Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

How many women being raped at the hands of their captures would it take to reverse a decision to allow women to serve in combat? If they allow women to serve in combat this will happen and I just hope the women who are so desperate to serve in combat are willing to accept the fact if they get captured there is the possibility they could be raped.

Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 June 2012 16.36 ED
A culture of coverup: rape in the ranks of the US military
For men, combat experience is the leading cause of PTSD. For women, it's sexual assault. This is the real 'war on women'


A new documentary by director Kirby Dick, The Invisible War, about systemic rape of women in the military and the retaliations and coverups victims face, has won awards in many film festivals, and recently even triggered congressional response. The examples of what happens to women soldiers who are raped in the military are stunning, both in the violence that these often young women face, and in the viciousness they encounter after attacks.

In December 2005, for instance, Kori Cioca was serving in the US Coast Guard, and was raped by a commanding officer. In the assault, her jaw was broken. When she sought to move forward with her case, her own commanding officer told her that if she pursued the issue, she would face court martial for lying; her assailant, who admitted to the assault while denying that rape was part of it, was "punished" by being restricted to the base for 30 days and docked some pay.

Cioca now has PTSD, along with nerve damage to her face. She is fighting the Veterans Administration (VA) to receive approval for surgery she urgently needs; she has also become a plaintiff in a class action civil suit against the Department of Defense.

''He didn't rape me because I was pretty or because he wanted to have sex with me; he raped me because he hated me," she asserts.

The numbers around the level of sex assault in the military are staggering. There is so much of this going on in the US military that women soldiers' advocacy groups have created a new term for it: military sexual trauma or MST. Last year, there were 3,158 cases of sexual assault reported within the military. The Service Women's Action Network notes that rape is always under-reported, and that a military context offers additional hurdles to rape victims: the Department of Defense, they point out, estimates that these numbers are misleading because fewer than 14% of survivors report an assault. The DoD estimates that in 2010 alone, over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military.

"Prosecution rates for sexual predators are astoundingly low," they note. In 2011, "officials received 3,192 sexual assault reports. But only 1,518 of those reports led to referrals for possible disciplinary action, and only 191 military members were convicted at courts martial."

The Department of Defense, they further record, does not keep any kind of military sex offender registry that could potentially alert soldiers and commanders, let alone law enforcement, to the presence of military sexual predators. When women soldiers report their rapes, this group points out, the often feel revictimized by the process.

"Some evidence suggests that rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment survivors who have been treated in military medical settings experience a 'second victimization' while under care, often reporting increased rates of depression and PTSD … MST is the leading cause of PTSD among women veterans, while combat trauma is the leading cause of PTSD among men."

So, our women veterans are more likely to be traumatized by a sex assault by a fellow soldier, or a commander, than by their own battlefield or war experiences.

That rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and their attendant consequences are often risk factors for PTSD isn't the only outcome for women veterans of sex crime – it runs even to higher rates of homelessness:

"39% of homeless women veteran VHA users screened positive for MST (Military Sexual Trauma) in 2010. In 2010 alone, 108,121 veterans screened positive for MST … Also in 2010, 68,379 veterans had at least one VHA outpatient visit for conditions related to MST."

The authors note than a high minority of these soldiers traumatized by MST are, in fact, male, which raises many other troubling issues.

MST costs us tax dollars, too: last year, "the VA spent almost $900m on sexual assault‐related healthcare expenditures." I have heard from women veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular, that one serious problem they had – which led to health difficulties – was that female soldiers had high rates of illness from dehydration: they were reluctant to drink, even in 110-degree heat, because so many rapes took place in the portable outhouses.

Many of these stories involved a culture of male soldiers attacking women in the desert by ganging up at an outhouse with other men, or by assaulting a woman when she had stepped into the field to relieve herself. The fact that so many women veterans independently described these dangers suggests how systemic, and also how necessarily well-known to commanders, such risks must have become.

I do not believe that major reforms are being implemented in the military, to protect female veterans in substantive ways from sex crimes. I hope I am wrong. Instead, I find telling the superficial level of concern directed at this issue raised by The Invisible War.

The reaction to the film is an interesting Rorschach test for the country – revealing its attitudes to women, violence, sex and sexual violence. On the one hand, women in the military face rape and coverup, as related by The Invisible War, because of an aggressive patriarchal culture. That military culture is a traditional one. In this time-honored, empire-honed culture, war is a manly space; women are interlopers and thus "fair game", or else they are controlled and exploited as camp followers and sex workers. The old boys' network guarantees coverup for attackers; few women are present at the top to change this culture of sex crime and impunity.

The likelihood of rape being systemic in these more recent wars is raised by the desensitization that all soldiers undergo in order to kill, as well as by the kind of institutionalized tolerance or normalization of abuse that is part of the Baghram base detention center, the Abu Ghraib prison, and other scandals involving desecrating bodies and assaults on civilians. Rape could be systemic, and more systemic than usual, in other words, because war turns soldiers into dehumanized versions of themselves. Our especially brutal prosecutions of our recent wars makes that brutality quotient even greater. This hypothesis could help explain the very high rate of suicide among these veterans, compared with other, more lawfully prosecuted wars fought before we abandoned the Geneva Conventions, and before torture and illegal detention were part of America's foreign occupation tool kit.

The film has been covered widely by CNN, Hollywood Reporter, Amy Goodman, and many other outlets. That level of media coverage of a rape-related issue is very unusual. I have looked elsewhere – at the Assange prosecution, and at the Dominique Strauss Kahn investigation – to explore the issue of which allegations of sexual assault are "taken seriously" by our society's gatekeepers. Women are raped and beaten up, at home, every day, in vast numbers: there is systematic rape in campus fraternities every year, and sexual assault in prisons.

Congress isn't holding hearings, nor is CNN giving much if any real estate to these phenomena. No one is promising major overhauls of these reporting systems. So why are these rapes different from all other rapes? I would say that the politics of who is involved trigger these atypical responses.

This broad willingness to look at the issue, at least cosmetically, is revealing. The issue of rape in the military seems part of a cultural tipping-point: there appears something so timely and representative about shining a light on military rape, as a symbol of the general trauma Americans are becoming aware of among the population of veterans as a whole: news reports document that suicide now outpaces death under fire as the leading cause of mortality among vets. It also seems that we are willing to look at military rape, in a way that we aren't at, say, college rape, which is just as systemic, because the icon of the "military woman" is one of the few we have of a woman who is blameless.

How can our culture imagine a military woman as a "virtuous" victim, and thus more readily look at what happened to her?

She has sacrificed herself – that ultimate cultural marker for female virtue – and is facing dangers on our behalf. She is not out on her own, uncontrolled, being wild or "asking for it". She is, rather, in a state of discipline, under command, subordinated to the ultimate patriarchal control system. Also – though this is ridiculous to have to point out but bears noting if you follow the standard trajectory of rape prosecutions – military women generally get raped, when they do, while wearing a shapeless, sexless uniform: this takes off the table the usual inquiry into whether a woman was dressed "provocatively".

Finally, there is an impetus for corporate culture to tackle the issue of women being raped in the military, or at least make very loud tut-tutting noises about it – for the same reason that the Katy Perry video I critiqued got supported and widely promoted by the same media outlets that are owned by, or have advertising supported from, the corporations that make weapons systems and subcontract war the service industry.

Women who are willing to enlist are a major new profit center for War Inc. They are a new "product line", if you like, representing new growth capacities. New regulations that let women serve on the front lines represent a major boon to those industries that profit by expanding illegal combat zones around the world. It is useful for this market if women in war are glamorized, as in the Katy Perry video I analyzed, and bad for growth potential if it starts to get a reputation as a dangerous, sexually threatening place for a woman to work.

For the sake of women soldiers, who face so many other hazards and spend such long tours of duty away from their families, let us hope that the response to The Invisible War sparks more than five minutes of outrage and a gloss of concern. It needs to lead to actual housecleaning of a very corrupt and dangerous situation.

Why is it that Progressives find that impossible to comprehend?


The folks who are bringing this lawsuit are progressives? Women who have served their country and have been wounded in combat, and you break this down into a conservative or progressive issue?

I play poker. I was shocked that I had to slow play this long before the totally predictible would happen. I kept wondering when someone would finally say that women will be raped. I looked at the photos of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Graihb, and the photo of the convicted woman soldier with the thumb up as Iraqi prisoners were piled up nude......yep, I am sure an Iraqi mother loves the idea of her son being abused, and would be so relieved that her daughter was spared and her son got the privilege to be abused. Gosh, I bet Khaddafi's mother was happy that her son was sodomized right before he was shot, and was glad that her daughter did not have that privilege.

You know that blacks to not have the requisite skills to be a quarterback in the NFL, blacks cannot fly combat missions, that women cannot be police, and certainly a women cannot vote.

Again, I do not like the courts sticking their nose into the military business, but a blanket ban makes no sense. A woman who can meet all the standards to become a navy seal......and you deny her that opportunity because deep down you are concerned that somebody is going to put something in their vagina.......really?

Maybe you need a woman to fight for you, I dont.

Maybe you need a woman to fight for you, I dont.

Women are fighting for you and me every day. They lose their arms, legs, and lives defending this country. The frontline is not so easily defined, and unlike you, I do not want to discriminate against a human because of their gender and deny them opportunity in the military because you are afraid somebody is going to put something in their vagina........I think a senatorial candidate from Missouri shared your paternalistic need to protect women, and he even had biology and science protecting them with magic juices which do not allow them to become pregnant when they are raped.........nope, this is simply about making classifications which are based on rational and certain logic.....not your view that women are inferior and need to be protected by a man..........they will still die in combat, but at least they will have opportunity for promotion, and better career options for their families.

You really know a hell of a lot for a guy who never served or was never in a area of combat. There, slow play is completed.

Your assessment that I think woman are inferior is erroneous. The exact opposite is true. I protect the people and things that are the most valuable to me. My wife was a better person that I. She bore my children and helped me stay alive. She stayed strong, when I was weak and put up with a lot of my defects. You do me a great disservice by saying that I dishonor the women in my life that have done so much for me.

You really know a hell of a lot for a guy who never served or was never in a area of combat. There, slow play is completed.

raise........117 women have died in Iraq and Afghanastan, and all you have done with your paternalistic attitude is deny those women the opportunity to advance in the military based on merit. I am watching Melissa Harris on CNBC as we exchange ideas, and one of the women who is a captain in the reserves and is a plaintiff in the suit is on the show......and she and others have stated that less qualified people are being advanced while more qualified people are not advanced......because of gender......not one of these brave women are saying a word about changing the standards, rather they are saying there are 238k job descriptions they are currently being denied, and less qualified people get advanced......because they have a penis.........I can count.......and yes I do know a hell of a lot.......I saw the four bathrooms in Birmingham.....I heard the same logic of prejudice.......nope.....if a person who is gay, female, or martian who meets objective standards for advancement in the military......they will advance despite your prejudice.

117 women have died in Iraq and Afghanastan, and all you have done with your paternalistic attitude is deny those women the opportunity to advance in the military based on merit. If it was up to me ZERO would have died. I am not glad they had the opportunity to die.

117 women have died in Iraq and Afghanastan, and all you have done with your paternalistic attitude is deny those women the opportunity to advance in the military based on merit. If it was up to me ZERO would have died. I am not glad they had the opportunity to die.

I think you are out of chips.....but any case.....raise

132k civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanastan.......and you worry about 117 women in the military.....and with that logic you deny those women who are serving equal opportunity to job advancement when they are qualified and capable............I heard Bob has a bunch of cash in the bank.....maybe he can buy you some more chips.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/afghanistan-iraq-wars-killed-132000-civilians-report-says

You are damn right!!! I worry about every troop that loses their life, 177 of those people were Wifes, Mothers, Lovers, Humans, that died for some silly shit. Maybe their Grandfather posted a picture of them when they were small because he was so proud of them.
You just hit the main issue. 117 people dead is just part of some damn game. fuck it I fold...........

You are not the one who has to fold.....when the Joint Chiefs fold, and begin to review the objective standards for military assignments.......we simply sit at the poker table.......those folks make the rules......and I do not agree that it is a game......people really do die....military.....civilian, and the only issue is a human being who is qualified going to be denied an opportunity to advance in the military.....without prejudice...........killing 138k........somehow.....just my opinion.......when we get some woman who have served in combat, and who have the opportunity to make it to the joint chief level......maybe we will have some different input in this whole war thing........maybe 138k will become a distant memory.....I can only hope.

2seaoat wrote:Why is it that Progressives find that impossible to comprehend?


The folks who are bringing this lawsuit are progressives? Women who have served their country and have been wounded in combat, and you break this down into a conservative or progressive issue?

I play poker. I was shocked that I had to slow play this long before the totally predictible would happen. I kept wondering when someone would finally say that women will be raped. I looked at the photos of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Graihb, and the photo of the convicted woman soldier with the thumb up as Iraqi prisoners were piled up nude......yep, I am sure an Iraqi mother loves the idea of her son being abused, and would be so relieved that her daughter was spared and her son got the privilege to be abused. Gosh, I bet Khaddafi's mother was happy that her son was sodomized right before he was shot, and was glad that her daughter did not have that privilege.

You know that blacks to not have the requisite skills to be a quarterback in the NFL, blacks cannot fly combat missions, that women cannot be police, and certainly a women cannot vote.

Again, I do not like the courts sticking their nose into the military business, but a blanket ban makes no sense. A woman who can meet all the standards to become a navy seal......and you deny her that opportunity because deep down you are concerned that somebody is going to put something in their vagina.......really?

I suppose the same savages that practice a barbaric religion that treat women like dogs, tortures and murders women in the name of a religion, beheads american soldiers and civilians would never rape a women they captured on the battle field because that would just be way over the top, i mean come on, even religious fanatics who treat women like dogs have standards and besides some clueless delusional old goat in the US with his poker playing prowess and lame poker playing analogies said women captured in battle could not possibly be raped. WOW I feel so much better knowing some lame ass poker analogies will stop women in combat from ever being abused at the hands of their captors.

By all means if women can pass the exact same physical and mental requirements that a man can they should be allowed to perform that function but to ignore the fact that horrible things could happen to them if captured is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

My father in law was in the Phillipines in World War II......he simply never would discuss with me the war and the horrors he saw committed by the Japanese on Americans. I am glad you and Hallmark do not want bad things to happen to women. I am not happy that you think that because they have a vagina, that somehow the horrors of war will somehow only focus on vaginas......and to use another lame poker analogy.....it is a tell.

The problem is a good portion of America defines themselves as having served and that the service was risky and that they were protecting America.....we all applaud that service.....but what happens if those of the weaker sex serve.....what happens to the mindset if homosexuals and women are also in combat. In social psychology, the concept of balance theory will tell you that this will create an imbalance and conflict. It will challenge the core beliefs that only macho men are superior to others.....or that they are the only ones who can defend this country. Yep, the Supreme Court will deal with equal opportunity, but more importantly will a world where women and homosexuals serve.....will there be less macho and sabre rattling.......I certainly can see from this thread that what I have raised as a hypothesis is probably valid.......but I have not served....I cannot possibly understand.....I am not worthy of consideration.......and that is the very point of the women who have brought this before the court.....they are in fact worthy, they are in fact volunteers, they are in fact quite capable of doing the job in most of the 238k job opportunities involving combat which they are now denied.......it is great to have these discussions because they really do expose deep seated beliefs.....

2seaoat wrote:My father in law was in the Phillipines in World War II......he simply never would discuss with me the war and the horrors he saw committed by the Japanese on Americans. I am glad you and Hallmark do not want bad things to happen to women. I am not happy that you think that because they have a vagina, that somehow the horrors of war will somehow only focus on vaginas......and to use another lame poker analogy.....it is a tell.

The problem is a good portion of America defines themselves as having served and that the service was risky and that they were protecting America.....we all applaud that service.....but what happens if those of the weaker sex serve.....what happens to the mindset if homosexuals and women are also in combat. In social psychology, the concept of balance theory will tell you that this will create an imbalance and conflict. It will challenge the core beliefs that only macho men are superior to others.....or that they are the only ones who can defend this country. Yep, the Supreme Court will deal with equal opportunity, but more importantly will a world where women and homosexuals serve.....will there be less macho and sabre rattling.......I certainly can see from this thread that what I have raised as a hypothesis is probably valid.......but I have not served....I cannot possibly understand.....I am not worthy of consideration.......and that is the very point of the women who have brought this before the court.....they are in fact worthy, they are in fact volunteers, they are in fact quite capable of doing the job in most of the 238k job opportunities involving combat which they are now denied.......it is great to have these discussions because they really do expose deep seated beliefs.....

I never said the horrors of war would focus on a vagina or any other ridiculous quip you can come up with. It is called risk assessment. War is horrible, bad things happen to people that are prisoners of war and yes how a women prisoner of war is treated is a consideration and a factor that will have to be looked at. Do I think women are capable, yes, but it is totally different than other professions

Some folks just seem to want to set women's rights back a hundred years or more.

My daughter is a better athlete and can outperform 7 or 8 out of 10 guys... but I would never support her going to war.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Some folks just seem to want to set women's rights back a hundred years or more.

yeah some folks actually thought that women and children were special. Next time I am on a sinking ship I will remind the ladies that survival of the fittest is. In force.

My daughter is a better athlete and can outperform 7 or 8 out of 10 guys... but I would never support her going to war.

I agree.....but if she had made that choice.....as unhappy as I would be with that decision......it would be no different than if my son had made the same decision.....I would not like it.....but I would respect their choice.

yeah some folks actually thought that women and children were special. Next time I am on a sinking ship I will remind the ladies that survival of the fittest is. In force.


You can always give up your seat.....but I suggest we focus on avoiding icebergs and not allowing ships to sink.....better use of our energy.

I can only speak for my self, but there were no women that did my job in the Army. There were NO women in the barracks, in the field nor did I ever share any duties with a women. It is a hard thing to describe but I bonded with other men. Not in a sexual way, just a sharing of trust and comradeship on a level that can not be explained in a civilian setting. I have never been able to bond with a woman on the same level. A woman is different. Apples and Oranges. My point is It would have difficult if not impossible for me to function in a Military setting with a female. Maybe it is a character defect on my part. We did not have many of the issues that plague the modern U.S. Army. I am biased but I really thing my Army was was better. It was a shitty job with low pay, poor living conditions, but we could do the job with out a Ob/gyn in the Company. Oh Yea It was not a bad thing to be Macho and back up what you said you could do.

2seaoat wrote:My daughter is a better athlete and can outperform 7 or 8 out of 10 guys... but I would never support her going to war.

I agree.....but if she had made that choice.....as unhappy as I would be with that decision......it would be no different than if my son had made the same decision.....I would not like it.....but I would respect their choice.

I would not forbid a son from joining the military... although he would go against my wishes without a degree.

My daughter couldn't beat a single member of any men's track team at their event. It's not sexism... it's realism.

hallmarkgrad wrote:I just watched part of the Ala/Ga football game. Why dont they let women play college and pro football? I think they are being held back and denied their rights. Hell, if they can do combat then what's the big deal. Lets think this thing all the way though. Maybe a few women players for the Blue Wahoos. There are women players in Pro baseball. right?

Dats rite !