15% of female veterans in v.a. treatment show signs of sexual trauma

It took Diane Pickel Plappert six months to tell a counselor that she had been raped while on duty in Iraq. While time passed, the former Navy nurse disconnected from her children and her life slowly unraveled.

Carolyn Schapper says she was harassed in Iraq by a fellow Army National Guard soldier to the extent that she began changing clothes in the shower for fear he'd barge into her room unannounced — as he already had on several occasions.

Even as women distinguish themselves in battle alongside men, they're fighting off sexual assault and harassment. It's not a new consequence of war. But the sheer number of women serving today — more than 190,000 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan — is forcing the military and Department of Veterans Affairs to more aggressively address it.

The data that exists — incomplete and not up-to-date — offers no proof that women in the war zones are more vulnerable to sexual assault than other female service members, or American women in general. But in an era when the military relies on women for invaluable and difficult front-line duties, the threat to their morale, performance and long-term well-being is starkly clear.

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

In January, the VA opened its 16th inpatient ward specializing in treating victims of military sexual trauma, this one in New Jersey. In response to complaints that it is too male-focused in its care, the VA is making changes such as adding keyless entry locks on hospital room doors so women patients feel safer.

Depression, anxiety, problem drinking, sexually transmitted diseases and domestic abuse are all problems that have been linked to sexual abuse, according to the Miles Foundation, a nonprofit group that provides support to victims of violence associated with the military. Since 2002, the foundation says it has received more than 1,000 reports of assault and rape in the U.S. Central Command areas of operation, which include Iraq and Afghanistan.

In most reports to the foundation, fellow U.S. service members have been named as the perpetrator, but contractors and local nationals also have been accused.

Whenever I blog about sexual assault within the military, some wingnut warlovers feel obligated to refute it in their own forums. Military men regard military women as their sisters, they cry. Soldiers would never even touch a fellow female soldier - unless she asked for it. Then later, of course, they regret it and "cry rape".

Military men are apparently honourable and upstanding. Military women, however, are just lying bitches.

Do I really need to say that not all men are rapists? Not all men in the military are rapists, either. But the lawless, dehumanized, violent culture that surrounds war and occupation has transformed many a normal man into something he never was at home.

In War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, Christopher Hedges describes how in every war zone he covered, in every part of the world, sexual context between men and women was reduced to its most brutal and violent. Rape became a norm, and not only as a weapon against the enemy.

I applaud Diane Pickel Plappert and Carolyn Schapper for coming forward, and standing up with their real names. It's really hard to do, let me tell you. But once done, it gives you strength and courage, and soon you couldn't imagine making any other choice.

I know that other women will also find courage and comfort from Plappert's and Schapper's examples. I thank them.

sexual assault: two very good stories of recovery

This week, the Globe and Mail ran two excellent essays in their "Facts & Arguments" section. They were both stories of healing from sexual assault, and they ran on back-to-back days.

Read them while they're still accessible:

Taking Back Control, by Allison Haley,

and

The Burden of Silence, by Janet Goldblatt.

Although each person's experience is unique, it's remarkable how so many stories of sexual trauma sound alike. Both these women use almost the exact same words I have used when writing about my own experience.

The first writing I ever had published was about my own recovery from rape, and, like these women, my essay was published nationally. That was quite an experience in itself. For a while it was the only clip I had to send to editors, which was a bit strange!

I hope Allison Haley and Janet Goldblatt know that by speaking out, they are helping survivors - women and men - everywhere. I thank them both.

a step towards justice for jamie leigh jones

A US judge has taken a stand for justice and accountability over unchecked corporate power. Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped when she was a KBR employee in Iraq, will have her case heard in court, not by arbitration.

A Houston woman who says she was gang raped by co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad won a major court battle late Friday when a Texas judge ordered that she can bring her case to court instead of forcing her into secretive arbitration proceedings with Halliburton and KBR.

"We are ecstatic that [District Judge Keith Ellison] had the courage to uphold justice in this case," Jamie Leigh Jones' attorney Todd Kelly said after the decision.

Jones says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

Jones returned from Iraq following her alleged rape in 2005. She was the subject of an exclusive ABC News report in December, which led to Congressional hearings.

After months of waiting for criminal charges to be filed, Jones decided to file suit against Halliburton and KBR.

KBR had moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom, as provided under the terms of her original employment contract.

Ellison, however, wrote in his order Friday that Jones' claims of sexual assault, battery, rape, false imprisonment and others fall beyond the scope of her employment contract.

"The Court does not believe that Plaintiff's bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer," Ellison wrote.

Ellison did, however, rule that a sexual harassment claim that Jones included in her case against her supervisor in Texas would have to be decided in arbitration.

Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, has said it is improperly named in the suit and has referred calls to KBR.

In arbitration, there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings and Jones' claims would not have been heard before a judge and jury.

Background here, here, here and here. Jamie Leigh Jones' foundation is here.

women speak out

Not long ago, I blogged about "Lisa Smith", the pseudonym of yet another KBR employee who was sexually assaulted - then silenced - while working in Iraq.

Now "Lisa Smith" has testified before Congress and spoken to the media using her real name, Dawn Leamon.

This is one brave woman.

Background here, and further back, here.

Whenever a woman refuses to be silent about rape, she is standing up for rape survivors everywhere - and for those who didn't survive. She is standing up for all women, and our right to control our own bodies. She is fighting for freedom from fear.

I wish there was something I could do to help Dawn Leamon. Hopefully this post will find her. We are with you, Dawn. You are not alone.

state of the planet: women in war, rape as a weapon

The ordeal of Jamie Leigh Jones - and her willingness to be public about it - has inspired many other women to speak out. Jones, you'll recall, is the former KBR employee who was gang-raped by other employees, then her employer - with the help of the US government - covered up the crime.

Writing in The Nation, Karen Houppert tells the story of "Lisa Smith" (a pseudonym), a paramedic working for the private contractor in southern Iraq. The story is here. Warning: Rape survivors with sensitive flashback mechanisms may want to proceed with caution or save it for the right time. There are graphic details.

From Houppert:

Smith felt very alone. But she was not.

In fact, a growing number of women employees working for US defense contractors in the Middle East are coming forward with complaints of violence directed at them. As the Iraq War drags on, and as stories of US security contractors who seem to operate with impunity continue to emerge (like Blackwater and its deadly attack against Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007), a rash of new sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints are being lodged against overseas contractors--by their own employees. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC (KBR), as well as Cayman Island-based Service Employees International Inc., a KBR shell company. (While Smith is technically an SEII employee, she is supervised by KBR staff as a KBR employee.)

Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December--when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government--also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

The "Lisa Smith" story offers an excellent and rare insight into the heart and mind of a recent rape survivor. It concludes:

Smith, who says she cannot sleep, appears exhausted. She tells her story without affect, little inflection and tamped emotion. She only tears up twice, most visibly when speaking about one of her sons, a 22-year-old US soldier who served in the Middle East recently. While she was in the process of debating whether--and how--to go about reporting her assault, she contacted him to see what his feelings were on the matter. "I didn't want him upset with his mom," she says, explaining that she was very loyal to the mission in Iraq and that he was similarly loyal to his service. "I was assaulted by somebody who was wearing the same uniform as him, and I just didn't want him to think bad of me. My children are pretty much my world." Smith's eyes fill with tears, and she pauses to collect herself. "I didn't want him to be upset because I was calling out somebody who was wearing his same uniform. They're supposed to be proud of what they do. And I'm proud of my sons. And in my mind, I live that war every day. I can make all sorts of excuses under the sun for bad behavior."

Her son advised her to make the formal complaint.

"He was like, 'Of course you're going to talk to CID, Mom. Of course you are.'" Smith smiles. "He doesn't think people should be allowed to wear his uniform and act like that. He's been in the war too and says it's no excuse. They're better trained than that. That's what my son thought. And he's not angry at his mom."

Rape has been a weapon during wartime for as long as there has been war. The classic Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller was probably my earliest education about that. But my more recent exploration of the nature of war has also helped me understand it (as much as such a thing can be understood). In War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, Chris Hedges writes about the dehumanization, the atmosphere of violence and aggression, the numbing of all empathy and compassion, that overtakes most people in war, where sex becomes another weapon of submission.

In the movie "The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo", filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson documents rape on a scale almost too large to comprehend. Jackson is herself a rape survivor, and she travelled to The Congo to hear the stories of survivors of mass rapes.

It became so much woman to woman. I very quickly lost that sense of them being 'other.' It made it easier, but it also made it harder. . . there were a lot of tears alone in my room at night, . . . I would find myself, at Panzi or in the bush for instance, and there were entire villages of women who had been raped - there was not a woman there who had not suffered."

I spent more than two years, on and off, interviewing rape survivors and people who minister to them. I thought I could do that without the stories touching memories of my own assault, or perhaps I needed to think that to begin. I also interviewed several social workers who specialize in sexual assault, especially child sexual abuse. I was interested in what happens to people who are absorbing all that pain. I really admire the work Jackson did to make this film. I'm especially impressed (and amazed) that she interviewed men who committed these crimes.

From Women Make Movies:

Shot in the war zones of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this extraordinary film shatters the silence that surrounds the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. During the decade-long brutal war in the DRC, many tens of thousands of women and girls have been systematically kidnapped, raped, mutilated and tortured by soldiers from both foreign militias and the Congolese army. A survivor of gang rape herself, Emmy-Award winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson travels through the DRC to understand what is happening and why.

This moving, award-winning documentary, produced in association with HBO Documentary Films and the Fledgling Fund, features interviews with activists, peace keepers, physicians, and even – chillingly – the indifferent rapists who are soldiers of the Congolese Army. But the most moving and harrowing moments of the film come as dozens of survivors recount their stories with an honesty and immediacy pulverizing in its intimacy and detail. A profoundly disturbing portrayal of the ways that violence against women is used as a weapon of war, this powerful film also provides inspiring examples of resiliency, resistance, courage and grace.

The Greatest Silence premieres on HBO this week, and I imagine it will soon be available on DVD. This is the kind of film that I must force myself to see, but I always do, eventually.

I often hear people say they don't like to see movies that are so disturbing. I think, how else can we learn about other people's experiences? And if we don't learn about them, how will we empathize? I think of it this way: if people can live through it, the least I can do is bear witness.

redacted

The two Iraq-related movies I most wanted to see this Movie Season were "In The Valley of Elah" and "Redacted". "Elah" was excellent, and appropriately disturbing. We saw "Redacted" last night. I was also interested in this because, as I mentioned here, I used to know Brian De Palma, sometimes hung out with him, so I keep an eye on his work.

Redacted was the most disappointing, over-rated movie I have seen in long, long time.

I was actually scared to see this movie. It's based on a true story: when some American soldiers gang-raped and murdered a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and murdered several of her family members in an attempt to cover their crime. Brian De Palma plus rape plus Iraq? I thought it might be too violent for me, too graphic, too brutal.

I needn't have worried. Either De Palma purposely kept his penchant for graphic on-screen violence under wraps or he's lost his touch. Although the incident it portrays is horrendous, the movie itself is not particularly disturbing.

It's also not well written, well acted or compelling to watched. I was shocked at how juvenile and stilted the dialogue sounds. Everyone is either a stock character or a billboard for ideas De Palma wanted to work in. Some of it was downright silly.

I was also very bothered by De Palma's attempts at "balance", portraying the violence from all sides as equally wrong.

If another country invaded New York City or Los Angeles, set up bases and checkpoints, held Americans under constant guard, harassed them with random humiliations and violence, and a few enterprising New Yorkers or Angelenos managed to pick off a few of the invaders with guns or bombs, would those Americans be terrorists, too? No. They would be hailed as heroes. Their violence would, to most people, be justified.

Whatever violence the Iraqi so-called insurgents do to Americans, it's terrible for the soldiers and their families, but it's the US' fault for being in Iraq in the first place.

There's no balance here. There was an invasion, now there's an occupation. The people trying to expel the invaders are not the moral equivalents of the invaders themselves.

Apparently, for De Palma, this balance extends even to the peace movement. A fictional anti-war website in which a peace protester rants about wanting to torture American soldiers is disgusting and offensive to me. If there are people in the peace movement like that, I've never met one.

Redacted made a huge buzz at last year's Toronto International Film Festival, as its producers (Canadians Jennifer Weiss and Simone Urdl) had some trouble getting certain images past their distributor. The subject matter and De Palma's name fed the hype.

But I was disappointed to find it was only hype, and not much else.

Movie Season - that stretch of time between the World Series and Opening Day - is coming to a close. This year I'm going to post a wrap-up of all the movies we saw, using my own personal rating system. It's sure to offend some people, and hopefully we'll have some fun with it, too.

just tell the rapist "let's not go forward with this act"

Lest you think the sort of reactionary bigotry seen in my last two posts is confined to wingnut media, here's an example from the floor of the Tennessee State Senate.

If you can't view the clip right now, here's what State Senator Douglas Henry is saying, courtesy of Feministing.

"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it's simply, 'Let's don't go forward with this act.'"

At the Feministing post, a few commenters are lamely trying to defend this. Henry is pro-choice, so that makes it ok? When he was a young man, rape was thought of this way, so that makes it ok? And of course, there's always "taken out of context". Oy.

Thanks to Allan and James, as always, for the material for the last few posts.

follow-up: jamie leigh jones and at least 38 others

Remember Jamie Leigh Jones, the Texas woman who was gang-raped by her KBR co-workers in Baghdad? Through the foundation she set up, thirty-eight women have come forward to report similar stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Because of clauses in their employment contracts, Jones and these other women (and many more like them, who we'll never know about) are prevented from seeking justice in court or from speaking publicly about their experiences. Their only recourse is arbitration, which in this case is a euphemism for "making it go away".

In arbitration, there is no public record or transcript of the case, no judge, no jury, and no criminal charges filed. The arbitrator who hears the case is hired by the corporation.

More than two years since her attack, no criminal charges have been brought in the matter, and legal experts say that it is highly unlikely that Jones' alleged assailants will ever face a judge and jury.

Jones says that the arbitration clauses are letting her rapists and other criminals off the legal hook.

"The forced arbitration clause in Army contractor's contracts prove to protect the criminals of violent crimes, rather than enforce they be held accountable by a judge and jury," Jones says in her remarks. "My goal is to ensure all American civilians who become victims of violent crimes while abroad have the right to justice before a judge and jury."

. . .

Since the attacks, Jones has started a nonprofit foundation called the Jamie Leigh Foundation, which is dedicated to helping victims who were raped or sexually assaulted overseas while working for government contractors or other corporations.

"I want other women to know that it's not their fault," said Jones. "They can go against corporations that have treated them this way." Jones said that any proceeds from the civil suit will go to her foundation.

"There needs to be a voice out there that really pushed for change," she said. "I'd like to be that voice."

Brava, Ms. Jones! You are that voice!

I know from my own experience how powerful it can feel to speak publicly about rape - and how healing it can be, feeling that your actions might help ease someone else's pain or make another survivor feel less alone. I never endured the media spotlight that Jamie Leigh Jones is coping with. I hope she has a lot of support.

I'd like to emphasize a note I made earlier about this case. It's true that Jones's case is garnering more media attention because she is white, blonde and conventionally attractive. It's also true that Iraqi women are being raped by occupying forces, and we're not hearing their stories. But one doesn't cancel out the other. White, blonde women get raped, too, and their pain is just as real.

Please let's not fall into some kind of reverse racism where we can't find our humanity because the victim doesn't look oppressed enough.

My previous posts about Jamie Leigh Jones are here, here and here. This ABC News page links to other follow-up stories that I didn't blog about.

the police state

There's an extremely disturbing video of what happened to a woman in police custody in Ohio, here at Raw Story. I don't want to post the video, and you may not want to watch it if you're a sexual assault survivor. But it's something people should see, so I'm posting the link.

Police picked up Hope Steffey after a 911 call about an assault; Steffey was the victim.

Next time you hear someone say, "If she was really raped, why didn't she call the police?", think of this.

Raw Story, via Crooks and Liars, via Redsock.

fear and loathing of the big city

One of the reasons we stopped getting the Toronto Star home-delivered was its over-attention to random crime and accidents, and the inevitable fear-stoking that went with it.

Star editors must see one of their paper's principal functions as increasing public fear and anxiety over unlikely events - stabbings, shootings, high-speed traffic accidents. All bad things, no doubt, all things we'd surely be better off without. But the front-page placement, screaming headlines, and random quotes from nervous neighbours (of course they're nervous, there was a shooting in their neighbourhood an hour ago) seem designed to plant the belief that crime is rampant and to keep the public on edge.

Today the Star took a time-out from blotter news to run a reality check.

As long as there have been cities, there has been fear. Fear of violence, fear of death, fear of anonymous, big-city crime.

High-profile cases of random crime – like the recent shootings of John O'Keefe and Hou Chang Mao, both innocent bystanders killed within a week – feed the public's anxieties.

But is that fear justified? Random crime isn't going away, but neither is it increasing. Does a spate of random killings put us in greater danger than before? The Star asked an expert statistician to assess the risk.

University of Toronto professor Jeffrey S. Rosenthal is the author of Struck by Lightning: The Curious World of Probabilities, a book about probability and randomness in everyday life.

Q: For the average Torontonian, what are the odds of getting killed in a random crime, like, say, a stray bullet?

A: In Toronto, about 12 people per year are killed by a stranger. There are 2.6 million people in the city, so your chances of getting killed by a stranger are about one in 220,000.

So, not very likely at all.

Q: How do you calculate that?

A: We work in terms of statistics for recent times, like the number of homicides per year. In 2007, there were 84 homicides in Toronto. (It usually goes from 60 to about 80.)

There are also statistics on the victim-offender relationship. Only about 15 per cent (of victims) are killed by a stranger. So 15 per cent of 80 homicides ...

In comparison, your chances of getting killed by your spouse are one in 135,000, or about 50 per cent higher.

And if you are a woman and your spouse is a man, your chances are 8 times higher than if you are a man.

Incidences of relationship violence, including murder, are magnitudes higher than those of random violence. For example, 30% of Canadian women who are currently or previously married have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence at the hands of a marital partner. (Sources and more statistics in this previous post.)

Today the Star ran this story, titled "You're Safer Than You Think". But tomorrow, or shortly thereafter, it will continue splashing random murder and mayhem across its front pages.

Relationship violence is pandemic. Random violence is relatively rare.

The focus on random violence helps demonize cities, low-income neighbourhoods and, often, people of colour. Relationship violence happens in urban, suburban and rural settings, among the haves and the have-nots, and everyone in between.

A greater emphasis on relationship violence - its root causes, possible strategies for prevention, how to cope, where to find help - could potentially help many people and families.

The emphasis on random crime just sells papers.

the sexist world we live in

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I'm not blogging about the Democratic primary races. It's impossible to block out altogether, but I'm paying as little attention to the circus as I can. If you read this blog, you know I think the whole US election system is a bankrupt, corrupt, anti-democratic sham. No viable candidate will make meaningful change, and any candidate who would try, will not be viable.

We'll all be happy to see the face of the US change (if indeed it does - I won't be surprised if "something happens" and they dispense with even the pretense of elections), but will the direction of the US change?

So. I don't care about the Democrats, and I care very little about this election. And you damn well know I don't care about Hillary Clinton!

But I do care about sexism.

It comes as no surprise that a female presidential candidate is earning a special place in hell from the rabidly right-wing US media. Canadian media is not immune to sexism - Belinda Stronach's change of hair colour made front-page, above-the-fold "news" - but if you don't dabble in US media, it's hard to imagine what's going on. Jamison Foser at Media Matters dissects Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" to give you an idea.

This was brought to my attention by my friend James, who sent me this post from Group News Blog, where Sara Robinson (who you may know from Orcinus), links to a post from Media Matters, which itself references a post from firedoglake. Whew! That's a ton of cred.

With acknowledgements to all those sources, here's Foser at Media Matters.

Put simply, Matthews behaves as though he is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. And not "obsessed" in a charming, mostly harmless, Lloyd-Dobler-with-a-boom-box kind of way. "Obsessed" in a this-person-needs-help kind of way.

More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, "Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the "scheming, manipulative" character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do."

Matthews frequently obsesses over Clinton's "clapping" -- which he describes as "Chinese." He describes Clinton's laugh as a "cackle" -- which led to the Politico's Mike Allen telling him, "Chris, first of all, 'cackle' is a very sexist term." (Worth remembering: When John McCain was asked by a GOP voter referring to Clinton, "How do we beat the bitch?" Allen reacted by wondering, "What voter in general hasn't thought that?" So Allen isn't exactly hypersensitive to people describing Clinton in sexist terms.)

Matthews repeatedly suggests Clinton is a "fraud" for claiming to be a Yankees fan, despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that Clinton has been a Yankees fan since childhood. In April of 2007, former Washington Post reporter John Harris, who has written a book about Bill Clinton, told Matthews to his face that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said: "Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past." But Matthews doesn't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of his efforts to take cheap shots at Clinton: At least twice since Harris set him straight, Matthews has attacked Clinton over the Yankees fan nonsense, once calling her a "fraud."

Matthews has described Clinton as "witchy" and -- in what appears to be a classic case of projection -- claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard." In what appears to be an even more classic case of projection, Matthews has speculated that there is "out there in the country ... some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender."

Matthews has suggested that Hillary Clinton "being surrounded by women" might "make a case against" her being "commander in chief." He once asked a guest if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When his guest responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When his guest responded "No," Matthews couldn't quite believe it, sputtering: "No problem? No problem? No problem?"

Matthews has wondered if she is unable "to admit a mistake" because doing so would lead people to call her a "fickle woman." He has said that Clinton is on a "short ... leash" as a presidential candidate, lacking "latitude in her husband's absence" to answer a question. He has, at least twice, called Hillary Clinton an "uppity" woman -- both times, pretending to attribute the phrase to Bill Clinton. But, as Bob Somerby has explained, there is no evidence Clinton has ever used the term.

One of Matthews' favorite topics is Clinton's marriage. After The New York Times ran an article purporting to count the number of nights the Clintons spend together, Matthews' imagination ran wild, and the MSNBC host couldn't get the Clintons' marital life out of his mind. At one point, Media Matters counted 90 separate questions Matthews asked guests about the topic during seven separate programs; the number undoubtedly grew after we stopped counting. In the middle of one of Matthews' bouts of obsessive speculation about how often the Clintons are "together in the same roof overnight, if you will," Washington Post reporter Lois Romano asked him, "[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?" In response, Matthews snapped at her: "Because I'm talking to three reporters, and I'm trying to get three straight answers, so I don't want attitude about this. It's a point of view -- I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don't, I don't know what you're arguing about."

Matthews has claimed: "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." John McCain's political career got started after he left his first wife for a wealthy and politically connected heiress, married her, and ran for Congress. But Chris Matthews doesn't suggest that the reason McCain is a "U.S. senator ... a candidate for president ... a front-runner" is that he "messed around." Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Matthews' comments about Clinton went too far: "I mean, it's rough business what these people over there [at MSNBC] are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not."

Matthews periodically gets it into his head that the most important question in the world is whether Bill Clinton will be a "distraction" or whether he will "behave himself." He badgers Clinton aides about the question and warns that Bill Clinton "better watch it." He asks if Clinton will be a "good boy" or be guilty of "misbehavior." Matthews is not so subtly referring to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But curiously, he doesn't have the same concerns about McCain or about Rudy Giuliani, as I wrote nearly a year ago.

Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn't hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs -- and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless.

And then there's Matthews' fixation on Hillary Clinton's "ambition." In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton's Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was "ambitious." Finally, Matthews said, "People who seek political power are ambitious by definition," leading Wolfson to tell him: "if you say so. If it will make you happy, I'll agree." If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the "ambition" of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private.

You can go here to read the whole piece, complete with copious links and sources.

Sometimes sexism in the media is so commonplace, it becomes invisible. Sara Robinson uses a highlighter to give you the idea.

Just in case some of you don't quite entirely understand how deeply offensive some of Matthews' leering, condescending cracks are, I'd like to put the sensible high heel on another foot and see how truly ridiculous it looks. Let's imagine that Matthews has been on the air for ten years regularly spouting comparable bilge about politicians from another group.

Let's consider, just by way of example, about how far his career might have gone if he'd been saying pretty much the same stuff about African-American men.

Imagine that, back in 2001, Matthews got on MSNBC and said of Colin Powell: "I hate him. I hate him. All that he stands for." Or that he told the Hardball audience: "Colin Powell bugs a lot of whites. I mean, really bugs guys like me on occasion....let me just say this, he drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Consider what would happen if he referred to Jesse Jackson as a "black devil," and likened him to Step'n Fetchit, who "steals whatever's not nailed down because he can." Or called him "Willie Horton." Or described white politicians who endorse him as "self-hating ni**er-lovers." Or described his walk as a "strut." Or wondered aloud if white troops would take orders from him, and laughed when his respondent called him on it. Or called him "uppity" -- on at least two occasions.

How would people respond if Matthews showed the same salacious interest in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage as he has in the Clintons'? Media Matters says they counted 90 questions on the matter over seven programs -- and then gave up counting. What if he badgered Obama aides on whether or not Michelle would be "a good girl," or guilty of "misbehavior," and warned that she'd better "watch it"?

What would the reaction be if Matthews became obsessively fixated on Andrew Young's "ambition" -- to the point where he asked a guest eight consecutive questions about whether or not he's "ambitious"? Or if he accused Young of being "anti-white" and insisted that "he should just lighten up on this racial 'the whites are coming to get me' routine?" Or if he wondered aloud how Young could serve as an ambassador without "shucking and jiving" for the president?

Every single example above is an exact racist corollary to some sexist remark Matthews has made to or about a woman over the course of his career.

A guy says this stuff about black people, and everybody gets it. He's a bigot, infected by so many stereotypes that he's unfit to comment on matters of national importance, and unworthy of a single moment of the country's precious airtime. Newscasters don't make it to the national level if they're they least bit prone to saying this kind of stuff on the air. Don Imus lost his job over saying things like this about black women, and that was a good day for everybody but him. In 2008, serious people just don't talk that way about African-Americans any more.

But, evidently, you can still get paid several million dollars a year by getting on national TV and talking this way about women, and nobody will ever think to call you out on it.

Continuing Sara's analogy, I don't hear too many white people joking about lynching. At least not in front of black people. But men will joke about rape in front of women. Aw c'mon, lighten up, don't have a stick up your ass. Can't you take a joke?

This was sent to me by DeanG, a progressive from Texas (they're out there, people!) and a long-time reader of wmtc.

As reported in the Chronicle (Jan. 11, 2008 issue):

The competition's most popular topic was, believe it or not, rape. The first comic told two rape jokes. Another said he could never be a rapist because he likes to sleep after sex. Yet another said he would call his victim the next morning because he's such a nice guy.

Er, ha.

Later one of the competitors began his act by promising the audience that he wouldn't tell any rape jokes. He broke that promise two minutes later with a one-liner about using "ropes and formaldehyde" to solve his romantic problems.

Ha again.

Ha indeed. I guess I was just born without the "rape is soooo funny" gene. These fine, upstanding young men are attending college with our daughters, sisters, cousins, friends. I mean, I've always known that rape is a major issue on most college campuses. I just didn't know it had become fashionable to make sport of it.

Now some of you are firing up your keyboards right this very minute to tell me to lighten up, get a sense of humor, stop being such a feminazi. One, I'll just point out it was a man writing the Chronicle article who found this vein of humor offensive. Two, I'll remind you that it is precisely because I do have a sense of what is humorous that I find this stuff not funny, but disturbing. If you think it's funny, it's because you think there is something inherently funny about men coercing and forcing women to have sex. You are okay with laughing about sexual violence.

If you are comfortable with the realization that you like laughing at women's pain, then go ahead and laugh your head off. But do me a favor, and call me again sometime in the future after your sister or wife or mother or daughter gets raped, and tell me again how funny the rape jokes are.

Oh, wait, you don't think a little forcible persuasion actually counts as rape? Well you are in good company; when I was a graduate student at Duke, a survey of undergraduate men showed that something like over twenty percent of them were A-OK with forcing a woman to have sex with them, if they thought they wouldn't get caught. I'll bet those guys would think these jokes are hilarious.

Unsurprisingly, the 5 women in the New Jersey competition did not lace their routines with rape jokes. Though we are told "one did sing a ditty about not wanting to be raped".

The whole thing just makes me tired.

What do you want to bet that there are far, far more people who will be outraged by the news that Harvard has established 12 postdoctoral fellowships for women and minorities in chemistry and chemical biology, than there are who will be bothered by the notion of undergraduate men mocking rape victims?

I wholeheartedly thank Zuska for this, but the best part of the post is the comments. I encourage you to read them. Some excerpts:

Men telling rape jokes is all about making certain that women understand that they present themselves in public only at the pleasure, and with the forebearance, of men.

Women telling rape jokes *can* be about the humour of transgression, depending on how it is done. Men, no way.

Transgressive humor only works when the joke teller is not operating from a position of privilege vis a vis the taboo being transgressed. South Park is funny because the children are completely utterly powerless, and don't even understand the nature of the taboos they are transgressing.

Posted by: PhysioProf | January 10, 2008 3:44 PM

There is a difference between joking about taboo subjects and being a member of a dominant group joking about doing bodily harm to another person. "Baby eating" jokes, for example, are more acceptable because they mock the old stereotype of witches (women) and jews(minorities) eating Christian babies. It's sort of re-claiming a stereotype. Dead baby jokes are more acceptable because nobody actually makes a habit of killing babies. (Now I'm not saying that these jokes are funny)

But, being a white person joking about "stringing up" a member of another race IS NOT cool, because a lot of white people in recent history have actually done that. Also, being a man joking about raping a woman isn't cool for the reason that it feel threatening to us women.

Posted by: haydin | January 10, 2008 3:49 PM

I'm not usually troubled by a darker, "inappropriate" humour, but this crosses a line. It reminds me of an evening out at a restaurant with a group of men who, assuming I was idiotic as there were, joked that they'd could all share statutory rape charges because they found the young waitress so attractive.

I'm a gay man that straight men assume is straight, what I've heard from some straight men out of earshot of women is abhorrent. Attitudes need to change.

Posted by: Matty Smith | January 10, 2008 3:50 PM

It's been 40 years since my college girlfriend was raped on her way to my apartment. I still think about what it did to her, and don't find rape humor funny at all. However, rather than scolding men for poor taste, insensitivity and boorishness, I would rather hear women come back with castration jokes or colonscopy jokes. It takes a thick skin to succeed in a hypercommunicated world.

Posted by: Howard | January 10, 2008 4:28 PM

"would rather hear women come back with castration jokes or colonscopy jokes."

No, that doesn't work. It's not the same.

Rape jokes are so offensive because, as PhysoProf said, they're made out of a sense of superiority over women.

Castration doesn't happen regularly to men. It's not something the average male has to fear. So men can just shrug of jokes like this. But women do have to fear rape.

Part of rape jokes also is, that the jokes isn't just a joke.

For example jokes about dead babies are mostly just stupid, but never as offensive as a rape joke, because nobody (sane at least) would ever entertain the idea about killing babies. But part of rape jokes is the idea (the temptation) to actually do it. When, for example, a male makes a rape joke about a waitress, it's not only a joke, but also shows the desire (resp. lust) of this male towards the waitress. Yes, part of rape jokes in male groups is that the idea of rape is entertained (though mostly not conducted).

A dead baby joke can be very offensive if told to, for example, parents who just lost a baby. No one in their right mind would do that and claim it's funny.

It's the same with rape jokes.

So no, rape jokes can't be funny. (When told by men. I can entertain the possibility that they could be funny when told by a woman, though I can't imagine a situation where they would be funny even then.)

Posted by: student_b | January 10, 2008 5:00 PM

. . . .

I think 'student_b' has got it right.

We could make jokes about, for example, babies turning cannibal -- which could be funny for the simple reason that no such thing would ever happen, yet it is ghoulish to think about.

But a joke about rape? Rape can happen, and it isn't a negligibly rare event. What if a big bruiser made a joke about raping one of the men present? How funny would that be? No one in their right mind would make a rape joke. But someone in their wrong mind might.

Men aren't the only ones to be wrong-minded. Women joke about castrating their men, cutting their throats, and setting fire to them. Check the news stories: all these things actually happen.

Posted by: Nelson Muntz | January 10, 2008 6:33 PM

. . . .

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

And I'm with Student_B. It just isn't the same. It's all about power and fear. Fear and power. Two sides of the same coin.

It must end. We must speak up.

Rape jokes just aren't funny.

Posted by: whymommy | January 10, 2008 10:40 PM

That's a sample. I recommend reading them all.

u.s. dod will not investigate kbr gang-rape case

A follow-up.

The Defense Department's top watchdog has declined to investigate allegations that an American woman working under an Army contract in Iraq was raped by her co-workers.

The case of former Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones gained national attention last month. An ABC News investigation revealed how an earlier investigation into Jones' alleged gang-rape in 2005 had not resulted in any prosecution, and that neither Jones nor Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been able to get answers from the Bush administration on the state of her case.

In letters to lawmakers, DoD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter said that because the Justice Department still considers the investigation into Jones' case open, there is no need for him to look into the matter.

. . .

Jones' lawyers also professed disappointment. "How could the Department of Defense refuse to help [Jones]?'" asked attorney Stephanie Morris, who noted that the criminal investigation into Jones' allegations has been going on for more than two and a half years, without apparent results. [More here.]

My earlier posts about this case are here and here.

more on jamie leigh jones's struggle for justice

If you haven't been following the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, the young woman who was gang-raped by KBR employees in Iraq, here's an update.

Last week, the US Department of Justice couldn't be bothered to attend a hearing on Jones's case.

The Department of Justice refused to send a representative to answer questions from Congress today on the investigations into allegations of rape and sexual assault on female American contractors.

"I'm embarrassed that the Department of Justice can't even come forward," said the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich.

"This is an absolute disgrace," said Conyers. "The least we could do is have people from the Department of Justice and the Defense over here talking about how we're going to straighten out the system right away."

Among the witnesses who testified today was Jamie Leigh Jones, who appeared on "20/20" last week.

Jones, now 23, says that after she'd been raped by multiple assailants in her room at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, she was warned by company officials that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

To date there has been no prosecution of the men who Jones says gang-raped her.

Jones' congressman, Ted Poe, R-Texas, also testified at the hearing and told the committee how he has not been given any answers as to the status of the investigation by DOJ or the State Department.

"The Department of Justice has not informed Jamie or me of the status of a criminal investigation against her rapist if any investigation exists," Poe said today. "It is interesting to note that the Department of Justice has thousands of lawyers but not one from the barrage of lawyers is here to tell us what if anything they are doing. Their absence and silence speaks volumes about the hidden crimes in Iraq. Their attitude seems to be one of blissful indifference to American workers in Iraq," said Poe.

Jones told Congress that it wasn't until after she was interviewed by "20/20," that an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida questioned her about her case.

While the DOJ is ignoring the case, many women have been paying close attention. Jones's courage has inspired other women to come forward about the sexual assault and harassment they endured while working for KBR in Iraq.

A woman who claims she was raped by a fellow employee while working for a U.S. contractor in Iraq told House lawmakers Wednesday that her case is far from unique.

A Texas congressman agreed, saying several other women have come forward with reports of sexual harassment and assault while employed in Iraq for Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR.

The women have given lawyers and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, accounts similar to the allegations of Jamie Leigh Jones of Conroe, Texas, who says she was raped in July 2005 by a co-worker who drugged her. She said she awoke groggy and confused the next morning, bleeding and bruised. She said a KBR representative kept her in a shipping container for a day so she wouldn't report the assault.

"This problem goes way beyond just me," Jones told the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security.

Poe said three women — including Tracy Barker, who submitted written testimony of her account and was at the hearing — had contacted him.

The Associated Press does not usually identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Jones and others named here have made their identities public.

Ten others reported their stories through a foundation Jones began to help women with similar experiences.

These stories should come as no surprise, as all reports from Iraq paint a picture of a violent, lawless world, where only force matters and brutality is the order of the day. In an atmosphere of rogue warfare, women will always suffer.

But why has Jones been unable to get justice at home? Stockwell Day recently told us that the US is a democratic country that supports the rule of law. (That's also the Harper government's principal excuse for not granting asylum to AWOL US soldiers.) So even if she endured a violent assault "over there", she should be able to access that lawful, democratic system back "here". Right?

Well, no. Stephanie Mencimer, writing in Mother Jones, explains.

Cheney Justice?

Why can't Jamie Leigh Jones, who says she was raped in Iraq by her coworkers at Haliburton's KBR, sue her former employer for damages? Ask Dick Cheney.

On Wednesday, Jamie Leigh Jones told a House Judiciary Committee her now-famous story about having been allegedly drugged and gang-raped two years ago by several coworkers shortly after arriving in Iraq as a contractor for KBR, an engineering and construction firm contracted with the military to provide logistical support to the troops. Jones' story has prompted widespread outrage, partly because the Justice Department and the military failed to prosecute her attackers, but also because it appears that Jones can't sue KBR for placing her in harm's way.

When Jones went to work for KBR in Texas, and later for its subsidiary, Overseas Administrative Services, she signed contracts containing mandatory binding arbitration clauses, which required her to give up her right to sue the companies and any right to a jury trial. Instead, the contracts forced Jones to press her case through private arbitration, which she did in 2006. In that forum, the company that allegedly wronged her pays the arbitrator who is hearing the case. For that she can thank Dick Cheney.

At the time of the alleged attack on Jones, KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the behemoth military-contracting and oil-technology firm. (KBR was sold off earlier this year.) So Jones is covered by the Halliburton dispute-resolution program, which was implemented when Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. The system bears the markings of Cheney's obsession with secrecy and executive power. On his watch, Halliburton, in late 1997, made it more difficult for its employees to sue the company for discrimination, sexual harassment, and other workplace-related issues.

One day, Halliburton sent all its employees a brochure explaining that the company was implementing a new dispute resolution system. The company sold the new program as an employee perk that would create an "open door" policy for bringing grievances to management and as a forum for resolving disputes without expensive and lengthy litigation. In practice, it meant that anyone who had a legitimate civil-rights or personal-injury claim signed away his or her constitutional right to a jury trial. Anyone who showed up for work after getting the brochure was considered to have agreed to give up his or her rights, regardless of whether the employees had actually read it. In 2001, the conservative and pro-business Texas Supreme Court overturned two lower courts to declare that this move was legal.

Dallas lawyer John Wall has something of a franchise suing Halliburton on behalf of employees in civil-rights and other workplace cases. He says there hasn't been a year since 1986 that he hasn't had at least one case against Halliburton. He's represented dozens of the company's employees and won numerous settlements and jury trials in civil lawsuits against the company. The reason, he says, is that Halliburton targets "the old, the injured, and the ill" when it makes layoff decisions, and it has a history of firing people for making workers compensation claims. Under the arbitration process, he says, Halliburton has fared much better, winning many more cases. When it loses, he says, the company pays significantly lower damages, which he says rarely exceed $50,000.

. . .

This week, I asked the American Arbitration Association (AAA), which handles many of Halliburton's arbitrations, if I could review all the complaints filed against the company by its employees in arbitration over the past three years—complaints that would be public if they had been filed in a courthouse. I received the following response:

"The AAA adheres to strict Standards of Ethics and Business Conduct, guided by our core values of Integrity, Conflict Management, and Service. As part of these ethical standards, we avoid any conflicts of interest that may jeopardize our impartiality. The AAA's rules protect the confidentiality of the arbitration process by restricting the disclosure of information related to cases filed with the AAA by AAA employees and arbitrators."

When I protested, noting that simply releasing the complaints would not affect anyone's impartiality, an AAA spokesperson sent me to Richard Naimark, a senior vice president at the company. He explained that while arbitrations aren't necessarily confidential—though many are—they are technically owned by the two parties, who can release the information if they want to, but AAA cannot. Naimark insisted that employees like the confidential nature of arbitration. "Americans value their privacy," he said.

Rather than privacy, employment lawyers routinely say that most employees they represent crave a jury trial. Texas lawyer Barbara Gardner challenged the way Halliburton forced arbitration on its employees, but, after losing the case in 2001 before the Texas Supreme Court, she has taken a dim view of mandatory arbitration in employment contracts. "Employees don't fare very well in arbitration," she says "It's not a level playing field. It's all set up to make sure the employer wins." Her firm will no longer handle employment cases forced into private arbitration because they are considered so hopeless.

You can read the rest of this excellent story here.

So on one hand we have a lawless frontier where anything goes (as long as its perpetrated by Americans), and on the other, a bought-and-sold "justice" system covering it up. I keep thinking of movies about South American countries after a military coup.

* * * *

One last note on Jamie Leigh Jones.

I'm painfully aware - and I don't choose the word "painful" as a figure of speech - that for Iraqi victims of the US occupation, there exists not even the attempt at justice for which Jones fights. No Congresspeople campaign on behalf of Iraqi rape victims. No American lawyers are defending the Iraqi men and boys who are swept up in the daily raids - and then disappear.

In no way do I imply that Jamie Leigh Jones is somehow the worst casualty or the "biggest victim" of this awful war.

But she doesn't have to be. It's not a contest.

Jamie Leigh Jones's pain is real. She was drugged, gang-raped and held prisoner, and the government of her own country protects her assailants. The suffering of Iraqi women under the same occupation doesn't make that any less traumatic. Our sympathy for Jones shouldn't blind us to Iraqis' pain, but surely that equation shouldn't work in reverse.

jon swift says she had it coming. not really.

I'm getting a ton of traffic from this post at Jon Swift, so I thought you might like to read it.

I made a rare appearance in comments. I usually avoid anyplace where I might run into a wingnut, especially where rape is concerned, but there were a few lies I simply had to respond to. I noticed other commenters had done the same.

On another note, it amazes at how many people simply do not understand the concept of satire.

It's a great post, from one of the very best blogs. Enjoy.

those pesky rape kits, they're always disappearing

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.

Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.

According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

My heart goes out to Jamie Leigh Jones. I was her age when I was raped. I offer her my most heartfelt thanks and admiration for coming forward without anonymity.

Thanks to Allan for the story tip.

"the process has almost been as painful as the rape"

Air Force Woman Could Be Convicted in Her Own Rape

A woman airman in the US Air Force who was allegedly raped by three of her male counterparts is being charged with indecent acts, according to an AP report. If convicted, the woman could face a year in prison, a pay cut, a bad-conduct discharge, and would even be registered as a sex offender, the woman's defense lawyers told the AP.

Cassandra Hernandez, who was stationed with the Air Force in North Carolina, was allegedly assaulted six months ago while in another airman's room; she fled partially clothed, she said. After reporting the attack she received a medical examination, but declined to testify after she was allegedly interrogated by an Air Force defense attorney without her lawyer present.

"The pressure of the judicial process was too much for me, and I felt like no one was looking out for my interests," Hernandez wrote to the AP. She was subsequently charged with one count of consuming alcohol as a minor (she admittedly was drinking the night in question) and one count of committing indecent acts.

The Air Force Public Affairs division said that its investigation did not find sufficient evidence to support the woman's claims of sexual assault, reported KVUE, a Houston television station. The accused men were granted immunity from the sexual assault charges for their testimony against Hernandez in the US Air Force's case against her, KVUE further reported.

Hernandez worries that the handling of her case will impact others in the Air Force as well. "Will other women come forward after a rape when they hear that this is how they may be treated?" she wrote in a letters to the US Congress and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, according to KVUE. "The process has almost been as painful as the rape."

Hernandez is scheduled to begin court marshal on September 24. [Emphasis added.]

I can't even comment on this. I'm beyond words.

the tyranny of the subconscious

Two nights ago, I did a stupid thing. I read about something very disturbing right before going to bed.

Allan, D and I had been talking about trying to keep what we know about players' personal lives out of our enjoyment of sports. D mentioned Michael Vick. I had heard about it, but hadn't read any details. D said the details were too horrible to talk about.

I decided it was one of those things I had to know, even though knowing would upset me. So I read about it. That's OK. But anyone with sleep issues should know better than to do that before bed.

I woke up at 2:00 a.m., crying.

In my dream, we were at the vet's office where we had Buster put down. I saw our last moments with him, the same as they occurred. But in the dream, after we left the room, the doctor injected Buster with another drug that revived him. He wasn't really dead. Then Buster was taken to a pit where other dogs would attack him. (That is likely what happened to him in real life, and why our boy had so many problems.)

But that wasn't the worst part.

In the dream, Buster thought we let that happen to him. He thought we tricked him into going to the vet's office, then betrayed and abandoned him. That was the worst part.

At 2:00 a.m., this felt so real. My chest hurt like my heart was being crushed.

It was a while before my mind swam back up to full consciousness and I was able to convince myself this hadn't really happened.

* * * *

In some cultures, dreams are visitations from the spirit world, or travel to other dimensions or states of consciousness. One of my nephews studies depth psychology, an offshoot of Jungian thought that says a person cannot truly know themselves unless they understand their dreams.

I never wanted to examine my dreams. There have been times in my life when my greatest wish was for dreamless sleep. But I'm fascinated by how our minds are at work even when we're not conscious of it.

When I have a writing problem that I can't solve, staring at the computer screen and trying to force an answer will never work. The best thing to do, I've finally learned, is to get up and go do something else. When I'm being smart, I go for a swim. In the pool, or later, relaxing with a cup of tea, the answer comes to me.

That means my mind is working on the problem even when I'm not aware of it. I remember learning about this "Ah-ha Experience" in my own psychology classes in university. The human mind is so amazing.

* * * *

But the workings of my subconscious mind have been more curse than blessing. Anyone who has lived through post-traumatic stress syndrome will know what I mean.

After I was raped, I used to wake up in terror, every night, at the exact same time. Over time, and with a lot of help, this happened less frequently. Sometimes it wouldn't happen for months, and I would think it had stopped altogether. Then it would happen again.

I've been told it's very difficult to wake me up when I'm experiencing this. Whatever is being said to try to rouse me gets incorporated into the dream. So if someone is saying, "It's ok, you're ok, you're safe," then someone in the dream is saying this, while they assault or torture me.

In the dream I hear screaming, coming from a distance, and I try to move towards it. But I'm immobilized; I can't move. I know to be safe I must get to that screaming, but I can't. Finally the screaming gets louder and helps me wrench free. It's the sound of my own voice. My own screaming wakes me up.

After one of these incidents, I'm exhausted the whole next day, sometimes for several days. My concentration is low, I feel stressed, wrung out. Years after I was raped, it was still happening - only once in a while, but never stopping altogether. I would wonder, when will this cease? I am over it. I am healed. So when will this terror be flushed from my brain?

About ten years ago, I was quietly celebrating inside that I no longer had these night terrors. Years had passed - including the anniversary of the incident itself, formerly a difficult time for me - without an incident. In my public speaking - on "survivor panels" to help medical students, police, or other populations learn about rape and domestic violence, and for outreach to other possible survivors - I would say that it no longer happened at all.

Then I had another. This time I was angry. Enough already!

Years passed again. Surely that was the last one.

But no.

Within the last six months (I know because we lived in this house), it happened again. I didn't remember it upon waking, I just didn't feel well. Then later in the morning, it came back to me. I asked Allan, did something happen last night? Did I wake up?

Enough already!

All the work I've done - the therapy, the activism - all the time that has passed - more than two decades, for godsake! - and this shit is still in there?? Leave me alone already! I am healed, I am whole, I'm more than fine, I'm great. The rape is just part of my life's landscape, and has been for so many years. It's the worst thing that ever happened to me (and I hope it always will be), but that's all it is - something that happened to me. It was one incident, one night, and it was more than 20 years ago! Why, why, why can't this part of my consciousness get past it?

* * * *

In 2001, I started having minor anxiety attacks. Not full-blown panic as I've seen some people experience, but frightening little incidents of racing heartbeat, shallow breathing, anxiety and fear. I would think something terrible was about to happen to me. It mostly happened in the morning, upon waking. It seemed unconnected to anything going on in my life.

My own doctor thought it might be purely physical, an irregular heartbeat, the adrenaline surge that happens in the morning (when most heart attacks occur). But I wasn't being fully honest with her. The incidents were coming during the day, too.

I had a consultation with a psychiatrist who I really liked. To my surprise, she asked if I had ever had post-traumatic stress. I told her I had been raped, and she just asked a few simple questions to get the basic picture. She also asked briefly and pointedly about my childhood, and zeroed in on whatever fear and anxiety I had growing up.

Then she probed my current life. I didn't think I had anything to tell. But to my amazement, I ended up briefly relating "The Finger" incident. That's our shorthand for a series of events in which an incompetent dog trainer set us up for disaster, leading Buster to attack another dog. The other dog sustained minor injuries to its ear; Allan was hurt trying to separate the dogs, and spent five days in the hospital, having part of his finger re-attached. Buster - calm and sedate afterwards, with blood all over his face - was never the same.

The Finger occurred when we, with the "trainer," were walking Buster in our neighbourhood and he slipped out of his collar. After, I was terrified to walk him. The five days when Allan was in the hospital were incredibly scary for me. (Worse for him, certainly.)

Somehow the psychiatrist easily pulled all this out and brought it together. "There you go," she said. "That's likely the source of your anxiety."

She talked to me about anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. She said that the brains of people who have had post-traumatic stress syndrome react differently to anxiety and fear. The ultra-high levels of adrenaline pumped into the system during trauma permanently change the body's sensitivity to fear, anxiety and acute stress. She told me that if we saw a CT scan of my brain when I'm frightened, compared to the brain of a person who had never been traumatized, we would see a difference, whether or not I was aware of feeling anxious.

The session was a bit scary, but wonderfully insightful. She wrote a prescription (Klonopin to the rescue), and made some recommendations on how best to use it. She also gave me a few names of therapists, in case I wanted to continue. I didn't. I understand it as well as I want to. I don't want to explore any further. I just want to sleep through the night.

* * * *

Trauma is an over-used word. Like so many words in our world - hero, tragedy, awesome - its meaning has been ruined by overexposure. But trauma exists, and long after it's over, it exists still.

I imagine a many-tentacled creature burrowing deep into our minds, lying dormant, perfectly camouflaged. Until something - the tiniest of catalysts, minor, unnoticed in our waking life - taps its shoulder.

reality check: violence against women

By writing about violence against women, I am demonizing men. So says a nasty commenter, whose content, tone and word choice violated wmtc comment policy.

Some facts.

In Canada:

In 88% of all violent incidents, males are identified as the suspects; half of all incidents involve a male perpetrator and a female victim.

Women are almost 8 times more likely to be victimized by a spouse than are men.

30% of women currently or previously married have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence at the hands of a marital partner.

21% of women abused by a marital partner were assaulted during pregnancy; 40% of these women stated that the abuse began during their pregnancy.

In the US:

Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.

Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.

Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.

Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).

While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy.

Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men.

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.

Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause, and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.

Research suggests that injury related deaths, including homicide and suicide, account for approximately one-third of all maternal mortality cases, while medical reasons make up the rest. But, homicide is the leading cause of death overall for pregnant women, followed by cancer, acute and chronic respiratory conditions, motor vehicle collisions and drug overdose, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopthy, and suicide.

Some thoughts.

Violence in relationships is always wrong. Relationship violence occurs in gay male relationships, lesbian relationships, and heterosexual relationships, with both men and women as perpetrator and victim. In every case, it is equally wrong. However, the most common power dynamic of relationship violence by far is the male perpetrator/female victim. That is by percentage, not raw numbers.

This is not because men are evil.

This is because the world we live in defines masculinity in myriad unhealthy and dangerous ways.

It's because we live in an extremely violent world, in which most people do not learn healthy methods, and are not given appropriate tools, to deal with frustration, anger, and hurt, and instead learn to cope with pain by lashing out violently.

It's because too many relationships are grossly unequal in power.

It's because women often feel powerless in relationships with men.

It's because too many boys see their fathers hit their mothers, and too many girls see their mothers get hit.

It's because so many people's feelings of self-worth are egg-shell thin, causing a need to dominate others, or causing them to accept violence as a part of life, or to believe they deserve it.

It's because girls and women learn to direct anger against themselves - leading to depression, low self-esteem, alcoholism, eating disorders, suicide - while boys and men learn to direct anger against others.

It's because most men are bigger and stronger than their female partners.

It's because of many things. It's not because men are evil.

Most rapists are men, but not all men are rapists. Every man is a potential rapist - and every man is a potential force against rape. Every human is a potential murderer - and each of us is a potential force for life and hope.

Through the women's movement - through feminism - we have come a long, long way from the days when violence at home was a shameful secret. After decades of activism and advocacy, we now see relationship and domestic violence acknowledged and faced openly. This alone is a sea change.

But how can women stop violence against women when they do not cause it? Men are an obvious, essential and necessary part of the solution.

Men are standing up against violence in their own lives. And men are reaching out to help others do the same.

Here, too, change has been enormous. When I was a child, this would have been impossible. Who could ever have imagined a famous person in a professional sport choosing domestic violence as his cause and foundation? Saying, openly, in public, I saw this in my own home, and I want to help stop it.

Men who think talking about domestic violence in real terms "demonizes" men are missing an opportunity to become part of the solution - to remake the world - to become more fully human.

But no matter. We will march on without you.

movie

We saw another very good movie last night: "Mysterious Skin". It's about two boys, a trauma they suffered when they were very young, and how it plays out in their lives as they grow into adulthood.

It's excellently done. I'd caution anyone who's been touched by child sexual abuse, either as a survivor or someone who loves one, to tread carefully. I'd want to be in the right frame of mind when I saw it. But I'd see it.

This movie reminded me of another overlooked movie, "Things Behind The Sun", written and directed by one of my favourite filmmakers, Alison Anders. That movie also explores how the past plays out in our lives - and how the past will continue to poison the present - until it is dealt with head-on.

"Things Behind The Sun" never preaches, never has a character stand on a soapbox to educate us, but speaks volumes about surviving rape. Anders, a rape survivor herself, returned to the place where she was assaulted to make this movie. It's one of the best works I know of, in any media, about sexual assault.

"Mysterious Skin" does something similar on the theme of child sexual abuse.

"Mysterious Skin" also involves something I haven't seen portrayed in a movie before: that many people who believe they were abducted by aliens have been victims of sexual abuse. For anyone familiar with the patterns, it can be very obvious: descriptions of scary monsters entering the bedroom, of "probes" and "examinations", lost time. When a survivor with deeply repressed memories comes upon descriptions of alien abductions, it seems to explain what happened to them, and their own hazy, incomplete memories meld with the television version.

Imagine: it's easier to live with the thought that creatures from another galaxy beamed you up to their space ship and conducted experiments on you, than the thought that your stepfather visited your room at night and raped you, and your mother didn't stop him.

So there's no confusion, I myself am not a survivor of child sexual abuse. I was a young adult when I was raped, by a stranger.