[andyt]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/invisible-war- ... 41940.html

PARK CITY, Utah, Jan 22 (TheWrap.com) - Rape in the American armed forces is an issue that has quietly been gathering attention over the past decade. But it exploded with the power of suppressed fury at the Sundance festival's Friday afternoon screening of the documentary "The Invisible War," a devastating indictment of the government's inaction on the issue.
Director Kirby Dick brought a powerful weapon to his film: victim after eloquent victim, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, Army and Air Force veterans who were assaulted by fellow officers, supervisors or recruits.
They tell their stories in courageous detail, and it quickly becomes clear that these are not isolated incidents but a pattern reflective of a widespread rot within America's military institution, one that betrays its essential values.
The individuals Dick chose as the principal characters in his film -- there were so many to choose from -- were among the best of their class. They were women (and in some cases, men) who joined the military out of devotion to country and a desire to serve.
One Marine, Ariana Klay, was raped by a fellow officer in the elite Marine Barracks in Washington, D.C.
A Navy officer, Trina McDonald, was drugged and raped repeatedly by fellow officers on a remote base in Alaska.
Coast Guard recruit Kori Cioca was raped and then assaulted -- smacked so hard in the face that it dislocated her jaw, causing her permanent damage and pain for which the Veterans Administration declines to provide medical coverage.
One woman who was assaulted had previously been a military investigator of crimes. Rape investigations were always steered away from the women, she recounted, because they would be "too sympathetic."
Every woman in the film has had her life shattered by this event -- not necessarily because of the rape, but because of the response by the military establishment.
After lodging complaints, the women were met with indifference or targeted retaliation. They have had to leave the military. Some were threatened with violence.
For each, the betrayal by their colleagues and by an institution they trusted deeply has been a wound that, as one military psychologist affirms, cuts to "the soul."
Almost none of the alleged perpetrators were brought up on charges or punished in any way. Some have gone on to rape again, in the military or the private sector.
Kirby, who took on the Catholic Church's indifference to sexual abuse in "Twist of Faith," hopes the film will mobilize change in a way that lobbying and newspaper journalism so far have not.
Two obvious policy changes are necessary: better screening of new recruits to winnow out potential predators, and moving the authority for investigating and prosecuting rape into indendent hands. At the moment, local commanders have nearly all the power in these matters.
The military "has to admit they have a problem," Dick said at the Q&A after the screening, where more than a half-dozen victims stood and received applause.
"They need another mind-set to attack this issue."
The movie, which does not yet have distribution, profoundly shocked the audience. One military recruiter stood and asked for the names of the bases involved so she could steer female enlistees away from known risk areas. A 17-year-old girl stood up in tears and thanked the women for speaking out.
But there was one inspiring surprise after the screening. A couple in the audience approached Cioca and told her they will pay for the surgery to repair her jaw, which causes her pain every day. The cost is around $60,000, and without V.A. medical coverage she cannot afford it.
Cioca was overwhelmed. The couple, an investment banker and his wife, said they preferred to remain anonymous.

[BartSimpson]

Israel resolved their problems with women in the military by segregating many of their units by gender. They also removed women from combat units to improve their combat unit efficiency.

Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays.

[andyt]

You saying it's too hard to find straight guys who won't rape?

[Unsound]

BartSimpson wrote:

Israel resolved their problems with women in the military by segregating many of their units by gender. They also removed women from combat units to improve their combat unit efficiency.

Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays.

I wonder if you would be so flip if your daughter's desire to serve her country had led to her being raped...?

[BartSimpson]

Unsound wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Israel resolved their problems with women in the military by segregating many of their units by gender. They also removed women from combat units to improve their combat unit efficiency.

Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays.

I wonder if you would be so flip if your daughter's desire to serve her country had led to her being raped...?

Knowing what I know of the service there's no way I'd support my daughter joining up. The military...any branch of it...is no place for a woman.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

You saying it's too hard to find straight guys who won't rape?

No, but the fact of the matter remains that when you put young men in close proximity to young women that things will happen regardless if this is in the military or in a college dorm where sexual assaults take place with both regularity and with an astounding amount of effective tolerance from school administrators who want to avoid bad press.

The wise policy is to segregate the women as Israel has done.

But, of course, that's common sense and, ergo, politically incorrect so it won't happen.

Be it in the military or in the colleges.

[andyt]

Unsound wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Israel resolved their problems with women in the military by segregating many of their units by gender. They also removed women from combat units to improve their combat unit efficiency.

Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays.

I wonder if you would be so flip if your daughter's desire to serve her country had led to her being raped...?

I've also read articles that incidence of sexual assault is high in the Canadian forces as well, and that there's also a culture of covering it up. Just as is coming out about the RCMP now.

So maybe Bart has a point about segregating the sexes in the forces. But certainly as the film makes the point that more can be done in screening enlistees better and prosecuting offenders more vigorously.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

I've also read articles that incidence of sexual assault is high in the Canadian forces as well, and that there's also a culture of covering it up. Just as is coming out about the RCMP now.

Very fair of you to say this.

andyt wrote:

So maybe Bart has a point about segregating the sexes in the forces. But certainly as the film makes the point that more can be done in screening enlistees better and prosecuting offenders more vigorously.

The difficult thing with this idea of screening out those who might be so insensitive as to potentially assault someone is that the whole idea of a military is to assault someone.

It's not what anyone wants to hear, I know, but women do not belong in the company of men who we want to be hardened killers on those occasions when we need hardened killers.

[Unsound]

I agree with Bart about the screening. They do a fairly decent job considering the difficulties pointed out by Bart.

It's not the part about segregating that bothers me. If that ended up being the solution I'd be behind it, although I'm not prepared to simply take Bart's word that that's the way forward.

It might be a good idea to segregate, but until that's done the military still has a duty to it's members to expect good behavious and to punish bad behaviour appropriatly. What gets me about this story is the culture within the military that doesn't seem to have a problem with this. "She was asking for it" is unacceptable whether you're blaming the victim because of her choice of clothes, or her choice of career.

"Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays."

This is obviously ridiculous, and probably meant to be, although I'm not always quite certain with Bart I just don't like the apparent blowing off of a serious issue that it seems to imply, but I'm willing to shrug it off as an attempt at humour that just didn't make me laugh today.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BartSimpson]

Unsound wrote:

I agree with Bart about the screening. They do a fairly decent job considering the difficulties pointed out by Bart.

It's not the part about segregating that bothers me. If that ended up being the solution I'd be behind it, although I'm not prepared to simply take Bart's word that that's the way forward.

Seriously, you're just going to have to accept that at least the same amount of sexual assaults will take place in the military as they do in civilian life so long as you mix men and women in close proximity. Sad as it may be, that's the way it is.

Unsound wrote:

It might be a good idea to segregate, but until that's done the military still has a duty to it's members to expect good behavious and to punish bad behaviour appropriatly. What gets me about this story is the culture within the military that doesn't seem to have a problem with this. "She was asking for it" is unacceptable whether you're blaming the victim because of her choice of clothes, or her choice of career.

Of course the 'she was asking for it' thing is absurd in the military any more than it is at a frat party where the frat brothers molest drunken freshmen girls.

Unsound wrote:

"Of course, one solution to the problem is to prohibit heterosexual males from serving in the military. Then we'll see how effective the service will be when it is composed of women and gays."

This is obviously ridiculous, and probably meant to be, although I'm not always quite certain with Bart I just don't like the apparent blowing off of a serious issue that it seems to imply, but I'm willing to shrug it off as an attempt at humour that just didn't make me laugh today.

Who's joking? I'm not.

If the assertion is to be made that gays and women are the equals of heterosexual men in combat then logically there should be no difference between a traditional combat unit and a combat unit composed wholly of women or of gays.

I've long promoted the idea of all-woman fire brigades to prove the point that five 60Kg women are every bit the equals of five 120Kg men in a physically demanding situation.

Seriously, if the lives of your family are on the line you would not want to discriminate against the five-woman fire brigade by asking for five big men to come knock down your door and save your lives, right?

[Dragon-Dancer]

BartSimpson wrote:

The difficult thing with this idea of screening out those who might be so insensitive as to potentially assault someone is that the whole idea of a military is to assault someone.

Yes... but generally the idea is to assault their designated enemy not each other. A soldier who can't distinguish friend from foe isn't exactly much help either. I don't think segregation would be of much help in that regard, it sounds more like it's a problem with military culture in general if a cover up is the norm. In that case the culture is the one that needs to change.

[Yogi]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

You saying it's too hard to find straight guys who won't rape?

No, but the fact of the matter remains that when you put young men in close proximity to young women that things will happen regardless if this is in the military or in a college dorm where sexual assaults take place with both regularity and with an astounding amount of effective tolerance from school administrators who want to avoid bad press.

The wise policy is to segregate the women as Israel has done.
But, of course, that's common sense and, ergo, politically incorrect so it won't happen.

Be it in the military or in the colleges.

But wouldn't that be 'taking away choice'? Regardless of how sensible such a move might be!

[BartSimpson]

Dragon-Dancer wrote:

Yes... but generally the idea is to assault their designated enemy not each other. A soldier who can't distinguish friend from foe isn't exactly much help either. I don't think segregation would be of much help in that regard, it sounds more like it's a problem with military culture in general if a cover up is the norm. In that case the culture is the one that needs to change.

The thing is that military culture has already changed.

Women were added to the mix and were supposed to just fit in due to liberal fantasies about gender equality. What tweaks me the most is that the people who come up with these ideas for the military tend to loudly espouse their hatred for the military.

Bill Clinton, for instance, comes to mind.

Now gays are being added to the mix and the liberal fantasy is that everything will work out just dandy.

Sensitivity classes for various politically correct topics have been ongoing or the past twenty years and the PC nonsense that goes on in civilian life now pervades military life, as well. I've seen people demoted for whistling at a woman (and this is not uncommon nor is it the most drastic penalty for impolitic behavior).

So it seems to me that the military culture is being forced to change and the question that isn't being asked of all of these social experiments is that are they being done to improve military effectiveness or are they being done to satisfy the sensitivities of people who mostly hate the military anyway?

And what will be the end result?

Well, we already saw some fallout in the 2003 Iraq invasion when a number of female soldiers were captured and the enemy's men did what they did. Ditto with the British Navy girl, Faye Turney, who was captured off of Iran. Yes, she was assaulted by the Iranians.

This is all an absurd social engineering experiment that is going to come back one day and bite us in the collective butt.

To paraphrase Admiral Bull Halsey, "If it helps kill the enemy, do it. If it doesn't help to kill the enemy then don't do it."

How clogging up the military justice system with (justifiable) sexual assault charges helps the military do its mission utterly escapes me.

To get back to your comment on how the culture needs to change then I stand by my proposal that heterosexual men be barred from service since they're the obvious problem here.

Have a female and gay military and then you won't have to deal with men who lack cultural sensitivities.

[Unsound]

I suspect that gay males would rape in about the same numbers as we're seeing the straight men do, as long as the cover-up culture continues.

All the talk of liberal politically correct fantasies and such, while interesting, are kind of beside the point here. It's the cover-ups and the lack of action by the military establishment that is the shame here.

If you want to talk about the place of women and gays in the military that's a whole new subject. Imo.

[Dragon-Dancer]

BartSimpson wrote:

The thing is that military culture has already changed.

Women were added to the mix and were supposed to just fit in due to liberal fantasies about gender equality. What tweaks me the most is that the people who come up with these ideas for the military tend to loudly espouse their hatred for the military.

Obviously it hasn't changed enough to satisfy the views of western society at large if this is actually happening. I don't see why you bring up the subject of people hating the military all of a sudden. This is an entity that the US uses to stand up for the values it purports to represent and even to promote them across the world. If that entity itself is somehow not representative of those values what does that actually tell us about true US values? A just and equal society is an ideal, not a fantasy and if we truly believe in it then change will be the name of the game until we can strike the proper balance.

BartSimpson wrote:

Sensitivity classes for various politically correct topics have been ongoing or the past twenty years and the PC nonsense that goes on in civilian life now pervades military life, as well. I've seen people demoted for whistling at a woman (and this is not uncommon nor is it the most drastic penalty for impolitic behavior).

So it seems to me that the military culture is being forced to change and the question that isn't being asked of all of these social experiments is that are they being done to improve military effectiveness or are they being done to satisfy the sensitivities of people who mostly hate the military anyway?

I don't see the problem with this at all. In fact I would expect a higher level of decorum and discipline from those in the military than civilians so stricter punishments don't surprise me at all nor do they bother me.

My question here is how exactly could any of that really /hurt/ military effectiveness. It enforces stricter discipline and helps to put forth a better image of the military overall. It has nothing to do with hate. Think of it the way a business would think of it. Enforcing accepted professional standards can help your business far more than hurt it. The same goes for projecting respect and policy abroad. Not all military objectives involve combat after all. I believe the US military is fond of the term "Winning the Hearts and Minds...".

BartSimpson wrote:

Well, we already saw some fallout in the 2003 Iraq invasion when a number of female soldiers were captured and the enemy's men did what they did. Ditto with the British Navy girl, Faye Turney, who was captured off of Iran. Yes, she was assaulted by the Iranians.

Men are no more exempt from this than woman, this is a non-point.

BartSimpson wrote:

This is all an absurd social engineering experiment that is going to come back one day and bite us in the collective butt.

To paraphrase Admiral Bull Halsey, "If it helps kill the enemy, do it. If it doesn't help to kill the enemy then don't do it."

How clogging up the military justice system with (justifiable) sexual assault charges helps the military do its mission utterly escapes me.

Is it any worse than clogging up the civilian one? It's still against US law regardless of where you serve and as an extension of the US government which makes those laws.

BartSimpson wrote:

To get back to your comment on how the culture needs to change then I stand by my proposal that heterosexual men be barred from service since they're the obvious problem here.

Have a female and gay military and then you won't have to deal with men who lack cultural sensitivities.

Enforce one culture and set of rules without division for all and you'll have a more united and diverse military who actually represent the views of the majority of it's citizens.