Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Female GIs: Environment is tense, but protection against misconduct in place
Stars & Stripes ^ | Feb. 9, 2004 | Marni McEntee

Posted on 02/09/2004 11:26:41 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl


Monday, February 9, 2004
Female GIs: Environment is tense, but protection
against misconduct in place

By Marni McEntee, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Sunday, February 8, 2004


Marni McEntee / S&S
In military police units, male and female soldiers work together. Here, members of the 233rd Military Police Company, a National Guard unit from Springfield, Ill., relax on top of their Humvee. From left are: Spc. Michael Thompson Jr., Spc. Janet Sutter and Sgt. Richard Carroll. Spc. Ommy Frizarry, right, is with the 519th Military Police Battalion from Fort Polk, La.

BAGHDAD — Staff Sgt. Wendy McDermott, a nurse with the 67th Combat Support Hospital who just arrived in Iraq, always takes a buddy when she has to stray far from her living quarters or work area.

Traveling in pairs in a combat zone, said the Würzburg, Germany-based soldier, provides a measure of protection against all enemies — foreign or domestic.

“It’s bothersome, but you have to be careful in this environment,” said McDermott, 31, of Selingsgrove, Penn.

“It’s so overwhelmingly male here.”

The buddy system, which is unit policy, is one example of how the Army seeks to protect deployed female soldiers from sexual assault — an issue that is on the forefront of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s agenda.

On Thursday, Rumsfeld ordered a review of the department’s policy on sexual assault and the treatment of victims. The review, due back to Rumsfeld in three months, was prompted by a Jan. 25 Denver Post article that reported 37 female servicemembers sought counseling and other help from civilian rape crisis organizations after returning from war duty in Iraq and Kuwait.

Several soldiers interviewed Saturday in Iraq and Afghanistan said they were not aware of any sexual assaults in their units.

“I haven’t heard of anything like that,” said Pfc. Francesca Duke, of the 501st Military Police Company, 1st Armored Division, deployed to Baghdad. “Most of it’s pretty squared away,” said Duke, 21, of La Quinta, Calif.

Others, such as Sgt. Pamela Beasley of 2nd Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment, 1st Armored Division, said they trusted their chains of command to handle any such report.

“Nine times out of 10, if anybody were caught doing something like that, they’re gone,” said Beasley, 28, of Shreveport, La.

Roughly 59,742 women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq between October 2002 and November 2003. About 92 percent of military jobs are open to women.

In units where men and women work together, the military provides separate living and, usually, shower and toilet facilities.

That separation, Duke said, is really designed to prevent “mutual” attractions between men and women, as well as provide a modicum of privacy for each gender.

Despite such measures, Sgt. Carol Ralls, deployed to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, said she often finds the deployment atmosphere sexually charged.

“You can be a single woman in a crowd of 10 men, and all these men are talking about is sex — graphic issues about sex,” said Ralls, with the 518th Signal Company, from Fort Gordon, Ga.

To some extent, she said, women in the military just have to “humor” what is basically an annoyance. If talk gets to the point it’s offending, “you can get up and leave on your own. It’s nothing you’re going to cry to someone about.” But if it gets to the point where it’s getting out of hand, “you have to report it,” Ralls said. 

In response to questions about Rumsfeld’s review, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a senior Army leader in Iraq, said, “Whenever there’s an allegation, we investigate it very thoroughly.”

All servicemembers, whether deployed or not, receive annual training on the military’s zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy, he said.

“We take the matter very seriously,” said Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for Combined Joint Task Force-7.

Col. Lou Marich, commander of the 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade in Baghdad, said he found news of the review “upsetting,” because he has tried to create a climate in which all soldiers feel comfortable airing serious problems with their leaders.

“I would like to believe that my female soldiers would have the courage to come through this chain of command,” Marich said.

Duke, of the Friedberg, Germany-based 501st MP Company, said she would feel comfortable going to her leaders, unless the assault was by someone in her platoon.

“Then I might feel intimidated because I’d have to live with the guy for another two years,” Duke said.

— Staff writers Sandra Jontz in Washington, D.C., and Terry Boyd in Afghanistan contributed to this report.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: femalesoldiers; gnfi; militarywomen

1 posted on 02/09/2004 11:26:41 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; TEXOKIE; Alamo-Girl; windchime; Grampa Dave; anniegetyourgun; ...

On Thursday, Rumsfeld ordered a review of the department’s policy on sexual assault and the treatment of victims....prompted by a Jan. 25 Denver Post article that reported 37 female servicemembers sought counseling and other help from civilian rape crisis organizations after returning from war duty in Iraq and Kuwait.

Several soldiers interviewed Saturday in Iraq and Afghanistan said they were not aware of any sexual assaults in their units.

“I haven’t heard of anything like that,” said Pfc. Francesca Duke, of the 501st Military Police Company,

 Sgt. Pamela Beasley of 2nd Battalion, 501st Aviation Regiment, 1st Armored Division, “Nine times out of 10, if anybody were caught doing something like that, they’re gone..”

Roughly 59,742 women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq between October 2002 and November 2003. About 92 percent of military jobs are open to women.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perspective, ping.


2 posted on 02/09/2004 11:28:45 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
In units where men and women work together, the military provides separate living and, usually, shower and toilet facilities. That separation, Duke said, is really designed to prevent “mutual” attractions between men and women, as well as provide a modicum of privacy for each gender.

"That separation" used to be that females didn't serve in combat units or combat boats. I have no experience in land warfare. On combat surface boats the situation was bothersome enough without the added interpersonal problems that men AND women would have.

My anecdotal information from senior enlisted personnel on support vessels is that, "chicks on boats" don't work. Women add more problems than they solve.

Women in combat units or roles are part of a social experiment that, in my opinion, is a mistake.

3 posted on 02/09/2004 11:45:14 AM PST by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
4 posted on 02/09/2004 11:53:47 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan; Ragtime Cowgirl; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia
My anecdotal information from senior enlisted personnel on support vessels is that, "chicks on boats" don't work. Women add more problems than they solve.
Women in combat units or roles are part of a social experiment that, in my opinion, is a mistake.

And your opinion is shared, en masse, by a lot of folks.

My MI company is co-ed. The girls come and go, moving on to other units, or off to Basic/AIT, or other things. But there isn't a month that goes by where there isn't a co-ed presence.

Upshot is, it depends a lot on the personalities involved. One lady E-5 we had responded to every mumbled apology about gender stuff thus: "Male or female don't matter - I'm GREEN, so let's move on."

Another shemale decided she would further the glorious cause of World Socialism and continue to enfore the experiment; she lasted two months, leaving after the first drill weekend with The Boys.

We get our share of powder-puffs, and our share of extreme athletes, but if they can't be soldiers first, the problem will NOT become mine - it'll be theirs.

5 posted on 02/09/2004 12:47:45 PM PST by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
Bump!
6 posted on 02/09/2004 1:27:46 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
If women are in the military, they should be in separate all female groups with female officers. Dream on, right?
7 posted on 02/09/2004 1:44:37 PM PST by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne
It's beyond my experience. I don't doubt that many join the military carrying a big chip on their shoulders, putting ego ahead of God, country, family and fellow troops.

Watching American TV, going to American schools it's hard to escape the seduction of victimization, easy blame for our faults and mistakes.

I tell young woman to please think about what they're hearing, make up with their fathers before they lose the opportunity.

Know how they treat 'gender issues' in the Israeli military?

8 posted on 02/09/2004 1:54:48 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
One lady E-5 we had responded to every mumbled apology about gender stuff thus: "Male or female don't matter - I'm GREEN, so let's move on."

Your female E-5's attitude is admirable.

As you said some female soldiers are powderpuffs and some are extreme atheletes but if they are not "soldiers" first they are no good to you and the unit.
The difference is not in performance. Men can be bad performers as well. The differences are more profound than job performance, it is about psychological and innate traits that cannot be conditioned out.
Congressmen and some DOD people have bought into the "men and women are basically the same" fallacy and the result is the co-ed combat unit.

Unfortunately the people that make the decisions on this issue do not share my opinion that a co-ed fighting force is a mistake.

And for the lurkers thinking that racial integration is the same thing as this issue...it isn't.

9 posted on 02/09/2004 1:58:02 PM PST by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
The differences are more profound than job performance, it is about psychological and innate traits that cannot be conditioned out.

We agree on this one. The guys wash out for these reasons, same as the girls.

My point is, if the girl can handle the mission, groovy, let's drive on.

My unit isn't a line company; an MI company gets tossed all over the place. The girls also fill the Agent slots, and that's a big deal.

Now, every soldier irregardless of gender of job, has to pass CTT (for non-green-suit FReepers: Common Task Training), and that's MY job as an NCO to train them. if they blow it because of training, then the hit's on me. But if they start failing because of social issues, then it's their own choice, and I hang 'em outside.

10 posted on 02/09/2004 2:12:33 PM PST by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
You can be a single woman in a crowd of 10 men, and all these men are talking about is sex — graphic issues about sex,

I'd be worried if it were otherwise.  While I support fully women's voluntary military service, if they expect to change the atmosphere from whiskey/sexy to talking about kittens and needs, they will be sorely disappointed.
11 posted on 02/09/2004 5:37:28 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Perspective, indeed. I realize that the numbers in this article do not necessarily give an "apples vs apples" picture, but, using the numbers cited,

37 / 59,742 = a 0.06% sexual assault problem

That is six one hundredths of one percent. If that is correct within an order of magnitude, no wonder most soldiers have not heard of a problem. Wonder if the civilian population behaves as honorably?

Southern chivalrous upbringing and natural instinct are difficult to overcome -- especially under stress. My fear re having a female in combat alongside me is that I might find myself instinctively covering her, rather than looking out for #1 -- or my male buddies... (No chauvinism; just the way I was "brung up".)

12 posted on 02/09/2004 7:03:04 PM PST by TXnMA (No Longer!!! -- and glad to be back home (and warm) in God's Country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Bump!
13 posted on 02/09/2004 8:38:43 PM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
It's beyond my experience. I don't doubt that many join the military carrying a big chip on their shoulders, putting ego ahead of God, country, family and fellow troops.

See the following thoughts on the subject by a very knowledgable retired Marine Colonel, directed to young men considering enlistment as much as young women:

Now here we have some fellow who joined the Army "to get an education." That is the wrong reason. You join the Army to enforce the will of the people of the United States of America, by force, against their enemies. An Army exists for two reasons: first, to kill people, and second, to be so good at it that any threatening group will be intimidated to the point of inactivity. You do not join the Army to get anything. You join the Army to give of yourself, terminally if called for. I am not sure what this fellow means by "an education," but his meaning and mine obviously do not coincide.

14 posted on 02/10/2004 6:19:22 PM PST by archy (I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold. We'd fire no guns-shed no tears....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne
If women are in the military, they should be in separate all female groups with female officers. Dream on, right?

Probably a reasonable general policy, though possibly one that shouldn't be thought of as an absolute, carved in stone. Individuals will always find ways to exceed expectatations, and accordingly, some exceptions should probably exist.

There's little doubt in my mind that most women could handle the tasks required of a tank driver or gunner without a problem, though some of the maintenance requirements might take some conditioning. And I've known numerous female officers who could have handled the leadership of a tank platoon.

The loader's position, that of the newest rookie on the crew is another matter, so long as 65-pound main gun rounds have to be repeatedly loaded into the gun by hand, and quickly. But Russian and some other tanks have automatic loaders, so that might not be a future consideration. I don't think most Infantry or Artillery tasks are a job that could be done as well by most women, but some of those of the combat engineer might be possible.

15 posted on 02/10/2004 6:28:11 PM PST by archy (I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold. We'd fire no guns-shed no tears....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: archy
So we welcome the year 2004 with high hopes as with stern awareness of the problems we face. Liberty is what we stand for. Liberty is what we champion. Liberty will prevail.

Thanks, archy. Good point. Good link. Great attitude.

16 posted on 02/10/2004 7:00:02 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Perspective, ping.

The fundamental principle is to understand the difference between affirmative action and equal opportunity.

Affirmative action treats men and women as interchangable units regardless of ability to accomplish essential tasks; equal opportunity allows all individuals to compete and prove their ability to perform seamlessly in mission critical environments.

In WWII women could and did fly everything in the American Air Arsenal including the (then) mammouth B-29's. They were an invaluable resource when they ferried planes from assembly plants to military bases, served as target tow pilots and many cases trained aircrew in their respective positions in Bombers and cargo craft.

That did not automatically qualify them to serve in Combat Units, though it is likely a few would have passed the necessary tests.

Best regards,

17 posted on 02/10/2004 7:19:39 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson