51 ms·

I Was Sexually Assaulted by Another Marine. The Corps Didn’t Believe Me

30 points by CraneWorm 8y ago

rectang 8y ago
> In the years since then, I came to realize that it wasn’t the assault that had the most enduring effect on me. It was people’s refusal to believe that one man would assault another man. It was the mockery from leaders I had trusted and the implication that, if it had happened, I must have done something to invite it. While the software industry is not as tight-knit as the Marine Corps, the harsh reaction when people who have experienced abuse come forward has many of the same qualities. Sexual abuse of various kinds is often perceived to be exclusively one-directional in terms of gender (notwithstanding Kevin Spacey and other examples outside software). I wonder if more male survivors coming forward would make a difference in the industry zeitgeist, or if they would be rejected as violently as this Marine.
- coldtea 8y ago
  I think one prevailing idea is not that there can't be man on man abuse or that victims must have "done something to invite it", but that men should protect themselves on their own in those matters. So it's more like "yeah, and what do you want the Marine Corps to do? You're a marine, you should have fended the other person off". E.g. nobody would have said anything of the kind if an older man raped a young boy (they'd want to send their ass to jail), but for a marine this kind of thing is not something they're expected to allow to happen to them, or complain about. So, it's part of this macho thing, but then again, this goes hand to hand with being a marine.
  - rectang 8y ago
    You're right, that's another reaction we often see. The rejoinder is, how far should vigilante justice go? Should the abuser be killed? Maimed? Because if the attack is just brushed off, the abuser will move on to other targets. And what if there's a misunderstanding -- if we rely on vigilante enforcement, how do we handle the fallout of a disproportionate or inappropriate violent response? Once we accept that abusers should face consequences, it's in everyone's interest for cases to be handled through formal administrative procedures with proper rules of evidence and protections. But sadly, those administrative procedures don't always fulfill their potential -- as in the case of this Marine, the case where HR gets rid of the reporter rather than the abuser, etc.

30 points by CraneWorm 8y ago

> In the years since then, I came to realize that it wasn’t the assault that had the most enduring effect on me. It was people’s refusal to believe that one man would assault another man. It was the mockery from leaders I had trusted and the implication that, if it had happened, I must have done something to invite it. While the software industry is not as tight-knit as the Marine Corps, the harsh reaction when people who have experienced abuse come forward has many of the same qualities. Sexual abuse of various kinds is often perceived to be exclusively one-directional in terms of gender (notwithstanding Kevin Spacey and other examples outside software). I wonder if more male survivors coming forward would make a difference in the industry zeitgeist, or if they would be rejected as violently as this Marine.

coldtea 8y ago
I think one prevailing idea is not that there can't be man on man abuse or that victims must have "done something to invite it", but that men should protect themselves on their own in those matters. So it's more like "yeah, and what do you want the Marine Corps to do? You're a marine, you should have fended the other person off". E.g. nobody would have said anything of the kind if an older man raped a young boy (they'd want to send their ass to jail), but for a marine this kind of thing is not something they're expected to allow to happen to them, or complain about. So, it's part of this macho thing, but then again, this goes hand to hand with being a marine.
- rectang 8y ago
  You're right, that's another reaction we often see. The rejoinder is, how far should vigilante justice go? Should the abuser be killed? Maimed? Because if the attack is just brushed off, the abuser will move on to other targets. And what if there's a misunderstanding -- if we rely on vigilante enforcement, how do we handle the fallout of a disproportionate or inappropriate violent response? Once we accept that abusers should face consequences, it's in everyone's interest for cases to be handled through formal administrative procedures with proper rules of evidence and protections. But sadly, those administrative procedures don't always fulfill their potential -- as in the case of this Marine, the case where HR gets rid of the reporter rather than the abuser, etc.