From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Introducing rape as a weapon of war
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 17:52:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.193346.8807@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
(I've deleted a lot to shorten the post)

On Tuesday night, _Dateline: NBC_ had Jane Pauley interviewing both
Major Rhonda Cornum and the male sergeant who was shot down and taken
prisoner with her.  (Sorry, I don't recall his name.  I wouldn't have
remembered Cornum's name if I hadn't already read about her.)

Cornum talked about her sexual assault by an Iraqi soldier, saying
that it included him kissing her, fondling her breasts, and anal and
vaginal penetration by his fingers.  She said that she was sure he
would have raped her (I assume she means vaginal or anal intercourse)
if he had been able to get her flightsuit completely down.

The sexual assault took place in the back of a truck right after they
had been captured.  The sergeant was there and said that he knew what
was happening, but couldn't do anything.  (His words, I don't want
anyone to think that I think he should have.)

Cornum said that she didn't talk about the sexual assault at first in
public (although she had reported it to the military debriefers),
because she didn't want it to be the lead story when the POWs were
returned.

A woman (once again, I don't remember her name) against women serving
in combat was also included in the piece.  She said that the sexual
assault should have been made public since perhaps it would have
changed the recent Congressional ruling which allows female aviators
in combat.  She implied that, since women may be more likely to be
raped in combat, that is a reason to exclude women in combat.  When
Cornum was asked about women in combat, her answer was that women
should have the right to take the risk of combat.  (This was worded so
that it was hard to tell if she believed combat should be voluntary
for women or the same as for men in the military.)

I found it interesting that much was said about the sexual assault of
women during combat but not of men.  The sergeant who witnessed
Cornum's sexual assault said that he probably would have had to be
killed before he would have submitted.  Or, if overpowered, he would
then later commit suicide.  Of course, he may have changed his mind if
he had been raped, but it made me think that women, although perhaps
more at risk for rape during combat, may be much better prepared
emotionally to deal with the rape than military men would be.

I wrote:
>)I think Goodman makes several good points: (1) that sexual harassment
>)of women in the military is the norm, not the exception; (2) that much
>)was made of the ill treatment of American military personnel by the
>)Iraqis, but little note was made of the rapes of American military
>)women by American military men (until lately, 18 months after the gulf
>)war); and (3) that there is a conspiracy of sorts in the military to
>)keep women in "their place" and to silence men and women from speaking
>)out about the mistreatment of the women in the military.

>I'll grant you (1) and (2) to some extent, with some reservations - sexual
>harassment, as currently (vaguely) defined probably does happen a lot in the
>military, and there is a tendency to deny that our military and military
>personnel ever do anything wrong  (even when they shoot down a jet full of
>innocent civilians, for example).  It's always the enemy that commits the
>atrocities, really :-) :-).  I doubt the current sexual harassment
>definition  (taken to the extreme of 'he looked at me in a way I didn't like)
>is going to 'fly' in the military  but it should be possible to enforce rules
>against physical assault.  Though there does seem to be a tradition in the
>military of people not protesting to 'the authorities' - see any military
>movie.  It'll be interesting to see what happens with/to this tradition, if
>women do get involved more in the military.  This relates again to the whole
>'group-think/esprit de corps' idea.
>
>I don't buy (3) as stated.  There isn't any evidence of a massive conspiracy
>that I can see.  All events that I've seen can be explained via a combination
>of the natural sexual prejudices that pervades our society, a desire for
>people to 'cover their asses' (self-interest).  Plus the 'group-think'
>philosophy thrown in for good measure.
>
>I still get the feeling that you (and Goodman) are viewing the military as
>a normal career - not as a mechanism for fighting wars & commiting 
>sanctioned governmental violence which is outside of _some_ of the normal
>standards of civilian society.

Most of my impressions of the military come from my sister, who served
for nearly four years in the JAG Corps in the Army.  Although it is
obvious that a military's purpose is to fight wars, it's equally
obvious that most of the time military personnel aren't doing that.
For example, my sister used that joke that most of her legal duties
involved processing claims for damaged Hummel figurines that belonged
to soldiers moving from Germany back to the US. 

My sister's impression was that there is more sexual harassment in the
Army than in civilian life.  One officer repeatedly commented that he
found it difficult to discuss cases with her since she had such
beautiful green eyes that he couldn't concentrate.  Another married
officer repeatedly asked for dates.  One CO tried to kiss her every
time her assignment changed (she was bounced around the DC area quite
a bit working on different assignments).  She was assumed to be able
to supervise the decorating of the Officers' Club for Christmas, etc.
parties.  (The good thing was that she could delegate many of the
tasks, the bad thing was that she was assumed to be the natural choice
to do that.)  She has a gender-neutral given name and she said that at
times men would refuse to have her work on their cases because she's
female.  She said that she was often assumed to be her secretary (even
though she was a captain) because she's female.  My impression from
what she has said is that the personnel were either quite supportive
or harassing, no real in between.

She's now a partner in a law firm with fourteen lawyers.  She's the
only female lawyer there, but she said that there is much less sexual
harassment there.

Newsgroups: soc.women