out of harms way because he sees your a woman, a meth head isn't gonna punch you softer because your a woman, and a fire sure as hell will not burn slower so you can save that kid from the fire because you have a vagina. If a woman can meet the standards awesome let them in and protect them from all the sick fucks who do shit like this but don't lower standards and endanger lives. Afaik in the US military, women are barred from all combat roles.
All the official ones, yes. However, in the current organization methods, at least in the Army, there's generally some females around.
Also, "non-combat role" and "non-combatant" mean entirely different things. Frankly, though, a lot of the female soldiers I knew were pretty tough chicks. And I knew some guys in the Army that couldn't handle themselves in a basic fist fight.
I also heard about plenty of cases of male on male sexual assault. It's got a lot less to do with capability and a lot more to do with a combination of opportunity and bad environment. A lot of units cross the fine line between confidence and stupidity in the attitudes they foster in their soldiers, and when you mix that with alcohol or stress, shit can hit the fan.
Frankly, I think a lot of it has to do with the enforced and fostered notion of male "superiority" for certain types of tasks, it breeds contempt. Dehumanize them, treat them as inferior, foster an attitude of invincible hardassery, and people do stupid shit. It's a complex issue, and could probably be mitigated by increased tolerance.
|
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them.
|
On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them.
+ Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here 
No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it.
|
On April 18 2012 07:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them. + Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it.
"May warrant them losing their jobs"? The rapists are obviously criminals and should go to prison alongside losing their jobs and have to register as sex offenders. The officers who covered up are involved in hindering an investigation and should also go to jail alongside losing their job.
Not MAY. SHOULD. I can't imagine why there is even any doubt about that. Rape is a horrendous crime, not matter what the circumstances might be. The punishment should be severe.
|
On April 18 2012 07:59 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 07:53 Demonhunter04 wrote:On April 18 2012 07:48 Holy_AT wrote:
Does anyone have names of the perpetrators and or adresses ?
These people are a serious threat to society and should be terminated without hesitation.
Furthermore I require the names and adresses of the officers responsible for dissmissing the cases when brought to them. + Show Spoiler +We got a badass over here No seriously though....rape and cooperation with rape/negligence may warrant them losing their jobs, but not to be terminated in the sense you say it. "May warrant them losing their jobs"? The rapists are obviously criminals and should go to prison alongside losing their jobs and have to register as sex offenders. The officers who covered up are involved in hindering an investigation and should also go to jail alongside losing their job. Not MAY. SHOULD. I can't imagine why there is even any doubt about that. Rape is a horrendous crime, not matter what the circumstances might be. The punishment should be severe.
I was speaking in American english. In this context, "may" does not imply uncertainty.
|
You can't use "may warrant them" without thinking its uncertain. If you said "may they lose their job" it would be different but in the context it was indicating doubt.
|
The military can be pretty messed up. I could write a book about the things I've seen in my 8 years of service. However, there's a lot more to this than what is let on with this article.
This is more the case with the grunt forces (ie: army/marine corp), but there is a type of female that enlists that would probably be diagnosed with some disorder if they screened for it. I'm not saying the women listed in the article fit the criteria, nor is it the majority of females in the service, however it's a large enough contention that it's a big problem. These are the type that probably had turbulent childhoods, grew up without a father or with an abusive one, etc. Anyway, once in the military, this type of female gets passed around endlessly and voluntarily of course. I know it sounds bad, but ask anyone that has served and they will agree. Also, please don't misunderstand me. Diversity is great for the military, whether it's gender, race, religion, etc. However, you can't simply pretend everything is fine.
When accusations come up involving someone that is well known to be this type, it can be impossible to prove anything. Also, the entire accusation/convicting/acquittal process in and of itself is rather messed up. If you are accused, you are generally done for. Since the sex is typically not in dispute, just whether or not it was consensual or forced, it's nearly impossible to find someone innocent unless she recants the story. The only thing that can happen is the person is found guilty or it's dismissed as inconclusive (whatever it's called) with the accusation staying in the person's record.
It definitely seems odd that cases such as the few described in the article weren't investigated further, as the violent/random/forced rape (meaning not date rape) have always seemed to be pursued vigorously. It should also be noted that this is just the version provided by these few women, so this in no way constitutes a trend nor is it necessarily factual. Sexual assault is a real thing and obviously it's a problem, but there are SO MANY programs, people to report to, briefings, etc in place in the military that sweeping things under the rug is nearly impossible unless the victim allows it. I understand they were probably troubled, scared, etc and just allowed it to occurr that way, but then that would sort of fit the mental disorder, no? Basically, it's a shit sandwich. Also, the military has a habit of not treating people for their mental problems even if it was developed because of the military. They simply wash their hands of the people by chaptering them out. This is a separate issue altogether.
I think the easiest solution to this would simply be to take these cases out of the hands of the local chain of command, send it to the MPs or local police. I find the whole idea of the local command handling these types of crimes to be insane. When it's for less serious stuff, sure, but when it's these types of crimes, it should be handled outside of the local command. Also, I saw an article recently that DoD is now requiring O-6 officers to be the investigator or something of that sort. This could help a lot, as these high ranking officers have so much more to lose and they would generally have no relation to or knowledge of the people involved.
|
On April 18 2012 08:06 redviper wrote:
You can't use "may warrant them" without thinking its uncertain. If you said "may they lose their job" it would be different but in the context it was indicating doubt.
Like I said, context matters. People use words differently in different areas of the world. You're right that the denotation of "may" implies doubt, but the connotation doesn't always, especially in the ways it is sometimes used here in the US. In any event, why are you arguing semantics with me? I made my meaning clear to you in my first response.
On April 18 2012 08:09 acerockolla wrote:
The military can be pretty messed up. I could write a book about the things I've seen in my 8 years of service. However, there's a lot more to this than what it let on with this article.
This is more the case with the grunt forces (ie: army/marine corp), but there is a type of female that enlists that would probably be diagnosed with some disorder if they screened for it. I'm not saying the women listed in the article fit the criteria, nor is it the majority of females in the service, however it's a large enough contention that it's a big problem. These are the type that probably turbulent childhoods, grew up without a father or with an abusive one, etc. Anyway, once in the military, this type of female gets passed around endlessly and voluntarily of course. I know it sounds bad, but ask anyone that has served and they will agree. Also, please don't misunderstand me. Diversity is great for the military, whether it's gender, race, religion, etc. However, you can't simply pretend everything is fine.
When accusations come up involving someone that is well known to be this type, it can be impossible to prove anything. Also, the entire accusation/convicting/acquittal process in and of itself is rather messed up. If you are accused, you are generally done for. Since the sex is typically not in dispute, just whether or not it was consensual or forced, it's nearly impossible to find someone innocent unless she recants the story. The only thing that can happen is the person is found guilty or it's dismissed as inconclusive (whatever it's called) with the accusation staying in the person's record.
It definitely seems odd that cases such as the few described in the article weren't investigated further, as the violent/random/forced rape (meaning not date rape) have always seemed to be pursued vigorously. It should also be noted that this is just the version provided by these few women, so this in no way constitutes a trend nor is it necessarily factual. Sexual assault is a real thing and obviously it's a problem, but there are SO MANY programs, people to report to, briefings, etc in place in the military that sweeping things under the rug is nearly impossible unless the victim allows it. I understand they were probably troubled, scared, etc and just allowed it to occurr that way, but then that would sort of fit the mental disorder, no? Basically, it's a shit sandwich. Also, the military has a habit of not treating people for their mental problems even if it was developed because of the military. They simply wash their hands of the people by chaptering them out. This is a separate issue altogether.
I think the easiest solution to this would simply be to take these cases out of the hands of the local chain of command, send it to the MPs or local police. I find the whole idea of the local command handling these types of crimes to be insane. When it's for less serious stuff, sure, but when it's these types of crimes, it should be handled outside of the local command. Also, I saw an article recently that DoD is now requiring O-6 officers to be the investigator or something of that sort. This could help a lot, as these high ranking officers have so much more to lose and they would generally have no relation to or knowledge of the people involved.
Thanks for this post. The original story was, like most others, skewed to make the issue seem more prevalent than it is, while simplifying the backstory of why these rape accusations were ignored.
|
Let's organize some kind of support card or something.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me.
|
On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me.
Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
On April 18 2012 08:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases.
i understand what youre saying BUT, fact is: it shouldn't happen at all. and if it does happen, there should be a dishonorable discharge AND a lawsuit. not women (or even men!) being labelled as "crazy" and discharged.
|
On April 18 2012 08:45 BluemoonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 08:42 JingleHell wrote:On April 18 2012 08:36 BluemoonSC wrote:
i know a woman that wants to enter the navy and she didn't quite believe me when i talked about the trauma that can be enduced on women in the armed forces (on top of several other concerns about exiting the military). a bunch of men that havent had sex for as long as theyve been on tour..something (regretably) is bound to give at some point.
as if it weren't enough that men are grimy enough to sexually abuse a woman, the military brushes it under the rug by calling them crazy? absolutely horrific.
i dont think she will wind up going into the navy in any case, but if she should..it would break my heart to see these atrocities happen to her and hit so close to home for me. Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, eh? Yes, bad shit happens, and yes, there's fucked up people, but it's not the entire institution, or all the people. Not even the majority. A few bad apples give everyone a bad name. And while I understand that, in fact, certain chunks of the reputation are deserved enough that the only reasonable response is to disprove those parts for myself personally (or was, since I'm out now), when it comes to sexual assault and rape, it's a VERY distinct minority of cases where this happens at all, and getting swept under the rug is a minority of those cases. i understand what youre saying BUT, fact is: it shouldn't happen at all. and if it does happen, there should be a dishonorable discharge AND a lawsuit. not women (or even men!) being labelled as "crazy" and discharged.
I'm not denying that there should be a harsh punishment. I'm pointing out that usually there is. The fringe cases shouldn't be used to attack the whole group. It's no different than saying all blacks are thieves, or all hispanics in the USA are illegal. People overreacting to the sensationalism is part of the problem.
And fact, it happens outside the military too, where the pressures of combat aren't even an issue. And there's probably plenty of civilian cases where nothing ever comes of it.
|
Reading through this entire thread, it's pretty obvious not a lot of you have spent time around the military. Thank you for the people who posted with actual knowledge instead of a flame and bash fest. Saying we're all crazy because we enlisted or all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the time is just insane. Because the media blows these things out of the water, yes obviously it happens a few times. But you have no idea the amount of programs and help that there is for rape cases and situation, and basically every problem you can think of. Yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anybody, but honestly, is it this big of an issue? I've known a lot of people who were in the military, are in the military now, and I myself am as well. Typical of the internet for people to make posts full of ignorance and jump on the backwagon before doing any actual research or have prior knowledge. It's honeslty laughable.
First of all, the earlier poster was right about women doing this willingly, there's so many times where they deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere people can't be with their significant others or spouses, they get pregnant while on deployment. And honestly, there's women who just join the military TO get pregnant because the government will take care of them. I can't even count how many women I've seen or known about that will get pregnant before every deployment until they get discharged. Keep blaming our training and our craziness, be my guest. Also, all Navy ships go to foreign ports multiple times a deployment unless its a submarine, where there aren't women anyways. So if you want to say that's the reason women get raped on ships, that's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Blame it on sex deprivation? Really? Because you've never heard of guys getting off ships and finding brothels or bars to pick up women?
|
On April 18 2012 08:57 tRavE wrote:
Reading through this entire thread, it's pretty obvious not a lot of you have spent time around the military. Thank you for the people who posted with actual knowledge instead of a flame and bash fest. Saying we're all crazy because we enlisted or all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the time is just insane. Because the media blows these things out of the water, yes obviously it happens a few times. But you have no idea the amount of programs and help that there is for rape cases and situation, and basically every problem you can think of. Yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anybody, but honestly, is it this big of an issue? I've known a lot of people who were in the military, are in the military now, and I myself am as well. Typical of the internet for people to make posts full of ignorance and jump on the backwagon before doing any actual research or have prior knowledge. It's honeslty laughable.
First of all, the earlier poster was right about women doing this willingly, there's so many times where they deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere people can't be with their significant others or spouses, they get pregnant while on deployment. And honestly, there's women who just join the military TO get pregnant because the government will take care of them. I can't even count how many women I've seen or known about that will get pregnant before every deployment until they get discharged. Keep blaming our training and our craziness, be my guest. Also, all Navy ships go to foreign ports multiple times a deployment unless its a submarine, where there aren't women anyways. So if you want to say that's the reason women get raped on ships, that's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Blame it on sex deprivation? Really? Because you've never heard of guys getting off ships and finding brothels or bars to pick up women?
Yes, I completely agree. We in the service are all bloodthirsty monsters with no sense of humanity, trained to ignore all sorts of morality. I'm not sure if people should even see us as human fucking beings anymore with our own hopes, dreams, viewpoints, and critical thinking skills. Nope, we're all one way. All day, e'rryday. And all these terrible things get swept under the rug all the fucking time, because hey! It's reported on the news right? It must happen all the fucking time with no punishment!
I have also been brainwashed to be born to kill, who just can't wait to dismember my enemies with my bear hands and drink their blood. We especially love eating babies. Amirite?
|
If the stories they're telling are true then I feel this way:
Fucking retarded frat-boy mentalities that let this shit slide disgust me.
If the stories they're telling are untrue then I feel this way:
C**TS.
Either way, people do messed up things T_T
|
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.
I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse.
|
On April 17 2012 21:19 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 21:06 Kuni wrote:On April 17 2012 19:25 Bobgrimly wrote:
I think this issue is silly to discuss. You put women ... amongst people trained to ignore morals... and then act surprised when the standard results that have been happening for hundreds upon thousands of years happens.
How very true. Also as stated in the first post I believe, rape accusations do not need witnesses or anything else, just the testimony of the "victim". Maybe false accusations in the military are as common as outside of it, so the superiors treat those with a grain of salt. This line of thought could make some sense if, you know, there was any logic in women doing something that, as seen by this and multiple other articles, only causes them more harm.Aside from petty, unrealistic dramatic motives like love related revenge, they have absolutely nothing to gain from reporting a rape, quite the contrary, so pardon me if I remain skeptical about these accusations being untrue.
Trying to get back at someone is not unheard of. I would have faced maybe similar problems and false accusations in the past, if one of my ex-girlfriends hadn't lived in another country. I'm not saying that there's a huge percentage of fakes, however, if there is at least 1 fake, then if you are approached, you might think twice before jumping on the bandwagon, especially if you're in the military.
|
On April 18 2012 10:38 Man with a Plan wrote:Show nested quote +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. I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse.
You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation.
|
The boy who cried wolf. A timeless lesson.
Is it important to stop sexual abuse? Absolutely. Do they have the resources, time, and manpower to do this to a satisfactory extent? Probably not.
|
On April 17 2012 19:23 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:12 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The military will always find ways to protect senior ranks and maintain harmful masculinity norms. Just look at DADT : ( You should know that leaders in the military, including the ranking officer in each of the army, navy, airforce, and coastguard supported repeal long before it finally got passed. As did the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and a majority of active service members. It's probably better to look at this as an organization going out of its way to protect members of the in-group. It's much more like the way the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks.
True that. The system is rigged, thats why. Cant get it fixed the next day, it will take generations. When and How?...that seems a lil bit complicated.
|
Rape has happened, is happening and will happen in the future again. These kinda stuff always happen, its just the way different sector handle it. I guess in the military this is the way of covering it up. Maybe it is because it is military and not some kinda of corporate company that people are angry about and tend to focus on, because they expect the people in the military to behave better.
|
On April 18 2012 10:51 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 10:38 Man with a Plan wrote: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. I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse. You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation.
Exactly. I remember in Infantry school, the first thing they told us before starting our unarmed combat and bayonet training: "And if you ever need to use any of this shit, you fucked up and should have worked harder at the range."
I was in a unit with a totally fucked chain of command, and the real nutjobs STILL got kicked out. We only had minor nutjobs, and most of their issues were a combination of fostered overconfidence and steroids. Anybody who was a serious detriment to society got their shit documented, got medicated, got arrested as needed, and got an appropriate (medical or dishonorable, depending on circumstances) discharge.
|
On April 18 2012 10:56 danbel1005 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 19:23 Omnipresent wrote:On April 17 2012 19:12 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The military will always find ways to protect senior ranks and maintain harmful masculinity norms. Just look at DADT : ( You should know that leaders in the military, including the ranking officer in each of the army, navy, airforce, and coastguard supported repeal long before it finally got passed. As did the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and a majority of active service members. It's probably better to look at this as an organization going out of its way to protect members of the in-group. It's much more like the way the Catholic Church has shielded child molesters in its ranks. True that. The system is rigged, thats why. Cant get it fixed the next day, it will take generations. When and How?...that seems a lil bit complicated.
Yeah, the DADT example is completely false. Any such regulations are the product of the government and its people. In the US, the military does as its told. It's completely subject to the civilian government. Besides, DADT was intended as a gateway to the present day situation. Do you think Clinton really wanted to discriminate against gays?
|
On April 18 2012 10:51 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 10:38 Man with a Plan wrote: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. I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse. You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation.
As far as reports go, there are ALWAYS reports of sex abuse and even criminal abuses on every military missions by our very own US military. Name it, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. Wherever our armies are, there always seem to be cases of these abuses. Now, tell me, is that an aberration or not? But this is not the topic discussed here.
When I said I understand his basic sentiment, I was taking into consideration the totality of the situation. You should have read further into my post to see that I called for higher standards in the conduct of gentlemen and women in the military.
|
On April 18 2012 11:00 EchoZ wrote:
Rape has happened, is happening and will happen in the future again. These kinda stuff always happen, its just the way different sector handle it. I guess in the military this is the way of covering it up. Maybe it is because it is military and not some kinda of corporate company that people are angry about and tend to focus on, because they expect the people in the military to behave better.
More than the expectation from military men to behave better, I believe it is actually within the political interest of US as a political entity. While I cannont comment thoroughly on the merits of psychological review and actual procedure of military in this case, I would like to bring to the surface US's foreign policy and attendant unilateral agreements with the nations that "host" their armies. Every US military mission is always covered by a judicial provision whereas offenses incurred during missions are within the jurisprudence of USA. This effectively handicaps the "host" countries, but in most cases, this is subverted via charity missions in the form of lunch packages being dropped to the community, medical missions, infrastructure, etc.
|
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off".
|
On April 18 2012 11:11 Man with a Plan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 10:51 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 10:38 Man with a Plan wrote: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. I kinda understand the "women should not be in the military" issue in this post, there is certainly some truth to it given the nature of the objectives and general situation in the military. But I think there should be a higher moral standard for things like this, which should translate to the protection of everyone, regardless of the factors. Moreover, I understand there are a lot of different units in the military other than those who are engaged in ground combat, for example those dealing with medicals, logistics, communication, etc. But even if a woman is part of the "sex-deprived, ready to kill" men, it is no excuse for sexual abuse. You are understanding what he's conveying, but it's based on shitty logic. This isn't the year 1000 BC where we are using physical strength to take down our opponents. Maybe he could beat a female soldier in unarmed combat, but she would have ended his life long before that became relevant. Also, the sex-deprived, ready to kill crap is also that: crap. Real servicemen and women are disciplined. Our most highly trained killers (SF/SEALS/Recon/etc) are the most humble and nicest people you'll ever meet. The people who get reported on in the media for doing shitty things are the abberation. As far as reports go, there are ALWAYS reports of sex abuse and even criminal abuses on every military missions by our very own US military. Name it, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. Wherever our armies are, there always seem to be cases of these abuses. Now, tell me, is that an aberration or not? But this is not the topic discussed here. When I said I understand his basic sentiment, I was taking into consideration the totality of the situation. You should have read further into my post to see that I called for higher standards in the conduct of gentlemen and women in the military.
aberration
noun
1.
the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2.
the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.
3.
deviation from truth or moral rectitude.
Yes, these are abberations. Do you realize how many American troops have set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan? I personally don't know, but it's in the hundreds of thousands if not 7 figures. For an example of what would not be an abberation, study the exploits of the Japanese Imperial Army during WW2. When the media reports on these abberations, it gives it so much attention that makes people feel as though it's common. It is not common, even if you can find occurrences in every war.
|
On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off".
Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think.
|
Despite the Defense Department's "zero tolerance" policy, there were 3,191 military sexual assaults reported in 2011. Given that most sexual assaults are not reported, the Pentagon estimates the actual number was probably closer to 19,000. from the article in the op.
--In the Army, 16% of all soldiers are women, but females constitute 24% of all personality disorder discharges.
--Air Force: women make up 21% of the ranks and 35% of personality disorder discharges.
--Navy: 17% of sailors are women and 26% of personality disorder discharges
--Marines: 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges
apparently most real "nutjobs" are female.
I find that 19,000 estimate extremely disconcerting.
|
On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think.
That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
|
On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please.
|
A lot of you guys are missing the point with the whole "females can't defend themselves from rape, ergo they should not be in the military" argument. I served for 4 years and know for a fact that females are NOT the only ones that get sexually assaulted. Males get raped too. The issue at hand is the culture of acceptance towards sexual abuse of females that exists in certain units through failures in leadership. The point is not whether or not females should be in the military; the point is that they shouldn't be subject to rape by their comrades (even if they are considered "loose" or "promiscuous").
|
On April 18 2012 11:48 Rebel_lion wrote:
Despite the Defense Department's "zero tolerance" policy, there were 3,191 military sexual assaults reported in 2011. Given that most sexual assaults are not reported, the Pentagon estimates the actual number was probably closer to 19,000. from the article in the op.
--In the Army, 16% of all soldiers are women, but females constitute 24% of all personality disorder discharges.
--Air Force: women make up 21% of the ranks and 35% of personality disorder discharges.
--Navy: 17% of sailors are women and 26% of personality disorder discharges
--Marines: 7% of the Corps and 14% of personality disorder discharges
apparently most real "nutjobs" are female.
I find that 19,000 estimate extremely disconcerting.
I don't know how the civilian rate compares, but keep in mind that there are 1.5 million active duty alone. There are also 1.5 million in reserves, which are frequently called up. 19,000 is absolutely unacceptable, but it should also be kept in context.
The statistics on personanilty disorder discharges don't tell the full story. The military does not seek out people in these diagnosis. It's a pretty widely accepted fact that women are more likely to seek help, whereas men are too ashamed/stupid to reach out for help. This is why PTSD in veterans is such an issue... the military is basically incapable of seeking out troubled people unless they ask for help.
|
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote:On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please.
Reading your post reminded me of one of my favorite pictures
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475
smbc always so relevant!
|
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote:On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please.
I understand your point, but the only way to counter the hegemony of any discussion is to provide a diversity of voices.
|
Okay. I'm in the military. First, I'm going to start off by saying I know for a fact REAL rapes happen. However, as far as reasons why someone might want to claim a fake rape in the military.
Let's say it's an NCO fucking around with a non NCO. In the military that could be considered fraternization under the UCMJ. That means possible loss of rank, pay, and possible restriction. If that NCO or non NCO claims rape, they get off the hook for fraternization. There is HUGE incentive to claim rape. I've seen this one happen.
Another classic is when a military member is fucking around outside their marriage. Another punishable offense under the UCMJ. I've met a female who was cheating on her husband. Someone before her got Court Martialed and was sent to the brig. She was starting to fuck around with another guy, and I told him what was up. I wanted her to get in trouble but that marine didn't want to do anything. Unfortunately that's not enough proof to get her convicted.
Here's a third reason why you might want to claim false rape. You don't want to be in the military anymore. You can't just "quit." If you claim rape you can claim mental issues and get a free out. Believe me, I know plenty of people who want to quit. At the same time I don't think they'd stoop that low, but you never know. I haven't seen this one yet.
There are also other problems involved in rape charges. One being that women can't consent when drunk but men can. So if a woman consents, but the next day regrets it she can claim rape. It doesn't work the other way around.
However, even if we assumed half of all the rapes in the military were fake anything greater than 1 is way to high. Hopefully we can come together as a group and cut this shit out. I know I would stop it from happening if I caught it.
|
On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote:On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. Saying "yet feel they know everything", followed by "but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please" (as in : I know I'm right, but by all means, keep on being delusional) is a good indicative that the irony on your posts is really present on so many levels it's tangible, but please, continue defining how "sane people" think and how insane the "vocal minority" is.
Any respectable discussion needs representatives of multiple parts.
|
On April 18 2012 13:43 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:56 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:51 khaydarin9 wrote:On April 18 2012 11:32 acerockolla wrote:On April 18 2012 11:29 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased, but the number of people who seem to be implying that "well, these women knew what they were getting into when they joined the military" is ... disappointing. As is the number of people who think that rape is about "getting off". Most sane people are simply staying away from the thread. Don't take the opinions of the vocal minority as any indication to how most people think. That's ironic on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see the irony. I just feel that most of the sane non-military people are staying away from this thread. People who actually served are coming to the defense of the military in saying that things are not widespread. The idiots claiminig the women had it coming are the ones who know nothing, yet feel they know everything. These types love to post their opinions. This is what I was implying, but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please. "yet feel they know everything", followed by "but you are obviously free to perceive things how you please" (as in : I know I'm right, but keep being dellusional), the irony on your posts is really present on so many levels it's tangible, but please, by all means, keep on talking about how every 'sane people' thinks.
This is what I mean by perceive things how you please, lol. I explain what I was implying, to clear up any misconceptions, but ultimately you (or anyone) will read it as you please and interpret it how you want. The part where you interpret that as "I know i'm right, but keep being dellusional" is exactly the stuff I'm talking about. Everything I've said was strictly my opinion, and if you interpret my posts as me declaring everything as factual, that is your issue.
|
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/
|
Women in the military should have a gun/stun gun/stun rod at all times. You can be sure that almost 100% of the time they will only use it for self defense... Fucking stupid pieces of shit in the military who allow this to happen. This shit should not happen to people who volunteer to protect their country. What the fuck.
|
As a soldier currently in Afghanistan now, I say:
While rape does happen in the military, there are loads of programs in place to prevent sexual assault and provide victims numerous means of reporting incidents if their chain of command is ass backwards. There is your immidiate chain of command, your NCO support channel, the chaplains all over the post, police officers both military/civilian as well as medical personal in the medical facilities. It's certainly not as dark and gloomy like they make it sound, you have tons of ways to report it, and 9/10 times they will completely move you to a different unit somewhere else in the country if you need.
Media, like always, exaggerates the hell out of the situation within the Armed forces and it's sad when a lot of GREAT men and women get a terrible reputation when a small handful of losers do terrible shit to other.
I don't really think it's fair at all. What's also not accounted for is the advantage given to the accuser. If a women says she was raped, and is labeled as a psychologically unstable she will net free money from tax-payers for life. If there was alcohol and some chick is with you and wants sex, and even says yes while intoxicated, then the next day goes and reports you for "rape".... well 90% of the time your career as a soldier is DONE and she will have her free ticket out of the army, money coming in everymonth till the day she dies.
TL, there are two sides to everything. I'm sure women do get raped and it happens in our military just like in colleges, where the climate is similar, but I'm also positive that there is even a frightenly higher number of falsified incidents of rape reported.
Edit: and for the record, I'm not gung-ho military, or anything like that. I'll be getting out next year, but this article is extreme, just like Afghanistan coverage. There is a story of a soldier who dove in front of a military vehicle to save a kid's life, only to save the child but have himself ran over and killed by the same vehicle. You'll never see those stories of soldiers doing really awesome things for a really shit war, just like this rape thread where it is made out to seem the military is this horrible rape factory where women are slabs of meat.
 Love you all!
|
I find it ridiculous that people have dismissed this issue as "women are weak, they kind of deserve it if they couldn't defend themselves against this kind of thing". Should a female soldier be raped in the military there should be a governing body outside of the military that deals with these crimes, instead of their officers telling the victims to just forget it. Perhaps more perplexing is the reaction and opinions people have towards this.
|
The military has a very strict top down structure for a reason - you are going to be ordering men to run into oncoming fire, which is basically the opposite of what you'd want to do. That's why you need to break soldiers when they join, to fully subordinate them to the chain of command. If you have people going outside of the chain of command then the whole structure breaks down.
|
On April 18 2012 16:40 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
The military has a very strict top down structure for a reason - you are going to be ordering men to run into oncoming fire, which is basically the opposite of what you'd want to do. That's why you need to break soldiers when they join, to fully subordinate them to the chain of command. If you have people going outside of the chain of command then the whole structure breaks down.
Yeah, it'd be chaos before you know it, people wouldn't know that they can rape people without repercussions without such a strict chain of command.
|
Part of why it is so surprising to me when stuff like this happens is that when I think of military service I always imagine it as a highly controlled / population dense scenario. Basically I don't understand when individuals have the opportunity since, as my relatives tell me, if your superiors are not around then tons of your peers are. Do other enlisted men and women know whats happening and are not reporting it? I dont know the details of this case personally and I am not saying we should expect zero incidents, but if soldiers were holding each other accountable in line with the standards set by their superiors than Id expect these cases (where justice fails) to be literally one in a million.
|
It's so mind boggling how rape gets dismissed so often. Not just in this case but in many situations. It's humiliating enough to report a rape, but to get dismissed when you do it must be such a horrible feeling These things make me so angry!
|
There's a lot more than just rapes happening. It's the nature of the army with few women and lots of horny young men. There is an athmosphere that accepts sexual harassment. When I was doing my mandatory service and was at the Reserve Officer School, I remember an incident where a female student was kneeled down in a tent to do something and a fellow student slapped her face with his co*k. Obviously that was a joke and could have even happened to a male student (dont ask.. :D), but anyway.
|
On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/
Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently.
|
On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently.
Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you.
Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 18 2012 18:37 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently. Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you. Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians.
Go read what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, North Korean Army did to their people before calling US Army is scum of the Earth. These anti US sentiments are getting annoying. It is like you read the newspaper and assumed everything is fact.
|
On April 18 2012 18:37 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently. Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you. Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians.
Yes, we in the Army spend our free time eating the hearts of afghan babies, kicking kittens and raping women at gunpoint.
|
|
|
On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex.
You can tell it very easily. -_-
|
On April 18 2012 19:58 Prime`Rib wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 18:37 Nizaris wrote:On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently. Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you. Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians. Go read what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, North Korean Army did to their people before calling US Army is scum of the Earth. These anti US sentiments are getting annoying. It is like you read the newspaper and assumed everything is fact.
They still make newspapers these days?
That's the thing, bolded the important part, the fact that you do it to other countries civilian population is even worse. I would have no problem if you did that shit at home.
|
On April 18 2012 20:49 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:58 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 18:37 Nizaris wrote:On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently. Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you. Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians. Go read what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, North Korean Army did to their people before calling US Army is scum of the Earth. These anti US sentiments are getting annoying. It is like you read the newspaper and assumed everything is fact. They still make newspapers these days? That's the thing, bolded the important part, the fact that you do it to other countries civilian population is even worse. I would have no problem if you did that shit at home.
I don't think there is much difference. You sexually abuse women and you deserve to be punished.
|
Remember when the US used to be the moral authority and police of the world?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-afghan-photos-20120418,0,5032601.story
Me neither. It's sad to read comments that defend the treatment of rape victims by trotting out how plenty of atrocities have been committed by other armies, or that it pales in comparison statistically to sexual assault in the general population, etc.
Americans used to pride themselves on having a higher moral standards.
|
On April 18 2012 18:37 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 18:22 Prime`Rib wrote:On April 18 2012 14:05 TheDna wrote:
This is pretty disturbing, but its the US army.. I expect much worse things happening, torture and killing of innocent civilians was already made public. So it doesn't surprise me at all :/ Please stop anti-US sentiments. Every armed forces faced some sorts of sexual abuses, not just the US. Dont turn this thread into another anti-US propaganda. If I am mod, I would ban you permanently. Sure there are sexual abuses everywhere, but only in the US Army will you superior tear out your paperwork in front of you. Nothin new here, the US army is the scum of the earth. This is not nearly as bad as what they do everyday, ie kill / torture innocents civilians. User was warned for this post
Hate to break it to you buddy, but go read about what King Leopold II did in Congo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_-
Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not.
|
On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not.
defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:10 Miss_Cleo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not. defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back
Which was Ghostcom's whole point, doing a gynecological exam doesn't give definitive proof. Bruising and other bodily injury can easily be caused from other things(such as consensual sex, among other things), making the final ruling quite subjective in cases where the victim wasn't nearly/completely beat up.
|
As a military member, I resent the implication that these and other women are dismissed because of their rape. They were raped, and that's horrible, unforgivable, and unfortunate, but as a result, they suffered psychological damage that left them unfit to operate within a military setting, another issue entirely. Its totally understandable and excusable that someone who suffered the trauma of rape would have psychological damage and difficulty trusting/operating around same kind of men who did this, but its ALSO completely fair, and understandable, that they would be discharged as a result of being unable to perform their duties, whatever the reason.
TL;DR: Rape sucks, but I want to be able to rely on the soldiers next to me, and if I can't, they need to go. Totally support the discharge of people unfit for duty, despite the shitty reason why.
|
On April 19 2012 05:16 Crushgroove wrote:
As a military member, I resent the implication that these and other women are dismissed because of their rape. They were raped, and that's horrible, unforgivable, and unfortunate, but as a result, they suffered psychological damage that left them unfit to operate within a military setting, another issue entirely. Its totally understandable and excusable that someone who suffered the trauma of rape would have psychological damage and difficulty trusting/operating around same kind of men who did this, but its ALSO completely fair, and understandable, that they would be discharged as a result of being unable to perform their duties, whatever the reason.
TL;DR: Rape sucks, but I want to be able to rely on the soldiers next to me, and if I can't, they need to go. Totally support the discharge of people unfit for duty, despite the shitty reason why.
That's all fine, dandy, and understandable.
As long as action is taken against the rapist as well.
|
Never mind ill post in Feedback
|
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens.
|
On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens.
Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth.
I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare.
|
Uhm. If someone raped me and then gave me a diagnose saying i was mentally ill to the point where I couldn't get a normal job or anything without people thinking i was crazy, ... even if it was just a mild disorder that only disqualified me from the army. Well. Let's just say I wouldn't take kindly on that. dunno if i'd be able to control my actions after experiencing such a thing.
Like, idk what to say.. First you are done an incredibly wrong, and then you are taken away your voice; cause, who will ever listen to a crazy person........ I'd rather go to hell, I think.
|
On April 19 2012 05:47 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens. Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth. I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare.
Uhm, go back through my post and show me the use of the word "uncommon" please? Or "rare"?
What I specifically said is that it's not considered a biological nexessity or morally sound behavior. It's not even close to common enough to consider it to be either. The vast majority of men go through their lives without comitting rape. Regardless of how much it DOES happen.
That, of course, is ignoring all the studies showing that rape tends to not be about biology as much as power anyways. It's frequently an "I'll teach you" type thing. Not a "want to get off" thing.
|
On April 19 2012 05:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:47 Tabbris wrote:On April 19 2012 05:40 JingleHell wrote:
Complaints about moderation should be in Feedback. Unless they're worded that way, in which case they should probably be a PM.
And no, it's not a valid point. If it was even vaguely inevitable due to biology, rape would be so incredibly common as to be considered both a biological necessity and morally sound behavior. It's treated as neither, because it's NOT a given outcome, thus, the people doing it are loathsome scum who should be held accountable, instead of their crime being discounted as something that just happens. Yes rape was very uncommon through out histo....oh wait no it wasent. It wasent even considered to be evil. Women where treated second rate to any man. As civiliaztion progress so does the morals. Men have a strong desire for sex that is an unavoidable truth. I want to make this clear tho. It is still the mans responsibly. Anyone who rapes someone has nothing to blame but himself. But i wouldent call it rare. Uhm, go back through my post and show me the use of the word "uncommon" please? Or "rare"? What I specifically said is that it's not considered a biological nexessity or morally sound behavior. It's not even close to common enough to consider it to be either. The vast majority of men go through their lives without comitting rape. Regardless of how much it DOES happen. That, of course, is ignoring all the studies showing that rape tends to not be about biology as much as power anyways. It's frequently an "I'll teach you" type thing. Not a "want to get off" thing.
Ah yes I agree with your last point. Sorry I seemed to just misunderstand what you where saying
|
So these women reported their rapes to officers without even going to medical staff first to verify that they had been raped and treat it?
Forgive me for not being quick to accept this as absolute fact. There certainly should have been an investigation, and if the appropriate channels do not exist to report this, that would be awful. However I am fairly sure that the U.S. army has measures in place to bypass corrupt chains of command. The fact is that there should have been an investigation, there wasn't one, and now we can never even know if it happened. There now needs to be an investigation to see if these women had any way of reporting the crimes. If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. If the methods do not exist, we must put them in place.
|
On April 19 2012 05:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 05:10 Miss_Cleo wrote:On April 19 2012 05:01 Myles wrote:On April 18 2012 20:23 Erasme wrote:On April 17 2012 23:13 Ghostcom wrote:On April 17 2012 22:31 -_-Quails wrote:On April 17 2012 22:24 Psychobabas wrote:
I'm very skeptical about claims like that. Unless there are witnesses, who says that the women aren't lying about consensual sex and have other motives?
For me: No witnesses or hard evidence = no case.
Reporting something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's why there should have been an investigation into each report... With no immediate investigation, most things constituting hard evidence are destroyed within hours (semen samples) or disappear in days (bruises). The investigation is needed to record evidence when it exists. Few rapes have witnesses, just as few murders, kidnappings and muggings do. Also, there is a very low rate of false reports of rape. I wouldn't call 3% very low... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsThe true problem when it comes to rape is that you can't tell the difference between a rape and consensual sex by a gynacological examination, so you'll have to get other evidence that there was actually a rape happening which is VERY hard as most things can be explained by the perpetrator claiming consensual sex. You can tell it very easily. -_- Care to explain how instead of making a blanket statement? Because, from my non-medical understanding, you can easily tell if there has been intercourse, but not if said intercourse was forced or not. defensive marks like bruising and skin cells in fingernails if the female tried to scratch and fight back Which was Ghostcom's whole point, doing a gynecological exam doesn't give definitive proof. Bruising and other bodily injury can easily be caused from other things(such as consensual sex, among other things), making the final ruling quite subjective in cases where the victim wasn't nearly/completely beat up.
Thank you for answering for me Myles, that was indeed 100% my point. I realise it doesn't really make a lot of sense to make claims like these on the internet, seeing how everyone can be whoever they want to be, but I'm actually about to finish my internship as a doctor. I've JUST finished a course in forensics medicine which is what my statement is based on.
I apologize for not responding earlier myself, but only just saw that someone had quoted me.
|
From what I've seen people in the military that are young tend to just do whatever the fuck they want just because they're in the military. This goes from being unnecessarily hostile to regular people to calling people f*****s. But of course this is still the minority, but it's just little bit too much of a minority imo.
|
United States42934 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred.
You know very, very little about rape.
|
On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape.
I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
|
United States42934 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape. I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
No, obviously an investigation must occur rather than simply accepting the allegation as proof of the act. However saying "we must assume no rape occurred" on the basis of suboptimal reporting of it is nonsense. An incredibly common symptom rape is that it is reported very inefficiently and irrationally, only 6% of rapes are even reported. Saying that an illogical approach to dealing with rape post-rape rules out having been raped is absurd.
|
On April 19 2012 06:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:48 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 06:21 ampson wrote:If there were alternate methods in place to report the rape and secure an investigation and these women chose to ignore them, then we must assume no rape occurred. You know very, very little about rape. I know more about rape than you would think. I could explain to you if you'd like, PM me if you want it. But you can't put the women here on such a pedestal as to take their word absolutely and without an investigation. Besides, they were clearly not traumatized to the point that they were not willing to report a rape, as they did it to their officers. If there were other ways to secure an investigation, (and they believed that the investigation would yield the proof they needed) it is just logical to think that they would do this. Of course extenuating circumstances exist (the only one I could think of would be an incredible fear of retaliation from their officers/the rapist), but when in doubt, I go for the logical resopnse.
You've missed the several posts throughout the thread that confirm there are options available. In fact, if something involving a broken regulation gets reported up the regular chain of command, it's frequently a matter of someone being vindictive, regardless of what the regulation was.
There's multiple points of contact available for stuff like sexual assault and harassment, that specifically avoid the chain of command.
|
The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing... A simple google search will provide you with TONS of information on how sexual assault is handled in the military.
For example: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/index_pledge.cfm
Stop making sweeping statements about stuff not getting taken care of or swept under the rug.
Unless these women didn't report the incidents properly, these things did get looked into. A non-commissioned officer can't do anything about a sexual assault allegation. They certainly cannot sweep it under the rug. That article is complete BS or the women in question completely ignored all the sexual prevention training they were given and didn't report things properly.
Stop judging the military based on this nonsense. Go actually look up how this stuff works before posting...
|
@kwark
So we have established a situation where a rape has occurred. It has not been, or has "suboptimally been reported." What are we to do in this case? How will anyone even know? Are we supposed to somehow know that this rape has occurred and launch an investigation without being told to? In this case, "suboptimally" means that the one person these women reported it to ignored it. They have other ways of reporting it but just don't. Is it a tragedy that the next guy up doesn't do anything to deal with it? Sure, but there are still other ways to seek justice. Officers should deal with this, but in the case of a bad officer (Who doesn't report the rape to anyone,) what can be done if these women do not seek additional help? Who will even know? It's a shitty situation but someone (who isn't corrupt) has to know about the event in order for justice to be done.
@JingleHell If there indeed were the other options available to these women, my opinion on the matter can be found in my other posts.
Edit: Hell, I'll just repeat it. I said earlier that if these women did not take advantage of their ways to report the rape then we cannot punish anyone of the rape, or even assume that it occurred.
|
United States42934 Posts
On April 19 2012 07:10 ppgButtercup wrote:The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing... A simple google search will provide you with TONS of information on how sexual assault is handled in the military. For example: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/index_pledge.cfmStop making sweeping statements about stuff not getting taken care of or swept under the rug. Unless these women didn't report the incidents properly, these things did get looked into. A non-commissioned officer can't do anything about a sexual assault allegation. They certainly cannot sweep it under the rug. That article is complete BS or the women in question completely ignored all the sexual prevention training they were given and didn't report things properly. Stop judging the military based on this nonsense. Go actually look up how this stuff works before posting...
While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search.
|
United States42934 Posts
On April 19 2012 07:10 ampson wrote:
@kwark
So we have established a situation where a rape has occurred. It has not been, or has "suboptimally been reported." What are we to do in this case? How will anyone even know? Are we supposed to somehow know that this rape has occurred and launch an investigation without being told to? In this case, "suboptimally" means that the one person these women reported it to ignored it. They have other ways of reporting it but just don't. Is it a tragedy that the next guy up doesn't do anything to deal with it? Sure, but there are still other ways to seek justice. Officers should deal with this, but in the case of a bad officer (Who doesn't report the rape to anyone,) what can be done if these women do not seek additional help? Who will even know? It's a shitty situation but someone (who isn't corrupt) has to know about the event in order for justice to be done.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. It's a shitty situation and one of the reasons for the depressingly low conviction rate for rape. I'm not advocating abandoning the assumption of innocence, the part of your post I objected to was the part where you claimed that suboptimal reporting means we should assume no rape took place.
|
this became too much theorycrafting for me..
|
On April 17 2012 22:32 aTnClouD wrote:
USA army again. Everytime I wonder how it is possible for it to be so fucked up.
What the fuck dude, you think this doesn't happen in any other military?
|
On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search.
I could go into greater depth...
We will make one broad assumption for the sake of argument. We will say that all the women were raped against their will.
Now let us start with the proper way to go about things as per the training the military does:
http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/what_to_do.cfm
Read the whole thing.
At no point was she suppose to go to non-commissioned officers to deal with the situation. There is a huge difference between non-commissioned officers (which are just higher-ranked enlisted) and actual officers. And, the only officers that would be notified of this if she reported it properly would be the CO: and he/she probably wouldn't even know any of the details, only that someone was raped so that he/she can conduct sexual assault prevention training etc...
If the victim chose to make it an Unrestricted report then more information would be released, but it would automatically supersede any of her chain of command. Even her CO would not have the authority to dismiss the paperwork. And he wouldn't even be the one any paperwork would be submitted to: that would all go directly to the SARC representative.
This whole story wreaks of bullshit media manipulation.
The fact that none of this even spoke about her contacting the proper sources or talking to an actual Officer (completely different then a NCO) is just ridiculous.
I'm not saying she didn't get raped. I'm saying that she reported it incorrectly and that all the information provided doesn't add up. The military does not work that way.
|
On April 19 2012 10:59 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search. I could go into greater depth... We will make one broad assumption for the sake of argument. We will say that all the women were raped against their will. Now let us start with the proper way to go about things as per the training the military does: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/what_to_do.cfmRead the whole thing. At no point was she suppose to go to non-commissioned officers to deal with the situation. There is a huge difference between non-commissioned officers (which are just higher-ranked enlisted) and actual officers. And, the only officers that would be notified of this if she reported it properly would be the CO: and he/she probably wouldn't even know any of the details, only that someone was raped so that he/she can conduct sexual assault prevention training etc... If the victim chose to make it an Unrestricted report then more information would be released, but it would automatically supersede any of her chain of command. Even her CO would not have the authority to dismiss the paperwork. And he wouldn't even be the one any paperwork would be submitted to: that would all go directly to the SARC representative. This whole story wreaks of bullshit media manipulation. The fact that none of this even spoke about her contacting the proper sources or talking to an actual Officer (completely different then a NCO) is just ridiculous. I'm not saying she didn't get raped. I'm saying that she reported it incorrectly and that all the information provided doesn't add up. The military does not work that way.
Yes... and then realize that whole website on sexual assault is basically presented to everyone in the army every couple months in its entirety. It's 100% mandatory. The army will hunt you down to make sure you've been briefed and rebriefed and rebriefed. So it's not like the information is hidden, when in fact, it's ingrained in our brains. I don't know how the other armed forces work, but I can't imagine it being any different when it comes to stuff like this, as it is policy generally coming straight from DoD.
|
I don't know why they go through their chain of command.
If an assault occurs - report immediately for medical assistance and demand an MP to file the charges and start an investigation.
|
Pretty sure this happens everywhere, especially in the army where there are like 3 girls per 100 guys. You think someone is going to white knight that shit? It's pretty horrible but that's just how the world is -___-
|
On April 19 2012 12:12 pyrogenetix wrote:
Pretty sure this happens everywhere, especially in the army where there are like 3 girls per 100 guys. You think someone is going to white knight that shit? It's pretty horrible but that's just how the world is -___-
It is sad, really, because each and every soldier is supposed to fight for those that cannot fight for themselves. Soldiers ooze comradery, but in some cases the higher ups want problems to just go away quietly, rather than standing up and taking care of the problem good and proper and with military efficiency. So wrong. Every soldier should be looking out for the very few women in the military like they are their little sister, not some conquest to fornicate with.
|
On April 19 2012 10:59 ppgButtercup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search. I could go into greater depth... We will make one broad assumption for the sake of argument. We will say that all the women were raped against their will. Now let us start with the proper way to go about things as per the training the military does: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/what_to_do.cfmRead the whole thing. At no point was she suppose to go to non-commissioned officers to deal with the situation. There is a huge difference between non-commissioned officers (which are just higher-ranked enlisted) and actual officers. And, the only officers that would be notified of this if she reported it properly would be the CO: and he/she probably wouldn't even know any of the details, only that someone was raped so that he/she can conduct sexual assault prevention training etc... If the victim chose to make it an Unrestricted report then more information would be released, but it would automatically supersede any of her chain of command. Even her CO would not have the authority to dismiss the paperwork. And he wouldn't even be the one any paperwork would be submitted to: that would all go directly to the SARC representative. This whole story wreaks of bullshit media manipulation. The fact that none of this even spoke about her contacting the proper sources or talking to an actual Officer (completely different then a NCO) is just ridiculous. I'm not saying she didn't get raped. I'm saying that she reported it incorrectly and that all the information provided doesn't add up. The military does not work that way.
ya you may be right, on the other hand it can be very challenging for a person to bring themselves to go through with the process, especially if they encounter discouragement/some barrier. having been pretty depressed and fucked up myself from time to time, its easier to relate to how someone might feel reluctant, isolated, unstable and otherwise unwilling or unable to push themselves through a continuing, scary and stressful process. anyway i dont know why im even in this thread
|
On April 19 2012 15:27 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 10:59 ppgButtercup wrote:On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search. I could go into greater depth... We will make one broad assumption for the sake of argument. We will say that all the women were raped against their will. Now let us start with the proper way to go about things as per the training the military does: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/what_to_do.cfmRead the whole thing. At no point was she suppose to go to non-commissioned officers to deal with the situation. There is a huge difference between non-commissioned officers (which are just higher-ranked enlisted) and actual officers. And, the only officers that would be notified of this if she reported it properly would be the CO: and he/she probably wouldn't even know any of the details, only that someone was raped so that he/she can conduct sexual assault prevention training etc... If the victim chose to make it an Unrestricted report then more information would be released, but it would automatically supersede any of her chain of command. Even her CO would not have the authority to dismiss the paperwork. And he wouldn't even be the one any paperwork would be submitted to: that would all go directly to the SARC representative. This whole story wreaks of bullshit media manipulation. The fact that none of this even spoke about her contacting the proper sources or talking to an actual Officer (completely different then a NCO) is just ridiculous. I'm not saying she didn't get raped. I'm saying that she reported it incorrectly and that all the information provided doesn't add up. The military does not work that way. ya you may be right, on the other hand it can be very challenging for a person to bring themselves to go through with the process, especially if they encounter discouragement/some barrier. having been pretty depressed and fucked up myself from time to time, its easier to relate to how someone might feel reluctant, isolated, unstable and otherwise unwilling or unable to push themselves through a continuing, scary and stressful process. anyway i dont know why im even in this thread
IMO thats a whole other problem, nothing to do what the article suggested that miltiary just sweep these under a rug.
|
On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:10 ppgButtercup wrote:The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing... A simple google search will provide you with TONS of information on how sexual assault is handled in the military. For example: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/index_pledge.cfmStop making sweeping statements about stuff not getting taken care of or swept under the rug. Unless these women didn't report the incidents properly, these things did get looked into. A non-commissioned officer can't do anything about a sexual assault allegation. They certainly cannot sweep it under the rug. That article is complete BS or the women in question completely ignored all the sexual prevention training they were given and didn't report things properly. Stop judging the military based on this nonsense. Go actually look up how this stuff works before posting... While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search.
I read those posts, and there is also equivalent amount of service men that gave totally different view. With the supporting evidences so far, the article seems sensationalised indeed. You have to know some of these service men only provided their "first hand experience" based on observation. As they are less likely to be raped vicitim, their knowledge on the subject can be sketchy and misleading, while on the other hand detailed procedures like this actually gave more insight in how is it actually handled, after all I doubt these service men had a real "first hand experience".
|
well,
+ Show Spoiler +On April 19 2012 07:15 KwarK wrote:While I don't want to condemn the evidence of a simple google search there have also been several very informative posts by people with direct, first hand experience of the matter stemming from their own service within the military. This topic contains more than a sensationalised article and pages of people being outraged, there is actually a discussion going on which you seem to have missed in your eagerness to dismiss the entire issue with a simple google search. I could go into greater depth... We will make one broad assumption for the sake of argument. We will say that all the women were raped against their will. Now let us start with the proper way to go about things as per the training the military does: http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/what_to_do.cfmRead the whole thing. At no point was she suppose to go to non-commissioned officers to deal with the situation. There is a huge difference between non-commissioned officers (which are just higher-ranked enlisted) and actual officers. And, the only officers that would be notified of this if she reported it properly would be the CO: and he/she probably wouldn't even know any of the details, only that someone was raped so that he/she can conduct sexual assault prevention training etc... If the victim chose to make it an Unrestricted report then more information would be released, but it would automatically supersede any of her chain of command. Even her CO would not have the authority to dismiss the paperwork. And he wouldn't even be the one any paperwork would be submitted to: that would all go directly to the SARC representative. This whole story wreaks of bullshit media manipulation. The fact that none of this even spoke about her contacting the proper sources or talking to an actual Officer (completely different then a NCO) is just ridiculous. I'm not saying she didn't get raped. I'm saying that she reported it incorrectly and that all the information provided doesn't add up. The military does not work that way.
We are trying to talk about things we aren't to sure of.. to be honest I wouldn't just go off what an article says or represents. "If" she did report it to her CO then she did right and it seems the matter wasn't properly handled, which is unacceptable either way. At her right, upon realization she isnt being taken care of for this matter, she can immediately goto higher rank in her COC or IG, they have hotlines, sexual assault NCO/CO. There is a plethora of ways to report this bring attention to the matter. Unfortunally we don't really know the truth, never the less this is a sad story and during my time in, I continued to see some of the most stupidest shit I've ever seen. I don't think the core of the problem lies in the "military" of any country. Its how poeple are raised, what influences them, and there mental capacity for right and wrong imo. sad stuff....
@acerockolla : I hear what you are saying, and maybe a website says that. The culture of US Army is to always report to your next highest, handle problems at the lowest level, blah blah. Some people feel comfortable with that some don't regarding certain matters, which is why there is always the open door policy regarding going to an officer first. NCO's are leaders, and as first line leaders they often deal with the reality of all problems first. Not saying this is a matter her first line NCO would handle by him/herself at all though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
