Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Crabtownboy]

The topic of "don't ask, don't tell" concerning gays is a hot one here.

Do you have outrage over this one?

What does it tell us that female soldiers deployed overseas stop drinking water after 7 p.m. to reduce the odds of being raped if they have to use the bathroom at night? Or that a soldier who was assaulted when she went out for a cigarette was afraid to report it for fear she would be demoted — for having gone out without her weapon? Or that, as Representative Jane Harman puts it, "a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire."

The fight over "Don't ask, don't tell" made headlines this winter as an issue of justice and history and the social evolution of our military institutions. We've heard much less about another set of hearings in the House Armed Services Committee. Maybe that's because too many commanders still don't ask, and too many victims still won't tell, about the levels of violence endured by women in uniform.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html#ixzz0h8jAkpMA

 

[Tom Bryant]

Silly question.

Commanders ought to prosecute anyone who does this. These women are fighting just like the men are.

Rape is every bit as wrong as sodomy is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Commanders ought to prosecute anyone who does this. These women are fighting just like the men are.

Rape is every bit as wrong as sodomy is.

You are right, it is wrong and it should be punished. Apparently there are many commanders who do not listen to the problem, do not prosecute. One reason, I am sure, is that such problems would not look good on a commanders record. You know, he/she isn't a good commanding officer if they have this type of problem in the ranks.

Did you read the entire article?

Later in the article:

The problem is even worse than that. The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported, and it's no wonder. Anonymity is all but impossible; a Government Accountability Office report concluded that most victims stay silent because of "the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip." More than half feared they would be labeled troublemakers. A civilian who is raped can get confidential, or "privileged," advice from her doctors, lawyers, victim advocates; the only privilege in the military applies to chaplains.
--------------------------------

Experts offer many theories for the causes: that military culture is intrinsically violent and hypermasculine, that the military is slow to identify potential risks among raw young recruits, that too many commanders would rather look the other way than acknowledge a breakdown in their units, that it has simply not been made a high enough priority.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html#ixzz0h9AVe9f0

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html#ixzz0h99t8NZE

 

[carpro]

The topic of "don't ask, don't tell" concerning gays is a hot one here.

Do you have outrage over this one?

The subjects are unrelated.

 

[targus]

I'm skeptical of the numbers...

"...close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault..."

"The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported."

So between 150% to 300% of women deployed over seas are assulted?

Or maybe 100% are assaulted on average twice?

Or the 30% are assaulted ten times before reporting it?

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the numbers.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I think the very fact that the Pentagon is itself the one citing these stats should show that this is a field issue and that the solution depends on the field commanders.
It is not something tolerated by the military establishment.

 

[Salty]

I'm skeptical of the numbers...

"...close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault..."
... Yeah, I'm skeptical of the numbers.

Those assaults, are they all physical, or or some verbal or even "staring" for more than 20 seconds at a female.

All actual crime should be punished, but telling an off colored joke (and I am not condemning them) is NOT assault.

Sgt Salty

 

[donnA]

I would call rape physical, wouldn't you?

there was a 20/20 story about something like this years ago, and still now they do nothing.

 

[Salty]

I would call rape physical, wouldn't you?

there was a 20/20 story about something like this years ago, and still now they do nothing.

Just to claifiary for you, yes, rape is physicial.

 

[targus]

I would call rape physical, wouldn't you?

Of course - however the article says rape or assault.

Under the law an assault may be an attempt or threat to do violence against another with or without battery.

Under the law a battery is an unlawful attack upon another person by touching in an offensive manner.

So the "assault" may not involve touching the victim.

While leering at someone is not nice - it may fall under the definition of an assault - but in no way rises to the level of rape.

It would have more informative for the article to have defined how the word assault is being used in this case.

 

[Salty]

Of course - however the article says rape or assault.

Under the law an assault may be an attempt or threat to do violence against another with or without battery.

Under the law a battery is an unlawful attack upon another person by touching in an offensive manner.

So the "assault" may not involve touching the victim.

While leering at someone is not nice - it may fall under the definition of an assault - but in no way rises to the level of rape.

It would have more informative for the article to have defined how the word assault is being used in this case.

Thank you, you explained it much better than me.

 

[targus]

Thank you, you explained it much better than me.

I suspect that leering is considered an assault in the figures cited in the article.

How else could one explain 30% claiming to have been assaulted while a supposed 80% to 90% of assaults go unreported?

Under those parameters 270% of women serving have been assaulted.

 

[windcatcher]

I'm skeptical of the numbers...

"...close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault..."

"The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported."

So between 150% to 300% of women deployed over seas are assulted?

Or maybe 100% are assaulted on average twice?

Or the 30% are assaulted ten times before reporting it?

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the numbers.

I really don't know where you're getting these figures or how it is you're combining them. All of the links are by the same author, Nancy Gribbs.

Let's see what statistical or numerical data is in her report:

The Pentagon's latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25%.

Here the 3000 in the latest assaut figures includes the numbers in Iraq and Afganhistan.... which was up 25% increase in that part of military theatre...but overall, the 3000 represent a 9% increase from the previous report...... Nothing remarkable or incredible about these figures excepting that it may indicate a breakdown of morale as well as morals under conditions of warfare as related to Afganhistan and Iraq. . Neither does this figure make a definitive statement where one can more than hypothesize about the increases in Iraq and Afganhistan as it doesn't give other comparable data regarding ^ or v of females deployed to these areas which may also be an influencing factor. The only definitive is that 3000 represents a 9% increase from previous records.... and this record does not reflect if there are decreases or increases in female numbers in the military. While it seems impressive.... it is not telling us all that much on which we can base judgements other than that sexual assault does occur. What is more significant follows later in the article.

the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving — twice the rate in the civilian population.

This statement is so non specific that it has no merit to compare more than what it does...... female veterans to civilians. It says nothing about who 'the entire universe of female veterans' is composed of ...... Here rape and assault are coupled together as though they are the same although even our discussion supports the confusion of these semantics where terms used legally can have both specific meaning and yet be used interchangeably which modifies perception.

The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported,

Here the Pentagon is not giving the figures for how many women serve in the military and the only figure we have of 3000 sexual assaults does not tell us what percentage of these reported events comprise the females in the military. However, we may assume that given both of these figures by the Pentagon, sexual assauts of females in the military is sufficiently significant to warrant some change to reduce its occurrance.

only 8% of cases that are investigated end in prosecution, compared with 40% for civilians arrested for sex crimes. Astonishingly, about 80% of those convicted are honorably discharged nonetheless.

This does not tell us how many cases are investigated, but does suggest that either the investigations are weak in producing evidence and the prosecution is weak or suggest a strong reluctance to prosecute and deal aggressively with this problem. Adding to this the favorable discharge status given those who are convicted implys some intention to cover up, protect from exposure, or otherwise excuse under the cover of 'military honor' those who commit sex crimes. It leaves us with sexist assumptions but doesn't explore or define why this is so or excusable.

Female vets are four times more likely to be homeless than male vets are, according to the Service Women's Action Network, and of those, 40% report being victims of sexual assault.

Vague statements which, with additional information may or may not be as sensational as it appears on the surface: Consider, how is 'homeless' defined... a woman shacking up with a man who has no separate place of abode or who returns to live with parents, family, or friends for a time....???? And what is the validity of these 'reports' or the 'evidence'. With little doubt I entertain the significance is there but to how great or small relative to the impression... is for the thinker to decide for himself.

women, who now represent 15% of the armed forces,

Seems like I remember reading something about a king before going to war, considers the strength of the enemy against which his men must fight.... and wisely decides to count the cost whether he can succeed or else considers a peaceful settlement to conflict. If we haven't enough men to fight then how is 15% of those forces which are female going to enhance the fighting resolve of the military when it adds sexual tension to the mix and interferes with morale and discipline within the ranks.

Though many females may disagree, I don't think the military is a place for women. Certainly not for more than supportive arrangements like secretarial, or nursing..... or, if the threat is severe enough.... a milita trained to defend within our borders to defend and protect in the event of a catatrophic incident or invasion. Even then, I believe it goes against the nature of womanhood.

Yes I'm female and sexist as in recognizing genders with distinct differences which give both genders advantage when distinctions are observed, appreciated for what they are and maximized in respect for self and others. Sexual crimes certainly has nothing to do with honor, nor respect and has no place in society or the military.

 

[targus]

I really don't know where you're getting these figures or how it is you're combining them. All of the links are by the same author, Nancy Gribbs.

Let's see what statistical or numerical data is in her report:....

My figures are from the linked article.

It says 30% of women veterans report being assaulted.

And it says that they estimate that 80 to 90% of assaults are unreported.

It's a matter of simple math.

30% X the unreported 80 or 90% either means that 100% are assaulted at least once or some smaller percentage are assaulted many times.

Seems unlikely doesn't it?

Like I said, I doubt the figures in the article.

 

[Crabtownboy]

My figures are from the linked article.

It says 30% of women veterans report being assaulted.

And it says that they estimate that 80 to 90% of assaults are unreported.

It's a matter of simple math.

30% X the unreported 80 or 90% either means that 100% are assaulted at least once or some smaller percentage are assaulted many times.

Seems unlikely doesn't it?

Like I said, I doubt the figures in the article.

It is not the figures in the article that presents a problem in your reply. Rather it is your poor understanding of percentages and math.

Here is a simple example.

Let's take the lower figure of 80% not reporting a rape or assault. Them means out of every 100 women assaulted or raped 80 of them do not report the incident and that 20 do report it. This gives us a combined total of 100%.

I do not know where you get the 30% you quote. The number 30 never appears in the article. I read the article and then I searched the article and it isn't there.

You appear to be adding the two percentages together, one of which does not appear in the article, and that is an error. You cannot have more than 100% of anything. If you do you have made a mistake in your math.

 

[Revmitchell]

The topic of "don't ask, don't tell" concerning gays is a hot one here.

Do you have outrage over this one?

I want to see these reports. "Time" is making claims on vague references to reports. The same tactic the global warming fakes have done.

 

[targus]

I do not know where you get the 30% you quote. The number 30 never appears in the article. I read the article and then I searched the article and it isn't there.

No the "number 30" does not appear.

But you should be able to find this... "When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving.."

It is not the figures in the article that presents a problem in your reply. Rather it is your poor understanding of percentages and math.

If 90% of assaults are not reported then for every one that is reported nine are not.

30% X 9 = 270%

Under those assumptions then for every 30 that are reported 270 are not.

So the total is 30 reported plus 270 not reported = 300

But you can not have 300% of 100% being assaulted.

So the range is 100% are assaulted more than once (3times)

Or some smaller number are assaulted many times (10, 20 , 40, 100 times?)

And that is why I do not believe the numbers.

 

[Revmitchell]

No the "number 30" does not appear.

But you should be able to find this... "When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving.."



If 90% of assaults are not reported then for every one that is reported nine are not.

30% X 9 = 270%

Under those assumptions then for every 30 that are reported 270 are not.

So the total is 30 reported plus 270 not reported = 300

But you can not have 300% of 100% being assaulted.

So the range is 100% are assaulted more than once (3times)

Or some smaller number are assaulted many times (10, 20 , 40, 100 times?)

And that is why I do not believe the numbers.

It doesn't matter the best we can tell from the article the numbers are fabricated as there is no supporting documents.Only vague claims of such.

 

[targus]

It doesn't matter the best we can tell from the article the numbers are fabricated as there is no supporting documents.Only vague claims of such.

BINGO.

I have no doubt that the author has an agenda.

 

[Revmitchell]

BINGO.

I have no doubt that the author has an agenda.

The only thing the article links to is their own previous articles on minimally relevant subjects. Talk about yellow journalism.