Rape victims say military labels them 'crazy'

[Beowulf]

Medical career field: in the USAF, anyone with a AFSC that begins with the number 4. They work in a hospital, clinic, pharmacy, dental lab, or some other type of medical lab. In the army, you have medics, and navy has corpsmen. In the USAF, they belong to a completely seperate group (the Med Group), from airmen who are in operations, maintenance, support, etc.

I don't know what the causal agent is behind females being disproportionately discharged for adjustment disorders. I'm not a fucking psychologist. But then, neither are you. Is there any statistics on women in the civilian world being diagnosed disproportionately for similar disorders?

I do not make any claim as to the veracity of the claims in the article. I merely dispute other poster's mistaken claims as to the causal effect, by correcting misconceptions at to military structure. I would caution that the article largely contains information from parties to a lawsuit, and information solely to backup that lawsuit.

As for restricted reporting:

Restricted Reporting
This option is for victims of sexual assault who wish to confidentially disclose the crime to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and services without triggering the official investigative process. Service members who are sexually assaulted and desire restricted reporting under this policy must report the assault to a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), Victim Advocate (VA), or a healthcare personnel.

Healthcare personnel will initiate the appropriate care and treatment, and report the sexual assault to the SARC in lieu of reporting the assault to law enforcement or the chain of command. Upon notification of a reported sexual assault, the SARC will immediately assign an advocate to the victim. The assigned Victim Advocate will provide accurate information on the process of restricted and/or unrestricted reporting.

At the victim's discretion/request an appropriately trained healthcare personnel shall conduct a sexual assault forensic examination (SAFE), which may include the collection of evidence. In the absence of a Department of Defense provider, the Service member will be referred to an appropriate civilian facility for the SAFE.

So yes, if the victim wants forensic evidence retained in a restricted report, it is possible for it to be retained. However, it is not a requirement. It is intended to allow the victim to get counseling without requiring an official investigation being opened, without the potential for the the victims to be called "lying whores" (direct quote from the article).

[Themightytom]

Medical career field: in the USAF, anyone with a AFSC that begins with the number 4. They work in a hospital, clinic, pharmacy, dental lab, or some other type of medical lab. In the army, you have medics, and navy has corpsmen. In the USAF, they belong to a completely seperate group (the Med Group), from airmen who are in operations, maintenance, support, etc.

I don't know what the causal agent is behind females being disproportionately discharged for adjustment disorders. I'm not a fucking psychologist. But then, neither are you. Is there any statistics on women in the civilian world being diagnosed disproportionately for similar disorders?

I do not make any claim as to the veracity of the claims in the article. I merely dispute other poster's mistaken claims as to the causal effect, by correcting misconceptions at to military structure. I would caution that the article largely contains information from parties to a lawsuit, and information solely to backup that lawsuit.

I don't think you really disputed my claims Beowulf, you missed the point of them, but I will admit it wasn't very well worded. I underlined the part of Fenix's comment that I was responding to.

Not to say discrimination isn't the name of the game, but there could be more at work rather than officers just protecting a "rape culture."

If psychologists are in the chain of command, there's an awwwwful lot of role conflict, and even if they aren't there are probably a lot of societal boundary issues being surrounded with and interacting with a culture with enforced cohesion. Deviance is inherently antithetical to a military culture, diversity issues are inevitable.

i would say it is institutionalized discrimination finding voice via an already flawed psychiatric practice.

The institutional discrimination is not specifically towards women, it's towards nonconformists, specifically, people who complain. The medical professional would be proceeding from a position of bias.

So let me rephrase a little.

If a psychiatrist is in "a" military chain of command, they have could a role conflict. They are conditioned to respect "a" chain of command, even if it's not the immediate chain the client is in. They are conditioned to support the policies coming from the top down, and would not necessarily be able to recognize when those policies are unfair to their patient.

Say... one who was raped by a superior officer, or one who was ordered to overlook a sexual assault? The therapist is going to view the report as a violation of the chain of command, and proceed from that position. They would proceed to build an internally consistent argument based on that premise and consistent with diagnostic criteria. If you really want to avoid this problem, you would need to introduce a truly objective party, that operates outside the chain of command.

Even then it would probably not work out well because that same conditioning that would influence the military medical worker, now makes the non military one an outside and less approachable, or even less effectual in influencing the command structure if necessary.

As for restricted reporting:

Restricted Reporting
This option is for victims of sexual assault who wish to confidentially disclose the crime to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and services without triggering the official investigative process. Service members who are sexually assaulted and desire restricted reporting under this policy must report the assault to a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), Victim Advocate (VA), or a healthcare personnel.

Healthcare personnel will initiate the appropriate care and treatment, and report the sexual assault to the SARC in lieu of reporting the assault to law enforcement or the chain of command. Upon notification of a reported sexual assault, the SARC will immediately assign an advocate to the victim. The assigned Victim Advocate will provide accurate information on the process of restricted and/or unrestricted reporting.

At the victim's discretion/request an appropriately trained healthcare personnel shall conduct a sexual assault forensic examination (SAFE), which may include the collection of evidence. In the absence of a Department of Defense provider, the Service member will be referred to an appropriate civilian facility for the SAFE.

So yes, if the victim wants forensic evidence retained in a restricted report, it is possible for it to be retained. However, it is not a requirement. It is intended to allow the victim to get counseling without requiring an official investigation being opened, without the potential for the the victims to be called "lying whores" (direct quote from the article).

You always have to look at what people are doing, as much as what they say they are doing. The military is trying to control a problem, to restore conformity and discipline. The client is trying to resolve a trauma...

but what is the psychiatrist actually trying to do here? My guess is the same thing as the military, based on what they are actually doing. They may SAY they are providing treatment to the patient, but look at what they're actually doing,


They clearly attempted to sidestep a situation where a nonconformist would find support, and in this particular situation, we'd be talking about a victim of sexual assault. While they no longer conform to expectations, in terms of their desire to seek treatment and have the situation justified, they also aren't necessarily the one who perpetuated the original act. Psychiatry isn't magic, you can only redirect so much distress.

We don't have a societal expectation for women to shut up and take it, we've made SOME social progress in the last few decades, add to that the sense of self empowerment serving in the military, and in fact BEING a woman serving in the military brings with it. That magnifies ego strength, and also probably raises the stakes of that identity to the point where a traumatic challenge to a soldiers sense of justice and fair play, is not something a psychiatrist can wave away.

That's an unrealistic goal, that ALSO challenges the justice sense of the therapist. They can't effectively make an argument they wouldn't subscribe to, that's role conflict. They would bypass the conflict all together, conclude the rape, or the behavior of the victim was the problem, and not the initial act and start building a diagnosis of personality disorder.

You know the irony here, is if the military were personified, it has a lot of the characteristics of a personality disorder. Personality disorders generally don't like change, or, something that challenges what they believe is the status quo. What the military is doing isn't working for the women noted in the OP but the military is putting all of it's effort into showing why it's someone else's fault. Either seriously commit to the idea that rapes happen, some people are going to screwed by that, but the military continues to function, OR seriously commit to a systemic change that is more successful in preventing rape in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't cut the limb off when all you need is to figure out a way to let it recover, BUT I'm not a soldier, and there are certainly situations where recovery isn't feasible.

[Haruko]

Drawing on the evidence that has been piling up about this rape culture endemic in the U.S. military (not only of fellow soldiers, mostly female but also including males, but also civilians near the many U.S. military bases around the world), a related award winning documentary is to be released: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/inde ... isiblewar/

20% of active duty female soldiers are raped every year. The Department of Defense estimated 19,000 sex crimes in 2010.

And for anyone not already steeped in background information about the endemic rape culture, here is a detailed article: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 92221.html

[amigocabal]

Isn't there a perfectly good pre-existing organisation that's not in the chain of command, namely the Military Police Corps and its equivalents in other branches of the service?

The U.S. Army has the Criminal Investigation Command, which operates out of the chain of command of all other Army units. The commander of the Criminal Investigation Command reports directly to the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army, to assure independence from the combat commands and the other support commands.

20% of active duty female soldiers are raped every year. The Department of Defense estimated 19,000 sex crimes in 2010.

I wonder if the rape culture endemic in some subcultures is due not to a belief that there is nothing wrong with rape, but with refusal to believe that a close friend or relative would commit rape.

It is easy to believe that an outsider like Philip Garrido would commit rape. But how many of us would be quick to believe that our best friend, our co-worker, would commit rape?

And when it comes to soldiers, who rely on trusting each other to live to see the next sunrise, to believe that someone in their unit committed rape would mean they would not be able to trust that someone with their lives. It would be easier to blame the victim, who is typically an outsider.

[Eulogy]

And when it comes to soldiers, who rely on trusting each other to live to see the next sunrise, to believe that someone in their unit committed rape would mean they would not be able to trust that someone with their lives. It would be easier to blame the victim, who is typically an outsider.

When it's the fellow comrade being raped, and not getting justice? That victim now has great, powerful motivation to see the rapist dead. If Haruko's figure about active duty soldier victims is true, it means that every year, one fifth of all female boots on the ground are being given good reason to frag their rapist(s), or "forget" to cover them, or poison their MREs; the system fails to give the victims proper redress and the violated women will seek justice themselves.

Outsiders being raped now also have motive to lay an explosive gift at the side of the road for the rapist's unit, so they are not less dangerous than a soldier wishing vengeance.

Hence, it is in the command's best interest to eradicate the rape culture and take very seriously rape accusations. Failing to do so puts men and women who are actually good people in danger.

[Alyrium Denryle]

When it's the fellow comrade being raped, and not getting justice?

Event: Accusation that Steve Raped Jane

Option 1: Accept the possibility that it occurred
Option 2: But Steve is a great guy, I literally trust him with my life. He would never rape anyone

Cognitive Dissonance--> Reject Option 1, Go with Option 2. Proceed to how to cope with a "false" accusation of rape

Option 1: Jane is lying, and wants to get back at Steve for something
Option 2: Jane is also awesome. She must be crazy, at least that way it is not her fault and I can continue to think of her fondly.

Cognitive Dissonance--> Reject Option 1, go with Option 2.

Hence, it is in the command's best interest to eradicate the rape culture and take very seriously rape accusations. Failing to do so puts men and women who are actually good people in danger.

It is. But people are not rational. Misogyny aside, admitting that one of your soldiers (whom you are naturally very proud of and take personal responsibility for as their CO) committed rape is a tough thing to swallow.

[Grumman]

And when it comes to soldiers, who rely on trusting each other to live to see the next sunrise, to believe that someone in their unit committed rape would mean they would not be able to trust that someone with their lives. It would be easier to blame the victim, who is typically an outsider.

Maybe, but if nothing else that still marks them as too stupid to be a soldier. When someone proves that they can't be trusted not to stab you in the back, wilful ignorance isn't a solution. Wilful ignorance means leaving a known threat where he can get everyone killed.

[amigocabal]

Outsiders being raped now also have motive to lay an explosive gift at the side of the road for the rapist's unit, so they are not less dangerous than a soldier wishing vengeance.

How common is that? Surely it would have happened multiple times already, especially outside major bases like
Camp Pendleton and Fort Benning.

[amigocabal]

It is. But people are not rational. Misogyny aside, admitting that one of your soldiers (whom you are naturally very proud of and take personal responsibility for as their CO) committed rape is a tough thing to swallow.

If I were in the military, it would be very hard to convince me that a fellow soldier, who risked all to save my life on at least one occasion, had committed such a crime.

[Zaune]

How common is that? Surely it would have happened multiple times already, especially outside major bases like Camp Pendleton and Fort Benning.

Inside US territory or that of friendly countries there's the option of going to civilian law-enforcement, or failing that the media. In a warzone, not so much.

[UnderAGreySky]

To make life worse for servicewomen who are raped, they cannot get abortions from the VA.

Women raped while in the US military are denied abortions. End this now

Could the March Act be the law that finally persuades America's anti-choicers of the compassionate abortion argument?

"A female solider in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by military fire," declared a piece on rape in the US military in the Guardian last December. As if the details of ensuing isolation, lack of psychological support and risk of homelessness weren't enough, one travesty was left out: unless life is at risk, military medical insurance does not fund abortion for women who are left pregnant after such attacks. Period.

Even if a woman can afford to pay for her own termination, military hospitals are currently outlawed from performing the procedure. The March Act, proposed by senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, Patty Murray and Frank Lautenberg, seeks to change that. Endorsed by the Department of Defence, and given its appeal to patriotism as much as its pinpointing of this grievous human rights violation, can this be the law to finally persuade America's anti-choicers of the compassionate abortion argument? Or will it merely be the exception that proves the rule?

Much of the current legislative restriction on civilian abortion in the US relates to the 1976 Hyde amendment, which declared that federal funding should not cover abortion (initially relating to services offered by the low-income healthcare provider Medicaid), except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother was at risk. Its relevance was alarmingly renewed in March 2010 when Barack Obama signed an executive order reiterating that protection of federal funds to save the $940bn healthcare bill.

If that wasn't regressive enough, the same allowance (although you can barely call it that) has never applied to women serving in the US military. Whether it's an officer back at base camp, a fellow solider on the frontline in Afghanistan or an enemy freedom fighter in Iraq, a military woman with an unwanted pregnancy to contend with is on her own – and often in danger as a result of it, particularly when serving in countries where a thousand dollars couldn't buy a safe, let alone a legal, termination. As Meghan Rhoad of Human Rights Watch has put it: "The Obama administration has taken some positive steps to address rape in the military, but it is hamstrung by legislation preventing the military from responding to the needs of rape victims."

With more than 400,000 women in the US military and an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults each year, this is an alarmingly avoidable crisis for health, liberty and national security. Under the March Act, the Shaheen amendment, which specifically proposes extending federal funding to military women for abortion in cases of rape and incest, should come into force with the 2013 National Defence Authorisation Act, which allocates federal funds. But this is not the first time the issue has been raised, and previous debates on "the perennial issue" – as one anonymous Capitol Hill staffer quoted by CNN put it – have not rectified the basic inequity. Originally proposed in November 2011 as an amendment to the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act, anti-choice senators refused to let it come to the floor.

Given the recent repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell", the hope among the championing politicians and the vigour of Stand With Servicewomen campaigners, the time is ripe for giving military women "the rights of the constitution that they defend", as congresswoman Louise Slaughter has put it. Otherwise, those that deny them that right (primarily, though not exclusively, the conservative right) risk exposing the hollowness of their patriotic rhetoric. For them, when it comes to reproductive rights, there are no deserving women.

This is both sad and despicable.

[Eulogy]

That means that there are more illegal abortions and infantcide in the military, as rape victims sure as hell aren't going to keep and rear a result of a monster attack.

[Haruko]

Ah, I see the law goes after rape victims instead of rapists. Law and order is indeed important to the military, so long as the blind judge has its eyes fixed on the female members of the military.

[amigocabal]

That means that there are more illegal abortions and infantcide in the military, as rape victims sure as hell aren't going to keep and rear a result of a monster attack.

Sometimes they do.

If only things were that easy. The truth is that little Phoebe will never want to know the truth about the man who gave her life.

She was conceived on a cold December evening when Elizabeth - then a 16-year-old virgin - was dragged into the back of the van and raped.

All that Elizabeth will be able to tell Phoebe one day is that her father was a stranger in a hooded top who forced himself upon her.

She has no idea of the man's age, ethnic background, even height, such was the confusion of that evening. Indeed, he could be one of three possible individuals.

One of the few things that Elizabeth is sure of is that she was raped three times that night, by three different men.

That Phoebe exists at all almost defies belief. Practically everyone who knew exactly how Elizabeth had fallen pregnant - doctors, siblings, even her own father - urged her to have an abortion as soon as possible.