There's a heated argument in the comments section of this article about whether there is a "culture of rape" within the military. As with most arguments, the answer is both yes and no, and both sides are right and wrong.
It should first be noted that, as Dr. Dreadful opined, both military and civilian data indicate that the rates at which rapes and sexual assaults go unreported are roughly equal, though the reasons behind such failure to report these crimes are quite different. Second, here's a PBS reference and a reference from McClatchy showing military rates of these crimes that are significantly higher than in the civilian community. It would seem, then, that there can be no argument against the existence of a culture of rape within the military.
To add fuel to the fire, it has been well documented that rape by military personnel has been a part of American military history from the very beginning, having been noted even by George Washington. Of course these crimes are not confined to the American military, as is clearly shown by the Rape of Nanking by the Imperial Japanese Army and the conduct of the Soviet Army as they drove through Poland and Germany on their way to Berlin. Both the Japanese and the Soviet high commands knew what their respective armies were doing and not only did nothing to stop it, but to an extent encouraged it. War is without question the greatest crime of humanity, and such unforgivable conduct is a part of war.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that the military does not in and of itself have a culture of rape. Now given the above evidence, how can I possibly make such a claim? The very notion that the military doesn't have such a culture would seem ridiculous on its face, but there's more to the story.
I clearly remember what the Navy was like when I arrived at my first ship, the USS Simon Lake (AS-33) back in February of 1982. My first impression was that of most boot-campers: "Wow, the work is hard, but this is still pretty cool!" With the benefit of hindsight I can look back and see just how unprofessional the ship was, from the material condition of the ship to the conduct of the personnel on- and off-duty. It wasn't any better when I arrived on the USS Ranger (CV-61) in October of 1983. Sailors (myself included) were concerned with two things: getting drunk and getting laid; though the order depended on circumstances. I can now see that the Navy, and the entire military, was still in what I call the bad old days, still recovering from the wars in southeast Asia, because most of the higher-ups had either experienced combat or were commanded by someone who had.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
I note the hyperlink to the Slate article is no longer there. Is this a copyright issue?
2 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, you said you were going to show that there was not a culture of rape in the military and then only offered the idea that it was being at war that was to blame, although there isn't enough data to support that argument. Not really much of a counter-argument there...
You then finished off with some unrelated argument about the type of military the USA needs and what kind of political leaders it should have.
Confused much?
For the record, Wikipedia has interesting entries on Military Sexual Trauma and Rape in the United States you might consider.
3 - Igor
Rape is a manifestation of power. That's why a power-seeker like Mitt Romney would attack a defenseless junior classman. Yes, it's rape.
That's why the military is especially susceptible to rape: the power hierarchy demands it. In fact, it is seen as a weakness and a disqualifier to not rape (or it's hetero equivalent, like cutting off hair).
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
And yet you ignore the documented time frame in which the level of rape and sexual assault was less than in the civilian community. You think it's "insufficient data", but the Oxford Companion to American Military History is a quite valid source of information.
You also think the comment about the civilian leadership is unrelated, but apparently you don't realize that it's NOT the military who decides to send our troops into combat - it's our civilian leadership...and the effects of combat (ordered by the civilian leadership) upon the survivors thereof is always a concomitant part of the combat experience. It is logical, then, that if the military is seen as a deterrent and is not taken on military adventures as were were in Afghanistan and especially Iraq and Vietnam, then the conduct of military members will likely go back to what it was when we had had no sustained combat operations for over a decade.
And the proof lay in the conduct of the troops in Japan and Korea, where their crime rate was half that of the local populations in two of the most law-abiding nations on the planet.
But this is Chris I'm talking to, and he's still got to stick to his personal mandate that Thou Shalt Not Agree with Glenn no matter how right he is.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
And for Igor, you're quite right that rape is a crime of power, and the military in times of sustained combat operations is all about the exercise of power.
6 - Dr Dreadful
The teaser line claims that you are going to show that the blame for military rape lies on the shoulders of the civilian leadership. But unless I missed it, there is not one word in the article in support of this proposition.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
I think twice before I call you wrong on anything, but this one qualifies. Perhaps I could have written it more clearly, but I believe I showed that a professional military that has not engaged in sustained combat ops for at least a decade can be a safer place for women than in the civilian world.
But the low rate of crime - and particularly sex crimes - jumps significantly after sustained combat ops (and for several years afterwards).
Therefore, with the aforesaid professional military, if it is rarely if ever engaged in sustained combat ops, the 'culture of rape' does not exist...and since it is only the civilian leadership that can order our troops into combat, then the overarching lame rests on their shoulders.
I hope I made it clear enough, but you're level-headed enough that if you rebut my argument, you'll do it for good reason, and so I promise to not be thin-skinned concerning your rebuttal.
8 - Dr Dreadful
the overarching lame [sic] rests on their shoulders.
If you're right that the incidence of sexual crimes goes up after combat, then by that standard everything that happens to a military unit after combat can be laid at the door of the civilian leadership. You're hardly justified in singling out that one after-effect for blame. It's a weak postulation.
9 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, unlike me you have beliefs. I believe what the evidence shows me or compels me to accept as true. I am committed to accepting the truth of situations, even when I don't like it. As such, I really don't care whether you are right or wrong, I only care whether you present a convincing argument.
In this case, you are trying to present an argument based on what you believe to be true; we know this because you announced last week what you were going to write, and you have tried to justify your beliefs with the information above.
Unfortunately, you haven't made your case but, because you believe it to be true, you are dismissing my rebuttal of your presentation and trying to justify that dismissal by saying that I won't agree with you on principle. You really need to get over your self on that point...
There simply isn't enough evidence to support your belief, and you must know that on some level because you argue "can be" not "is". That is conjecture, or hope, or belief, but it isn't a factual argument.
Furthermore, it is the job of the military to go to war, so you are arguing that when they aren't doing their job their stress levels are lower and their behaviour better. That is true of everybody, regardless of their situation.
Nonetheless, it is clear that there is a culture of sexual violence in the military both within its personnel and externally towards its enemies.
This seems more like yet another attempt by you to defend those things you have an affinity for rather than genuine enquiry, which is exactly why your argument fails to convince.
If it makes you feel better to dismiss criticism because of what you believe about the source of that criticism rather than the criticism itself, that is between you and your conscience.
As I said above, your article is confused and confusing, as others have also remarked...
10 - troll
...frankly the peacetime "rape differential" noted in the Oxford that developed in response to zero tolerance policies is evidence for the existence of a rape culture that was briefly supressed
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Yes, the ultimate blame for everything that happens to a military unit is laid upon the civilian leadership, for the buck stops at the White House.
And that's the way the military is - the captain is responsible for whatever his crewmembers do, 24/7, on- or off-duty. If he's asleep in his rack and the guy on watch runs the ship aground, the captain will go before the court-martial and testify that he was the one who had the conn when the ship ran aground. Why? Even though he was in his rack, it was his responsibility to ensure that training and discipline and morale for every crewmember on board the ship is at a level sufficient to preclude any such unfortunate event.
When a member of our military kills an innocent person overseas, although the member is to be held fully responsible, the blood lay mainly on the hands of the president. That's the way that the concepts of honor and duty and responsibility work within the military, Doc. If a president is man enough to take the responsibility for what he did wrong that cost the lives of those in the military - which Reagan did (Beirut) - then the military will see him as an honorable man and strongly respect him and follow him. But if he's not man enough to do so - see Bush 43 (with Cheney and Rumsfeld) - they will see respect him but little, if at all. The military sees Obama as someone who's much more likely than Romney to end the wars, to not be so eager to waste their blood. They don't exactly like Obama, but to them he's the lesser of the two evils.
I suspect that whole last paragraph sounded like it had one too many shots of testosterone...but if I read you correctly, you know in your gut that that's the way it is, the way it must be.
So...yeah, while you might think this whole comment was veering off topic, I wanted to illustrate to you the relationship that the military has with the president, and how the president is largely held responsible by the military for what they are ordered to do.
12 - Cindy
Any claims of a culture of rape then, must be taken in the context of the times...Any such epidemic of rape by military personnel, then, is not the result of a culture thereof, but is rather a symptom of what happens to those who experience combat.
I am not sure how you are using the word culture. If you don't see people being turned in for raping women and men in a platoon--then it is a rape culture. And if you see that those with the most power are excusing it, failing to deal with it, covering it up, or otherwise punishing the victims--then it is a rape culture. And if the victims are being stigmatized when they report it--then it is a rape culture.
So, the social forces in play, the behaviors, the jokes, the attitudes, the social fears and expectations make up aspects of a culture.
My next post will be examples that will make it clear what this looks like.
13 - Desert Rat
If they go unreported, how would anyone know about them to calculate the rates?
14 - Cindy
Military Sexual Trauma, January 2004. Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Education System (pdf) (publication pp 13-14/pdf document pp 27-28)
"Veterans who reported MST while still in the military often state that subsequent to the report they were transferred to less desirable positions or experienced other negative consequences, such as escalation of the trauma or being court-martialed for fraternization. Some who pursued the complaint or pressed charges report that this process was worse than the MST itself."
Legislation aims to remove rape accusations from military ‘chain of command’, 11/18/2011
A 2008 Department of Veterans Affairs report revealed that just eight percent of sexual assailants in the military were referred to military court, compared with 40 percent of similar offenders prosecuted in the civilian justice system
Army Col. Michael Robertson is one example of what Speier says is often lacking with military justice. Robertson was convicted Wednesday on 14 charges, including assault and sexual harassment. His sentence was 90 days in a military prison and a $30,000 fine.
Yet Robertson remains eligible for full military benefits, and is not required by the court
to register as a sex offender.
The Military's Secret Shame, Apr 3, 2011
Greg Jeloudov was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States. When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, “It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.”
The Invisible War Filmmaker Kirby Dick Takes on the Pentagon, Jun 11, 2012
The Invisible War, is an investigation into the ongoing “epidemic” of sexual assault within the U.S. military. It includes the testimony of dozens of women, and a few men, whose experiences in the armed forces included not just rape, but institutional retaliation; former judge advocate general (JAG) officers and investigators who speak of being instructed to treat victims like criminals; and lawmakers frustrated with decades of Pentagon stonewalling.
Dick wisely lets the institution hang itself. He shows a top Department of Defense official getting booted out of a 2008 House subcommittee hearing on military sexual assault for openly defying a congressional directive. In an excruciating display of ineptitude, Dr. Kaye Whitley, the civilian who until last year ran the military’s office on rape prevention and response, sits for an interview with Dick and responds to one question after another--easy ones, no hardballs here--with a vapid smile and “that’s out of my area of expertise.” The Department of Defense comes off looking at best oblivious and at worst vengeful, misogynistic, cruel.
...a group of women and men sued Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, for maintaining a culture that enabled and protected their rapists. The words in this video are taken directly from their complaint. [A 2 minute headline formate video of comments made to victims by perpetrators and military authorities...set to music.]
The full legal complaint is searing - and depressingly repetitive. This video seeks to distill their accounts of a culture that, these women and men say, not only allowed their assaults but bullied them when they tried to report and, in many cases, left their assailants free and even thriving.
I mentioned the physician who stopped his examination of an obviously brutalized male soldier after receiving a call from a superior . There are other similar recountings of victims' examinations being stopped and military physicians cooperating within the rape culture.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
You really didn't try to understand what I wrote, did you? Particularly about the several years in which the military rate of sexual assault was lower than in the civilian world...and WHY it was lower then but not now.
Because every one of your references do nothing to refute what I posted in my article, but actually reinforced my contention. Read it again, Cindy, and while you do so, please put away your preconceived notions - be a true liberal and listen to both sides of the story before you make up your mind.
16 - Cindy
A true liberal is a dangerous thing. I'll pass on that, Glenn.
I read your article twice, though. You seem to have adopted the position that we are 'doing battle' and that their are two 'sides'. (Though it is understandable why everything is a battle with sides in your point of view.)
I didn't intend to 'refute' your narrative. My only intention was to clarify what culture is and why the military, in particular, is a rape culture.
(troll, did make a good point in refuting your interpretation of the data you chose, maybe you should listen to his 'side'--being a true liberal and all ;-)
17 - Glenn Contrarian
And troll's point is well taken and understood - he has that habit of cutting through to the chase, doesn't he?
But again, for several years the rate of sexual assault in the military was less than in the civilian world, and my point was that it's the timing, that the statistics (and my personal experience) show that the military is more dangerous for women only in time of war and in the decade or so immediately following war...
...and that in times of sustained peace, the military is a safer place for women than in the civilian world.
Actually, in times of sustained peace, the military's not just a safer place for women, it's a safer place period as the article in Slate showed. That's why I lay the blame not on the military, but on the civilian leadership that orders us into combat, because the statistics still show that the major determinant is combat - and not merely life in the military - that makes the military less safe for women.
And I'll share an opinion with you that may or may not surprise you, but I suspect it will be no surprise at all to the men among the BC residents - the tendency to truly evil cruelty, the desire to dominate by force of will and conquer by force of arms if necessary, lay dormant within most men. The great majority of us keep it locked away...but we know it's there (and many of us are ashamed of it). There are triggers that let loose this monster, one of which is combat where one must kill or be killed.
All this is my opinion, of course, but I'll continue - almost all men cannot help but feel the need to feed this monster, and we do so with our machismo. We feed it at football games, or watching WWE and boxing matches and "guy movies". But all these are just little tidbits of nourishment, the merest table scraps for the beast that lay within men...but we know what it really wants, and most of us fear it, fear what it will do to us, and fear what we might do not just to those we love, but even to innocent strangers as well.
Cindy, the "culture of rape" isn't in the military - it's in men. And the more men do that which feeds that beast - like combat - the more they are unable to keep that beast chained, bound in whatever emotion that each particular man chooses to use to keep the monster locked away.
Again, that's all just my opinion, but it might give you some insight. That, and it makes you wonder about the zero percent rate of child abuse within households where the parents are lesbian mothers.
18 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, could you be clearer about "periods of sustained peace"?
Looking at the Timeline of US Military Operations, there hasn't ever been what most people would consider a sustained period of peace.
I also don't get how you think one period of anything is sufficient evidence to base any theory upon.
Finally, it is equally hard to buy into your latest conjecture, that it isn't a military issue but a male thing. That subtle shifting of the goal posts doesn't at all explain why sex abuse in the military is higher than in the civilian population by an average of 10 to 20 per cent.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
*sigh*.
There were ZERO periods of large-scale sustained combat operations from the end of Vietnam to the invasion of Iraq. Our misadventure in Beirut did not involve a more than a portion of our military forces, and the first Gulf War - Desert Storm - was over very quickly and did not not involve long-term occupation with near-daily operations against a popular insurgency. Also during that time were our operations in Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and a whole slew of lesser operations ranging from Central and South America to Southeast Asia to the Middle East to Africa...
...but none of these were anything that could be called a major war. It was a 27-year period of relative peace bookended by wars that involved most of America's military forces.
And if you'd bother to try to understand what I wrote, you'd realize that it's only in time of war or in the decade afterwards that sexual abuse has been a problem in the military. If that were not the case, then the rate of sexual abuse in the military would not have been LOWER than in the civilian world for several years.
But I get it - Thou Shalt Not Agree with Glenn No Matter What, never mind that you have zero military experience and not a great deal of knowledge or understanding of military history.
BTW, could you please explain to us how it is that the only households where child abuse has not been a significant problem...are households that are run by lesbian mothers? I mean, when men are taken out of the equation, households appear to be more peaceful. Why is that, Chris?
20 - Christopher Rose
Glenn
*sigh*
So you're saying that it is in periods when there has been no MAJOR war for over 10 years, (a major war being something that involves "more than a portion" of the USA's military forces and doesn't involve any long term occupation), that the rate of sexual abuse in the military reduces and that somehow proves that there isn't a culture of violent sexual abuse? That seems highly selective to me.
You go on to state that there was a 27 year period of relative peace but, if I follow your argument correctly, it was only after a change in military protocols in the 90s that the rate of military sexual abuse actually reduced.
You seem to equate questioning your arguments rather than gratefully accepting them as somehow inappropriate. I really DID understand what you wrote, which I'd have thought you could notice if you actually realised that is how I was able to ask you focused, relevant questions about it.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy leaping into your comfortable little martyr role you'd have noticed that - or my multiple previous rebuttals, most recently two days ago in comment 9 of this very article, of your tired old bleating that I never agree with you "no matter what". Apparently the possibility that you aren't actually making a very compelling argument in support of your BELIEF doesn't occur to you.
Oh, by the way, as you have also been told on multiple occasions but appear incapable of remembering, I do have military experience and you have no information about my knowledge or understanding of military history, so please stop embarrassing yourself by making shit up.
Finally, your argument about the lack of child abuse in lesbian households, which is based on an article you read in HuffPo rather than actual research, is irrelevant to your theory (which, let me remind you, is as yet unproven), that there isn't a culture of sexual abuse in the military.
Personally, I don't see why there is a reduced rate of abuse in periods of prolonged peacetime, if there is, actually contradicts the view that there is such a culture.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
No, I frankly don't remember you ever saying you had military experience. Okay, so what is your military experience?
Second, you stated:
You go on to state that there was a 27 year period of relative peace but, if I follow your argument correctly, it was only after a change in military protocols in the 90s that the rate of military sexual abuse actually reduced.
Actually, if you'd read my article, the sea change (so to speak) began with an incident in 1981...five years before the beginning of the study showing a LOWER rate of sexual abuse in the military than in the civilian world.
Third, you didn't address my question concerning exactly why it is that in the study by UCLA, there were ZERO observed instances of child abuse when both parents were lesbians.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
And Chris -
Tell me, since you've got military experience, how much more dangerous for you yourself to walk around base at night was it than to walk down the streets in the city?
23 - Dr Dreadful
A true liberal is a dangerous thing.
Dangerous to whom?
24 - Dr Dreadful
...and how the president is largely held responsible by the military for what they are ordered to do.
Glenn, unless there are some horrible things going on at the highest levels of government that we don't know about, the president does not order the military to commit rape, and certainly not against its own.
The experience of combat certainly changes a person in fundamental ways, and a leader should be aware of that, among many other things, before he commits his nation's armed forces to action.
Yes, the president is responsible for the military, but the responsibility for what the military does can't be laid at his door like that. In the same way, a chief of police is responsible for maintaining law and order in his city, but he's not responsible for every crime that happens in his jurisdiction.
25 - Dr Dreadful
how much more dangerous for you yourself to walk around base at night was it than to walk down the streets in the city?
Round about the same degree of difference, I would imagine, as that between walking around a gated apartment complex at night versus walking down a city street.