The NY Times articles we read for today really highlighted
an issue that is rarely brought to light in the news, leaving space for more
"serious" and less "unpatriotic" issues and events such as
the successes and honorable deaths. People would be reluctant to
"support our troops" if it were widely known that sexual assault is
pervasive in the military and most times not punished. The requirements of
discipline, focus, determination, and strength (which seems to always manifest
itself in masculine strength) in the armed forces created a birdcage of
restraint not just around women but around all individuals who strive to pursue understanding,
fairness, and respect in their line of work. While in theory, these
aspects can live in concordance with other more traditional soldier-esque
behavior, discontent with matters in the way armed forces are run is more often
seen as blasphemous than ways to improve matters. For example, specific sexual
assault cases brought to a disciplinary official in the New York Times articles
resulted in the female victim being discharged from the army. Most victims
stated that they did not report their assaults or rapes, fearing that "nothing would be done or that reporting an incident
would negatively impact their careers” (A Peril In War Zones, Myers).
Due
to the drastic increase in female involvement in the military, and the
extremely long amount of time it takes for populations to respond to and accept
such changes, the extent to to which males are used to women being present in
their confined, solitary spheres is limited. As Val discussed in the case of the man previously released from jail raping the cashier for power-driven reasons, soldiers are forced to exude so much power and authority, a necessary step to minimizing opponent confidence, that in the inactive moments of deployment, the psychological triggers of power needs seem to override gender and bodily respect. White, middle-class males, being the most prone to sadistic killings and assaults, are locked in their own birdcage, created by society's demand of masculinity and honor (by that I mean demonstrating the highest levels of domination-focused manliness). This birdcage prevents males from adopting, nurturing and understanding roles and behavior, traditionally seen as feminine; on the other hand females are systematically placed in a sexually subordinate role in the armed forces as physical strength is a barrier to protecting oneself and leaders do seem to regard complains as honest or note-worthy.
I think you raise an interesting point - that people might be less inclined to support the armed forces if they knew about the presence of sexual abuse. This is another complicating factor in an already complicated issue. This might well be a reason that the statistics of sexual abuse in the armed forces are not more publicly communicated, but it definitely isn't the only one. As we've talked about in class and as Meyers' articles express, there are many reasons like guilt and fear that prevent transparency about the realities of sexual abuse. Either way, the way sexual abuse statistics could impact public support of the armed forces taps into the issue of outsider perception, which is yet another complicating factor when trying to understand this issue.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of soldiers being in a birdcage making them unable to understand the effects militarization has on them. Usually when we think of people trapped inside a birdcage, we look at marginalized minority groups in our society. In this case, however, it's almost as if flocks of men are putting themselves in their own birdcage without realizing it when they join the military. As we've discussed before, the system of patriarchy effects both men and women. Although men dominate the system, they still suffer from its ill effects, as demonstrated by the military. In the process of trying to create the "ideal soldier", the military systematically desensitizes men by constructing a birdcage around them that seems to make them more susceptible to committing acts of sexual assault. Instead of looking at the individuals who commit acts of sexual assault, we need to look at the birdcage that the military constructs around men to make them the "ideal soldier".
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a really fascinating point (which Claire already commented on) that if the acknowledgement of the prevalence of rape in the military were reported more in the news people would potentially be less supportive of the military. It's horrible to think that only a very small percentage of such rapes are reported and this already small pool is given such little attention. This same fear of losing support or prestige once rates of sexual assault are revealed makes me think...what sort of disincentives are there for Colgate and other universities being more transparent about the same issue? What sort of ways can this disincentives either be eliminated or reduced?
ReplyDelete