Women at war face sexual violence

[Al R]

Firstly, I'm not having a pop at female servicemen.

<In her new book, The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, Helen Benedict examines the experience of female soldiers serving in the US military in Iraq and elsewhere. Here, in an article adapted from her book, she outlines the threat of sexual violence that women face from their fellow soldiers while on the frontline, and provides testimony from three of the women she interviewed for her book.>

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8005198.stm)

The report says:Yet, even as their numbers increase, women soldiers are painfully alone. In Iraq, women still only make up one in 10 troops, and because they are not evenly distributed, they often serve in a platoon with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's traditional and deep-seated hostility towards women, can cause problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself.

Some 600 have been wounded, and 104 have died.

Good to know that even in the midst of mayhem, some people have got their priorities right. Forget the few hundred women killed and injured, lets focus on the plight of a couple of dozen who have been told their arse looks big in those ACUs.

.. between 2006 and 2008, some 40 women who served in the Iraq War spoke to me of their experiences at war. Twenty-eight of them had been sexually harassed, assaulted or raped while serving.

No one can excuse that, ever, and I'm not going to start. But how many were rapes and just what exactly constitutes sexual harassment I wonder, these days? If 203,000 women served in 6 years, lets assume that say, 100,000 served in that 2 year window. 40 crimes out of 100,000 seems lower than they'd get in the Bronx. Just what does the DoD have to do to keep some people happy? Give every soldier a 24/7 minder?

.. serving female soldiers believe that they should get shorter tours of duty and higher pay than males counterparts, to compensate for gender based discrimination they endure when asked to do tasks that may be the same as those asked of male colleagues, but which do not take into account their slighter physical stature. They also call for shorter working hours and a later start in the morning and an earlier retirement age on full pension benefits to compensate for the loss of a chance to have a family life. As one put it to me "Why should we suffer because we're in a war zone? We have male soldiers who have knowledge of the hospitality industry, so wouldn't it be effective morale management to allow us to have a later start to the day, and occasionaly, breakfast in bed from them?"

Only joking.

[Herc-u-lease]

your post was credible up until the last entry - serving breakfast in bed and higher pay etc. good wind-up though:)

[dallas]

Sadly, it was only the 'later start in the morning' that made me smell a rat (and giggle) - some of your ideas aren't too far removed from Nu Labour's existing ideas of equality and future ambitions...(flexi-time for parents)

[Background Noise]

It does say 'only joking' at the bottom. Only the final para though I assume?

[Al R]

Yes.. some 600 women were wounded, and 104 were died, but what about the humans who were killed (men and women)? Some people have no concept of reality, and they really do have too much time on their hands. My maths of course, a little off the boil there. Finger trouble.

[walter kennedy]

For every young woman that dies, potentially several future children will not arrive.
Why do we allow our potential mothers to go into danger?
The propaganda that, for decades now, has taken away the obligation of women to be wives and mothers has resulted in not a single western European ethnic group having the fertility level to replace its numbers – by a long way.
You would think that this would be the number one concern for the men – but no, they accept the rights of women to do the jobs of men without the concern that only women can bear children and that society should support the womens' right to be mothers rather than pressurise them to be breadwinners, denigrating the role of the “housewife”.
Men may also reflect on how preferable it was to have a wife for life who would bear their children as opposed to unstable casual relations – and how much better this was for communities and societies – stable family units used to be the foundation blocks of our communities.
There are good reasons why other cultures jealously protect their womenfolk yet you, who have let your own culture go, regard their constraints on women as excuses to demonise them.
Now on a lighter slant – while Pakistan has been criticised for the law that wifes must let their husbands have sex every four days, if demanded – do any of you remember the latest date that “restitution of conjugal rights” was demanded by a court in England? Would the late '60s surprise you?

[Herc-u-lease]

WK, your point is valid in some areas; however, I think the link between women serving in the military and and our declining birth rate is tenuous. When you talk about letting our women go into "danger" are we talking going Iraq etc. or going to the shops in a car? - both of which carry inherent danger. From the back of my mind I can only think of 1 female RAF servicewoman killed in hostile action in Iraq/Afghanistan (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). The stats for the RAF demographic go along the lines of 1 female for every 10 in the ranks and about 1 in 6 for officers. So that's about 3000 ORs and 1700 female Officers serving. So is protecting the fertility of the nation dependent on relatively small numbers of ladies being prevented from joining the armed services? I would suggest not; IMO, protecting the democratic rights of women who choose to serve their country is far more important than any marginal gains in births we might achieve by limiting females in the armed services.

or did i miss the point of your post?

[Double Zero]

If we're going to be ( very ) serious for a moment, it has to be said that any captured woman may be subject to sexual violence - they know that, or should do, when they join.

The same goes for men, however.

The snag is, most men will put themselves especially in harm's way to protect a woman.

[Trojan1981]

Lets just clarify. The book is not so much about the consequenses of women in combat with the enemy as it is about the threat of violence and sexual violence posed by their fellow soldiers.

It happens, often. Service women have been and continue to be raped, sexually harassed (groping, all underwear stolen, demands for sexual favours from higher ranking personel or equal rank with the threat of violence, constant remarks and grafitti in workspaces, indirect assault- seeman on equipment etc.) and physically beaten by their workmates while serving their country.
I have seen this first hand. It is often covered up and large financial settlements are paid in order to keep it out of the media. MPs are usually not well trained enough to carry out proper investigations into these matters and have often destroyed a case by contaminating or destroying evidence.

This is just in Australia. I imagine it would be worse in the US.


The higher pay and shorter deployment stuff is just bollocks. Equal job, equal conditions.

[nunquamparatus]

Every 4 days!!!!!!

There's a law that needs to be passed in the UK........................

Sorry, still reeling from WK's post!:E

[Double Zero]

I agree about equality - whether women ought to be on the front line of todays' shrinking forces, with the inherent risks to themselves and their colleagues is another matter, which sadly transgresses equality.

As for any person on the same side ( man or woman ) making unwelcome advances, they should be severely disciplined; however there is the case where some women will say " if you don't follow my line I'll scream " -

Which is doubly awful for genuine victims and a career wrecker for innocent people...No, not a personal experience but it happened - in the vindictive way - to a friend who is one of nature's true gentlemen, after he remarked a woman soldier ought to be able to carry her own kit-bag !