Tag: international law

Military Sexual Assault: Toxic Masculinity Gone Viral?

Posted on by kathiemm

Men who perpetrate military sexual assaults tend to be indiscriminate;—they will destroy the lives of men as easily as women.

Indeed, because men enter the military in much higher numbers than women, the majority of military sexual assault victims are men.  In a 2013 report on sexual assault, the Pentagon estimated that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012; 53% of those attacks were directed at men, mostly by other men.

It has been estimated that 38 military men are sexually assaulted every day; “The culprits almost always go free, the survivors rarely speak, and no one in the military or Congress has done enough to stop it.”  A few survivors did talk to GQ Magazine; you can read their stories here.

In order to explain sexual assaults, one factor that clinicians and social scientists have advanced is “toxic masculinity,” which may be exacerbated by toxic environments.  Toxic is defined as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence.”

Such traits appear to flourish in certain toxic environments more than in others.  Prisons comprise a toxic environment, and the military is another.

Do the ideas of toxic masculinity and toxic environments sound valid to you?

Whatever your views on the extent to which traits and environments become toxic, I hope you will steer children away from bullying and recognize that neither military service members nor imprisoned men and women deserve to be sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or otherwise abused—in violation of international law.

Tomorrow’s wars: Let’s stop them now.

Posted on by kathiemm
Battle_of_Giannitsa_(1912-11-01),_First_Balkan_War,_Greece; published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.

 

Part 2 in a two-part series by Dr. Majed Ashy

Leaders can use their power and authority for good or bad.  Unfortunately, some leaders promote moral disengagement by persuading the masses that the crimes of wars and terrorism are, among other things, essential, unavoidable, victimless, ways of preventing more evil, fully the responsibility of the other side, and will be the last war or act necessary to create peace.

The foot soldiers who carry out the fighting are led to believe that they are fighting for their country, race, religion, sect, tribe, peace, or whatever they are told the conflict is about—which may be something quite different from what they are told. For example, while spewing out rhetoric about patriotism and loyalty and faith, the leaders might actually be fighting over natural resources such as natural gas, gas pipelines routes, mines, or oil, drugs or drug smuggling routes, money, influence over their own people, regionally, or internationally. Or they may be seeking to obtain the votes of extremists in their group. Or they may be pursuing violence just to satisfy their own narcissistic needs or psychopathology.

 

On the other hand, the relationship between the leader and the masses can contribute to a lot of good. The grip of war and terror mongering leaders on ordinary people needs to be shaken, their intentions and motives need to be examined, and their strategies to manipulate and mobilize the masses and to fuel the conflicts need to be exposed and countered. The relationship between such leaders and the ordinary people in their domains are the main origin of all international and local wars and ills.

 

Such leaders have sometimes been deposed or convinced to end their love affairs with violence in the past, and this can happen again. The enforcement of the Hague and international law might convince some of these leaders to accept alternatives to violence and change the nature of their relationship with their people or followers.

Saying no to the drone rain of terror

Posted on by kathiemm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOnOmSGvXBY

Suddenly, Big Brother is everywhere, killing as well as spying, and the arms industry boldly advertises military drones on the Internet.

Manufacturers of drones (euphemistically known as unmanned aerial vehicles) are committed to a future of perpetual profits from perpetual wars; just consider their rhetoric.

President Obama recently promised the world that military drone use would be carefully monitored and ethical. If drones can show up on public beaches, what else can go wrong?

Among the things that can go wrong are the killing of innocent civilians.

Fortunately, voices against the U.S. use of military drones are being heard around the world. Moreover, 2013 has seen many anti-drone protests within the United States– in, for example,

The basic messages of these protests include:

  •  In its drone-conducted extrajudicial targeted killings, the U.S. executive branch is acting as judge, jury, and executioner in violation of domestic and international law.
  • While the use of killer drones may seem to promote U.S. goals abroad without endangering Americans, there will be negative repercussions for all.
  • Military drone use is immoral.
  • Innocent men, women, and children are being killed and maimed by drones.
  • Drone warfare is terrorism.
  • Drone warfare creates enemies, even among our allies.

What can be done to address these concerns? What are your views?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Labor Day 2012 P.S.

Posted on by kathiemm

Who hates organized labor, liberated women, and peace?

The war profiteers. The radical right. The power elite within the 1% who seek wealth over human rights, power over fairness, and profitable wars over global peace.

But they are in the minority. Even though they have frightened millions and lured millions into supporting the agendas that hide their greed, they are in the minority.

The majority of Americans:

  • overwhelming support equal rights for women and believe more needs to be done to ensure those rights
  • support the right of workers to organize (e.g., participate in labor unions)
  • support an international order based on international law, which, they believe, imposes constraints on the use of force and coercion
  • prefer negotiation and nonviolence to armed conflict[1]

This majority is not the “silent majority” enshrined by Ronald Reagan, but nevertheless is too often silent in these frightening times.

Don’t believe the hype of the radical right. Don’t buy into claims that big corporations making millions in profits are forced to “outsource” their work because organized labor in America makes “unreasonable demands.”

Don’t be lulled into ignoring the attacks on women’s rights, including voting rights, taking place in this country today. (See, for example).

Finally, ask yourself whether cutting social services, educational programs, and unemployment entitlements for the working class—and increasingly the middle class—while retaining George Bush’s revolutionary tax benefits for the wealthy makes your life better or makes America more secure.

The Occupy Movement of 2011 raised the right questions and offered some provocative solutions. Let’s not allow their demands to get lost in the shuffles of the 1% power elite.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

[1] See http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/ for more detailed results of relevant polls; also informative are http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/01/gender-equality/ and http://www.gallup.com/poll/157025/labor-union-approval-steady.aspx .