I don't even know what to think about something like that. I mean... wow... pretending that women and men are equals? Promoting segregation?

I do like the way she goes from one end of the spectrum to the other. On the one hand, the men are just trying to make the women, you know, one of the guys by using sexual harassment to... uh... "neutralize sex" (however that would work). On the other, they're showing those uppity womens that they don't belong with The Men by raping them. So, they're both neutralizing sex and making it a hyper-issue? I see.

Thank gods I'm not involved with an organizationi that employs people like...

Oh.

Right.
*sigh*

"The Times made a much bigger mistake in featuring another woman -- Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker who said she had been raped twice while in the service and suffered a brain injury in Iraq when her Humvee was hit by an IED, killing her driver.

As it turned out, Randall was never in Iraq and there is no record of any sexual assault. The Times has run a correction."

Yes, break out the classic: THIS WOMAN LIED!!!!! SHE *LIED* DUDE!!! That means all women are liars and rape was invented by feminists to ruin the lives of admirable young boys!

This literally made me feel sick. I'm glad I had a small breakfast. You'll note at the end of the article that she says it's not actually the victims' fault. It's the fault of the Pentagon for caving to the feminists and putting women into the field like that.

Goddammit, men are NOT animals! And everytime some idiot like this gives them the excuse to behave like they are, one more complete waste of space out there is going to take it and expect that to take the burden of his own actions off his shoulders.

I don't care if you're in a war zone. I don't care if you resent that there are women in your outfit. I don't care what other pathetic excuse you might come up with. Men are NOT compelled to rape. The sooner everyone (both men who use this as an excuse and women like Kathleen Parker) deals with this fact, the sooner we can begin to make some real progress.

WOW!

Just to clarify, in the graph after the last one you cite Parker says those men believe a lie, so she's not saying the young assailants belief in inequality has a basis in fact.
But how in the world does she KNOW that feelings that women are not equal are behind sexual assault? She has literally pulled this out of her butt. It really boggles the mind that she would engage in this gross and baseless speculation on a topic which is so complex and sensitive.
As if these male assailants are thinking about anything when they commit these assaults. This attribution of complex motives is the kind of freudian psychoanalysis liberals and intellectuals used to get hammered for.
And though their motives are complex and wrong, she doesn't suggest that they be changed. Sad.

That's not how I parsed it, sophie. "The lie" is "women and men are equal," as I read it. She doesn't say that the men believe a lie, she says that they're forced to live one.

What she says is that dozens of men say that they're forced to pretend that "women are equals" when they (the men) know that they're not. "The lie" (pretending that men and women are equals) is what leads to contempt from the men towards the women.

sophie, I read that to mean that the "lie" Parker was referring to was the same "lie" that the men were bitter about: that of female/male equality.

In other words, I read it to indicate that the men are forced to behave as if they believe in female/male equality. However, because they know this equality is a lie, they feel resentment and then rape women. At no point did I see Parker saying that this "lie" was in fact the truth, or that the men were in any way wrong to believe it a lie.

Not that it makes any more sense this way, mind you, but that's how I read it.

There are issues in the military period. If men are at serious risks of rape in the military, then why wouldnt a woman be at the same if not higher risk of getting raped?

Rape occurred long before women were even in the military, so why would this disappear the moment women join? Why *should* it disappear simply because a woman joins?

Another common place for rape is prisons. Would you expect it to completely stop the moment a woman is put into a majority male prison system? No, one would expect it to occur.

Crime will not go away, ever. Including violent or sexual crimes.

The proverbial if you leave your door unlocked, is it the victim's fault if they get robbed? Of course not. But it will happen if you leave it unlocked enough times.

Blaming the victims, like this article does, is completely wrong. But in the same regard - should a woman expect a completely victim free life in the military? No she shouldnt. If men must deal with it, as young as 16 I might add, so must women. If you dont want to have any iota of your being violated, the military is not the place to be. In fact, I will go as far as saying - you should expect it there.

Expect to get hit, called names, demeaned, and/or raped. And the majority of these crimes will be committed by women against women in the military. Likewise with men. It happens to men on a daily basis within the military, so why should a woman expect special treatment?

Are you somehow better then the millions of men that this happens to as well?

That being said, there is some validity to this article. If you go into the military, expecting anything less the full-time abuse, your living in a fairy tale.

Men dont resent women in their outfit, at least no company Ive been a part of has resented me. I f anything, men welcome the sight of a woman in their outfit. Nor does this article give every man an excuse to go rape women. It happens, will continue to happen, so I suggest we as women take action to prevent it from occurring.

Learn how to defend yourself. Learn how to avoid problematic situations. Spread awareness about the evils of abuse/rape. But do not join the military expecting anything less than full time abuse.

While rape may (or may not) be a fact of life for those in the military, it doesn't make it acceptable.

It's unfortunate that one woman interviewed by the Times turned out to be a liar, because that will only fuel the fire of deniers (as we can see by Ms. Parker's column).

Well, gee, Scilian, did it ever occur to you that we do (and you ought to) object to ANYONE being raped? And that EVERYONE has the right to a rape-free life no matter who they are or where they are? That sexual abuse of any type, done to ANYONE is wrong, evil, and should be stopped?

Scilian, you're seriously wearing on my nerves.

Scilian, I don't get why you are under the impression that we think only women can be victims of rape. The article that was posted is about women being rape in the military, so that's what we're commenting on.

"Spread awareness about the evils of abuse/rape."

Isn't that exactly what we're doing? But then you just go off on all this "you should expect it!" bullshit. Just because it's expected doesn't mean it needs to be accepted. That's the fucking point. Nobody is saying that women need special treatment, we're just commenting on an article that is specifically talking about abuse against women in the military.

Uhh duhh.. of course rape is wrong. You missed the point.

I even said victim blaming is wrong. maybe you missed that too.
I dont promote rape. I dont promote sexual/violent crimes in any way shape or form.

But going about like its a woman's issue is dead wrong. Its a military issue. Address it from those angles and you might make some progress.

But until the military has gone through some serious reforms, dont expect anything less if you join.

And it isnt just rape. Rape is the minority crime. Try physical abuse, discrimination, emotional abuse, among many others.

All I said was there was some validity to the article, albeit not much.

Living with your head in the sand and then getting upset about the obvious doesnt help. Do something. Change someone's life and do something about it.

And I'd love to see the study/data/statistics showing the "millions of men that this happens to as well."

I'd also love to see where you get the idea that most military rapes against women are being perpetrated by women.

Rape should not be a part of being in the military, regardless of sex. If you want "spread awareness about the evils of abuse/rape" I'd suggest that maybe... just maybe throwing your hands up and saying "What do you expect? This shit happens. Nothing can be done about it" isn't necessarily the best way to go about that.

Also- I can't believe you compared the military to a prison system... and without even a hint of irony. You'll pardon me if I have slightly higher expectations for behavior from an organization that is supposed to be all about discipline and order than I do for, you know, large groups of convicted criminals who are there precisely because they refuse to accept order.

Scilian---
Let me try to understand your position.

If men must deal with it, as young as 16 I might add, so must women.

You're saying that the kind of abuse that troops endure through physical and mental training is the same as getting raped?!? Besides, if women go through boot camp and suffer through the same kinds of physical endurance training that the men suffer through, isn't rape ANOTHER abuse on top of that? What are you saying, that the men go out and run 10 miles up a mountain, meanwhile the women's "training" is to try not to get raped?

If you dont want to have any iota of your being violated, the military is not the place to be. In fact, I will go as far as saying - you should expect it there.

I don't think these women aren't expecting the tough physical and mental demands. I don't think they're asking not to be tested. I don't even think they're saying don't violate one "iota" of me---what they're saying is don't violate my vagina.

I think that if men were getting ass-raped, coerced to have sex with other men, etc., those soldiers would not be told "Learn how to defend yourself. Learn how to avoid problematic situations.

Women in the military should expect the same obstacles men face; not added sexual abuse and intimidation based solely on the fact that they are women.

"Scilian, you're seriously wearing on my nerves."

Apparently anyone with an opinion that doesnt match yours 100% gets on your nerves.

No, it's anyone who uses bullshit deterministic arguments like yours, which frame rape as some inevitable and therefore acceptable activity, that wears on people's nerves.

"You're saying that the kind of abuse that troops endure through physical and mental training is the same as getting raped?!? Besides, if women go through boot camp and suffer through the same kinds of physical endurance training that the men suffer through, isn't rape ANOTHER abuse on top of that? What are you saying, that the men go out and run 10 miles up a mountain, meanwhile the women's "training" is to try not to get raped?"

You obviously missed the point. Thats exactly what Im not saying. Men get raped a lot in the military. The very first sign posted on every single (male only) barracks at Ft. Sill when I was there, was a rule sign.

The #1 rule? You will not rape other male soldiers.

In two years of liaison duties, I handled over hundred sexual crimes for male - male. Not one (granted there were only a dozen, maybe two at ft sill at the time) female - male case ever came across my desk in those 2 years.

kimmie.
you could be right. I think your interpretation is more consistent with the overall tone of the article. I guess I had ruled that out in my first reading because it was so terribly unbelievable.

"I'd also love to see where you get the idea that most military rapes against women are being perpetrated by women."

I didnt say that.

"Expect to get hit, called names, demeaned, and/or raped. And the majority of these crimes will be committed by women against women in the military."

Rape is the minority of these crimes. The majority, physical/mental/emotional abuse, demeaning and discrimination occur at the hands of women superiors to women subordinates.

Like wise with males. The statistical data is available to military personnel, and should be (dont quote me) available to you with a simple exercise of your freedom of information right.

"Rape should not be a part of being in the military, regardless of sex. If you want "spread awareness about the evils of abuse/rape" I'd suggest that maybe... just maybe throwing your hands up and saying "What do you expect? This shit happens. Nothing can be done about it" isn't necessarily the best way to go about that."

I didnt say that. I said expecting any less than full time abuse when you join, is misguided.

"Also- I can't believe you compared the military to a prison system... and without even a hint of irony. You'll pardon me if I have slightly higher expectations for behavior from an organization that is supposed to be all about discipline and order than I do for, you know, large groups of convicted criminals who are there precisely because they refuse to accept order."

Maybe you should join the military. Im just stating how it is, and I also said it was wrong. There are gang rapes, gang beatings, and abuse consistent with the prison system. Thats all I was referencing.

Its a psychological phenomenon call gang mentality. I personally was involved in compiling data for two studies under the last years of G.B sr. and the first years of Clinton's direction.

Scilian, it should give you pause that EVERYONE "misses" your points. Maybe you're not making them well, or they don't make any sense? Or, I guess, you could continue to believe it's EVERYONE else's shortcoming.

And wait, suddenly you served in the military? I found this comment of yours in the thread about "Female Soldier's Hell":

"Women are discriminated on every level in the military.

My Father, stepfather, both grandfathers, and 3 brothers all served in the military.

The stories they would tell me gave me the creeps.

Not only is discrimination rampant, there is no protection in place to safeguard female soldiers from the males. (fellow soldiers, not combat enemies)

The statistics speak worlds for themselves."

So, an entirely different opinion, as well as no mention of your own service, while referencing every other person in your family's. I don't get it. Unless of course, you change your identity as it suits you?

for the record - Im not stating the military is equal to a prison system, or the quality of people involved. Just that gang dynamics are at play.

"Scilian, it should give you pause that EVERYONE "misses" your points. Maybe you're not making them well, or they don't make any sense? Or, I guess, you could continue to believe it's EVERYONE else's shortcoming."

Maybe your right, but if it only occurs whenever my opinion mismatches someone else's here, than I dont think its an inherent issue with me. Who knows, maybe it is, but I doubt it.

Why was rule #1:

You will not rape other male soldiers.

and not:

You will not rape, period.

Scilian, thanks for illustrating so clearly exactly why this happens in the military.

And as for joining the military, it's ass-hats like you that give the military it's unsavory reputation as a holding pen for meat-headed, violent, misogynistic dickwads.

No thanks.

Me thinks I smell a troll anyhow...

"So, an entirely different opinion, as well as no mention of your own service, while referencing every other person in your family's. I don't get it. Unless of course, you change your identity as it suits you?"

How is that different? I never said I supported the abuse that continues to happen. Once again - I just said expecting any different than full time abuse is misguided.

Yes Charity - why is it so hard to believe I joined the military and left for a civilian career? Ohh wait, gang mentality is at play on this site, you will find it in my other posts.

What was the proper response I posted? Something like, Im sorry massa, it wont happen again. Im sorry for being an individual with an opinion. So please, lets try to attack me some more.

pretty please...don't feed the trolls.

"And as for joining the military, it's ass-hats like you that give the military it's unsavory reputation as a holding pen for meat-headed, violent, misogynistic dickwads."

Funny, you fit the exact profile for a troll. One that was written about feministing and hosted at a .edu site, tho I cant remember which one. Maybe IU? I dont know, if I come across it again, Ill post it.

My momma always told me that if you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. That's my peace.

Besides, fuckwits like Kathleen Parker shouldn't be given the time of day. Why the fuck are we arguing over what these idiots say, it just shows them that they've hit the pressure point they were aiming for.

I live in Orlando and have to see KP's smug face on the Op-Ed pages weekly. She never fails to piss me off.

With this one, she's riled the Neanderthals and is getting a buttload of huzzahs! and attagirls in the comments.

Everyone seems to miss the fact that she's basically said men can't control themselves and will use rape as a weapon against us.

Shorter conservatives, on every issue known to humanity: It's the woman's fault.

"You obviously missed the point. Thats exactly what Im not saying. Men get raped a lot in the military. The very first sign posted on every single (male only) barracks at Ft. Sill when I was there, was a rule sign.

The #1 rule? You will not rape other male soldiers."

Say what?

I was in the Army and have also worked with many officers since becoming a civilian, and I call BS. I have never heard of any such thing being posted anywhere, nor of any widespread male-on-male rapes. I'm sure it has happened on occassion, but not to any statistically significant degree. Who the heck is this Scilian and why is he making up crap? What exactly are "liaison duties" anyway?

I'm an Army brat, born and raised on Army posts. I attended four years of high school on an Air Force base. When I was 20, I joined the Marine Corps. I'm a civilian now.

Long story short, nowhere, at any time did I ever see any bullshit signs that read, "You will not rape other male soldiers." or anything else even remotely similar.

For craps' sake -- the story is about today's female soldiers being raped by male soldiers while serving in the military in a war zone. [And of course, it's written in KP's typical anti-woman style.]

Focus, Scilian, focus.

That doesn't sound like the caring, empathic, progressive Kathleen Parker I've come to know and love! Something must have happened!

How to be a troll in 3 easy steps:

#1 Make statement, deliberately designed to incite flames:
"Expect to get hit, called names, demeaned, and/or raped. And the majority of these crimes will be committed by women against women in the military. Likewise with men. It happens to men on a daily basis within the military, so why should a woman expect special treatment?
Are you somehow better then the millions of men that this happens to as well?"

#2: Pretend you didn't say what you said:

"I dont promote rape. I dont promote sexual/violent crimes in any way shape or form."

#3: When no one buys your bullshit, snivel like a child:

"What was the proper response I posted? Something like, Im sorry massa, it wont happen again. Im sorry for being an individual with an opinion. So please, lets try to attack me some more."

Kathleen Parker is the same moron who, shortly after 9-11, decided to bash atheists. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-10-01-ncguest1.htm

Because "there are no atheists in foxholes, as everyone knows". And I guess because when 19 religious nuts hijack planes and fly them into buildings that's a sure sign that you don't want secularism, rationality, or a critical examination of kneejerk nationalism to gain a toehold in this country.

And doesn't everyone know that news analysis and commentary is the province of men? Maybe some of Parker's male counterparts get violently angry at being forced to accept an unequal female in their midst. She should get herself back in the kitchen and stop trying to write columns. I'm saying this for her own protection, of course.

Maybe your right, but if it only occurs whenever my opinion mismatches someone else's here, than I dont think its an inherent issue with me.

Scilian, the problem is that every time I've seen you post here you're disagreeing with someone. We're under no obligation to treat you with ADDED deference just because you disagree with most of us. Essentially that's what you're asking for, and that's unreasonable. Your points on this thread are not internally cohesive, and that's what people have been pointing out. That they disagree with you is likely a catalyst that gives them the urge to respond and point out why your arguments don't make sense, but if you take a few minutes to peruse the archives you'll see there are plenty of places where people disagree WHILE MAKING SENSE. The fact that you don't make sense AND that we disagree with you, doesn't mean we're deliberately misinterpreting. If disagreement is itself a bar to certain forms of argument, what's the point of talking?

Dear Scilian,

Saying "it HAPPENS" and "you should expect it" is the exact reason rape continues in the military. Didn't you read the other articles about how abuses don't occur when the leadership doesn't allow it? If, however, military leadership, like, say, the Pentagon, ignores the problem and refuses to do anything about it, it will continue.

You said that women shouldn't expect any different until there are drastic changes in the military. Well, the people here are agitating for change, and you're telling everyone to shut up and just expect it, because men suffer from the appalling effects of rape as well.

Should we all sit down and be quiet like good little ladies and wait for the men in charge to realize on their own that there is a problem and decide that maybe, something substantial needs to be done?

The following comments may be sortof imflammatory I'm really just throwing it out there for discussion, not because I passionately believe it or anything. But discussing contrary ideas is how we can revise and improve our own belief systems, right? Theoretically.

So... what if men really CAN'T control their sexual urges? In every military conflict that I've ever heard of there has been some kind of sexual abuse of females And/OR the frequenting of "Professional" women. That is not to say that 100% of the men enlisted in the military engaged in this behavior, say maybe 10% of men just can't handle going without sex. Pointedly the men who join the military do not take a vow, they didn't sign up for a life of celebacy, they signed up to fight and protect our country. I have to wonder how many of them really thought about how long they would be requried to go without getting any.

Granted this doesn't EXCUSE their behavior. It violates the very basic ideals of our country that one of our soldiers would rape anyone, especially another soldier.

But if we look at the reason for the rapes we may actually be able to find a solution.
If the reason men rape fellow soldiers and civillians is that they feel they have some god given right to abuse women (or smaller men), then we have to socialize and punish them until they don't do it anymore.

But what if they are just really freaking horny? I've heard that life threatening situations can really ramp up ones sex drive. And I know I start to get pretty cranky after a week or so. So I imagine the tension is pretty high over there.

The solution to horniness, is some what easier to come by than the solution to just plain being a rapist. Lisenced prostitutes in followers camps that could provide their services, have some kind of union, maybe subsidize the rates for the solider types so the soldiers can afford it, and the workers get paid well. (I know this will be the least popular idea ever.) Personally I wouldn't mind if some of my taxes went to our service men (and women, because chocolate is NOT THAT good) getting laid, as long as both parties were consenting adults.

The fact that people are currently getting raped on my dime really pisses me off. I imagine the true reason for the continued sexual assaults lies between the two reasons I stated above. The military is Patriarchal, and that is probably a major factor, but I bet horniness is a pretty big contributor as well.

Don't feed the trolls.

I should point out that I think people getting raped at any point is bad, I realize my comment made it sound like I only cared cause I am paying for it.

I would characterize rape in the military, versus other typse of sexual assault that happens over here in the states differently. I think the military, not unlike the catholic church, provides a venue for, and does not work actively enough to prevent rape. The Catholic Church provides no counseling to priests or nuns on how to maintain their vow, likewise the military provides no outlet for their soldiers sexuality. And they both do this while simultaneously protecting the people who commit sexual assault within their ranks.

Whereas rapes that occur in the US really are just the fault of the individual doing the raping, whether at a frat party or on the street.

Shinobi, while it's definitely nice to have a willing partner to help you release sexual tension, it's not absolutely essential. GIs have hands, just like everyone else and during my 10 years in the Navy, I concluded they were quite good at using them. There is no justification for exploiting another person to obtain sexual gratification, period. I'm not calling for banning sex work, but I'll never buy the argument that anyone needs it.

Hautedonna,
But is it really the same? Alas. I see your point.

Unfortunately their strong right arms don't seem to be protecting our service women very well. Maybe it really is just their dominance issues.

Does it really need saying that rape is not about horniness or a necessary release of sexual tension? As others have already pointed out, masturbation is always an option. And how do you explain the rape and brutalization of numerous prostitutes in Vietnam (and likely, other theaters of war as well)...having "available" sex partners is not an antidote to rape. Rape in wartime, just like any other time, is about power and aggression and dehumanization of another.

I need to point out that men who rape DON'T want a "willing partner to help release sexual tension."

They want to use an unwilling woman's body against her. Rape isn't just an assholish way for horny guys to get off. The APPEAL is that the woman isn't into it - it gives the rapist a sense of power and control.

christ, the word "rape" appears on a blog and every dumbfuck in the world shows up to post comments pertaining to the need for "sexual outlets" for men or how some men just can't control themselves.

craney808 you are right but the post I was addressing suggested that providing men with prostitutes (who arguably don't count as willing either) would lessen the incidence of rape. Despite all the research concluding that rape is largely a crime of violence and control, the idea persists that men do it to get sex.

I know, hautedonna. I didn't mean to conflict with your point, but with Shinobi's. Sorry if it came off that way.

I know that rape is more about violence and control than it is about the sexual gratification.

My question is, does this still pertain in an environment where sexual gratification with a partner is not available? The answer appears to be yes, according to this board.

Any decent, rational human being can control their sexual urges if they choose to. The other factors don't really come into it. Witness the many young men who serve overseas and don't rape anyone. I'm sure they'd very much like to have sex with their partners. But they either find some other, willing, partner, or they wait and make use of their hands. Sexual desire is no excuse or explanation for rape.

Yes, Shinobi, because men still have their hands available if they feel like having an orgasm.

I do think a lot of young men grow up viewing girls and women as passive objects in a world that revolves around them and their sexual desires.

The abstinence-only "education" movement has only made things worse, as it relies heavily on heterosexist gender stereotypes and never makes any mention of the importance of getting affirmative consent when it comes to sex. I think a lot of guys think "yes" is the default, and unless a woman's kicking and screaming "no!" at the top of her lungs - she's fair game.

Shinobi --

"the men who join the military do not take a vow, they didn't sign up for a life of celebacy"

Aaaaand that's where you reveal your own screwed up notions of the sexual dynamics here, at least as far as I'm concerned. What does the fact that soldiers "didn't sign up for a life of celebacy[sic]" have to do with anything? "A life of celibacy" is *not* the same as having some fucking self-control. One shouldn't be able to get out of a murder conviction by saying that they were in an especially murderous mood that they just couldn't control (in fact, that should probably get them locked up for longer). Likewise, saying "but I was so horny!" is SO, SO not ANY kind of excuse or even acceptable explanation for rape -- anywhere, under any circumstances.

Besides, what would you do to fix the problem as you percieve it? Get the army to hire some human-sex-receptacles for those soldiers, who might just start raping each other if you don't hurry up and stick a vagina on the ends of their dicks for them sometime soon?? You do realize that that's how you're portraying male sexuality here, right?

Rape has nothing to do with uncontrollable sex urges. The rapists manage to restrain themselves fine until they can catch the woman alone, and away from witnesses.

As someone pointed out to me many years ago, we have an overwhelming biological urge to urinate but if I piss on Kathleen Parker's foot (OK, he didn't use that as an example) she probably won't accept that I just couldn't control myself.

"Whereas rapes that occur in the US really are just the fault of the individual doing the raping, whether at a frat party or on the street."

then why are rapes within the military or parish not the fault of the individual? your argument is soldiers don't get enough sexual outlets, making rape more understandable. there are plenty of people in all walks of life who aren't getting all (or any) of the sex they want. so what if a rapist is a 35 year old virgin- can he argue in court that it wasn't fair he couldn't find a willing partner and he didn't take a vow of celibacy?
what if a soldier attacks another soldier for something else he can't "get enough of?" (clean underwear, socks, food, letters from home, etc) soldiers, especially those in a war zone, should be trained to have self control and make personal sacrifices.

So... what if men really CAN'T control their sexual urges?

Well, Shinobi, the vast vast vast majority of them can. Assuming for purposes of argument that a small minority of them can't, that doesn't change a damn thing. People who have such a tenuous grasp on reality that they are physically unable to function according to the rules in civilized society are usually institutionalized. If these men really and truly can't help themselves, if they are really and truly unable to stop themselves from harming others, then I suggest they receive the same mandatory confinement and therapy that others in their situation do.

OK, TLF, I was going to post exactly the same thing. Except I was going to be nastier. If "men" as a group can't control their sexual urges, then men as a group cannot take their place in society as competent adults, and they shouldn't have the same rights as competent adults. Nor should they be allowed to hold positions of power. End of story.

EG, I'm totally with you on the "nastier" :) I just felt like sounding detached and academic to trick* people into agreeing themselves into a corner. Drat! You're too smart for me! ;)

* Not actually trickery. Just that I suspect if people realized the consequences of saying that men can't control their sexual urges, they'd be less likely to agree with the clear and obvious conclusion of that statement, while still not wanting to withdraw it.

And frankly it's a huge disservice to military service men and women to make comments like "I have to wonder how many of them really thought about how long they would be requried to go without getting any", and to say that life-threatening situations surely "ramp up" the sex drive. Do you get your ideas about combat and other life-threatening situations, and how they feel, from TV sitcoms? If you were trolling to offend feminists by making provocative and stupid comments about rape, you've actually done more to disparage soldiers by presuming to understand their experience and casting them as oversexed, naive, and out of control.

And we sure as hell shouldn't have guns and tanks for gods sakes.

Oddly, even when I was suffering through a multi-year sexual drought, I never thought rape was an acceptable solution. I guess I'm just lucky that way.

Can I havea a position of power, now? ;)

Any time, Roy!

"Can I havea a position of power, now? ;)"

Considering how hot feminist guys are, I imagine you could have a variety of positions. Sexy is a man with a brain who uses it for the power of good!

So... what if men really CAN'T control their sexual urges?

No sane, non-sociopathic man is incapable of controlling his sexual urges. There may be an awful lot of men who think they shouldn't have to, but that's their problem, not an inherent characteristic of maleness.

All of these men who get so horny they "can't control themselves" would learn self-control in a hurry if, say, 1 in 4 women were actually shapeshifting aliens who'd bite their heads off if assaulted. Or to be a little less fantastical, if rape had a much, much higher prosecution and conviction rate (i.e., high enough that you couldn't rape someone and expect that you'd probably get away with it).

In that scenario, all these men who are just so blinded by testosterone and unable to think clearly because of their uncontrollable manly urges would, I think demonstrate a surprisingly rational ability to calculate risk vs. reward and conclude that rape isn't such a great way to relieve sexual frustration. So much for the "men can't control themselves" theory (which I also find offensive, being a man who was also in the military).

Well, exactly Inverarity. If these men who allegedly "can't control their urges" were confronted with a woman holding a shotgun, I bet they'd learn control pretty fucking immediately.

Parker wants us to confuse an anecdote with evidence. She's a concern troll, stirring up FUD over the validity of any military rape case, and she's doing us all a disservice.

What is most disturbing about the article is that this woman wrote an article arguing against the equality of women (in the military). Why? This woman's problem is that she types (and publishes) before she truly thinks... or she only writes with a personal (political) agenda. Most everyone would not take one serial killer as a reason to brand all humanity as a bunch of murderers... so why is this a good reason to say that women (as in more than one woman) of the military lie about being raped? I do not know. Disconcerting at best.

Parker's comments are completely outrageous, cruel, misogynist and offensive.
While her writing suggests she would be the kind of anti-feminist to blame the victim no matter what the circumstances, i think a thoughtful response to the issue of rape in the military should look at the specific situation in which these rapes are occurring. The military, particularly the American military, is an organization which launches bloody, brutal wars against poorer nations and uses torture and sexual humiliation against prisoners. It is an entire profession built around the degradation of other human beings. That rape occurs anywhere is appalling, but that it occurs in the military is hardly surprising. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm in any way condoning what goes on, because i truly don't, i just think it's sadly unsurprising given the violent, morally bankrupt nature of the military itself.

When I saw this column in our local paper last week, I sent this to the editor:

"But the most worthy of contempt is Kathleen Parker's suggestion that sexual assault on female soldiers serving in Iraq has its roots in anything but the failure of leaders who tolerate "a simmering rage that sometimes finds expression in aggression toward those deemed responsible."

Parker thinks this is a social issue, and segregation is the answer. As a former platoon sergeant, I know that this is a leadership issue, and the solution is better training in core military values—like honor, respect, and selfless service. The problem is not coed military units and male soldiers who feel "resentment" for having to "pretend women are equals" when the men "know they are not." The problem is male soldiers—and leaders—who don’t know right from wrong.

Soldiers and leaders who do harbor such resentment need to stop whining and do their jobs. We have a war to fight, and the enemy isn’t the female soldier with the wrench in her hand."

I have more comprehensive comments on my blog, here: http://foggybottomline.com/?p=15

As a former Army NCO, it disturbs me when people like Parker make the military out to be some kind of "he-man woman hater's club."

Keep in mind, Parker's column on Jessica Lynch getting captured used her as proof that women aren't capable of serving effectively in combat.

No time to read but Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel appears on the op-ed page of the Chicago Tribune and is an annoying, conservative anti-feminist. FYI.

Of course all these conservative women call themselves feminists when they are in fact not.

Sigh. So many things are disturbing and upsetting about her column. The way she uses rhetorical statements to fein like she's feminist in the beginning and then turns on women in the end, for example.

In addition, one thing that really bothered me was the monolithic way she paints men as a single group that will inevitably abuse, sexualize, and attack women.

Even though there are abusive, sexist men in the military, there are also clearly many men who can respect and work together with women. One simple solution would be to promote these men into superior positions in the military (along with women, of course). Then you could use the heirarchical system of the military to impose a system of respecting women, not abusing them. Her complete ignorance of these men only adds to the flaws in her analysis.

The part about segregation is almost laughable too. Is she really proposing "separate but equal" in 2007? If anything, a real solution would be to only allow gay men and women in combat. That would ensure minimal sex *between* the genders. :)

It's not just the military the government needs to promote men who respect and work alongside women. White patriarchy's first tenet is to be what is not female. No sissy stuff. So we have Republicans whose main platform issues are anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-environment and anti-immigrant because men of color are otherized like women.

The definition of manhood in four succinct phrases by psychologist Robert Brannon, 1976:

1. No Sissy Stuff. One may never do anything that even remotely suggests femininity. Masculinity is the relentless repudiation of the feminine.

2. Be A Big Wheel. Masculinity is measured by power, success, wealth and status. “He who has the most toys when he dies wins.�

3. Be A Sturdy Oak. Masculinity depends on remaining calm and reliable in a crisis, holding emotions in check. Proving you’re a man depends on never showing your emotions at all. Boys don’t cry.

4. Give ‘Em Hell. Exude an aura of manly daring and aggression. Go for it. Take risks

Of course all these conservative women call themselves feminists when they are in fact not.

To dust off an old chestnut, who made you the feminist police?

I can't believe this freakin article was written!!!!! This is terrible on way too many levels. It claims that women should EXPECT rape but hey that's OK, because we LIKE it, and we DESERVE it because we're not even equal to men. What makes it even worse is that it is a woman who wrote it. Disguisting.

pearl, i'm talking about independent women's forum type feminists who are against women's rights or constantly criticize the feminist movement yet call themselves feminists. ann althouse, ann coulter, caitlin flanagan, kathleen parker, etc.

Great Ceasar's ghost, what has happened to the U.S. military??

I am a female who served in the USAF from 1979-1987 and never experienced ANY abuse whatsoever, sexual, mental, physical or otherwise. This whole thing is news to me (I figured Tailhook was some sort of terrible anomaly, so perhaps I'm being naive.)

While I was active duty, we were constantly reminded at every single commanders' call that sexual harassment was not going to be tolerated. I mean, we got sexual harassment training right along with marksmanship, CPR and so on.

They must have cut the funding...

As someone pointed out to me many years ago, we have an overwhelming biological urge to urinate but if I piss on Kathleen Parker's foot (OK, he didn't use that as an example) she probably won't accept that I just couldn't control myself.

I just about had Diet Dr.Pepper up my nose on that one.

Ugh. I just listened to this woman on NPR (here) and it was utterly unbelievable.

That doesn't sound like the caring, empathic, progressive Kathleen Parker I've come to know and love! Something must have happened!

Hee. How did I miss that the first time around?

To dust off an old chestnut, who made you the feminist police?

I'm not sure why you'd bother dusting that one off. When you've got someone writing about how women are inferior to men, and how women shouldn't be pursuing equal rights, or you've got someone judging women based solely on their bust size, perceived attractiveness, or when you've got someone telling women that they shouldn't be trying to do the things that make them happy, that they should be staying at home making babies and being good little house-wives, then they're not feminists. They can call themselves any damn thing they want, but when they actively fight against equality and against women's rights, then they're not actually feminists, regardless of what organs they have below the belt.

I'm not in the habit of telling people what labels they can and can't use, but some of them are pretty obvious. If someone tells me that they don't believe in God or Jesus, but tells me "I'm a Christian," you can bet that I'm going to question that, too.

There are several things that bug/piss me off about KP's discussion.
1. Having a vagina does not make you a feminist. What comes out of your mouth and goes on in your head does, regardless of the arrangement of your erectile tissue and other organs.
2. Men don't rape. Disturbed, power-craving, hateful people rape. That rape and healthy sexuality have EVER been conflated is an indicator of sickness in gender stereotyping and socialization.
3. That she considers sexual harrassment equal to "harmless towel-snapping" is indicative of the lens that she is looking through. Sexual harrassment is not harmless. Nothing that incites PTSD is.

Rape is not just wrong, it's egregiously wrong, wherever it's found...whether it be prison or the streets after dark or in a warzone. I don't know what kind of fantasyland Parker is living in if she beleives that women are that much safer at home if any of her arguments are remotely true. Poster child for cognitive dissonance...party of Parker...