Another U.S. soldier is convicted of rape, this time in the Phillipines.
The article itself leaves a little to be desired. For example:
The court sentenced Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, 21, of St. Louis, to life imprisonment — which, in the Philippines, could mean up to 40 years in prison — for raping a drunken 23-year-old Filipina in November 2005 inside a former American naval facility in Subic, Pampanga, a province just north of Manila.
Apparently the fact that she was “drunken” is a key element in the story.
The defendants had claimed that what took place inside the van was sex between consenting adults and that the woman only cried rape because she wanted to salvage her reputation.
Now, I suspect that the reporter would argue that he used the term “cried rape” to characterize the defendents’ sentiments, not his own. But the way it’s phrased here is incredibly poor — and it makes it sound like “cried rape” is a factual statement, not an opinionated one.
I’m also not sure why she’s repeatedly referred to as “the Filipina” instead of, say, “the woman,” but I suppose repeatedly emphasizing her ethnicity is appropriately othering for American readers.
That aside, rape as a war tactic is nothing new; soldiers are groomed to associate sex with violence, within an already sexist and patriarchal military structure (thanks to Jessica for the article):
Read More…Read More…