« Coffee | Main | Catch 22 »

March 21, 2009

In Harm's Way

“The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.”

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.

- Hamlet

Whenever I hear the phrase, "reality based community" I have to stifle the urge to laugh hysterically because if there's one thing conservatives can't understand about progressives, it's their dogged insistence on elevating hope over experience. A perfect case in point is the contentious issue of women in the military.

To a progressive, it's a matter of social justice: women ought to have an equal opportunity to serve their country. No one should be denied the chance to defend our way of life simply on account of their sex. These are fine sounding principles in theory.

But to most conservatives there are other considerations to be taken into account. Are women aggressive and tough enough to withstand combat? Will they make good fighters? Who will take care of the kids, and how do women's reproductive choices affect unit readiness? A question that is rarely asked, however, is "Will women who serve in the armed forces be safe from their comrades in arms?

Tia Christopher, a 27-year-old woman who lives in California and works with victims of sexual assault in the military, told me about the time that she was raped when she was in the Navy. She was attacked by another sailor who had come into her room in the barracks.

“He was very rough,” she said. “The girls next door heard my head hitting the wall, and he made quite a mess. When he left, he told me that he’d pray for me and that he still thought I was pretty.”

Ms. Christopher left the Navy. As she put it: “My military career ended. My assailant’s didn’t.”

Rape and other forms of sexual assault against women is the great shame of the U.S. armed forces, and there is no evidence that this ghastly problem, kept out of sight as much as possible, is diminishing.

New data released by the Pentagon showed an almost 9 percent increase in the number of sexual assaults reported in the last fiscal year — 2,923 — and a 25 percent increase in such assaults reported by women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Try to imagine how bizarre it is that women in American uniforms who are enduring all the stresses related to serving in a combat zone have to also worry about defending themselves against rapists wearing the same uniform and lining up in formation right beside them.

The truly chilling fact is that, as the Pentagon readily admits, the overwhelming majority of rapes that occur in the military go unreported, perhaps as many as 80 percent. And most of the men accused of attacking women receive little or no punishment. The military’s record of prosecuting rapists is not just lousy, it’s atrocious.

It is no longer permissible to discuss the physical and mental differences between men and women honestly: as poor Lawrence Summers learned to his dismay, though women are by no means overly emotional, being confronted with unpleasant ideas can send gender feminists into fits of the vapors. Accomodating such emotional blackmail is a shame, because the practice leads to bad public policy decisions predicated on idealistic notions of a perfect world rather than the decidedly flawed one we live in. Even setting aside for a moment the question of false rape reports, advocates of women in the military seem to want it both ways:

Rape is a serious crime. But modern military women would seem to be caught in a Catch-22, wouldn't they?

Here they are, volunteers in a line of work full of testosterone charged warriors whose entire raison d'etre is fighting. Advocates for women in the armed services charge that spiteful, authoritarian males are hell bent on preventing intelligent, fully equal females from moving into the combat arms where (presumably) they can compete with men on equal terms with no detriment to unit performance.

Comes now Rep. Jane Harmon to plead their case eloquently with the searing logic unique to our gender:

These strong, tough, intelligent, fully equal combat flowers need the immediate protection of the federal government because 41% of them have been the victims of sexual assault and 29% of them have been raped by their fellow servicemen. The Editorial Staff does not know about you, but we are not hearing a compelling argument for fuller integration of women into the armed forces.

One of the more unpleasant aspects of being female is that women, by virtue of our smaller size and comparatively weaker physical strength, are always at risk for rape.

Always.

It's not something we can get away from. It's not that the risk is all that high, nor are all men animalistic brutes. But the fact is, it only takes one time when a woman is in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong man to make her worst nightmare a depressing and agonizing reality. Women who elide right past this inconvenient truth, like men who think they possess some mystical right to consequence-free promiscuous, unprotected sex with women they barely know, are living in a fantasy world.

A little over a year ago, I read about a young female soldier who was savagely raped and murdered in Iraq. At some point, hopefully after she was dead, her body was doused with a flammable substance and ignited. It wasn't U.S. soldiers who were suspected in her rape and murder, but American contractors. But I'm not sure that matters.

The story has haunted me ever since. Many brave women have volunteered to serve this nation, often placing themselves in harm's way from a laudible desire to serve and protect; to make a difference. I can empathize with that desire, and I admire it.

But moronic statements like illustrate the unrealistic mind set of so many Americans these days. Because we live in a relatively civilized society, we arrogantly think we've waived evil away; that rules meant to discourage and punish can magically change human nature:

The military is one of the most highly controlled environments imaginable. When there are rules that the Pentagon absolutely wants followed, they are rigidly enforced by the chain of command. Violations are not tolerated. The military could bring about a radical reduction in the number of rapes and other forms of sexual assault if it wanted to, and it could radically improve the overall treatment of women in the armed forces.

There is no real desire in the military to modify this aspect of its culture. It is an ultra-macho environment in which the overwhelming tendency has been to see all women — civilian and military, young and old, American and foreign — solely as sexual objects.

This is not only uninformed, but completely false. The military goes to great lengths to counter basic human urges that pervade our society because they're ingrained in our DNA. And though I wouldn't wish rape on my worst enemy, it is very much a crime of opportunity.

The foolish notion that we can bunk men and women together in close quarters in a war zone without completely predictable repercussions ought to be shocking.

It is, instead, a policy mandated on the military from without. And unrealistic idealists like Bob Herbert are partially to blame for the entirely predictable result, because they encourage young women to let down their guards and ignore reality. When it comes to sex, inconvenient truths abound and both progressives and liberals frequently wish away what they prefer not to face: human nature is complex and actions have consequences.

Perhaps it's time for us to face them honestly.


Posted by Cassandra at March 21, 2009 09:39 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2791

Comments

Women aren't always "vicitms of circumstance" when it comes to military service and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, although it is a reality and there are consequences when placing men and women together in tight quarters.

My time in the service showed me an equally predatory side to women as well. I graduated bootcamp just as 'Tailhook' and Operation Desert Storm were being wrapped up. I was in an 'I' company—integrated company where women would take as much advantage of being sexually promiscuous as some of the men. At every duty station we had to participate in mandatory sexual harrassment breifings (as if that made a difference) and I have to say that I personally knew of two instances where a couple of men (different cases, different times), were targeted by a jilted woman or just a self-serving woman who yelled "harassment" and these men ended up with the short end of the stick. Their careers were trashed because of the indelible mark of accusation and it was wrong.

I was also privy to one instance where the harrassment by a higher ranking man was very real and pervasive and justice ended up being served after roughly 8 women came forward to tell of their run-ins with the same man who used his position to bully and corner lower ranking females.

The military took all instances of accusation very seriously. You could not even joke about it. If someone so much as mentioned or hinteed at an issue it was clamped down on right quick and fast.

There are women who are victims of their own bad judgment, bad placement or misplaced sense of impenetrability. There are women who 'whore out' when they join and care less of their reputation or consequence. Many too young to see the damage of what they are doing to themselves. Then again there are some men who join who lack character and can be real pigs but often times only if the opportunity presents itself.

Women have to carry themselves with decorum every moment. I didn't experience so much the 'good ol boy' system so much as it was who liked you and who you didn't piss off no matter what the rank or sex of the individual. The job was 80% that and 20% skill and intelligence. BUt if you are looking to be a victim there were opportunities to fulfill that post too.

Posted by: Red at March 21, 2009 06:31 PM

There are women who are victims of their own bad judgment, bad placement or misplaced sense of impenetrability. There are women who 'whore out' when they join and care less of their reputation or consequence. Many too young to see the damage of what they are doing to themselves. Then again there are some men who join who lack character and can be real pigs but often times only if the opportunity presents itself.

I think it is this that made me so angry over the Bob Herbert op-ed. Anyone who's around the military knows how almost obsessed they are about preventing this sort of thing.

And everyone knows examples just like the ones you've cited.

And then there are people like Bob Herbert who insist that somehow, magically, against thousands of years of human nature, both men and women are suddenly begin behaving against type. Honestly, I do not know where in the heck they are coming from?

What I cannot get past is the constant assertions that women are equal to men in every way.

If that is so, why are we making such a big deal about this? If women are (in the aggregate) just as capable of protecting themselves - at fighting - as men, would we even have an 'epidemic of rape'? If that many people (remember, there are another 80% out there who remain silent!) are really being raped, wouldn't women be more afraid? Wouldn't at least some of them at least begin to carry weapons, and wouldn't we see more cases when women fought off and attacker, perhaps wounding or even killing him?

I think the unspoken assumptions - the things we are too "polite" or too squeamish to say - play havoc with the truth. As I said, I wouldn't wish a real rape on my worst enemy.

But I also wonder about the competing narratives here (women are victims, women are fully equal, the military is covering things up but women aren't coming forward 80% of the time, men and women can live together in close quarters with no impact on discipline or good order but men are ravening beasts and women are shrinking violets who won't even come forward when they're attacked?) and I'm reminded of the old saying: you can't have it both ways.

Unless, of course, you're Bob Herbert.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 21, 2009 07:45 PM

Women aren't always "vicitms of circumstance" when it comes to military service and being in the wrong place at the wrong time

I completely agree.

My intent (and don't you dare try to redefine it!!!! :) with that example was to attempt to outline a hypothetical risk of rape (i.e., situations where a woman, either through an excess of trust or through some other circumstance beyond her control - and that can happen - found herself in a situation that led to a rape).

There is always a risk, for both men and women, of becoming the victim of a violent crime.

And no one signs on for that, certainly. What (to me at least) is difficult about rape is that it's *not* always as straightforward as someone being beaten up. Human sexuality (both male and female)is full of perverse desires and I think it's this that often causes rape to be a more ambiguous crime where the evidence comes down to 'he said, she said'. If there's physical trauma, it becomes more straightforward b/c you have evidence.

What struck me about the "You don't want to ruin this man's career, do you?" remark Herbert cited is that I can easily see that remark being made from two completely different perspectives: one meant to intimidate the reporter and one made to make sure the reporter has thought through the gravity of the charge?

I think that anyone who actually rapes a woman belongs in jail - no ifs, ands, or buts.

But I also think women who voluntarily choose a career like the military need to stand up for themselves and each other by coming forward if a crime is committed against them or someone they know, if only to stop the predator from going after someone else. I won't deny that takes courage, but then isn't that the argument being made for why women are fully capable of filling these shoes in the first place?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 21, 2009 08:11 PM

Before she entered nursing school, my wife volunteered as a "Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention Councelor". When called she would show up at the hospital or police station to help explain the procedures, etc. and essentially hand hold the victim. The "Crisis Center" tried to get me to volunteer too, but I figured that the LAST thing a woman who has been raped wanted to see was some strange man trying to explain what other strangers would be doing to her, no matter how sympathetic the man.

My wife, before I met her, had also managed to fight off an attempted rapist when she was in the Army. She also experienced sexual harassment in the form of "You'll never get promoted unless you have sex with me" type.

Throughout my career I had the pleasure of working with many extremely competent, tough, capable female soldiers, and I've also seen examples of the type that will use sex or claims of harassment to get what they want. And I know that sometimes it is hard to tell which are the false ones and which aren't.

I'm not sure if you'll agree, but I've thought that the punishment for provable, malicious false claims should be the same as the punishment for the claimed offense. I don't know if it is practical, but it might go a long way in reducing the number of false claims, whether it be harassment or rape.

"I think that anyone who actually rapes a woman belongs in jail - no ifs, ands, or buts."

I agree on the principal here, but my immediate reaction to a confirmed rapist is to mete out much more immediate punishment of a much more primitive nature. It may not be legal, but I am convinced that if they let me. I could make a rapist "understand" the "error of his ways" very handily. Not to mention rendering him forever incapable of repeating the offense.

Sorry to ramble, but this subject triggers my protective side, along with some anger at anyone who would commit any thing so vile and dishonorable while serving in uniform. I include both rapist, and those who would falsely accuse in that statement.

Posted by: Charodey at March 21, 2009 11:51 PM

I should clarify that I consider rape "vile and dishonorable" whether the rapist is a service member or not. It is just that I find it especially so for a service member as I see it as a violation and betrayal of the entire purpose of our military.

Posted by: Charodey at March 21, 2009 11:57 PM

Sorry to ramble, but this subject triggers my protective side, along with some anger at anyone who would commit any thing so vile and dishonorable while serving in uniform. I include both rapist, and those who would falsely accuse in that statement.

Amen on that.

Amen.

I probably sound far less sympathetic than I am. I think that's why people are so squeamish about this sort of thing.

What bothers me about a lot of bad policy is that it ignores the fact that a very small number of malefactors can pretty quickly ruin things for the vast majority who haven't done anything wrong.

I think that's true on both sides. Predatory men tar the majority of decent ones. And dishonest and manipulative women make it far harder for the ones who have really suffered to obtain justice.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 22, 2009 12:13 AM

I haven't read Bob Herbert's assessment but from what you are saying about it, the first words that leaps to mind is " fantasy-land " a few other words would be "get real" and "give me a break already".
Men and women are not "equal" (I'm all about the ditto marks tonight). We are different and that is a good thing. We each have our strengths and weaknesses. I'm glad women can be firefighters but I seriously doubt one could carry me down a flight of stairs should the need arise. I'm glad women can protect themselves yet they lack the physical build to truly compete with their male counterparts. It's purely physical. Not every women is 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon" when it comes to self-defense so yeah, that kung-fu masters shit only happens in the vigilante movies. That's why they make pepper spray and conceal and carry permits. But the best weapon of all? Our brains.

Posted by: Red at March 22, 2009 12:51 AM

I would certainly never defend a rapist...but any woman who has a "change of heart" after the fact then cries rape, well, she should be tried for attempted murder. At least in those cases where that could be the penalty if her "assailant" is convicted. The problem with that, of course, is the difficulty of proving it...

Posted by: camojack at March 22, 2009 01:26 AM

I remember being taught that women in the military were to be respected as if they were your sister or Mom just like your fellow servicemen were your brothers. We were all an extended family and were to be treated as such.

With that in mind, it was an imperative that we respected each other because at some point in time our lives might depend on their competence and sense of brotherhood/sisterhood.

In short, it doesn't matter who is in the foxhole, etc., with you as long as they can shoot straight and stay awake during their watch. To a professional military person, there is nothing else. Violations of the no fraternization rule should be dealt with immediately and without pity. The morale and fighting ability of the unit is compromised if behavior anti-thetical to the cohesiveness of the group is not encouraged and enforced.

Posted by: vet66 at March 22, 2009 10:19 AM

What troubles me about this is the idea that women don't belong in the service because the men in the service are too inclined to rape them if they live in close quarters. Feminism certainly raises difficult issues, and fantasy-thinking even more, but men who would rape women if they had the opportunity and were tempted need to be weeded out of the service -- indeed, out of human society altogether. At least their fellow service members are more likely to be in a position to fight back and expose them. I would hope that women in the service would go armed and project the convincing message that an attempted rapist runs a very serious risk of being maimed or killed. And her brothers and sisters should be backing her up.

Posted by: Texan99 at March 22, 2009 11:46 AM

vet66,
I think you had a different type of integration because when the Army became co-ed, that was more or less the training regarding women in the service as they transitioned from WAC to the Army.

It has gotten ugly out there, because when I think of a tough woman, I am thinking along the lines of Margaret Thatcher; someone who will not be bullied and who will not back down from what is right.

I see it now as more of a coarsening of both men and women.

Maybe I am wrong here, but while I think women can serve in the military, I tend to think of them in support positions rather than combat.
It would be interesting to see if the rapes occur more in combat arms units versus support units.

Just curious.

Posted by: Cricket at March 22, 2009 11:47 AM

Cricket;

Assymetrical warfare has blurred the lines of the kinetic battlefield. Supply routes cannot be protected all the time and non-combatant soldiers driving supply convoys "behind friendly lines" are fair game in the battle for public opinion.

Welcome to the world of 9/11 where soft targets are the new battlefield. By the way, the small number of rapes and sexual assaults in the military is statistically (2374 allegations in 2005 worldwide) the same as society at large.

True the military, like society, was slow to stop hiding, much less defining, sex crimes against women. Arguably, women are safer in the military than civilian society. I think the episode in the movie M.A.S.H. where "Hot Lips" was exposed in the shower tent was an anti-war message typical of Hollywood. It also fanned the flames of the left-wing media who prefer their 'rapists' to carry M-16's with grenade launchers. For them, bigger is always better.

Singling the military for special scrutiny is deception. Where was the outrage from the feminists when Clinton was accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick, molested the intern Lewinski, and told Paula Jones to "kiss it?" They allowed Palin to be savaged over baseless claims about infidelity and have long outlived their credibility on matters sexual and military.

The crime is serious and is diminished by accusations from the liberal left whose motives are proven deceit.

Posted by: vet66 at March 22, 2009 12:49 PM

I have but two comments, observations, or blatherings depending upon your point of view.

"I remember being taught that women in the military were to be respected as if they were your sister or Mom just like your fellow servicemen were your brothers."
Ah, but vet, I'll bet you were taught the same things sans the military qualifier, just as I was, when you were a child. Offer male, female, young and old respect and accord them their dignity unless and until they prove that they do not warrant such respect and treatment.
"I see it now as more of a coarsening of both men and women."
I agree with that Cricket. And I think it starts well before a person is of the age to join the military.

Ok, three, three comments...

"Singling the military for special scrutiny is deception. Where was the outrage from the feminists when Clinton was accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick, molested the intern Lewinski, and told Paula Jones to "kiss it?" They allowed Palin to be savaged over baseless claims about infidelity and have long outlived their credibility on matters sexual and military."
Where indeed? Which ties into the coarsening of our society.

Make that four comments... Regarding punishment for rapists and those who would bear false witness, well, I think I've admitted to being an old testament sorta guy, so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: bthun at March 22, 2009 01:00 PM

Silly me. I thought certain values pertaining to life were heir-apparent or at least self-evident. Pity they are not to the GODless few!

I believe the real story to be the "blanket parties" visited upon those in our professional community who violate the code. That would explain the plea deal for the star of said blanket party to leave the military with an honorable discharge and internal injuries, figuratively speaking of course.

Not that such a situation would ever happen...!

Posted by: vet66 at March 22, 2009 02:23 PM

Oh yeah! Dang it, make that five comments...

I think it was the Blog Princess who pointed out, either in this thread or another, that any male and/or female who would engage in sex with a stranger, here I must paraphrase since Walkin' Boss is standing behind me, patting her foot and expecting me to do some chores today, is an idiot deserving of The Seven Plagues.

Posted by: bthun at March 22, 2009 02:41 PM

Maybe if we changed the *Sexual Assault Facilitator* back to a *Counselor*.....

Posted by: Snark Le'Puss at March 23, 2009 11:49 AM

...Walkin' Boss is standing behind me, patting her foot...

Ummmmmmmm...

Posted by: BillT at March 23, 2009 02:19 PM

"...Walkin' Boss is standing behind me, patting her foot...

Ummmmmmmm..."

Took a while to figure what she was doing back there. As usual, a communications issue.

Of course once the primitive brain registered the threat, I got right on my assigned tasks after posting that previous comment. And just to be on the safe side, I played this old tune in honor of her Walkin' Bossness. Lest I wind up back in the box.

Welp, been shakin' the bush long enough, so it's back at it.

Posted by: bthun at March 23, 2009 03:42 PM

if you cant stop a single attacker who is intent on raping you, how will you stand up to a single well trained attacker int he field who is intent on doing that and more to you?

the whole point of the "progressive" changes is to make our military incapable of being effective enough to stand up to another military.

in fact, anyone want to list out ALL the modern changes and see how they meet this? .

feminism: makes men the enemy, pushes them out of family, removes their purpose... what would they fight for? how many soldiers cant leave to defend their own selves when their at home wife decided to take it all from them when deployed? multiple standards based on gender (no woman has ever completed the army obstical course. all men have to or get discharged).

heck anyone want to read about the greenies going to the pole to measure global warming? well they took a woman, and when they got resupplied with food, she couldnt move her share. that is, she cant move as much material, so the whole team carries less!!!

which platoon would you rather be in. 10 men each with full packs and extra ammo, or 5 men over loaded with 5 women underloaded?

then tehre is waht the isrealis discovered..

the sniper would injur the woman, and then you cant take out the whole team as they will not leave her...

and then the problem of pregancy and leave. 1/3 of a shipts compliment (a ship, not a landing vessel) ended up pregnant!!!

of course the men are getting gulf war syndrome, and the women are getting to ahve children whose genetics may be screwed and will enter the countries population.

PURPOSE: To enumerate Gulf-War (GW) exposed conceptions and to compare reproductive outcomes of GW-exposed pregnancies with postwar conceptions of women Gulf War veterans (GWV) and women nondeployed veterans (NDV). METHODS: Deployment data and inpatient records from 153 military hospitals identified servicewomen who were pregnant between August 1990 and May 1992 and belonged to military units that were deployed to the Gulf War. Postal surveys were used in 1997 and 1998 to elicit reproductive history; responses were validated against military hospitalization records. Reproductive outcomes of GW-exposed pregnancies were compared with postwar conceptions of women GWVs and NDVs. RESULTS: 3285 women had a pregnancy-related admission; of these, 1558 completed the questionnaire. Self-reported reproductive outcomes and dates, gestational data, and individual deployment dates identified 415 Gulf War-exposed pregnancies, 298 GWV postwar conceptions, and 427 NDV conceptions. Compared with NDV conceptions, adverse reproductive outcomes were similar among GW-exposed pregnancies. However, spontaneous abortions [NDV: 9.1%, GWV postwar: 22.8%, adjusted odds ratio (OR)=2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9, 4.6] and ectopic pregnancies (NDV: 1.4%, GWV postwar: 10.7%, adjusted OR=7.70, 95% CI, 3.0, 20) were elevated for GWV postwar conceptions. CONCLUSION: GW-exposed conceptions and nondeployed conceptions had similar outcomes. However, GWV postwar conceptions were at increased risk for ectopic pregnancies and spontaneous abortions.

you have to love a science report that says there were no differences (which will be quoted) except for these differences (Which will be ignored).

of course since our individual genomces are not important and not sacred, poisoning a soldiers genome is a nothing. which is what has to happen BEFORE you even are willing to let women serve.

anyone care to see the studies of how much higher problems are today? after all, women no longer keep the genome safe, they poison it in their effort to be liberated...

[meanwhile, my grandmother was a research chemist in the 30s... and i can list tons of things. the difference between then and now is that you had to prove yourself by merit, not that you can make a better gray out of a multicolored team... so i am all for INDIVIDUALS doing what they want to do... the old john steward mill thing about doing what you want to do as long as you dont deny others their rights. seems to be taht this crowd is at the forefront of denying rights in practice. i learned this when the judge issued a staetment that i had no rights..)

and all the forces they use as examples. either dont do what they assume in the example, or they are communist states, who never cared about the fecundity of the disposable classes. (thats us in the new changes system).

The Israel Defense Forces differs from most armed forces in the world in many ways, including the conscription of women,

ultimately for the elite... the baby boom after the war screwed their "prgressive" goal of sweeping the dysgenic races and peoples from the planet...

war is marveleous for them... it exterminates a lot... unleashes utopia for sociopahts... it allows one to take money, usurp control... its also one of the safest ways for a state to lower its population...

but for the left, the boom after wards was a problem. but now with women out in the work froce... and in the military... the same boom will not happen again... just as the lack of focus on christians was a mistake too... and the over focus on religion...

dumbing down of schools.. makes for a dysfunctional military... self esteem makes everyone immune to reason (as if they all were the worst form of intelligentsia). we have moved all our productive capacity out of country... gone in debt to our enemies... accepted communism as the new america... (but we hacve to go through fascism first...)

i look at the different ages.. the people older than me can do things... they are motivated... they can adapt, discuss, and get places...

the people my age, cant do as much... they are not as motivated, tehy cant discuss things much, they can barely get places, bt when they do, they are so great that they cant see why or hwo they did. they are more likely to sell themselves out to succeed thinking thats how its always been..

the people younger, like my sons. are incapable. the men cant do much of anything. they are mntally crippled. some cant read well enough toa ctually read the directions on some military eq1upment and use it (should hace seen them arguing over a fire extinquisher as the shed disappeared). they have all the answers, but none of them are right. they are incompetent but think they are great. they lvoe communism, and think that the history is a scare story like hansel and gretel.

and that wouldnt have been able to happen unless the kids families abandoned them, and that wouldnt have ahppend unles they implemented the family destructive policies of marx, engels and such.

you would think that we miught not want to copy lenin, stalin, mao, and all the other commjunists... but we do... because we are ignorant fo the histopry.

we will waffle till the troop carriers pull up at the ends of the blocks. i know, beacuse this is how it happened to my family.


funny how you mention experience...

Posted by: artfldgr at March 24, 2009 12:50 PM

Cricket said "It would be interesting to see if the rapes occur more in combat arms units versus support units." - At this point there very few women associated with combat arms. (For clarity, in the Army that would be Infantry, Field Artillery and Armor). I know a female medic who was attached to an Infantry Unit doing combat operations in Iraq who would probably be the closest example, but not a good one since no one in their right mind messes with their medic. Military Police units are Combat Support and probably engage in ground combat more than any other mixed units. I haven't hear of exceptional issues with them either. It seems to me that the Combat Service Support groups like Transportation have the worst records - I know some of the ones we worked with were little Peyton Places (for those old enough to get that reference...) And of course the far extreme was the medical units where you needed a protective mask for all the airborne estrogen. :p

I can only speak from limited experience here, but my last deployment was with a Combat Arms (Field Artillery" unit doing security work. We had no women in the unit and to be honest, preferred it that way. There was lots of social interaction with women soldiers in an off duty capacity, similar to what you see in any environment, although I'm not aware of any problems that arose from that. As a group we were quite happy not to have to deal with women professionally because of the overhead that brings. (My personal issue with the way the Army deals with women can be summed up as "If a man is an issue, the man is dealt with. If a woman is the issue, everyone is dealt with.") My upcoming deployment will be in an Aviation unit that is co-ed, and that's an entirely different culture. I'll let you know how that works out...

Posted by: Pogue at March 24, 2009 03:57 PM

Violent men who would do these kinds of things are a danger to the women. Ironically, for real men who want to protect and defend women, a woman in combat becomes a danger to those kind of men who will violate their training and sometimes direct orders to come to the aid of a female comrade in distress.

Posted by: Tony at March 24, 2009 05:24 PM

“He was very rough,” she said. “The girls next door heard my head hitting the wall, and he made quite a mess..."

Just out of curiosity, did she ever explain why the girls next door didn't come to investigate?

Posted by: BillT at March 24, 2009 06:06 PM

Preferably *with* their sidearms.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 24, 2009 06:40 PM

If they were in stateside garrison, they wouldn't have pistols or long guns. However, based on what sounds like a description of a very *noisy* rape, they would have showed up with something capable of inflicting serious injury to the perp.

A key protruding from between the center fingers of a clenched fist make a very effective jabbing instrument. The ladies of *my* acquaintance would have appeared with some serious edged weaponry...

Posted by: BillT at March 24, 2009 07:05 PM

"The ladies of *my* acquaintance would have appeared with some serious edged weaponry..."

Hmmmm.....I feel a disturbance in the Force....Mr. DeBille must be scheming up his next *big scene*.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at March 25, 2009 01:34 AM

Wardrobe!

Posted by: BillT at March 25, 2009 04:31 AM

Make-up!

Posted by: vet66 at March 25, 2009 02:31 PM

> “The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.”

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Corollary:

"Rascality has limits; stupidity is not thus encumbered."
- Napoleon Bonaparte -

Posted by: Obloodyhell at March 25, 2009 02:57 PM

If a woman is as physically capable of waging war as a man, then how is it she is physically unable to ward off a physical attack?

how do men ward off a physical attack?

Posted by: ShyAsrai at March 26, 2009 01:04 PM

how do men ward off a physical attack?

Generally, by fighting back. Or fighting dirty.

Posted by: It's showtime... at March 26, 2009 04:39 PM

It seems to me that the Combat Service Support groups like Transportation have the worst records

That is certainly true in the Marine Corps. Also any unit with "HQ" in the name.

Posted by: It's showtime... at March 26, 2009 04:41 PM

Generally, by fighting back. Or fighting dirty.

Fighting dirty is a misnomer. The idea isn't to fight back within a set of prescribed restraints, the idea is to fight back and *win*.

Posted by: BillT at March 27, 2009 09:12 AM

What I meant by 'fighting dirty' is that, for instance, perhaps it's unwise to rule out kicking a rapist in the private parts if you're smaller, weaker, and he has attacked you without provocation.

There are different rules for a voluntary fight between two relatively equal opponents and a self-defense scenario where your life may be at stake.

Posted by: It's showtime... at March 27, 2009 09:20 AM

"Fighting dirty is a misnomer. The idea isn't to fight back within a set of prescribed restraints, the idea is to fight back and *win*."
Just what my dad said when I was a wee lad. And he also stressed that if a fight it was to be, not to be the last person yapping when it broke out.

Other than participating in an organized sparring match, be it a smoker, at the gym, the dojo, or wherever, any fight between persons older than small adolescents, especially among strangers and in situations like rapes, muggings, robberies, etc. should rightly be considered a threat to the person's life.

Now for a little good natured, Marquess of Queensberry rules, sparring fantasy.

Posted by: bthun at March 27, 2009 11:13 AM

What I meant by 'fighting dirty' is that, for instance, perhaps it's unwise to rule out kicking a rapist in the private parts if you're smaller, weaker, and he has attacked you without provocation.

A crotch-shot's an expected move. What I meant by disregarding prescribed restraints was go for the eye-gouge *and* rip one or both ears off. Any one of the Ladies I've taught will have no compunctions about hurting someone unwise enough to assault her.

A violent attack merits a violent response.

Posted by: BillT at March 27, 2009 01:20 PM

In a fight, someone is always bigger, stronger, faster...


but most importantly meaner.

The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 27, 2009 04:07 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)