in the minority of the decent

[psiradish]

After McLaughlin Group this morning was a show running a story about U.S. soldiers in the military raping other U.S. soldiers. After some initial statistics that were woefully unsurprising and some first-hand accounts, came a particular story of a soldier assaulted by a man she had probably called a friend. After all, they played sports together

Comments

[ladymiranoy]

They broke them down until they were nothing and built them into crude killing machines. I would never trust them. And I do not expect any more out of them.

Ah, machismo. All because they want to feel powerful, they'd do this to one of their own.

You'd think in the military, rapists would be treated like they are in prison: them boys in there don't like it when you hurt or touch little kids or pretty women. Too bad it isn't.

[psiradish]

I'm not over-fond of generalizations of any group - the military included. However, there are abundant indications that something is wrong with how the U.S. military turns people not into killing machines, but collectively into a killing machine. They are made into hive minds, where nothing is more important than the survival of the unit (whatever type or size it may be - up to and including the entire military as a whole), and every one of its members; where membership in the unit is the foundation of their identity. This practice is in some measure essential to building an effective military unit, and I don't inherently have anything against it. But far too often the unit seems to become the only thing that's important to a soldier, and membership in it becomes the only source of identity they have

[ladymiranoy]

Soldiers are supposed to be our paladins and knights, but like in all institutions, there are bad seeds that should by all means be weeded out by the numerous tests they put them through. But oh no. I was going into the Navy, and they don't boot you unless you're sociopathic, and even then, they might just keep you and medicate the hell out of you.

And I swear to God if I ever hear anyone say that rape is the victim's fault, I will commit homicide.

trust

[star999chick]

Yeah I have to comment on that fact.
I lose a good chunk of sympathy for someone who isn't appropriately careful. I'm not sure what the case was in her situation, but I mean, my understanding is that they basically mutilate the psyches of everyone in the army. So yeah, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. And I don't have enough upper body strength to do a pushup, so what does that say? Actually, that goes for men in general, especially those on the 'casual banter' level.

Re: trust

[psiradish]

So a woman who isn't "appropriately careful" largely ("a good chunk") deserves to be raped? Because that's the only reason (in fact, part of the definition of) to lose sympathy.

And what is appropriately careful, anyway? Keeping an eye out? Being suspicious of every man every where ever; even your own family members? Never allowing yourself a single drop of alcohol in a place where men are present or, hell, even might be present? Getting married as soon as possible (12 years old is good) so you'll always have an owner protector to keep you safe from the big scary woman-hating world, and keeping yourself locked inside the house whenever your husband isn't available to escort you somewhere? That line of appropriately careful can and does slip and slide all over the place

Re: trust

[ladymiranoy]

So, you're implying that due to the disassociation my husband went through during his time in the Air Force, I should not trust him? I should be afraid of him at every moment, I should get rid of the alcohol we have in the house, I should always be guarded around him, and I should be constantly aware that he may just flip out and rape me?

Wow, you're kind of a fucking idiot.

[burning_roses]

Okay, do we know where the rest of the unit heard about the events? Because if they heard it from the rapist himself, I highly doubt that they heard an accurate version of the events. Probably something to the effect of "oh man, she was all over me, she totally wanted it and then she just got all freaked out for some reason, she's a fucking tease, dude." If that's what they heard instead of what really happened, I'm not surprised they started calling her names. It's still completely wrong and it definitely shouldn't happen at all, but at least it makes me want to claw my eyes out a little less. If I'm wrong and they know that the guy tried to rape her and called her names anyways, then obviously, that's just horrifyingly wrong.

I just googled "rape culture" because I didn't really have a specific idea of what it meant, and this article was the third result. I thought it was interesting, so I decided to post it and see what you think. It's a little off-topic from military rape and victim blaming, but what's life without a

[psiradish]

Truthfully, I hadn't really considered from who and in what words the men learned of the event. Still, there's not much the perpetrator could say that wouldn't be completely ridiculous and transparently false - whether its your "She's a fucking tease!" or "I wasn't even there, she's a fucking liar!" Neither is remotely consistent with how we all know other human beings think and behave. The other soldiers in his unit simply didn't care; or were somehow unable to truly comprehend the situation at any higher level than "threat to the collective; must destroy".

I think a lot of things about the article you linked to - arguably too many. But I will post them all anyway! Though I suspect it will require more than one reply box. In fact, it may require 4 or more.

In line with her view of rape as existing on a continuum of male sexual aggression, Koss also asked: "Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and

[burning_roses]

"In line with her view of rape as existing on a continuum of male sexual aggression, Koss also asked: "Have you given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure?" To this question, 53.7 percent responded affirmatively, and they were counted as having been sexually victimized.
Damn right they were."

I disagree. Were some of the women who answered yes to that question sexually victimized? Probably. But definitely not all. There's a gray area here where it's hard to tell the difference between a guy who's being too pushy and/or persistent and an actual predator. I know that I'd personally have to answer yes to the above question, but trust me when I say that I was not raped or victimized in any way. I was pressured, sure, but not forced. Big difference. You can say no to pressure

[psiradish]

There's a gray area here where it's hard to tell the difference between a guy who's being too pushy and/or persistent and an actual predator. I know that I'd personally have to answer yes to the above question, but trust me when I say that I was not raped or victimized in any way.
Being too pushy should still register on the predatory scale. Low on it (comparatively), sure; likely too low to throw the actual word “predator” at them without sounding melodramatic. But “asshole” would still be apt

"warning"? what's that supposed to mean?

[star999chick]

Wow, both of you extrapolated a whole lot from a very very simple (and personal) comment.

I actually didn't say anything about anyone's husband, and drawing that hyper-defensive parallel wasn't really needed. But I think comparing a the level of trust in a marraige and the level of trust in a casual aquaintance is sort of a wee bit on the spurious side.

I'm not blaming her, I'm just saying that when you feel uncomfortable belonging to a gender that is so ready to rape an innocent (you'll note I referred to her as innocent) woman, I feel uncomfortable belonging to a gender that is surprised when it happens, or trusts the person when they shouldn't. I didn't say anything about child marraige so I'm not sure where you got that from. It's exactly that fanatical, accusatory rhetoric that makes me annoyed with feminists for the most part.

I have a friend who's in the army. I'm not sure what the training area is referred to, but he said he'd never let me go out there. Why? Because of the guys.

How sexist!

Re: "warning"? what's that supposed to mean?

[psiradish]

Warning means I will delete any posts containing victim-blaming in the future.

And the hell you aren't blaming her. Telling someone who's been victimized "You should have been more careful" is blaming the victim. If she had just been smarter (read: psychic) it would not have happened. Not a word about the fucking rapist; the victim's supposed stupidity is somehow more relevant to the crime than the rapist's conscious decision to commit it. It's her fault for not being careful enough; for not acquiescing to be a second-class citizen and voluntarily sacrificing - without any rational necessity - enough of her right to the pursuit of happiness as she defines it; which should include the ability to trust people who in every way possible seem trustworthy not to rape her. ...Actually, no, I take that back. It should include the ability to trust complete strangers not to rape her. Since when did rape become such a casual crime that we can expect it of anybody

Re: "warning"? what's that supposed to mean?

[star999chick]

Nothing says "I'm secure in my viewpoint" like silencing a dissenting opinion. Classy

Re: "warning"? what's that supposed to mean?

[psiradish]

(multi-post response)
It's silencing an unacceptably harmful opinion. It's suppressing an infectious disease. You are speaking to everyone who ever hears or reads your words, wherever spoken or written. Some of those people may have been victims, and some may become victims in the future, and some may interact with victims, or interact with someone who will interact with a victim. However many carriers it passes through, the virus eventually reaches a victim, and there it causes nothing but hurt. Months later, years later, decades later, they're still hearing, "It's your fault." So they blame themselves. They hate themselves. Some, doubtlessly, even kill themselves.

But there are the few who supposedly avoid being victims by taking this hateful "should have known better" rhetoric to heart in time to restrict themselves from going to certain places, interacting with certain people, doing certain things, etc., etc., before it gets them in trouble. Meanwhile, they must watch as their male friends do all these same things with

[star999chick]

Also, I feel a need to add that human beings ARE animals.

[psiradish]

Words have different meaning in different context, star. Making this particularly clear was my specification of wild animals. The kind you put in cages when they're among people, so they don't hurt anybody. Why are we content to let men act like creatures who should be caged? Why do we cage their prey instead? Why isn't it the man who wasn't careful enough to stay away from situations where he "surely knew" he would be tempted to rape? Seems to me if we're going to stupidly require that half the species be constantly in fear of rape and limit every choice they make because of it, making it the half that actually perpetrates the crime would at least be less stupid.

[star999chick]

And what's the difference between wild and domestic animals anyway? I don't think either gender should be "caged" (again, so sensationalist!) I just think that all human beings should be cognizant of risks that apply to their lives. Snakebites, lightning, barfights, rape.