NewsFlash # 3 - Why Soldiers Rape

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/why_soldiers_rape/


Martin, Yancy and Hummer, Robert A. “Fraternities and Rape on Campus.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 417-425.

Allen, Robert L. and Kivel, Paul. “Men Changing Men.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 426 -427.

Nagel, Joane. “Sex and War: Fighting Men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 441 - 449.

Women in the military are stereotyped by their male peers. These stereotypes are perpetuated by the military culture. “There are only three things the guys let you be if you’re a girl in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke” (Benedict 2). This quote, by Army Spc. Mickiela Montoya, illustrates the misogynistic and degrading view that countless male military officers have of their female counterparts. This view of women is extremely widespread in the military and has been found to contribute to the high incidences of rape and sexual harassment experienced by female officers. A culture of misogyny is created within the military in order to emphasize the masculinity of male officers and to assert male dominance over female officers. Helene Benedict’s article, “Why Soldiers Rape,” examines the larger social and political institutions that fuel the degradation of women in the military.

Rape and sexual harassment are two of the largest growing concerns among women in society. Many writers have described rape as a form of terrorism that instills fear in the victim and preserves and perpetuates the submission of women in the male dominated society. These acts of sexual violence and degradation have been estimated to affect one in six civilian women during their lifetime. What is even more shocking is that the incidence of rape and sexual harassment in the military has been shown to be almost double that of woman in civilian life. The result of research on this issue, discussed in the Military Medical Journal indicates that among the women in the military population, 71% have been sexually assaulted and 90% of women have been victims of sexual harassment (Benedict 2). The author indicates that typically, after a rape occurs, blame is often initially placed upon the victim. In her opening paragraph, Helene Benedict states that during post-rape discussions the authorities often focus on the “guilt” of the victims and the ways that their actions somehow contributed to the crime. Too often, a rape victim’s attack is attributed to their choice of suggestive clothing, flirty behavior or their unsafe location. On the other hand, the rapist’s actions are ascribed to their innate depravity and/or their mental instability. Based upon the attitude of those in authority, the victim is left to believe that the sexual assault is the result of her own bad choices. In contrast, the actions of the assailant are attributed to factors outside of his control, such as his lack of mental capacity. Benedict explains that the assignment of blame to the victim is dangerous for women and perpetuates the crime. By blaming the victim, those in authority may ignore the larger social issues that propel men to rape women: the concept of male superiority in society and the reinforcement of male dominance. The incidence of sexual assault on women will never significantly decrease until the truth about what drives men to commit rape is uncovered and dealt with by those in authority.

Standards of masculinity have perpetuated sexual harassment and rape. Our society has constructed a narrow image of the masculine ideal to which all men are expected to conform. In their article, “Men Changing Men”, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that boys are taught at a young age to be aggressive, independent and stoic. As boys mature, they are taught that the display of sensitivity and emotions is representative of weakness and vulnerability. These “womanly” feelings are highly discouraged in our patriarchal society. Allen and Kivel argue that through the reinforcement of certain emotions, boys learn to solve their problems by using violence and intimidation. “In a patriarchal society, boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships” (Allen and Kivel 426). Through constant positive reinforcement of this masculine ideal, violence becomes the norm in men’s lives.

The model of masculinity which is fostered by our society creates an ideal that is only attainable through the demonstration of extreme aggression and dominance among men. Males learn that they can attain this ideal by asserting their dominance over women through sexual harassment and rape. The sexual degradation of women becomes more magnified in all-male environments, such as in college fraternities. In these settings, the social standards of masculinity and heterosexuality are harshly enforced. The hyper-masculinity demonstrated by fraternity brothers is considered to be superior to that of less aggressive males. The exaggerated machismo exhibited by the group serves to differentiate between members and inferior non-members, who often exhibit a less extreme form of masculinity than their male counterparts. Patricia Martin and Robert Hummer write in their article, “Fraternities and Rape on Campus”, that sexual violence against women is widespread within fraternities and in other all-male organizations because members are expected to prove their masculinity, often, by displaying their control and authority over women. The military functions much like a fraternity in the ways in which it reinforces the super-masculine ideals. The military is like a brotherhood that creates a mob mentality in which members lose their sense of self and commit violent sexual acts against women in order to prove their masculinity. “Even though most soldiers are not rapists, and most men do not hate women, in the military even the nicest guys succumb to the pressure to act as if they do” (Benedict 3). All male environments tend to foster a group mentality but the military magnifies the problem because it is inherently an environment which idealizes aggression and dominance.

Rape and sexual harassment are more complex problems in the military environment. In the article, Benedict explains how sexual violence not only stems from a need to demonstrate masculinity, but from an actual resentment and disrespect of female soldiers. One army officer stated, “The military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. In Vietnam they had prostitutes, but they don’t have those in Iraq, so they have women soldiers instead” (Benedict 2). By assaulting women sexually, men are asserting their superiority and power in order to prove that there is no place for women in the military. Male soldiers may also feel threatened by women, and feel that they must demonstrate their superiority in order to defend their positions. Sgt. Sarah Scully of the Army’s 8th Military Police Brigade stated that, “In the Army, any sign that you are a woman means you are automatically ridiculed and treated as inferior” (Benedict 2). In order to prove her point, Benedict focuses the readers attention to the language that is traditionally used by military personnel to demean other soldiers. Often times, sexist insults such as “pussy,” “girl,” “bitch,” and “lady” are used by officers to debase new recruits. The implication is that the lowest insult that can be used, is to call a soldier a term that is usually used to demean women. The misogynistic nature of the military is also demonstrated by a common naval chant which begins, “Who can take a chainsaw; Cut her in two; Fuck the bottom half; And give the upper half to you”(Benedict 2). This chant clearly illustrates how military officers sexualize and devalue women. Women are considered dispensable and useless except when they are sexually pleasuring a man. The use of these terms also ignores the growing presence of women in the military and is an expression of the resentment of this change in the military population among men.

The nature and history of men in war also contributes to the high incidence of rape in the military. In wartime, soldiers are desensitized and become emotionally calloused to violence through their constant exposure to the carnage and death. Soldiers are also trained to dehumanize their opponents in order to become more effective “killing machines.” Rape occurs more frequently in the military because soldiers are trained to become more aggressive and to accept violence as a normal way of life. This aggression which is focused on the enemy spills over and is directed to women. Because of their training, it becomes easier for men to mistreat women in general. Sexual assault against women is also deemed to be trivial compared to the violence which occurs on the battlefield. The military culture, its songs, jokes and language is based upon the glorification of the male soldier ideal .The naval chant mentioned in the previous paragraph is an example of how male soldiers are taught to accept and embrace the dehumanization of women.

The domination of women has always been a universal component of war. In the article “Sex and War: Fighting men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex”, Joane Nagel addresses the ways in which historically, sex has functioned as a driving force in war. During the Korean War, bars and clubs were built near U.S. military bases in order to provide sexual services to U.S. soldiers. Nagel states that the military relied on prostitution in order to “sustain soldiers’ morale and discipline,” and to keep them complacent (Nagel 443). Rape was also employed by the military as a technique designed to demoralize and to vanquish the enemy by abusing or “conquering” their women. Nagel argues that “sexually taking an enemy’s women amounts to gaining territory and psychological advantage.” There is a difference between Nagel and Benedict in their view on rape. Nagel argues that sexual violence in war is an “ethnosexual phenomenon.” In that soldiers target women of different nationalities and races in order to exhibit their control and dominance over the enemy. Nagel argues that servicemen rarely rape “their own women” unless the woman proves herself to be disloyal (Nagel 443). Benedict, on the other hand, argues that male soldiers sexually violate and harass their fellow women soldiers because of the environment that breeds aggression and male dominance. In analyzing these two arguments I believe that sexual harassment and rape happens in both instances. However, in Nagel’s case, women are being assaulted in order to humiliate their opposition and to psychologically defeat their enemies. Ultimately, in each case the goal is to establish control and supremacy over their victims.

In her article, Helene Benedict attributes the high incidences of rape to the type of men that volunteer for service. Benedict states that many men who volunteer for service are from lower income neighborhoods and are more likely to rape or sexually harass women because of their socioeconomic class. “The economic reasons behind enlistment are well understood. The military is the primary path out of poverty and dead-end jobs for many of the poor in America” (Benedict 4). In response to her statement, I would argue that Benedict is contributing to a widely held stereotype that only certain types of men are capable of sexual assault. In reality, all men have the potential to rape. Benedict also blames the occurrence of rape in the military, to the incidence of men who are a product of abuse or who grow up in an environment of domestic abuse. It has been reported that men who have been sexually or physically abused as children are more likely to abuse others as adults. Oftentimes these men have a great deal of repressed anger that is released when they are placed in violent situations. Studies conducted by criminologist Menachim Amir and psychologists Nicholas Groth and Gene Abel prove that rapists are motivated by a mixture of sexual hostility and a need to dominate; urges which stem from childhood abuse.

Rape is more prevalent in the military than the statistics show. Under reporting is due to the fact that many women are reluctant to report cases of sexual assault because they are afraid of the repercussions they would face from army officers and from their peers. Reporting an incidence of sexual harassment or rape is viewed as an act of betrayal and women who do so are resented and ostracized by their fellow soldiers. Benedict states that a woman who report sexual harassment or rape, “risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker” (Benedict 3). To protect women from sexual assault, military officials need to strictly reinforce legal punishments for rape and harassment. Benedict points out that there is currently a shortage of military volunteers. In an attempt to retain the largest number of soldiers, the government has brought the least amount of sexual offenders to court as possible. Studies have shown that in the military, 47% of all sexual assault cases are dismissed and only 8% of cases are brought to a court-martial (Benedict 4). The military needs to adopt policies that convey to soldier the severity of sexual harassment and rape.

In the article “Why Soldiers Rape”, Helene Benedicts outlines the reasons why rape and sexual harassment have become a widespread occurrence in the military. Benedict attributes the incidences of rape to the overall social and violent nature of the military. The sexual degradation of women is perpetuated by the extreme standard of masculinity that is promoted in the military. The reinforcement of violence and aggression in a military environment also contributes the dehumanization of women and the overall number of sexual assault cases that occur each year. In order to improve women’s quality of life military, the government should enforce strict rules and punishments for rape and harassment offenders.

Blog #18 - Steinman, Crenshaw

Supremacy crimes are violent acts committed by individuals who believe they are superior to their victims. Gloria Steinman discusses in her article Supremacy Crimes, that individuals who commit these types of crimes believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of control and dominance over their victims. Supremacy crimes are done by mainly white, middle-class and heterosexual males. Steinman argues that men feel a need to exhibit their superiority over other individuals because our patriarchal society requires men to demonstrate a certain level of masculinity and dominance. Males are taught to be aggressive, violent and in control of their surroundings. In her article, Gloria Steinman draws parallels between supremacy crimes and acts of mass murdering and serial killing. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of serial murders are committed by white males. The statistics given by Steinman support her argument that serial murders can generally be classified as supremacy crimes in which the assailant is demonstrating his dominance over individuals of a different gender, class or race. What disturbs Steinman is that because our society views white and male as the norm, people tend to disregard the idea that the gender and racial identity of serial killers could contribute to their violent actions. The fact that most serial killers are white males proves that there is a problem with the way that society requires white men to act. They commit these crimes because they need to establish their masculinity by harming “inferior” individuals. Steinman states that people are ignoring the information in her article because it would force people to admit there is a problem with our society and force people to redefine masculinity in a way that downplays violence, dominance and control. This would lead to a deterioration of our patriarchal hierarchy in which white males would no longer be in control.

The article Mapping the Margins, by Kimberle Crenshaw, discusses the ways in which race and culture contribute to domestic violence. Crenshaw begins her article with an idea similar to that of the matrix of domination. The matrix of domination is a paradigm that outlines social oppression based on different factors including race, gender and socioeconomic class. Crenshaw discusses how all of these factors converge to amplify the oppression and disadvantage of abused women of different races and cultures. What I found most interesting in Crenshaw’s article was her analysis of the ways in which domestic abuse affects black communities. She states that many acts of domestic violence are not reported in black communities because the victims do not want to contribute and to fuel racial stereotypes. Crenshaw states that, “People of color often must weigh their interests in avoiding issues that might reinforce distorted public perceptions against the need to acknowledge and address intra-community problems.” Many black women endanger themselves in order to protect their community from negative stereotypes.

Many people have stated that domestic abuse is not a problem isolated to women of a certain race, but that abuse is a problem for all women. These statements are made in an attempt to protect women from domestic abuse, but instead what they reveal is the disregard that many people had for battered women when they believed that domestic abuse was only isolated to communities of color. In response to Senator Boren’s statements about the ubiquitous nature of domestic violence, Crenshaw writes, “Rather than focusing on and illuminating how violence is disregarded when the home is “othered”, the strategy implicit in Senator Boren’s remarks functions instead to politicize the problem only in the dominant community. This strategy permits white women victims to come into focus, but does little to disrupt the patterns of neglect that permitted the problem to continue as long as it was imagined to be a minority problem.” Despite the language used by policy-makers, the abuse of black women is still being ignored, while the abuse of white women is being addressed.