Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!


Violence Against Women


Date posted - February 15, 2013


Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has rescinded the ban on women in combat

Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel wants to bring back the military draft and extend it to women

Yet the Senate has voted 78 to 22 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act – the 22 senators voting no were all Republicans

So women in combat is not considered violent?

Print Friendly

18 Responses to “Violence Against Women”

  1. jay miller says:

    they want equal rights, that goes with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Sue says:

    Women have a choice when it comes to the militaryunless of course they are drafted. The Violence Against Women Act is to protect women that have no choice, and are getting abused.. big difference in my opinon.

    • Red says:

      Amen, Sue! Spot on!

      • Old Fashion says:

        So how does it change Sue if and when women are drafted and forced into combat situations?

        • Jon says:

          This is sort of a red herring argument, as allowing women to serve in combat situations and forcing women to serve by means of a draft are actually separate issues. Allowing women to serve in combat situation is an entirely voluntary service at this point, and there has been no change in the selective service law. As of now, there is no possibility of “forcing” women into combat situations. In addition, we haven’t instated a draft since Vietnam, so even men have been exempted from the possibility of being forced to serve for 40 years.

  3. Lee Ann says:

    They are already in combat situations, as truck drivers, etc. But they didn’t get combat pay, even tho they were in situations where everyone was shooting. They weren’t allowed to apply for certain jobs which would go into combat, even tho they eventually were IN combat anyway. The best rank is made in combat, there are women that are translators, that cannot go into combat (even tho they ARE still in combat situations. And because they cannot go into combat as their job, they dont get rank and raises as quickly, as the men fighting right beside them get.

    And violence isnt so bad, when you can shoot back! LOL However the number of rapes of women in the military is high, the violence and rape of women on Indian reservations is high and the rapist cannot be held on Indian land, if he is not Indian. So these two groups of women are unable to take their abusers or rapists to court. The VAWA will help these groups. I am astounded that these male legislators voted no. This law would protect women in situations where right now, women can be raped or beaten and they cannot take their abuser to court. or even get them arrested. I don’t even understand these legislators reasoning for why they would vote no.

    • Tim says:

      Lee Ann,
      I am confused… in your first paragragh it seemed you wanted equality for women in the military, in your second paragragh you seem to say you don’t want them treated as equal. I am really confused on what you want. Help me understand.

      • Lee Ann says:

        Just lost this long letter, grrrr.

        These paragraphs are about two different things. 1. Women in combat are requesting the combat equality. They are already in combat standing beside the men. Yet they cannot apply for the better jobs, that have better rank and pay, because they would be combat roles. So the women themselves want the combat designation, so they can make more money, get better rank for doing what they are already doing.

        2. The VAWA is for all women, whether in the military, on an Indian reservation, living in a city, town or rural area. Women in the military have difficulty getting their abuser arrested, women on Indian reservations cannot get their abuser arrested once he leaves the reservation. Women need to be able to get charges filed against their abuser regardless of where they live or what they do.

        I support the women in the military that want the combat designation. That is their choice, and they feel they are already in combat. However, that doesn’t have anything to do with violence against all women, in situations that they cannot get charges filed against their abuser or rapist. A man can go onto an Indian reservation, rape a woman whether she knows him or not, and leave the reservation and they cannot press charges against him, because it is an Indian reservation. So he can come and go off an Indian reservation at will, and nobody can stop him.

        These are two different situations.

        • Tim says:

          Lee Ann:
          I am 100% for women and equal pay for the same position, or job, military or civilian. I need to ask one question, can a female body withstand the same hour after hour stamina a male body does? the two phisically are different, it is just how God made us. If a female can keep right up with her male counter part, great, treat and pay them the same. I would say the same thing for a male, some are just simply phisically not capable of the same stamina. If a female/male wants to be iin the armed forces, she/he best keep up, and not jepardize the rest of her/his company. If phisically they can’t, they have no reason to jepardize the rest of her/his company!

          As far as this VAWA, we should be against violence against anyone, male or female. The same laws against violence should pertain to both sexes, not just one.

          Not sure where the Indian reservation came into this op-ed, but here is my take: There should be no such thing as an Indian reservation. If you are a citizen of the united States you should be governed by ITS laws. Why should we have seperate laws for seperate people. My goodness, If that be the case, just think of the different cultures we have in this country. I am sure each would love its own little corner. But the issue you raised was on the VAWA to protect the rights of those women on the reservation. Fantastic, but then why not throw out the law that the reservation uses and use the United States law., after all, they are US citizens not? The way I see it, the reservation leaders won’t give up control, b/c it is a monetary issue. I may be wrong, but it sure seems to me that reservations would have it better if they just disbanded them altogether.

          • Lee Ann says:

            The military says that they have not changed the testing, they are either physically capable of doing the job, or they cannot be given the job. And women have been passing the physical tests, but couldn’t get the job because it is a combat position. I guess hey are already doing these jobs, because in a combat area, everybody pulls their weight. So they are doing the jobs, just not getting the rank and pay for the combat jobs.

            While I agree that reservations should go by US law, the whole mess has been the same for about 150 years. And nothing changes . The men voting against VAWA are saying that Reservation laws cannot be used against Non Indians, even if they commit a crime on a reservation. And the off reservation cops cannot arrest them because they commited this crime on Indian land. There are several parts to the VAWA, NonIndians on Indian land commiting crimes against women, women committing violence against their same sex partner, which was not considered domestic violence before, military women getting raped and their commanding officer refusing to press charges. etc. The VAWA is about violence of any kind against women that have no recourse in courts. I can’t understand why these legislators won’t sign this bill.

          • Jon says:

            Tim, I’m confused then. So women should not be allowed to be in combat situations, even if they choose to be, because their bodies are more frail, but a law shouldn’t be enacted to protect women from being victims of violence (as has been the case for many years) because they are equal, but by your logic, women are fundamentally different from men, and maybe because of their frailty and inability to serve in combat situations, then they should receive protection from violence due to their frailty.

            I’m sorry, but if you’re going to point out logical flaws, you should realize that the opposite reasoning that you seem to advocate contains the same logical flaws, just in reverse.

            The fact is that women who serve in the military are wanting the ability to sign up for combat roles. My understanding would be that they would be held to the same standard of conduct and physical readiness that anyone else in a combat role would receive.

            In the Violence Against Women Act, women are not choosing to have violence enacted upon them. This is about rape and abuse, plain and simple. I do understand the problems inherent in the section regarding Reservations. This is complicated issue because right now, rape and abuse cases on reservations often go untried and the crimes go unpunished in part because of the relative isolation of the reservations. This would give tribal authorities the power to try these cases on their land even if the crimes were perpetrated by someone not ordinarily subject to their jurisdiction (non-Native). I understand the problems with this designation, and I also understand that there is a documented problem with non-Native American men abusing and raping Native American women and getting away with the crimes. I’m not sure that I can take the side of a rapist and an abuser on this issue, as Grassley is so willing to do, though it is a complex issue that needs to be resolved.

          • willy Pedro says:

            well said Tim and Im an Indian living here!

    • Old ORAB says:

      I’m in the Military. I’ve served in Iraq. You’re correct, women don’t receive Combat Pay. It’s referred to as Hostile Duty Pay. Our outstanding female service members do receive this pay. Rape is a capital offense under the U.C.M.J. Citizens must remember that all title 10 military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the Constitution. I’d also like to point out that the U.S. Military has low lives in its’ ranks; it’s true. They’re dealt with and sent to the U.S.D.B. Scum exists in all cultures. The Military lives by a code and rape is not welcome. Soldiers receive S.H.A.R.P. training annually to deal with this. Rape is something brought into our ranks from the outside world and it’s not welcome. If any Soldier would disgrace a fellow female Soldier under my watch I’d take a personal interest in seeing that Soldier punished accordingly. Our female troops are the best of the best. They don’t deserve special treatment. They’ve earned equal treatment. As for the draft; nobody in the all volunteer force really wants a draft. I base this opinion on many conversations on the subject. If the draft is reinstated I’m sure our Sergeants will give TLC to those poor little draftees. I have complete faith in our NCOs that they’d have draftees ready for combat. I’m not a recruiter but my 15 years of service makes me qualified to discuss the topic. I’d honor the commitment of any young woman who would endanger her life to protect this nation. She’s displayed courage and places the welfare and protection of others before her self. I’m also the uncle of a female Soldier. I’m proud of her and the sacrafice her parents have made. It’s my job and the responsibility of all Military leaders to crush Rape and Sexual Harrasment and to train our Soldiers to be the best. One team with one fight.

  4. Old ORAB says:

    I’m anonymous here so I’m going to ask this question. Did anyone really give a darn about the troops in combat? Is this a political move or is it in the best interest of the Military. I’m not an Infantryman. I do care about those guys. Does anybody care what the bug eating, mud dwelling, tough as nails, back bone of the U.S. Military thinks about this? If the average grunt is OK with this, I’m OK with it too. I hear alot of arguing from people who’ve probably never stayed at a FOB, COP, or in a Bivuac site. Most people reading this have no idea what those acronyms mean. Perhaps the guys fighting should have a say on this. I ask that you take care of our troops. Vote responsibly, think logically. Ask what is best for that 19 year old kid who is a Infantryman who volunteered for the toughest dang job in the Military. I personally not opposed to female personnel in combat. I’ve meet some really tough ladies in the military. I’ve know ladies with confirmed kills in Iraq. Some of our female Soldiers can hack it. Don’t defend those who can’t make it. Let it go. Those who can have earned it. Take care of the combat arms. Don’t use them as a social experiment; not in a time of war. Take care of them because they’re the kids dying in the most horrible ways imaginable to defend your right to bicker about politics on sites like this.

    • Old ORAB says:

      Someone gave us a thumbs down. That’s funny. Oh well. An idiot exists in every village.

      • Lee Ann says:

        It happens to all of us. My only crime is that I am a liberal. And I regularly get more thumbs down than thumbs up. I don’t take it personally, I do live in NW Iowa which is very conservative.

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email walt@kiwaradio.com.


Back to:Violence Against Women