14 February 2012

The Military and Rape

From Jezebel:

Trotta apparently believes that the way to prevent rape in the military is to simply take all the women away rather than try to do something to help these women who are being "raped too much." But has she considered that maybe something is wrong with the male culture of the military that the men can't seem to stop raping? Nope!

First off, the culture of the military is such that men (and presumably women) are expected to commit what would generally be considered profoundly immoral acts (i.e. murder) without a moment’s thought or hesitation.  This is pretty much the whole point of the military:  to do heinous things without concern for morality.  Thus, if men are trained to kill others without spending a lot of time in quiet introspection to determine whether killing is justified in the specific context in which it would occur, it shouldn’t be at all surprising if rape gets added to the list of actions that are generally immoral but soldiers do without reflecting upon first.  This is not to justify the rape of women serving in the military, only to explain that the military is not an entity that is best suited to not-raping women.

Second, there are a limited number of ways to prevent women from being raped while serving in the military.  In an earlier post, I showed how the government can prevent crime, and those principles can be applied here, such that the government using the penal system to deter and passively prevent crime.  Since military law already forbids rape and prosecutes rapists, there isn’t much more that can be gained here.

That, then, leaves just two other ways the government can prevent women from being raped in a military context:  Forbid women from serving in the military or change the culture of the military to the point where men are strongly hesitant to do immoral things.  Obviously, enacting the latter will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the military, perhaps to the point where having a military is kind of pointless.  Thus, the only real solution to preventing women from get raped in the military is to prevent women from serving in the military in the first place.

While forbidding women from serving might sound unfair, it is really the only way to have both a military that does what militaries do and prevent women from being raped while in the military.  If one wants women to serve in the military without reducing the effectiveness of the military, then one will have to accept the fact the some number of rapes will simply be inevitable.

5 comments:

  1. Further revelations that feminists want to bend every institution on earth to their collectively ill-informed will.

    If women are equal and capable of serving in the military, even in forward combat positions, why do they require protection any way? They have had the same training.

    I would also question the number of actual rapes occurring in the military. My husband served in the Navy, well before we met, and one of his standing principles was never, ever date or sleep with a military woman. He feared that a one-night stand might result in accusations of rape. False rape accusations happen in the outside all the time, surely military women have fury when scorned as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You totally left out the most obvious way the military can reduce rapes. They can empower women to defend themselves by permitting them to be armed, everywhere and at all times.

    Currently, Women (and men) are completely disarmed on military posts. Nor can they have loaded guns in their cars.

    But that is never going to happen since the anti-gun culture is even more firmly entrenched in the military than the feminist culture.

    You also err in your linkage between soldiering naturaly leading to raping. You don't need to be able to be a sociopath to be good at soldiering. Nor does being good at "murdering" naturally lead to an apitite for rape. Those are independent activities.

    Most rape in the military results from the modern redefinition of rape to include women who have had too much to drink and decide the next day that they were too drunk to give consent. Otherwise, the guys in their unit might think they are sluts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Cranberry- According to feminists, women are always equal to men, except when they're not. Funnily enough, though, their calls for special protections is never viewed as evidence that they are inferior.

    @Prof. Hale- Well, actually my assertion was in regards to eliminating rape, which is most easily accomplished by eliminating opportunity. Of course, giving them guns would reduce rape in general, but I doubt it would reduce any of the I-regret-getting-drunk-and-sleeping-with-this-loser rapes.

    I realize that being good at killing people doesn't naturally lead to rape, but I would bet that there is some correlation. (Sort of like junkies and stealing: being a junkie doesn't make you a thief, but it does correlate.) My more general point is that people who have suppressed one aspect of their humanity--that is, an aversion to killing other humans--can (not will) fin it easy to suppress another aspect of their humanity, like the general tendency to not rape people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "First off, the culture of the military is such that men (and presumably women) are expected to commit what would generally be considered profoundly immoral acts (i.e. murder) without a moment’s thought or hesitation."

    You forget that such acts are strictly regulated by the military. They only occur in specific contexts, under heavily regulated circumstances, with severe consequences for failing to follow the roles. The military spends a great deal of time doling out and controlling the privilege of using violence, punishing those who break the rules, and fixing or dismissing those who cannot play by the roles. And, as seen by the improved discipline over military over time, the states that have done so, have gotten very good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @History Punk- Please answer the following questions: Are soldiers ever expected to kill other people? If so, are they expected question whether they should kill someone when they are commanded to kill someone? Do the regulations by which soldiers must abide compel soldiers to contemplate the morality of the killing they undertake?

    ReplyDelete