Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As a male who met his wife at age 36, I had many years as a single male and many relationships with women. While being experienced sexually the idea of forcing myself on a woman was not only repellant, but emotionally I was and am unable to understand why men would do something like that. Emotionally even as a fantasy, on film, or in literature I find nothing the least bit stimulating, or manly about forcing oneself upon an unwilling partner. Yet I understand it very well intellectually as a power trip having little to do with sex and much to do with an innate hostility towards women.. One of the places where it seems rape and sexual assault has run rampant has been the military. A recent AP story has related that one third of fired military commanders were canned for sexual misconduct. http://jezebel.com/5977856/nearly-a-third-of-fired-military-commanders-were-canned-because-of-their-penises Congress is discussing harsher military penalties for rape and sexual molestation. This is a disgraceful situation in my opinion and a continuance of women being treated as second class citizens.
In May, the Department of Defense released its “Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military,” which found that up to 26,000 service members may have been the victim of some form of sexual assault last year, up from an estimated 19,000 in 2010. The report also found that 62 percent of victims who reported their assault faced retaliation as a result. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel responded to the report by calling the assaults “a despicable crime” that is “a threat to the safety and the welfare of our people,” and General Martin Dempsey affirmed that sexual assaults constitute a “crisis” in the military.
I find that the figure of 26,000 service members being victims of sexual assault this past year appalling. Almost all of those victims were females. Yet as we shall see there are some who minimize this behavior and seem to excuse it as just the natural workings of the male libido. I’ll explain.The following story came from this past week and appropriate linkages are provided:
“In an effort to address this longstanding problem, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has blocked the promotion of Lt. Gen. Susan J. Helms, who granted clemency to an officer found guilty of sexual assault, in an effort to obtain more information about why the officer was effectively pardoned. As The Washington Post reported, an Air Force jury found the officer guilty of sexually assaulting a female lieutenant in the back seat of a car, and sentenced him to 60 days behind bars, a loss of pay, and dismissal from the Air Force.
Helms’ decision to effectively pardon the officer “ignored the recommendations of [her] legal advisers and overruled a jury’s findings — without publicly revealing why.” The Post explained that McCaskill has not placed a permanent hold on the promotion, but is “blocking Helms’s nomination until she receives more information about the general’s decision.”*
It goes further regarding McCaskill’s reasoning:
“But McCaskill is not trying to re-litigate the case; she is trying to determine why Helms ignored her legal advisers and overturned a jury of five Air Force officers. As the Post explained, advocacy groups charge that “any decision to overrule a jury’s verdict for no apparent reason has a powerful dampening effect,” contributing to a culture in which the majority of sexual assaults in the military remain unreported.
The Department of Defense report on sexual assault found that while 26,000 service members said they were assaulted last year, only about 11 percent of those cases were reported. The findings listed several reasons why individuals did not report the assault to a military authority, including that they “did not want anyone to know,” “felt uncomfortable making a report,” and “thought they would not be believed.” The report also noted that concerns about “negative scrutiny by others” keeps many victims from reporting their assaults.” http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/18/wsjs-taranto-dismisses-military-sexual-assault/194498
“The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto dismissed the epidemic of sexual assault in the military, claiming that efforts to address the growing problem contributed to a “war on men” and an “effort to criminalize male sexuality.””
This is a transcript of Mr. Taranto’s interview” from The Wall Street Journal’s webshow Opinion Journal Live.
“MARY KISSEL (host): President Obama is fond of talking about the war on women, but what about the war on men? We’ve got Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto here to talk about an especially perverse example of this war. James, who is Lieutenant General Susan Helms and how is she a victim of a war on men?
JAMES TARANTO: Well Susan Helms was a female pioneer, she was the first American military servicewoman in space. She graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1980, became an astronaut in 1990, flew on the space shuttle six times, four times as a crewman and twice as a passenger en route to the international space station, where by the way she set, along with a male astronaut, the record for longest space walk. She was working on a docking device known as a pressurized mating adaptor. And they were out in space for 8 hours and 56 minutes.
KISSEL: I see. But your op-ed in the paper today says that she’s somehow a victim in a war on men? How is that?
TARANTO: That’s right. Well, this goes back to the effort to combat, the political campaign against sexual assault in the military. And this seems to be turning into an effort to criminalize male sexuality, much as we see with sexual conduct codes on campus. And so what happened was, the general exercised her authority to grant clemency to an officer under her command, a man named Captain Matthew Herrera, who had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault, in a case in which the factual underpinnings were quite thin. The general wrote a long memo explaining why she made this decision and it’s very convincing, and Senator Claire McCaskill has put a permanent hold on the general’s nomination. She was nominated by President Obama to serve as vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. Claire McCaskill says she’s not going to let her through, because she wants to callattention to this problem of sexual assault in the military.
KISSEL: So the women are always victims, regardless of the facts?
TARANTO: Well here’s what happened in this case. It was a drunken sexual advance in the backseat of a moving vehicle, involving Captain Herrera and a female officer who was a lieutenant. They differed on whether it was, on who initiated it and whether she consented. She claimed that she fell asleep, woke up to find her pants undone and his hands on her genitals, he claimed that she undid her own pants, he touched her and she responded to the touch by putting her head on his shoulder. Now the officers in the front seat didn’t even hear this going on. But the officer who was driving, the designated driver, who was also a woman and by the way the only one who was sober, on several other disputed points corroborated his testimony and contradicted hers. In addition, there were text messages exchanged between the accuser and the defendant, after the incident. She claimed only a couple of times, then she changed her testimony when they looked at the logs of the text messages. And it turned out there were 116 of them, of which 51 were sent by her. So, it was pretty clear that this guy was overcharged, he would have ended up on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life if this had stood, he was still discharged from the military.
KISSEL: What a perverse outcome here. So you have this really accomplished woman, in this lieutenant general who’s up for promotion, and getting held up by another woman because of the war on men. James, when did this war on men begin? Can you pinpoint a starting point?
TARANTO: Well, it all goes back to the beginning of contemporary feminism in the early ’60s. You know, women wanted to be equal to men, they wanted to be able to do all the sort of professional things including the military that men could do, and —
KISSEL: Was there anything wrong with that, though, James? I mean, that sounds —
TARANTO: Well, that’s too long to go into now, the question of what’s wrong with that, but in addition they wanted sexual freedom. Well what is female sexual freedom? It means, for this woman, that she had the freedom to get drunk, and to get in the backseat of the car with this guy. There was another woman who accused him, he was acquitted in this case, of sexual assault. This so-called assault happened in his bedroom, to which she voluntarily accompanied him, even the jury said that was consensual.
KISSEL: James, 30 seconds left. Is there any chance that Senator McCaskill’s going to reconsider this hold?
TARANTO: Well I certainly hope so, I mean that’s why I wrote the article. But I hope that her constituents will turn up the heat. Because Lieutenant General Helms lived up to her oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. She really gave this guy the protection that anyone accused of a serious crime deserves. And McCaskill took the same oath, and she ought to uphold it.”http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/18/wsjs-taranto-dismisses-military-sexual-assault/194498 And: http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/06/18/wsjs-taranto-female-sexual-freedom-has-led-to-a/194507
So is this an example of “The War on Men” as Mr. Taranto describes it? Or is it the same old male hypocrisy justifying women as sexual objects created by God as Man’s playthings? I’ve written in the past about the importance of female equality so you know where I stand. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/09/the-most-important-human-rights-issue-women/
Just like FOX News though I’m giving you the facts, you decide. Is there a war on men?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest Blogger
For the protection of all parties involved, a signed and witnessed Sexual Authorization Form should be utilized before each sexual act. The parties involved in the sexual act would swear that any act described therein is consensual and entirely voluntary. At least two witnesses should be present, during the signing, to attest that the agreement was in fact signed by the parties thereto and that there was no coercion involved, with nobody under duress or intoxicated.
In the absence of a signed and witnessed Sexual Authorization Form, any sexual contact should be deemed a sexual assault or rape and the man should be automatically deemed guilty upon any accusation by a female, regardless of whatever evidence there may be. Now, what could be more fair than that?
“It is time to treat rape as the serious crime it is. The excuse that the man cannot control himself is demeaning and dangerous.”
Justice Holmes,
Yes this is usually the essence of any argument that condones rape. There is an old school of thought that through the ages has excused males their sexual violence towards women as a sad accoutrement of male sexuality. Men and teenage boys can and do control themselves in the main. The belief that they physically cannot control themselves is a version of the old, false tale of justification known as “The Devil Made Me Do It”, which to my way of thinking is always nonsense.
“I keep hearing that ~half of the victims are male. Are they mostly female officers pulling rank..as it were, is it homosexual, or is it horseshit just thrown out there to try and make men care more about this.”
Nick,
That is a good question. Like Tony C., my presumption is that the victims are overwhelmingly female and frankly statistics are always capable of manipulation by their compiler. I used the figure of 26,000 violations last year, but I don’t even know for sure how accurate that might be. From my perspective if it were merely 1,000 per year that would be too high. The problems I have with this occurring in the military is the many documented cases of women being further victimized and demeaned when they try to report the incident up the chain of command. That problem’s complement is the perpetrators not receiving just punishment. Mr. Auster’s attitude makes it a trifecta of problems and is probably the root cause. In the psyche of many males sexual abuse of women is a matter of “boys will be boys”. I find that not only repellant, but essentially a license to commit violence.
Tony C. 1, June 22, 2013 at 9:39 am
Nick S: According to the US Army annual report; 89% of victims are female; 97% of subjects accused of sexual assault are male.
==============================
Facts?
We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
We got our bias to supply us with solid beliefs.
Nick S: According to the US Army annual report; 89% of victims are female; 97% of subjects accused of sexual assault are male.
“I find that the figure of 26,000 service members being victims of sexual assault this past year appalling.
One is more likely to be raped by “friendly-rape” than being raped by an enemy of the mythical al-Qaeda.
Military members also kill more of themselves than enemies do.
They are all out fighting things that kill us.
And in so doing, they rifle through all our papers.
Wish they would focus on lightning for awhile, it kills more of us than terrorists do.
Nick S: At least in the Military academies, the female victims outnumber the male victims 12 to 1, and the gender of the assailant is 35 to 1 male vs female.
In formal complaints females are the overwhelming targets, males are the overwhelming assailants.
There is more to come out if the assaults…
For one, I consider a superior officer taking sexual advantage of a female subordinate that is so drunk she could plausibly have passed out to be an assault. Heck, due to the relative ranks, I would consider it an assault if she was sober and consented out of fear of his retaliatory power on her career.
I do consider it a primarily male act to do such things; that is just statistical fact, but so are bar fighting and spousal abuse and murder by physical assault primarily male acts. To me, that does not make them less of a crime.
The war is on crime, It is not a “war on men” just because men are almost always the perpetrators of this particular crime.
^^ agreed, we need a war against war. The war against war would be anti what war is in the human mind.
If punishing men for rape is criminalizing male sexuality, then men should not be allowed in public without a minder. Taranto seems to be saying that men are unable to control their sexual urges and as a result women who are raped should just get over it. If Taranto is right men should not be allowed to serve in the military or any other capacity were they might come in contact with the public. Of course the entire interview was insane but if that is the gist of the argument against prosecuting rapists in the military then the resolutions of this problem is obvious. Men should be excluded from military service. Of course, Taranto believes that It is women who should be excluded but he probably thinks women shouldn’t have the vote. I’d call him an cave man but that would be an insult to the cave man.
On the issue allowing commanding officers to over turn jury verdicts, there may be instances wherein “clemency” is appropriate in certain exceptional cases but written opinions should be required explaining in detail the reasons for the decison and extensive oversight should be in place to guard against exactly the type of abuse reports have uncovered. It would be better to take these cases out of the jurisdiction of the commanders.
It is time to treat rape as the serious crime it is. The excuse that the man cannot control himself is demeaning and dangerous.
I keep hearing that ~half of the victims are male. Are they mostly female officers pulling rank..as it were, is it homosexual, or is it horseshit just thrown out there to try and make men care more about this. I’ve done some brief research but found no answers. It just smells to me like something someone just threw out there to help the cause and our malpractice press has never even asked a high school level follow-up question. Anyone here have an answer?
I think that every General needs to have one ribbon taken off of his uniform for every rape that occurs under his command. After that start with the buttons, then the zipper, shoes, socks, … Ever notice how decked out these high and mighty Generals are when they are on TV testifying before Congress? Ribbons and medals all over them.
Yeah. President Obama, as Commander In Chief, must announce a policy of No Rapist Left Behind. (Or no rapist left with an intact behind.) He needed to do that on Fathers Day. I guess now he needs to do this on July 4th.
WordPress was quite quick in not even letting me finish my name in the last comment. Look to the Commander in Chief and demand that he do something.
itchinBayDog here. Don’t even get me started.
And the worse part is to allow some commanding officer have any say at all when a subordinate is accused of sexual abuse or sex crime.
We are The Exceptional Nation. Therefore we fail to see our own warts, blemishes, crimes, misdemeanors, depraved behaviors or even smell our bad farts. So we highly criticize Muslim nations or Pirate Territories where women are treated about like we treat them in the Marines.
An exceptional nation would look like a foolish nation to people that die but wise in the eyes of God. What do you think would be different to make people think USA is foolishness but be wise in the eyes of God?
I forgot to add: There are some women, like some African-Americans, who believe that Feminism or the Women’ Right Movement have served it’s purpose, and it is time to move on. These women are either content to the current affairs, politics, or businsess, and therefore, refuse to be part of any current or future gender issue, or are too afraid to speak up for fear of retailation (i.e. they know that problems exist in society, on their jobs, etc…but they will not speak up for fear of losing their job, ‘new role in society’, bring harm to their careers, etc.). This is just an example of how women, like African-Americans, have become divided, and therefore, unable to become united on issues affecting not only their communities, but also their families and loved ones………..
Interesting article Mike S,
Everyone knows the ‘war on men’ is a myth. However, your article does elicit another line of thought: Is the Feminism movement dead, never was a movement, or modernized?
Like the Civil Rights Movement, I believe the Women Rights Movement is dead. How were both movements destroyed? Via the old philosphy of divide and conquer. On one side: Many women have allowed men to use them (women) as sexual objects. By allowing men to use women as sexual objects via Playboy & other magazines, late night tv shows, Victoria Secret catalogs, and Go Daddy commercials, etc., and then, allowing men to create legislation that makes it very difficult to prosecute a man for rape of a woman (legitimization of raping women: the Today Show did a study showing that more than 52% of eligible women voters do not vote, making it very easy for men to do what they want in creating legislation), our current generation of men and women believe that it is ‘popular’ for women to be sexual objects in order to ‘get ahead or be successful’, ‘get a man’, or ‘flaunt it while you can, sister.’ (How many male, NASCAR drivers did took off more than half of their clothes to do a commercial to promote their race car or racing team?).
With this in mind, why are we shocked that women are being treated as sexual objects? Can you be legally punished for raping an object?
On the other side, their are women CEOs, doctors, lawyers, college presidents, stay-at-home moms, and regilous women, who believe that corporate America and our government is to blame for utilizing women as sexual objects (since historically women were treated as ‘4/5s of a white man’-as a former female college professor of mine stated-it is has been very difficult, these women believe, to become more than just ‘4/5s’ of a white man due to the many formal and informal hurdles or legislation designed to keep women as second class citizens. Therefore, it is very easy to use women as objects of many sorts to this day).
Instead of uniting and going after the ‘ones’ who created this nightmare, women, like African-Americans, are now going after each other.
My line of reasoning comes from this book: ‘Women’s Ways of Knowing: On Gaining a Voice’ by Goldberger, Clinchy, Belenky, & Tarule, 1987 & 1997 edition. My understanding of the Civil Rights & Women Rights Movement, and the following article.
Please read this article:
http://www.today.com/id/6933222/ns/today/t/thirty-years-later-feminism-dead/
Just completely glazing over the “assault” part of “sexual assault”, aren’t you, Artie?
Aren’t people from the beginning of the fall of man glazing over all of the war people do to man? The military does not train people to be good to people That is for sure. The problem is the military. Sex happens. The human animal will have sex. Have an environment that demonizes it will have the urge grow untill whoever cannot contain. What do you expect? People talk about consent. What do people do in war ask whoever they are going to kill to sign form agreeing to allow a person to kill them? The army is very hypocritical wouldn’t you say staring at a Gnat swallowing the proverbial camel?
Aren’t people from the beginning of the fall of man glazing over all of the war people do to man? The military does not train people to be good to people. That is for sure. The problem is the military. Sex happens. The human animal will have sex. Have an environment that demonizes it will have the urge grow untill whoever cannot contain. What do you expect? People talk about consent. What do people do in war ask whoever they are going to kill to sign form agreeing to allow a person to kill them? The army is very hypocritical wouldn’t you say staring at a Gnat swallowing the proverbial camel?
People are finding out that sex happens. How long does it take to figure that out?