...
Analyzing over 14 years of Defense Department death data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Intercept’s investigation is the first to compare rates of violence against women in the Army to factors like duty location, jobs, and relationships with perpetrators. The FOIA data also reveals deaths not previously announced by the Army and the Department of Defense.
Violence against women in the military also appears to take a mental toll. In addition to the 41 women who died by homicide, another 128 died by suicide, the majority of them lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. From 2011 to 2024, the last complete year of data, homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide.
The Army doesn’t make any of this public, and the Intercept’s investigation has found flaws in what data collection currently occurs: Homicide and suicide death rates are not separated by gender or calculated per capita, preventing deeper analysis and comparison.
There’s also nothing publicly accessible on how many homicides are committed by service members, who their victims are, or where homicides occurred. The Defense Department’s annual suicide report doesn’t note how many of the deceased had experiences with sexual assault or harassment.
Meanwhile, systems meant to protect women are being rolled back and dismantled.
...
36 Comments
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 56d
We lose very few servicemen to enemy fire. I'm not sure why it doesn't go into this, but my suspicion is this headline is true for all servicemen, not just women.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 56d
It doesn't go into all servicemen because the authors are looking specifically at violence that women in the army experience.
This is incredibly dismissive. Women face a disproportionate amount of violence by the hands of their fellow servicemen. It's ok for us to talk about that without saying "what about men???!?"
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 55d
I believe the complaint was more about the headline than the research. I mean, the headline does seem to be misleading, I don't think it's dismissive to point that out.
I also think there's a lot of value in doing this research and uncovering this data. But if your going to go to all this effort, it sucks to then open with a misleading headline when you didn't need to stretch the truth, the truth is shocking enough.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 55d
It’s not a misleading headline.
Women in the army are more likely to be killed by fellow soldiers than enemy combatants.
Then the article does a great job explaining the title.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 55d
Ok, so the headline reads:
Well the clear implication by saying "women" in that headline, is that this is not the case for men. But I don't see where that case is made.
Another way this could be addressed is by simply dropping the comparison to enemy combatants. If the headline had instead compared women in the military to men in the military, they'd eliminate any ambiguity.
And I agree that the article is great, and the effort behind it must have been extensive. It's just that the headline seems disingenuous.
velma@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 55d
That’s not what they’re comparing though. They’re comparing the rates of homicide and violence against women in the army against rates of violence against women in general.
The title doesn’t need to mention men.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 55d
The headline does not compare women in the army to women in general.
The headline compares fellow soldiers to enemy combatants (in the context of the deaths of women in the army).
The argument you're making is a core part of the problem, because the rest of the article does indeed mostly compare the violence against women in the army to violence against women in general. But if that's what the article is about, why does the headline state something completely different? This is the problem.
velma@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 55d
Did you read the article?
It goes into detail and does compare the violence women in the army experience to general population of women.
Talking about women doesn’t necessitate talking about men.
velma@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 55d
Men arent being murdered by their fellow servicemen at the rate women are because of the reasons outlined in the article: intimate partner violence and misogyny. Men already overwhelmingly murder women and it’s not any different in the army.
Looking at the numbers of women murdered and sexually assaulted doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to men.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 56d
Another important piece of information that you decided to ignore.
AND THIS ONE:
velma@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 56d
It's like you didn't even read the article:
searabbit@piefed.social · 13 pts · 56d
I just want to emphasize that that's still a massive problem if true because your comment could be interpreted as minimizing the situation. It's shameful how we treat our service men and women during and after their service.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 56d
In addition, women are much less likely to be in jobs that involve fighting on the front lines where being shot by an enemy is likely.
I remember back in one of the Gulf wars they released some statistics about members of the armed forces being killed, and a significant number were killed just loading and unloading equipment that was being shipped to the middle east before the war even started. These days you're very unlikely to be killed by an enemy, but the military still involves some high-risk jobs like construction work, welding, aircraft pilots and engineers, iron and steel workers, etc.
Also, keep in mind, these numbers are extremely low. They counted 41 over 14 years, so an average of 3 per year out of around 230,000 total women in the armed forces (military demographics PDF).
The article says, in addition "homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide". I wonder how much of that is simply due to the ages of the people involved. 45% of members of the armed forces are under 25. Homicide rates are much higher for people around 25 than older people. It may be that if you pick any job where you mostly get younger people: cashiers, waiters, retail sales, etc. you get a much higher suicide / homicide rate than the national average.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'd imagine a mostly male workplace is very likely to have more problems than one with an even mix of genders. I wouldn't be surprised if weapons availability and training led to more incidents than average. And, if you're teaching people to kill, it shouldn't be surprised if they kill. On the other hand, most jobs don't involve the kind of supervision you get in the military. And, most employers aren't as obsessed with procedures, discipline, etc. as the military. So, it might be that despite all those things, it remains safer for female workers than say being a woman on a construction site.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 56d
If you read the article thoroughly, the rate of homicide per 100k between 2021-2024 for women in the army is higher than men in the army, women nationally, and women globally.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 56d
What about by women in similar age groups and similar occupations nationally?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 56d
At a quick glance, the article notes that over 70% of victims had an intimate relationship with the perpetrator and that the rate of homicides among women soldiers from intimate partner violence is at least 3 times higher than the national average. (EDIT: IPV is common. It affects millions of people in the United States each year. More than 1 in 3 women (nearly 43.5 million) and more than 1 in 6 men (20.7 million) experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes Source )
Of the 41 women who died by homicide, 23 of them were killed by other service members. Which is the focus of the article - the extra danger that women face in the army at the hands of their fellow servicemen.
128 died by suicide - double the rate for equivalent women worldwide. ("In fact, The Intercept’s investigation found, suicide is the leading cause of death of Army women.")
And since the Army doesn't separate by gender:
It's difficult to get the real numbers to compare to women worldwide.
Edit: This article that The Intercept has written here is the first to look at these numbers. It says so in the article.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -7 pts · 56d
This doesn't matter. Friendly fire doesn't really happen in non-combat jobs.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 56d
These victims didn’t die from friendly fire. They were murdered by fellow servicemen.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -7 pts · 56d
Ok so then the article shouldn't call it friendly fire
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 56d
It doesn’t.
Maybe you should read the article.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 56d
Women in combat positions is newer than the vietnam war. The headline should present it the other way around.
Is it not the same for men?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 56d
Are none of you going to read the article?
LodeMike@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 56d
No ❤️
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 55d
The study is poorly designed.
To paint a more accurate picture, the study should compare deaths of the same type across gender. In other words, do more women die from homicides committed by service members compared to men who die from the same cause?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 55d
The Intercept notes that, but the information isn’t available from the Defense Department.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 8 pts · 55d
I don't recall what podcast, but I was listening to something about the first military academy in the USA that admitted women and how horribly they were abused. Fucking shit.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 5 pts · 56d
No sympathy for the war machine.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 54d
You can risk your life to kill brown kids but you might get raped by your fellow murderers.
OozingPositron@feddit.cl · 2 pts · 54d
What, you don't want to die for Epstein?
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 54d
Poetic.
needanke@feddit.org · 3 pts · 55d
There is a simple solution here.
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 56d
Leave the military. Now.
Because i sure as fuck have no sympathy for women who willingly serve a rapist pedophile going on war crimes to manipulate the stock market.
dismay3915@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 54d
Militaries are inherently fucked up places and organizations. Anybody with a pea of common sense and understanding for women will understand that millitary is not a healthy, good place for women. They only brainwashed generations into thinking "women should be in military for equal rights" because they needed more staff/flesh.
UnfairUtan@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 56d
Reminds me of this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=%5C_G_wXt_NxrY