The title of this post is quite literally based on a 2006 article in the Journal of South African Studies. This article exposed post-apartheid sexual assault against women in South Africa. I thought of it when I was listening to my favorite morning radio show The Takeaway. One of this week’s “takeaways” was the prevalence and persistence of sexual assault against women in the military. As I was listening, the old, yet familiar tropes of patriarchy kept playing again and again.
Not only are they commanded [to go to the bathroom with a buddy at night], the commanders know. They know that these women are being raped. And by the way, once you’re identified as someone [that has] been raped, word gets around and then you’re raped more often…We need to prosecute these people and put them behind bars.
Apparently, 30% of women serving in the military have “reported” sexual assault. However, added to that percentage is the failure to report rate, as it has become an a priori fact that the crime of rape is the most under-reported crime in America. And the military is simply a microcosm of American society. Therefore, sexual assault in the military, and the military's ambivalence to it, shouldn't surprise me or any other American citizen, since a woman is raped every six minutes in the U.S., and a woman is battered every fifteen seconds. Just as female soldiers are required to travel in pairs to go to the bathroom, so are civilian women in America encouraged to travel in pairs or groups at night for fear of dangerous “predators”; those predators are always male, and the implication is that they are sexual predators. There is an acceptance in our society that men are sexually violent and are bound to rape women. As such, it is the responsibility of women to protect themselves against the inevitable. Consequently, if a woman is raped, she was careless and failed to protect herself.
Furthermore, patriarchal societies condone, and at times, encourage violence against women as a means of controlling and subordinating them. I argue that men are of the opinion that the presence of women in combat is a violation of a patriarchal boundary. Rape and other forms of sexual assault are a means of socially controlling and disciplining women who have transgressed that boundary.
Sadly, whenever human rights organizations confront the military with these harsh realities, military officials divert attention away from the sexual assault itself and focus on the overall question of whether or not women should serve in combat at all. By doing so, aren't they really affirming that men are using sexual violence against women as a means of social control? And doesn't American culture reinforce or even engender such attitudes?
It took me this long to enter a comment on this post because I wasn't sure where to start and, quite honestly, I'm still not sure where to start on rebuttals, but I most definitely know where to start on points of consent. I am a man that considers my female "counterpart" to be not equal to, but spiritually superior to myself. Therefore to disrespect, dehumanize, and/or abuse them is to disrespect dehumanize and abuse the most high (God). Any man that does such a thing, in my humble opinion should suffer the wrath for all eternity. Now..... with that being said, I will attempt to deal with the secular aspect of this topic.
ReplyDeleteI must first admit that I am an ex-soldier and, in many ways, I am still a soldier, so I may have taken some of your comments a little personally. The fact that women are required to go to the restroom in pairs suggests that someone has recognized the inherent threat to said women in the military. You can argue that it doesn't, but let's be completely open- minded about this; it does. I just had to get that out of the way.
While I empathize for the women in the military that are being mistreated, I feel compelled to address the issue that jumped out at me the most, and that is the idea that men who are against women in combat are somehow patriarchal beasts. I argue that some of us I ( and I would venture to say quite a surprising percentage) are simply appalled that anyone would actually want the RIGHT to fight in combat. As a member of a group of people who have been discriminated against since the very conception of this nation, I can relate to the right to be treated equally under the law. I am simply saying that perhaps women’s lib went a bit overboard with the whole “I can do whatever a man can do” attitude. Don’t get me wrong, perhaps you can, but why would you want to? What must be remembered is that these places that our queens wish to go prove their equal abilities are not interested in allowing debate on the equality of women. They know the general consensus of American males in regards to our women and they will use this knowledge to their fullest advantage. Rape is the first thing on their agenda. And the second, third, fourth, and so on. I am sorry to sound so blunt, but how can you argue on one hand that America’s patriarchal society is egregious in it’s treatment of women , and in the same breath demand to fight in combat against a people that will show you the same disregard for the preciousness that is you.
I am against women fighting in combat because I am against putting our women in any more of a discriminate, vile, and ungodly situation than they undoubtedly are in every day, fighting on the battlefield that is Capitalism in the United States of America.
God bless our Women. Young and old!
Of course, military superiors' recommendation that women travel in pairs validates the apparent threat to women by their fellow male predatory soldiers. The problem here is that the threat exists in the first place. Women in combat must be vigilant against the enemy they are fighting as well as the enemy in the tent or sleeping bag beside them. I suppose, then, one cannot expect warriors, who, often times, degenerate into barbarity, to be able to maintain self-control and a sense of humanity when thrown in the ranks with women, those deemed vulnerable and physically weaker. And let's face it, those who become the easy targets of male rage and exploitation.
ReplyDeleteI also understand the irony you present. On the one hand, there are Americans who don't believe that women should fight in combat because they are vulnerable and considered the "weaker sex". And on the other hand, women who seek equal treatment in the military, which means combat duty, are apparently placing themselves in harms way by seeking admission into hostile male territory, in which the hostiles wish only to punish and abuse women if and when the opportunity presents itself.
So, what you're really saying is that, in the case of women in combat, one of the hazards of war is rape, whether it be at the hands of the "enemy" without or within.
I believe that you still fail to understand what I am saying. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that I have failed to make my point clear. What I am saying is this; a woman in the military is a no-brainer. To that I say absolutely yes. However, a woman in combat, I feel, is an ill thought out demand. I can concede that a woman CAN do whatever a man can do. What I cannot rationalize is WHY a woman would want to do everything a man does. A few points of interest: 1) A person can join the military without the expressed intent of fighting in combat. 2) To demand to fight in combat is to demand to join one of a certain list of combat centered specialties. Field artillery, infantry, Special Forces, sniper, etc. 3) A good percentage of males that are assigned to these units are joining the army because they were sentenced to do so by a judge (join the Army or go to jail. It’s real). 4) Yet another good percentage of males volunteering to serve in these fields of specialty are violent by nature at best. Some dream of going to war so they can “kill some communist pigs”. Some simply figure it is a good way to get to kill someone legally. These are not assumptions that I am making, these are things that I know. As a former member of the military, I have known at least one example in each of the fore mentioned categories. Not to mention those that are alcoholics and/or racists.
ReplyDeleteCombat will take even the sanest person to his mental edge. We hear of stories in which a person in a combat situation has “snapped” and turned his weapon on his fellow soldiers and opened fire. Usually, these types of violations are not committed by the “combat minded” soldier. These offenses are committed by the “normal” person who, in addition to dealing with the stresses of combat, just received that dreaded letter from a loved one at home announcing that they want a divorce. Worse yet, a video of that loved one making love to someone else (another first hand true situation). Mental faculties are greatly compromised in combat.
All of these factors known, my question is simply this; is a woman justified in expecting every man in combat to rise above the circumstances, or is she naïve to expect this? I am not saying a woman CAN’T do it, I am saying why in the world would she want to? I can’t see myself saying “I demand the right to live in an insane asylum” and then cry foul when my roommate is insane.
Kevin-
ReplyDeleteThis is enlightening. I believe that most Americans, female and male alike, are unaware of the nature of combat. I am certain that the information you have shared here about the "type" of person who fights in combat divisions of the military is privileged information. Either I am one of the naive group, or everyone is naive and oblivious to this whole combat culture.
Nevertheless, you make some excellent points, and you shed light on a little known truth that I believe deserves much further discussion and exploration at a national level.