Last week, we took a look at New York’s proposed “Textalyzer,” a new PTSD report, and a first date from hell. ICYMI, check out some Law Street’s most talked about stories below!

New York May Legalize “Textalyzer” to Bust Distracted Drivers

Most of you have probably done it. You hear a ding or feel that all too familiar faint  buzz, and tell yourself there’s no harm in taking a quick glance at the screen–I mean it could be important. But as harmless as a quick text from behind the wheel might seem, texting while driving can be incredibly dangerous. Looking to put a stop to the trend, New York lawmakers are considering legalizing technology that would help police bust distracted drivers.

Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

The report showed that 62 percent of all service members who were discharged for misconduct between 2011 and 2015 had been diagnosed with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or other conditions that can cause similar behavior. That totals over 57,000 soldiers. Out of the 57,000, 16 percent had PTSD or TBI.

The majority of the rest had adjustment and alcohol-related disorders. Those include depression, anxiety, personality disorders, different kinds of substance addictions, or bipolar disorder. Twenty-three percent of the soldiers discharged got an “other than honorable” discharge. This means they are, in most cases, not eligible for any military health care, disability pensions, or other benefits.

GAO Reports that 62% of Soldiers Separated for Misconduct Have PTSD or Other Disorders https://t.co/nwaqKoHH1A pic.twitter.com/5jFIvizWw5

— The Alt Standard (@TheAlt_Media) May 17, 2017

The military has long been criticized for not doing enough to help its veterans. Now experts are also criticizing President Donald Trump’s new health care bill; it passed the House earlier this month. The new bill categorizes PTSD as a pre-existing condition, which could make health insurance inaccessible to millions of veterans.

Given that Trump campaigned on the promise to do more for veterans, a lot of people slammed the new bill. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth lost her legs while serving in the Iraq war. She called the health care bill “stunning” for making it harder for veterans to get access to health care.

We need to reduce barriers to mental health care for service members & vets – not make PTSD a pre-existing condition #VeteransResist #NoAHCA

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) May 13, 2017

After speculations first broke that soldiers suffering from PTSD or TBI were frequently discharged, the military introduced regulations, screening soldiers to detect any such diseases before punishing them. But the GAO report showed that this rarely happened. And no one monitored the new regulations to check for compliance.

“Before, we were speculating. Now we have hard numbers to prove there are this vast numbers of combat veterans affected,” said Representative Mike Coffman, a Republican from Colorado and an Iraq War veteran. He said he believes that people want to do something about the problem, but that there has been a lack of understanding. Hopefully, this new information will lead to some change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders appeared first on Law Street.

In 1948, H. Edward Spires was discharged as “undesirable” from the military because he was gay. On Friday, his discharge was finally updated to “honorable,” after almost 70 years. “My first thought was, ‘it’s about time,” Spires said on Monday. “I can lift my head again.” One of the law students who worked on the case, Erin Baldwin, doesn’t know why the Air Force changed its mind, since Spires has requested the change several times. “I’m not sure we can say with certainty but it was helpful that he had support from a lot of different places,” she said.

When the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which banned openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military, was repealed in 2011, Spires became qualified to ask to upgrade his discharge. But the Air Force claimed that a 1973 fire had destroyed his military records, and denied his application. In November, a group of law students from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic helped Spires and his husband David Rosenberg, who is also a veteran, file a federal lawsuit. Spires is currently recovering from pneumonia, which made the issue even more pressing.

Finally, the military granted his request. In a letter signed last Thursday, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledges Spires’ request and writes, “Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.”

Gay Air Force veteran honorably discharged 68 years later https://t.co/0EWoeTjF5K pic.twitter.com/KxriaCM5rX

— Hartford Courant (@hartfordcourant) January 9, 2017

Spires enlisted in the military when he was 20 years old, in 1946. He was assigned the role of a chaplain’s assistant at the Air Force Base in San Antonio and was soon promoted to the rank of sergeant. He told NBC in November that he lived a closeted life whenever he was at the base. Spires loved San Antonio and was part of a small community of other closeted gay men. But all of that changed when he went to a Halloween party dressed as the soap Oxydol, which was advertised at the time as very sparkly. So Spires dressed “very sparkly and that was taken as being in drag,” he said. “Someone at the party recognized me and said, ‘Ah-ha! He must be gay.’”

After that, the military treated him differently; officers interrogated him for weeks, asked personal questions about his life, and sent him to meet a board of inquiry every day for a week. Spires was too ashamed to tell his mother what was going on, even though she came to visit him at the same time as the trial. He said:

I had to be my own attorney. They did not furnish me an attorney because I was thought of as nothing. They were already convinced I was gay and that I was guilty. […] I can’t tell you how terrible it was. I couldn’t tell her, I can’t spend days with you because I’m on trial.

He collapsed under the pressure, and was discharged because of “undesirable habits and traits of character,” in June of 1948. He never came out to his parents, but met his husband in 1956 and married him in 2009. Rosenberg said that there was a big difference in how the military treated the two men; his husband was honorably discharged despite being gay. “It is an injustice that the military has treated Ed and me so differently, despite our equal honorable service,” he said at a press conference in November.

But finally, Spires’ will has been granted and he can relax. The couple said that they will celebrate in Florida next month. Spires said, “I’m still recovering from pneumonia but every day seems a little brighter. This is one thing less on my mind…I can smile again.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yale Law Students Help Gay Veteran Gain New Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Ukrainian forces arrested two men in the Crimean peninsula, Ensign Maxim Evgenyevich Odintsov and Junior Sergeant Alexander Vyacheslavovich Baranov. According to Ukrainian leadership, the men are deserters who defected to the Russian military in 2014 but according to the Russian defense ministry, the pair are Russian servicemen who have been illegally detained. And no one is quite sure what’s going on.

According to a Russian Black Sea Fleets official, the two men were “lured” into Ukraine, incentivized by the promise of receiving higher education certificates. Ukraine’s Security Service has argued that it apprehended the men after they crossed the checkpoint into Ukrainian-controlled territory while Russia is claiming that the men were kidnapped and dragged back across the border. A video was released last week displaying the detentions at the checkpoint followed by the interrogations of the two men, during which one admits to having served in the Ukrainian military–although it is unclear whether that admission was made under duress. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, accused Ukraine of “illegal provocation” and added to the Russian narrative that the confession of the captured soldier was forced rather than genuine. As the Russian army mobilizes at an ever-increasing rate to control Crimea, Ukraine has sought to crack down on deserters. Of the estimated 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers who were in Crimea at the time of annexation, only approximately 6,010 have returned to the mainland to fight for Ukraine in the de facto war sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

It remains to be seen whether the two men in question will be detained in Ukraine for the long term or returned to Russia (or at least Russian controlled Crimea) by diplomatic means. If they are truly Ukrainian deserters, they will undergo criminal trials in Ukraine. However, if they are determined to be political prisoners or illegally detained, there may be an opportunity for a prisoner exchange–several Ukrainian citizens have been held illegally by Russian forces in occupied Crimea. Frantz Klintsevich, a Russian member of parliament, stated that he believes the two men were kidnapped expressly to serve as bargaining chips in a prisoner exchange. The last high profile prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine took place in May, when Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko (captured by rebels and taken to Russia as prisoner of war) was exchanged for two Russian soldiers captured while collecting intelligence in Eastern Ukraine.

Alternatively, the Russians may aim to retrieve the two men by force–which is the true concern that has cast an international spotlight over the capture of these individuals. Neither man appears to be an especially valuable intelligence asset but if Russian forces successfully frame this as a kidnapping, they may justify violent action in order to retrieve their soldiers. Although the evidence presented by the Ukrainian Security Service has so far verified the claim that these men were legally arrested at the checkpoint, Vladimir Putin has condemned the arrest. Putin has spent the past several months building out the narrative he created this summer, when he claimed that Ukraine was planning terrorist attacks against the Russian forces in Crimea, painting Ukraine as untrustworthy and threatening.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Deserters or Victims?: The Mysterious Soldiers Captured in Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

Many Afghan troops come to the U.S. to receive military training. But according to the Pentagon, 44 Afghan soldiers have disappeared in less than two years–probably in attempts to create new lives in America. Considering that approximately 2,200 individual soldiers have received military training here since 2007, 44 is not a high number. But according to officials the frequency with which troops go missing from Afghanistan is “concerning” and unusual compared to other nations.

In an effort to remove itself from the conflict in Afghanistan, the U.S. has spent over $60 billion on military training for Afghan troops since 2002. This news about soldier students who go AWOL—absent without leave–brings questions about the security and procedures used during trainings. Apparently eight soldiers have just left military bases without authorization since September. Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said to Reuters:

The Defense Department is assessing ways to strengthen eligibility criteria for training in ways that will reduce the likelihood of an individual Afghan willingly absconding from training in the U.S. and going AWOL.

44 Afghan troops training in the US have gone missing in less than two years https://t.co/aecX4RnMhb exclusive from @idreesali114

— Josh Smith (@joshjonsmith) October 6, 2016

This could fuel criticism against the Obama administration and play into Donald Trump’s hands, as he has criticized the White House for not being strict enough with Muslim immigrants that come to America. But Stump said that all foreign soldiers who come here for training are properly examined beforehand to make sure they are not sympathetic to any militant or terrorist groups or have conducted any crimes against human rights.

Not all of the missing students were attending training at a military base, as some were students in intelligence-gathering or other tasks. If anyone is absent from their training for over 24 hours they are considered AWOL. Though it is not known how many of the students authorities have located, the Pentagon did confirm that one man was detained when trying to cross the border from the U.S. to Canada.

Some experts that Reuters talked to said one reason for this problem could be that many foreign soldiers do not get paid on time. They might also feel hopeless when thinking about the economic state of their home country, and or feel that they receive insufficient training. That sounds like enough to discourage most people, and sheds some light on the “missing” soldiers.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 44 Afghan Soldiers Missing From Military Training in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

I was recently married, and my husband is in the armed services. While military life isn’t quite what Army Wives would have you believe, there are definitely some aspects I have had to get used to. One of these is the dress code. Recently I went to the PX (think a T.J. Maxx with Wal-Mart prices) on our new base, and encountered a woman being turned away from the door because her midriff was showing. When I say “showing” I mean her tank top had ridden up about two inches. She did not look inappropriately dressed at all — clearly she had just thrown on her tank and jean shorts to do some shopping — yet she was being told she was in violation of the rules.

This was not the first time I had come into contact with strict military clothing restrictions. While my then-fiance was still stationed in Hawaii, I flew there so we could get married and honeymoon on the islands. While there, I ended up — apparently — being in violation of the dress code not once, but twice.

The first time happened shortly after the wedding, when my husband, some friends, and I went to a bar on the Naval base. It was country-themed, with a huge floor for line dancing, so I dressed accordingly: high-waisted skater skirt, polka-dotted crop top, Keds, and bandana headband. When showing our IDs to the bouncer, he stopped me and said, “Ma’am, you’re going to have to pull your shirt down or your skirt up.”

Now, this was the first time I had had any exposure to the dress code. My husband, not being known to wear crop tops himself, had not yet told me about it. I was understandably confused; barely an inch of my lower rib cage was showing, and my skirt was not short by any standard. Not wanting to cause a scene, I pulled down my shirt and was let in.

My second violation was pointed out when we went to the on-base golf course. I had on pastel shorts from the Gap and a white tank top. Not a spaghetti-strap tank, mind you (which would not have been a violation anyway), but a thick-strapped, loose fitting, high-neckline shirt. The man checking people in took my husband’s ID, wrote us down to tee off, then looked at me and said: “Ma’am, that type of shirt is not allowed here.”

I believe my jaw might have involuntarily dropped open. I looked down at my shirt and back up at him, saying “Tank tops? Or white shirts?”

Not amused by my sarcasm, he informed me that tank tops were not allowed and that to be let on the course I would have to buy a shirt in their shop or go home and change. Excuse me, sir, if I don’t want to buy a $50 Puma polo just to play golf. Needless to say, we did not play golf that day.

My point with sharing these examples is not to say that the military needs to take away its dress code. I understand that there is a necessity for uniformity: it makes things easier to regulate, tampers jealousy, and creates a global standard for all active military and their families. Women are not the only ones who have regulations. Men most certainly cannot be found in cropped off short-shorts. My point is that uniformity is not, truly, the only reason women have their clothing choices regulated.

Personally, I have no problem with the way other people dress. They’re expressing their individual style, wearing what they find comfortable, or dressing up for a special occasion (like going to a country bar). I would never call a woman “trashy” for wearing a tight-fitting dress or 6-inch heels, and I certainly wouldn’t say that lewd behavior toward a woman dressed that way is justified. Believe it or not, women DO NOT dress the way they do for the benefit of men or other women. 

When an organization’s dress code seeks to put a stop to those “trashy” fashion trends, they are encouraging uniformity, yes, but they are also saying that a woman showing her midriff, or her shoulders, is inviting inappropriate attention. That somehow the way she dresses makes it her fault men sexually harass her.

Let me explain. The US military continues to have a terrifyingly high number of sexual assault cases each year, yet thousands more go unreported. They are not, by any means, the only organization that has the same problem. This is a huge issue, and one that will not be solved easily because victims are encouraged to keep their assaults quiet. Dress codes like the one the military has in place are there not just for uniformity, but to discourage sexual assault.

If this doesn’t seem ridiculous to you, let me put it another way. In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, Marshall seduces Lily by showing her his calves. Take a look at this quick clip from the episode:

The scene is hilarious because a woman put into a sexual frenzy by the sight of a man’s legs seems ludicrous. Yet, when a woman goes to report a rape, one of the questions she is asked is “What were you wearing?” As if the sight of her bare shoulders caused a man to force himself on her. Telling women what they can and cannot wear to discourage sexual assault is telling them that, somehow, it is their fault when it happens.

Let’s be clear: WHAT SOMEONE IS WEARING DOES NOT JUSTIFY NOR CAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

So, do I think the military and other organizations with similar dress regulations need to take those regulations away? No. Like I said before, I get why they’re there. What I am saying is the reasons behind those dress codes need to change. Instead of encouraging women to cover up to prevent rape, let’s encourage men to be respectful. Instead of saying “cover your midriff” let’s say “don’t catcall someone on the street.” Only when we acknowledge the problem can we change the perspective.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

 Featured image courtesy of [Florian Ramel via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes appeared first on Law Street.

More than 20 percent of women in the armed forces have experienced sexual misconduct in the military. Due to fear of backlash, this statistic is significantly under reported. In the last year, however, reported sexual assaults in the military increased an unprecedented 46%.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have truly made bi-partisan efforts to shed light on this national travesty. Sen. Gillibrand recently predicted that the current Military Sexual Assault Bill, which would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command, will receive the necessary votes to pass.

The efforts of Sen. Gillibrand and others fighting for reform, particularly to take military oversight of sexual assault cases out of military hands, is increasingly gaining attention and steam. The Invisible War, a groundbreaking documentary directed by Kirby Dick, helped make waves on the road to reform, expanding awareness of the critical issue. Two of the women featured in the film, attorney Susan L. Burke and former Airman First Class Jessica Nicole Hinves, joined the Forum on Law, Culture and Society at Fordham Law School for the Forum Film Festival to discuss the issues raised by the film and the steps needed for reform and to pass the Military Sexual Assault Bill. Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, film executive producer Maria Cuomo-Cole, and Rear Admiral Susan J. Blumenthal rounded out the panel.

(All statistics in the film are from U.S. Government Studies)

The Invisible War addresses the rampant under-reporting of sexual harassment in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed in action. In addition, women who have been raped in the military have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men who have been in combat.

In fact, about 80% of sexually assaulted men and women do not report. Yes, I said men and women, as male victims comprise approximately one percent, or 20 thousand cases, of all military sexual trauma.

A study by the United States Navy included in the film asserts that 18 percent of incoming recruits have attempted or committed rape before entering the military. An alarming statistic considering that we hold our military to such high standards and expect a certain degree of oversight. Twenty-five percent of women do not report rape because their commanding officers are the rapists. Due to the chain of command disciplinary system, prosecution of these attacks is entirely at the discretion of the military and the commanding officers are in charge. Although Congress has the power to exercise congressional oversight over these military sexual misconduct situations, few members have chosen to become involved until recently.

Susan Burke suggested that the military justice system is flawed and must be modernized. “Put the adjudicatory power in the hands of the prosecutors – not the commanders,” she stated.

The problems with sexual misconduct in the military is not new. As the film points out, in 1991, the Navy dealt with sexual misconduct issues with regard to the Tailhook Convention in which approximately 200 Navy and Marine airmen participated in “The Gauntlet”. This involved men roaming the halls in search of women to assault. “The Gauntlet” ending with the sexual assaults of hundreds of women.

The embarrassing events that took place at the Tailhook Convention in 1991 are absolutely unacceptable; however, such conduct did not end there. In 1996, the Army dealt with sexual misconduct at the Aberdeen Proving Ground involving the rape and sexual harassment of 30 women. In 2003, the Air Force dealt with sexual misconduct within their Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, there was a scandal involving the rape of a Marine stationed at the Marine Barracks in D.C., a very reputable place to be stationed due to its proximity to the U.S. Capitol building.

Many of the resulting lawsuits and prosecutions in these sexual misconduct cases often end in a form of insignificant justice. In Jessica Nicole Hinves’ case, the man who was under investigation actually received a promotion. Many of these lawsuits end poorly, partially due to the Feres Doctrine which states that the U.S. government is not liable for injuries sustained during service (including rape, apparently).

Additionally, a December 2011 lawsuit was dismissed because the court claimed that sexual harassment is “an occupational hazard of military service.” This seems outlandish, outrageous and absolutely upside-down. Since when is rape and sexual misconduct part of the job description when enlisting in the military to serve our nation and protect our freedom? What’s next, barcodes on every American citizen’s neck as a residential hazard of living in the United States?

Even with bills such as the STOP Act aimed at rectifying the many injustices our service people endure when it comes to sexual assault, many still wonder if it will be enough. According to, Jessica Nicole Hinves, this type of moral erosion is a national security issue, as military feminism is looked down upon by higher ranking commanders.

Holding servicemen accountable for the sexual misconduct they perpetrate is essential in order to maintain the respectable and cohesive nature of our military. Resistance to oversight legislation aimed at removing military sexual assault cases from the chain of command is at odds with the military’s insistence that in order to maintain good order and discipline, commanders need to maintain leadership, control and power.

The panel suggested that military justice can and must be effected through civilian control, encouraging audience members to tell their Congressional representatives that commanders must be held accountable and that higher ranks do not put people in a position to make legal determinations about sexual assault. Countries such as England, Australia and Israel have taken the oversight out of military hands. Therefore, perhaps it is time the United States follows suit.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Army IMCOM via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forum Film Festival Series: Part 2 – The Invisible War appeared first on Law Street.

So, this Monday was Veterans Day. For those of you who don’t really know what that means—other than a day off from school or work—Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor all of the brave men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces.

So, that grandfather you have who served in World War II? Your uncle who fought in Vietnam? Give them a hug today.

But you know who else deserves some extra appreciation today? Your aunt who did two tours in Afghanistan.

These days, the face of Veterans Day is seriously changing—and for the better. With the ban on women in combat positions lifted last January, more and more women are getting the recognition they deserve for their military service.

Because guess what, lovelies? Women were serving in combat positions long before the ban was lifted almost a year ago.

Captain Vernice Armour is a perfect example. In August of 2004, she was flying an AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter for the 11^th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq. One of the missiles she fired saved an entire squad of Marines, one of whom she met by coincidence later. He thanked her for saving his life.

The first black woman to serve as a combat pilot. Such a bad ass! Courtesy of GS Kansas Heartland via Flickr.

Captain Armour is just one of thousands of women who have served in military combat positions. But while their participation was technically banned, they didn’t have access to the same honors and benefits as their male counterparts.

The approximately 200,000 positions officially deemed as “combat” offer higher pay and more opportunities for promotion. With women categorically shut out of those roles, the chances of rising up through the ranks of power—or the pay grade—were slim to none. But since that ban has been lifted, more opportunities are opening up for women soldiers.

And that’s fantastic for a whole bunch of reasons! Let’s get into those, shall we?

Alright! First of all, giving women official access to combat positions means that they’ll receive credit for the dangerous work they’re doing. Under the ban, while women were shut out of these jobs on paper, there were still plenty of them doing the work in real life.

But, since it was technically illegal, many of them were doing it without recognition. That’s just not OK, am I right? If you’re running the same risk of getting blown up as the guy next to you, you deserve to be honored on the same level when you get home.

But credit is just the beginning. Letting women into combat has the potential to change military culture as we know it, and that’s a huge deal.

Currently, the rate of sexual assault in the military is outrageous. The documentary The Invisible War points out that women soldiers are more likely to be raped by one of their comrades than they are to be killed by enemy fire.

So, women in the military are statistically safer with the enemy than they are with their own fellow soldiers. That is totally unacceptable. And we haven’t even looked at incidents of male-on-male rape within the military.

Sadly, male soldiers—of all nationalities—are often encouraged to engage in sexual warfare, creating an oppressive rape culture. It’s a strategy that doesn’t stop at killing the enemy. It goes on to violate it, emasculate it, and destroy its very soul. It’s a depressingly effective way to win wars, when used in conjunction with the technology of combat.

Don’t believe me? Read Grace Cho’s Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, and the Forgotten War. In it, she tells the story of the mass rapes that occurred in Korea at the hands of multiple invading armies, the U.S. being just one of them. These massacres gave rise to the booming prostitution economy that surrounds any foreign military base—where war ravaged women turn to support themselves and their children. Cho’s mother was one of those women. Her father was, likely, a kindly client.

But why is this rape culture so prevalent among military men? With women largely excluded for many generations, the armed forces have had the room to grow into a hypermasculine, old boys’ club.

The military has made itself into a place where men can gather to be their most savagely masculine—to revel in the knowledge that they have the brawn, they have the power, and they will stop at nothing to prove their superiority.

Allowing women to enter this space has the potential to change all that.

YAY!

As more women gain access to the pathways that lead to military promotion, the more women will ultimately occupy high-ranking leadership roles. With women increasingly ruling the roost, the gendered power dynamics of the whole organization can start to transform.

Perhaps more GI rape victims will report their attacks, feeling more comfortable confiding in a female superior. Maybe those superiors will be less inclined to sweep sexual assaults between soldiers under the rug. And maybe with the threat of real consequences, rates of sexual assault will ultimately decline.

Maybe female generals will discourage soldiers from engaging in sexual warfare. Maybe they won’t be as keen to turn a blind eye when it does occur.

But most importantly, maybe having some women in charge will change this sexist idea that men have the power. That men are the protectors. That men call the shots.

Because, as more male soldiers report to female commanders, their views about women will have to start changing.

The old boys mentality that women are frail, hysterical baby-makers, whose uteruses must be protected at all cost, will start to crack. The presence of female military officials will force male soldiers to view women in a new light—less as passive, walking wombs, and more as intelligent, powerful individuals, with skills and smarts capable of outpacing their own.

So this Veterans Day—the first one we’ll celebrate without the ban on women in combat—give some extra love to all the women soldiers out there. They’re an underappreciated lot.

—

Featured image courtesy of [US Air Force via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Veterans Day Reminder: Women Are Fighters, Not Fetus Factories appeared first on Law Street.