Recently in Military Category

This upcoming Christmas will be the 2nd holiday season I will have been deployed overseas in support of this so-called War on Terrorism. The first time I was here, I was a younger Soldier, and did not know much about the feminism that I eventually found and grew to love.

This time, back and armed with a feminism perspective (among other things), I am starting to see a lot of the things that should have bothered me, and things that I see as being a big contribution to the incidences of rape in the military.

Each holiday, those "appreciative" of the services rendered by military personnel often come into our areas of operations to entertain us; these include pro athletes, celebrities and comedians. But each year, it seems, these Morale, Welfare and Recreation events also include entertainment that's questionable - cheerleaders, Hooters girls and other scantily-dressed women, whose purpose is simply to entertain Soldiers (need I say male?) and be eye-candy.

...was this set of guidelines for women Civil War reenactors who reenact military roles. The premise is that you are supposed to be as realistically male as possible so-as to be realistic to the period (1860s in the US, for our international readers).

I've only recently started to learn about the phenomenon / subculture / practice of Civil War reenactors, so I really don't know what to make of stuff like this:

3) Voice: One of the most difficult things to disguise. Try to keep your voice tone low and deep. If that is impossible, try not to speak too often when you do find it necessary to speak. ( NCO's : Yelling orders in battle doesn't count because everyone else is yelling and their voices are cracking too!)

or what's going on here?

2) Discretion: While in the field or in camp, you may face situations that require mature handling. PLEASE use your head and think before you say or do anything that may embarrass your comrades or yourself

or the emphasis on disguise as necessary to save "fellow soldiers from embarassment"?

B) Binder: An absolute must unless you are completely flat chested. Sports brassieres do not give the kind of support or effect that is desirable. One can still detect "unmanly" chest movement and those type brassieres don't really protect you from pain or your fellow soldiers from possible embarrassment. Imagine that you are in a tactical and a branch snaps you across the chest. Will a "Sports Brassiere" protect the tender areas? The answer is no. Now imagine that you take a "hit" face up and the hospital corps comes to check for a heart beat. Will that Sports Brassiere keep them from finding out your true gender and save both the corps soldiers and yourself from embarrassment? Again, the answer is no.

Anybody on this community familiar with American Civil War reenactors and their traditions / expectations / norms? Is this insane sexism, talking down to women and putting the onus on them to prevent their comerades from "embarassment" by revealing their bodies or gender identities? Or is it empowering for women to be able to have moments of acting and being perceived as completely male in a socially accepted way? I'd love to hear how folks interpret this!

I suppose some could interpret my question here as a privileged person demanding to be educated since I obviously know nothing about this topic, but I've not been able to find much information on the internet and I don't know too many folks who are involved in Civil War reenacting.

I recently wrote a short post on my blog about the Naval Academy color guard incident in which a commander added/subtracted people in order to make it more diverse and representative of the student body. Essentially, I said that he wasn't creating the appearance of diversity if in fact the stats (25% minority and 20% female) were true, he was merely SHOWING it. (BIG difference I think)

Then I changed the topic slightly and pointed out that "white male domination of everything" was over, because now that women and minorities were in the picture, white males have to share. So, where as in the past a white male might have gotten stuff simply by being white and male, now he might not because he has more competition. Seems obvious and not exactly controversial because this has been going on for awhile, right?

Soon after, my post was linked to by another military blog as a "perfect example" of "what kind of hate and sectarianism the Diversity Bullies breed in the service". And the trolls descended:

"you sound positively racist and sexist. And you're years behind the times, stuck in a time period that no longer exists. Women and minorities are doing just fine. Look around you. Look at the business world. Look at the Military. Look at academia. Look at politics. Where in the hell are you living -- 1962? I think, deep down, you judge yourself, and you haven't measured up, and the way to make yourself feel better is to go off on the big, bad white men out there."

"someone should post this around your next assignment or civilian job. I think your co-workers should know what kind of bigotry and racist hatred they are up against."

Color guard thrown a curve - Officials tinker with group to make Naval Academy look diverse to World Series viewers.

If 20 percent of the Naval Academy students are female and 25 percent are minorities, then adding two people to a color guard isn't making the Academy "look" diverse. It already IS diverse and they apparently wanted the color guard to reflect that. Should they make all color guards forever be all white males to avoid "discriminating" against white males?

And you know what white males? Your days of dominating every institution in the country are over. Some of you are won't be able do things that you might have been able to do in the past because you now have to actually share the country with women and minorities. You don't get stuff anymore just because you were lucky enough to be born white and male.

That's not discrimination and it's not "PC".

There's just not enough space for all white males to get everything they used to get AND for women and minorities to get theirs too.

by Lily Casura

Military Rape Awareness Week only comes to life with the story of those who've survived it over the years. One such story is that of former Pvt. Colleen Mussolino, founder of the pioneering Women Veterans of America, retold below by veterans advocate Susan Avila-Smith, who continues Mussolino's work with her Women Organizing Women . (There's a "fan page" for Colleen Mussolino on Facebook , linked here .)

In Memory of Colleen Mussolino, Trailblazer "I wanted to be an aviation engineer," Mussolino said. "The recruiter said I could get into the program, but I found out that was closed to women." Instead she became a cook. Soon the young WAC would find out just how differently women were regarded in the military. On Dec. 29, 1965, Colleen was raped by four men and left for dead. She spent one night in the hospital and was sent right back to her barracks. Colleen was treated like a prisoner of war, interrogated and blackballed on the post as superiors tried to force her to sign a paper that she would not prosecute. Threatened with a dishonorable discharge, Mussolino signed the paper and was honorably discharged in March 1967.

Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change.

As if the policy doesn't leave a bad enough taste in your mouth, the reality of it is even better:

Pentagon statistics obtained by University of California researchers show that women are far more likely than men to be kicked out of the military under the "don't ask, don't tell policy" banning openly gay servicemembers.

Every military branch dismissed a disproportionate number of women in 2008 under the policy banning openly gay servicemembers. But the discrepancy was particularly marked in the Air Force, where women were a majority of those let go under the policy, even though they made up only 20 percent of personnel.

Across the military, women represented about one-third of the 619 people discharged based on sexual orientation. They account for just 15 percent of servicemembers.

America, fuck yeah!

Tonight I got to hear Garry Trudeau, the creator of Doonesbury, give a lecture. I have to confess that I don't really read Doonesbury that often (my local daily pulled it about 15 years ago after Trudeau took on the tobacco industry - yes, I'm in North Carolina), so I wasn't sure what to expect.

Mainly, he focused on the comic strip's wartime plotlines going back to its early days during the Vietnam War. I didn't realize this, but Trudeau's done a ton of research and talking with soldiers, both in combat at Walter Reed. And that's how he learned about military sexual trauma (MST) and what they refer to as "command rape."

Trudeau spent probably a third of his talk speaking about sexual assault against women in the military. According to him, about 30 percent of career-military women report to the VA that they've been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. And he spoke movingly about the effect this has on women who've volunteered to serve in combat. Trudeau created a Doonesbury character who's in treatment following her rape by a commanding officer in order to tell this story to his readers.

But he also talked about the women he's met who say that their military service has been incredibly empowering, including one woman who was promoted in the field. When her male subordinates called her a bitch, she said, "That's Sergeant Bitch to you."

I was just so pleasantly surprised to hear a writer with such a platform bring up these issues not just in a lecture to 2,000 people, but in a syndicated comic strip that reaches millions. I found him to be deeply sensitive to and respectful of those soldiers' voices.

So, I flipped out at Courtney about her last post; some of you may remember me from when I flipped out at her and Samhita on the post about military women and PTSD treatment. I may have gotten more angry than I needed to, and I'd like to prevent that from happening again: I'm going to explain the structures and programs the military has in place to prevent and respond to sexual assault, harassment, sexism, and misogyny. My focus will be the Air Force, since that's the branch I've served for the past five years, but much of this crosses the services, or is administered at the Defense Department level. Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard ladies in the audience, correct me if what I say doesn't apply to your service.

As a disclaimer, I do not want anyone to think that there is not a problem with assault, harassment, and sexism in the military. It is a huge problem, just as it is everywhere else in the country and the world. But unlike the country and the world, the military has huge amounts of manpower, money and time dedicated to eradicating the problems it knows it has. Contrast this with the attitude and behavior of universities or private companies: there is no comparison.

Okay, first: SARC. SARC stands for Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. There is one on every Air Force Base, and I believe on every Army post (Marines/Navy/CG, help me out here). They're on call 24 hours a day/7 days a week to respond to assaults. Many (if not all?) are also SANEs, which stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner. A SANE does the rape kit and the exam. Many of the SARC/SANEs are nurses; most if not all are female; often they are mental health nurses (the one in my unit is). SARCs are also usually responsible for coordinating the prevention program on their installation, which means giving classes, talks, taking surveys, consulting with command, recommending changes to whatever, etc. etc. Our SARC's only job as a full-time officer is to prevent and respond to assault. Last I knew she was a Captain but she may have been promoted.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is the ONLY federal law that mandates the firing of a person based on sexual orientation. Since its introduction in 1993, almost 13,000 American service members have been discharged. There are at least 65,000 active duty American service members who live under the constant threat of discharge and who, after struggling to finally be proud of their identity, must return back into the closet.

Unfortunately, an often overlooked group of individuals is also adversely affected by DADT: the same sex partners of active duty service members. Though they make the same sacrifices as military spouses, they must remain invisible because the military’s knowledge of their existence will result in the discharge of their loved ones. As a result, gay partners, too, must return to the closet.

I am proud to have come across a clip for “Silent Partners,” the latest episode from IN THEIR BOOTS , a docu-series that tells the stories of service members and their families.

It’s been a couple days, but I can’t get over this incredibly disturbing article on Salon about the infiltration of the U.S. military by white supremacists. Struggling to recruit enough troops to fight two wars, the military has turned a blind eye to its once stringent regulations about who can enlist. These days—when veterans suffering from PTSD are being re-deployed for multiply tours of duty—nobody is stopping ex-convicts, gang members, and neo-Nazis from joining up.

A 2008 FBI report found that white supremacist groups actively recruit members with military experience and “have encouraged members to enlist in the U.S. military as a way to receive state-of-the-art combat training, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, in preparation for a domestic race war.” Their leaders are strikingly upfront about this: “’We do encourage them to sign up for the military,’ says Charles Wilson, spokesman for the National Socialist Movement. ‘We can use the training to secure the resistance to our government.’” Some white supremacists have even used their military status to steal weapons and equipment for their extremist groups.

Although Melissa at Shakesville points out that this is old news, after the flurry of right-wing terrorism this month—Dr. Tiller’s assassination, the shooting at the Holocaust museum, and just yesterday the murders by Minutemen leaders in Arizona —reading this really shook me. As Miriam wrote in her post today , for someone in their early twenties, this kind of extremist violence is new, scary—and apparently what we can look forward to for the next 4-8 years.

Perhaps even more troubling—if that’s possible—is that racism is so pervasive and accepted in the military that white supremacists barely even stand out:

"Racism was rampant," recalls vet Michael Prysner, who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. "All of command, everywhere, it was completely ingrained in the consciousness of every soldier. I've heard top generals refer to the Iraq people as 'hajjis.' The anti-Arab racism came from the brass. It came from the top. And everything was justified because they weren't considered people."

There’s so much to question about the wars we’re currently waging—and a lot to dislike about the military culture in general (i.e. the sexism and shockingly high rates of sexual assault )—but this is pretty unbelievable. Apparently, the “War on Terror” is at once training domestic extremists for a race war at home, teaching U.S. soldiers to dehumanize an entire people, pushing ordinary Iraqis and Afghanis towards the extremist elements of their own societies, and fueling the fire of Islamist extremism worldwide.

I was recently accused of being naïve and ungrateful for not understanding that these wars are helping to keep American civilians like me safe. Seriously? Because I feel quite the opposite.

I have been really encouraged since Obama has been in office by his progressive, thoughtful policies dealing with women's issues. However, this recent decision shows that even progressive leaders can buckle under society's homophobic pressure, "The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting an Obama administration request to maintain the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" directive."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_gays_military

Twenty years ago today , Beijing was the site of a horrific incident that saw soldiers turning against students, official power cutting off the voice of the people. Hundreds of students and others died at the hands of their government, in the capital of the country they loved and were trying to make better.

In Beijing today, radio silence. No acknowledgement, no regret, no memory allowed. Twitter, flickr, Hotmail, Youtube, Blogspot, Tumblr, Livejournal, Xanga, Wordpress, Friendfeed, Flickr, Live.com, Bing: blocked. Newscasters and public figures banned from wearing white, the color of mourning. Tiananmen mothers and former protesters are under house arrest, as they are on this day every year.

And by all accounts it's just another day.

Perhaps you can take a moment today to think of those people, so young, who died for what they believed in. Who the government is trying its hardest to make sure we all forget. Please take a moment. Someone should remember.

A female cousin of very close to my age recently went behind her parents' backs and signed up for the United States Army. She had been planning on going to college for fashion design, but suddenly one day on facebook she broke the news that she would soon "have a gun strapped to her thigh".

I'm not sure how, as a family member, I should respond to this. Her plastering of bootcamp and job-related military stuff all over facebook begs for attention and reaction. I can't help but feel like she's already been brainwashed into thinking that violence is the answer. She hasn't even started bootcamp yet. Yesterday, she got a gun tattooed on her ankle.

I tried to warn her about the statistics regarding rape and rape prosecution in the military, but she ignored me. I very nicely asked her if there wasn't a better way to express her patriotic pride than through the tattoo of a violent weapon on her body. She continues to laugh it off and even responded:

"i will probably see people die heck i might be the one killing them i will be dropping bombs on people. but when that happens im not going to be looking down at my foot saying 'wow i regret this tattoo' im going to be grateful that I'm still alive."

Should I just let this go? I care about her and respect her decisions, but her attitude suggests that she doesn't value the lives of people she will be "dropping bombs" on. In fact, her reply made me think that she'll just be glad SHE'S alive and not down on the ground getting attacked. Do any of you have suggestions on how to approach this? Maybe I'm just being nosy and intrusive... but I hate to see someone who shares my blood act in such a destructive way. Thanks for the help!

I'm posting this here in the hopes that someone on this forum might have some helpful advice, legal or otherwise, that might help all involved.

My boyfriend is in the army on rear deployment (his unit deployed to Iraq recently) and a friend of ours is 7 months pregnant and also on rear deployment. For those who don't know, rear deployment is for those who are on some form of medical profile which keeps them from being deployable, for my boyfriend its the fact that he's having PTSD issues, for our friends its the whole pregnancy thing.

Her whole situation is really just messed up. Seven months ago she was drugged and raped by one of her fellow soldiers and despite bringing charges against him, the case is still open and the rapist is still out there free and serving our country as a 'hero'. Her pregnancy may very well be from the rape (or from her boyfriend of the time who took advanatge/raped her shortly thereafter). Either way, her keeping the child and facing single-motherhood before she's even legal to drink is very courageous.

However, that's not the main thing I wanted to get advice about. Now that she's on rear deployment, the chain of command is having them do menial hard labor tasks. Yesterday, she was tasked with standing out in the Texas heat all day pulling weeds. At 7 months pregnant. She went to see her doctor afterwards because she wasn't feeling well and her doctor about had a fit because her baby had dropped and was pretty much ready for delivery.  Today, they had her out there again pulling weeds, but were kind enough to allow her to sit while doing it because her hip was hurting her because of the baby.

We're currently trying to get an ombudsman on the case, hoping that they can get a military medical professional out there to review the flagrant profile violations the chain of command are making (they're not just being assholes to the pregnant women, they're doing stupid stuff to people with bad backs, mental health problems, and such), but we don't know if that will actually do anything.

So my question is, do any of you know what course of action she could possibly take if this does lead to serious damage to her or her baby? Or just to prevent her chain of command from continuing this for the next months to a year till she and all other pregnant women on rear deployment give birth or get out of the military? Is there anywhere they can file a complaint, sue, or anything?

That the military is a patriarchal society is a topic we've all visited, and especially the debate of whether women ought to be included in the infantry is a topic that's been tired out. Yet, nothing really has been resolved. To this date, the Department of Defense has yet to provide satisfactory answers as to why women are not doctrinally allowed in the infantry.

For me, it's not so much a matter of feminism theory that drives that discussion, but rather, equality in career progression. After all, if women are excluded from the infantry branch, it also means that there are more of them in other branches, thus the competition for career advancement is much easier for men, than it is for women.

To be sure, the military has done extremely well in its goals of equality - and often times, is the first to drive the equality ship, and in the process, translating equality to its civilian sectors. But in excluded women from the infantry, it is especially wrong.

I am not interested in whether, from a feminist perspective, military service is inconsistent with feminism - or whether feminism requires us to take pacifistic stands. I am interested in equality.

Below is part of a discussion I've been involved with someone from the infantry branch - perhaps it'll give you all some perspectives on the arguments Soldiers in the infantry do not wish to include women. My response is below each claim. What are your thoughts, especially those who have been in the military?

Michael Coren wrote a column in the Edmonton Sun about the death of Corporal Karine Blais that is breathtaking in its sexist twaddle and infantile sexual fantasies.

Coren says, "Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was 'dressed up as a soldier' I mean it as a compliment."

So, can I say that he's a sexist asshat and mean it as a compliment too? Blais was assigned to the 12e Regiment Blinde' du Canada and the Royal 22e Regiment, the most famous Francophone organization of the Canadian Forces. These are crack regiments, not marching bands.

Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs? Do we seriously think that the men in the unit would not risk their own lives to protect a pretty young girl who was inevitably being beaten to the ground by salivating killers?

Someone's salivating here, Coren, but it ain't the Taliban. Nice use of phallic imagery there. And don't Canadian soldiers have...guns? They tend to even the playing field a bit. Btw, he doesn't mention how Corporal Blais died. She was killed by a bomb, not a Taliban fighter, but he leaves that out because bombs don't care what gender a soldier is.

We rightly condemn Islamic extremists in Afghanistan because they treat women so badly. Then we allow one of our own to give her life so we can congratulate ourselves on how liberal and egalitarian we are, lie about how gender differences don't matter and then encourage our generals and politicians to obscure the truth on television about soldiers and causes.

What hypocrites we have become. Poor, poor Karine--this is not the way it should have been.

You and your country deserved better.

michael.coren@sunmedia.ca

Deserved better than what? The opportunity to volunteer to fight for the principles her country upholds? Lemme get this straight--the Taliban treat women differently than men, so they're detestable. The Canadian military doesn't treat women differently than men, so they're also detestable? Corporal Blais wasn't drafted--she chose to join up, she had the determination and willpower to make it through training, to be deployed--she didn't just happen to have a set of camos handed to her so she would be a pretty ornament to the regiment.

Mr. Coren, Karine Blais absolutely did deserve better--better than this pile of steaming condescension and fetishization you were paid to write that trivialized and demeaned the truth of her too-short life and service.

I know the title sounds like a possible misquote but, taken direct from the Army Times, the reality of how the military is mishandling sexual assault in its ranks couldn't be clearer. Nor could the detrimental effect this misconduct has on the military and its members be any clearer or the need to address, prevent and treat it be any more timely.

The official DoD SAPRO FY2008 (SAPRO is the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office,  press release does not fare much better. Statistics are used to misrepresent the situation.

The press release, which can be seen here, uses selective reporting to make it seem as though 38% of reported cases go to court martial (how many are convicted is a statistic that is not tallied by the DoD, oddly enough).

Taken directly from the press release:

In fiscal 2008, the department received a total of 2,908 reports of sexual assault involving service members, representing an eight percent increase from fiscal 2007. There were 753 restricted reports filed in fiscal 2008. The restricted reporting option allows a military member to obtain care confidentially without initiating an investigation. This year 110 victims converted their report from restricted to unrestricted.

The report also showed that court-martial actions substantially increased from 30 percent in fiscal 2007 to 38 percent in fiscal 2008, meaning that military commanders referred eight percent more cases to trial.

If one takes the time to read the numbers, or first find them in the 83 pages of the full report, the number of court martials is 317. I don't believe the military has mathematicians that are unable to calculate percentages, but 317 is NOT 38% of 2908. It actually is 38% of the 832 cases that were found to be substantiated. A similar proportion, 247, received non judicial punishment even though most civilians would certainly feel this was an inappropriate form of punishment. The military mindset will often say this is so the commander can take appropriate action but in the civilian world an outside body, with no conflict of interest, decides how one is punished. This is for a reason.

About 1079 cases were unsubstantiated, a large portion of the 1339 cases that were not fully investigated. Anyone who has listened to the stories of sexually assaulted service members is fully aware of the pressures involved in reporting assault, especially when ones report is publicized in their unit, all too often a source of much secondary harassment, an situation that leads to both under reporting as well as withdrawal of reports.

There is also a strange silence on the report from many veterans service organizations, failing once again to see the importance of understanding, treating and preventing sexual assault for the health and well being of service members and veterans. I often joke with other female veterans that we are presented with the pap smear as what we need rather than real understanding and justice, but this silence makes the joke not so funny.

Please take the time to read the whole report and see for yourself.

Also, please email any veterans organization that has not covered this issue and request that they live up to their name of VETERANS organization, and not leave any vets behind.

Reposted from.