12/2/13

Women in the Infantry: Rape Victims in the Making?

TRIGGER WARNING – DISCUSSIONS OF RAPE, ABUSE, AND BULLYING

Recently three female marines completed infantry training as part of the lifting of the restriction of women serving in direct ground combat units earlier this year. However, these women will not be assigned to actual infantry units despite completing the required training. You can read more about this here, here, and here. But why the hesitation to allow these women to serve in the units for which they qualified?

What is striking, if we pay attention to it, is the vast amount of comments on social media sites, many by current and prior military service members, claiming that if these women were allowed in actual infantry units, they would be violated and raped in a matter of minutes. Whenever the discussion of women entering all-male combat units arises, whether in casual conversation, on social media, or in formal political or governmental hearings, someone will inevitably bring up the great risk to the women of being harassed, abused, or raped. If we stop for a minute and think about this all-too common concern, it teaches us a lot about the current state of masculinity.

The fact that we can all talk about, hear, and respond to this obvious risk of rape to women in all-male units without really stopping to think about it, shows how rape is simply thought of as an occupational hazard for women. Everyone just states it as a given. Rape just happens. Duh. What do you expect from a group of male soldiers? Get over it. This type of thinking is dangerous, wrong, and displays a fundamental aspect of rape culture.

The military is filled with talk of honor, integrity, selfless service, courage, etc. When I was in Army infantry basic training we had to memorize the Ranger Creed, which has lines like:

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight.

And…

I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

There was constant talk of duty and never failing to complete the mission. These core values are portrayed as the foundation of unit cohesion and effectiveness, and what separates the soldier from the civilian. Why then would a woman, who has been deemed by the command part of the unit and thus a fellow comrade, run the risk of sexual violence and rape?

This must either make us question the claims held up by military units about honor, integrity, duty, and loyalty or make us realize that maybe some other motivation overrides these responsibilities, namely the protection of a space for men to prove their manhood.

get back to the kitchen

The message seems to be, this is our place, and the pervasive “obviousness” of the threat of sexual assault and rape functions as a warning that expresses this “fact.” Stay where you belong, or face the consequences, which is not far from this:

WomenDeserveEqualRightsAndLefts

We are told to protect our comrades and never let them fall into the hands of the enemy. However, a woman in a combat unit is not viewed as a comrade. Rather the woman is seen as the enemy, which threatens this tenuous, insecure idea of masculinity. This is the true threat.

 

 

10/9/13

The Case Against the P-Word

“When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she’s dating a pussy.”

I have seen this quotation a number of times online, and while it is usually attached to a picture of retired Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, I have been unable to find any actual, proper citation linking it to him directly. However, the more important point is not whether he said it or not, but the comment itself, the meaning behind it, and the fact that many look up to and agree with the message behind the statement.

What is this statement saying? And more importantly what are the words in this sentence doing? Let’s break it down a little…

The term ‘pussy’ has become so common that we probably never even think about it when we use it. It has even lost the label of being a swear or curse word. But we must not forget from where this word comes. We have so associated the term ‘pussy’ with being cowardly and weak that we forget who have pussies, namely women. So, what is really being said in the above statement is that the anti-war protester is a woman. The anti-war protester is not simply a coward, he has been made into a woman. The comment is not just labeling soldiers and anti-war protesters, with statements like the above one, we are defining men and women.

The logic of the statement seems to go like this: The war protester is made to seem like a woman, and no man wants to be a woman, thus if you want to be a man, you should be a soldier. And if you are already a soldier, you can feel good about the fact that you are, in fact, a man. So, what’s the problem? Isn’t courage, bravery, and a willingness to fight all good qualities and ones any man should be striving for?

When I was in the infantry, many of my fellow soldiers were unsure about the value of the particular war we were in or were simply indifferent to the rightness or wrongness of the conflict. But somehow, someone from the outside speaking out against the war is seen and felt as a threat. Why is this so? We should all be war protesters. It should be difficult to take the country to war and every one of us, if it is needed, should be reluctant. And that doesn’t make us weak; it makes us involved, conscious citizens, the very strength of a democracy.

We need to stop using the insult ‘pussy’ to describe people. If boys are growing up learning that being a ‘pussy,’ a woman, is bad, then we are teaching boys and men to not value women. By trying to make sure boys become “men” by making sure they don’t turn out to be women, we are not creating good human beings. We are hurting women and harming men. We all are worse off.