One-sided documentary - The Invisible War (2012) Discussion

[–] donotdisturbx9 11 years ago

So you feel rape should be unreported and we should not care what the victims have to say but rather hear the story of the people who are doing the raping?

reply

[–] ofuoku71 11 years ago

I think the OP is saying that there is a bias in the documentary which focuses on the victims' point of view. He or she is saying that it would be better if there was more factual stats instead of estimated numbers and less bias.

reply

[–] freetomato 11 years ago

Perhaps the filmmakers assume that viewers have enough curiousity to research the stats on their own ( http://www.sapr.mil/ ).

FWIW, I have 26 years in uniform, 8 of them in the legal career field. I personally have not experienced the issues highlighted in this film. However, what hit home was the prevailing notion that in any situation involving sexual impropriety, the female is automatically suspect from the get-go. As female troops, we have to develop thick skins, "suck it up", be one of the guys, deal with it. That's how I've managed to stay in as long as I have, but again, I've never been the victim of an assault. In my view, as part of the JAG Corp, a crime is a crime and sexual assaults need to be treated as that, not as a moral failing on the part of the victim. Serial rapists/assaulters need to be tracked and monitored just as they are in the civilian sector. As overblown as one might find this documentary, the fact of the matter is that sex offenders in the military are treated radically differently than their civilian counterparts and that cannot be denied.

<Female Master Sergeant

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Yes, women should have to suck it up, just as men do. If they want to enter a male dominated organization and expect to be treated as equals, they need to behave as equals and thick skins certainly help. But that is another discussion.

Actually, I think you should admit that the male is the suspect (for obvious reasons) from the get-go as well, as all it takes is an accusation from a female to start an investigation. A murder or robbery has a clear victim, but we know that sexual assault cases are much more complicated, hence the relatively low conviction rate. Evidence of consensual sex can look exactly like that in which a sexual assault can occur. As such, the ability and motivation to make a false accusation is fairly high, by some government studies. Because of this, it is understandable that the veracity of the accusation is rigorously investigated as well.

The doc did hit on the inherent difference between the civil and military worlds but showing that power is decentralized. I agree that, in many cases, need to be treated like the crimes they are. Perhaps, the authority should be removed from the company/battalion level but I also think commanders should retain the ability to weed out false accsations or those instances where the lack of evidence is so great that there is no point in pursuing legal action.

reply

[–] johnmartindj 11 years ago

"He or she." Very funny. Like there is any chance a woman would write these henious things. How could a woman defend her country if she can't fight off a rapist? You have some way of defending such swill?> Too bad the rapists wouldn't be interviewed so there would be a balanced view. How can we REALLY be sure the woman with the broken jaw wasn't faking it. I heard plenty of stats. What movie did YOU watch?

reply

[–] keykeyx100000 11 years ago

I agree. The jump from statistical 100 thousand to 500 thousand simply because "well, women don't report so it must be so" just didn't seem right.

It was definitely one sided, and seeking to send a message though story telling and following certain people around, like a reality show.

It's not that I don't believe these women were raped, but a reality tv show style documentary is the wrong way to deliver a message.

reply

[–] nettwench 11 years ago

There is no bias here. Since the criminals are in hiding, and the military is protecting them, we are not going to hear "their" side. Who wants to hear the criminal's "side," anyway? All the cases were of the women and the man getting brutally beaten as well as sexually assaulted, and then drummed out, harassed, and threatened when they bring charges. If we could hear the rapist's "side" of the story, we wouldn't be here.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Of course not. I'm not sure what would prompt you to ask such a preposterous rhetorical question. I would have preferred to see a little more substance and a lot less appeal to emotion.

reply

[–] twilliams76 11 years ago

Darling -- you said: "It barely touches on the system which contributes to what crimes do occur and has absolutely nothing to say about false accusations or the contradictory aspect of the inability of some women, who all want to defend our country, defend themselves."

And that was EXACTLY part of the point of this film ... that system is pretty much in denial of this. It appears "one-sided" because the other side denies it is a valid problem.

You missed one of the biggest reasons this film was made.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

For one, I don't think that was the point of the film. The film, oddly enough, seemed to be intent on portraying women as helpless victims passively reacting to forces beyond their control. The way it did this was to hype and overstate the issue, principly by inflating the number (with the help of DOD statistics) of these crimes and also by portraying the military as both hopefully out of touch and grossly incompetent. It did so, nearly in a vaccuum, with only two directors (one who was clearly not prepared or terribly unable to answer simple questions) and a JAG officer. The vast majority of the sound bytes came from the women themselves and their advocates, hardly unbiased group (not that I expect them to be, but if one had a stronger case, one would expect more substance and some voices of dissent) This seems to be a subcurrent in our culture, to potray women, in general, as being besieged by some omnipotent, vaguely misogynistic force.

For another thing, I'm not sure if I know anyone who says there isn't an issue to be addressed. They may disagree with the degree (as I do) but no one is saying nothing is wrong. In fact Panetta (in my opinion) is probably overreacting and suggesting that the numbers are far greater.

Lastly, who is the "other side"?

I don't think I missed the reason why this film was made, I just differ in my opinion of its goal.

reply

[–] nuklearweasel 11 years ago

So - because you don't agree with the statistics presented or the accounts of the women who were brutalized, it's "biased" and therefore invalid? I'm not sure we watched the same film - because no where does the film maker present the victims as being weak or hapless, the women or the MEN who were also assaulted. You just sound unsympathetic to their stories. The film presents information from the side of the victims. If you feel the "alleged" rapists were not adequately represented in their, or the numbers are inflated (despite no empirical evidence to suggest the contrary) then why don't you go make that documentary...otherwise, you just sound like a troll.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

I would think that stats were not inflated since the stats came from the military themselves. If nothing else, the numbers are NOT inflated. Let's pretend they are inflated anyway for the sake of an argument. The bottom line is women and men both are being sexually assaulted in the military and the military is not doing a thing about it. Regardless if it's 10 women and 20 men instead of the thousands, the military is not doing anything. The film also (oddly enough - to use your words) also portrayed males as helpless victims as well. Of course you're a helpless victim if you're being sexually assaulted and there's nothing you can do about it. What do you recommend these people do if the officers in the military consistently turn their backs on these people?
You were the OP and you were the one who said it was one sided so why are you asking 'who is the other side'? The military did answer some questions on camera. I guess they failed to get the rapists to talk on camera about how extraordinary it is to know a man who loves to sexually assault people can join the military knowing full well he can get away with it. It's like a free buffet with dozens of opportunities to push yourself on someone else.
The bottom line is, women are getting the message loud and clear. If these men and women who are raped aren't victims, what exactly are they?

I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Just because they came from the military itself, doesn't mean they are accurate. For instance, if they said there were only 30 sexual assaults last year, would you agree with that? Yes, it's very possible that the numbers are inflated because we aren't (because this is a documentary, not a report) shown how those numbers are derived.

No, that is not the bottom line. They are not (yet) overreacting to dubious claims. They address each alleged crime as just that and, for reasons right and wrong, don't treat it as a bigger issue. Well, until now, I suppose.

Yes, one is helpless if they are being sexually assaulted and there's nothing they can do. However, it goes without saying that one can most often do something about it, especially members of the armed forces.

I don't believe that officers are consistently turning their backs. I think some of the claims are dubious and come down to he said/she said "date rape" allegations, which are, by their very nature, extremely hard to prosecute. Given that commanders are given great latitude, it is understandable that, without a preponderance of the evidence supporting the alleged victim, they are unwilling to go forward with weak cases.

I didn't realize in what context you meant "other side". They failed to get anyone, besides the heads of their military's task forces (one was horribly inarticulate, the other was better), to comment on the allegations being made in the film. There are plenty of them out there; I've read their counterpoints.

It's a ridiculous statement that a male sexual predator joins the military because he knows he can get away with it, absolutely ridiculous. But if you really believe that, than what women, other than a woman who loves to be sexually assaulted, would join the military? Silly assumptions cut both ways.

There are clearly men and women assaulted in the military, just as they are in the civilian world. It's the rates, the way they are dealt with, and the perception of the problem which differs.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

No it's not a ridiculous statement that sexual predators go where they can get their prey. Peds do it - they join organizations where they know there will be boys or girls, just as men who are prone to sexual assault go where they can get their victims and know they can get away with it. It's not like I came up with this on my own. This has been well documented way before this documentary was filmed. Why do you think there aren't more women in the military? Now that this film has come out, one would expect a lot of females would think twice about joining the military. It's not such a silly assumption - in fact, a good deal of men think women shouldn't BE THERE anyway.
You're wrong. They're not DEALT WITH. That is what this film is about. Lots more people are assaulted and very little IS DONE.

I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I find the statement quite silly. There is a small amount of "prey" there and there are, in fact, penalties for what they do, just as they are in the civilian world. They don't "know" they can get away with it. If you presume that they *know* this, then women, being the intelligent and vigilant beings that they are, must also know something about the military. So you are suggesting that the women are (a) dumb or (b) willingly going to someplace where they know they have a relatively high chance of being assaulted.

There aren't more women in the military for a variety of reasons. Much of the military is physically arduous, with time spent away from the family (immediate and otherwise), in relatively austere conditions....so in other words, the same reasons why women are underrepresented in logging, deep sea fishing, fire departments, etc.

It is not necessarily a bad thing if more women thought twice about joining the military. Yes, I agree, a good deal of men don't think women should be there, under a double standard, in the military. Some are mere chauvinists but others just don't think the military should have to adapt to women, but rather the other way around.

I'm right. They are dealt with, when the evidence is there. It may not be in the numbers *you* think the military should aspire to, but they are dealt with nonetheless.

This film almost entirely relies on emotions and very little on evidence or facts.

reply

[–] Derrickku 11 years ago

The survivor's lawsuit was dismissed, the court ruled "... rape is an occupational hazard of military service."

And when I see your arguments, that's what your defending darling137. Because there's an unjustifiable situation, women shouldn't join and if the join they shouldn't ask accountability from the structure that fails to prevent the situation in the first place.

Then you talk about punishment, yet you say that the only judge in that matter should be the same structure that lacks liability in the matter...

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I find that very hard to believe. Could I see a link to the court ruling? Perhaps theres some context that would make sense of it, if in fact that's the wording they used.

No, Derrickku, that's not what I'm defending. I've said none of the things you've attributed to me.

In fact I did not say what you claim in your last line. I've suggested, somewhere in one of my responses, that the solution may be something other than what it is. What I said was that the military structure is different from civilian justice structure. While there is the concept of jurisdictions, the power is much more decentralized in the military, with the commander having the responsiblity, in some cases, of being the judge, jury, and executioner.

The film is disingenuous by suggesting that "commanders" (I believe that's the word they use) tend to be the (alleged) perpetrators, which implies that the buck stops at the one who supposedly committed the crime. I think they meant to say "immediate supervisor", which could be anyone of any rank, and any military member knows they can *always* go above the person above them, as there is a direct chain of command all the way to the Presdient of the United States, not to mention other ways to file a grievance (EO office and IG office)

reply

[–] Patchheadcheat 11 years ago

Hmm, after reading through the comments I find it difficult to reply. I don't know darling137 if you ever serviced in the military or not. I assume not since you speak about things that are in fact not accurate. I have spent time in the military 12 years, 7 months and 21days to be exact. My job was a chaplains assistant, with that entailed many sessions of counseling with both "alleged" perps and "alleged" victims alike. I would like to state that you are correct in one thing you have stated that the number is inaccurate but not inflated more like deflated. There are two types of reporting rape in the military. Look it up hey use google the same place you can find your "inflated" numbers. Many women do not report rape because of the backlash, they suffer in silence to decrease there pain. If a women complains about a comment on their breast size they are said to be to sensitive. If the stand up for themselves the are trouble makers. What you fail to understand is the military is "the goof ole boy" system. Meaning that no one wants to believe our heroes are capable of doing such things. However, they do and frequently. It only gets better from here, and I'm not saying always there are some really good "CO" Commanding officers. Everything said in the documentary is accurate, there is extreme fear of retribution for the victims. Rape is traumatizing enough with out having to feel like its your fault. I have seen women threatened with court marshall because they did not have enough bruises on their bodies to 100 percent prove without a doubt they were raped. the victims are more times then not treated like criminals. Very few women would lie about such a thing given the harassment they receive after reporting it. Why would they put themselves through that? As far as your comment goes about the victims defending themselves that's not always possible, what sort of training do you think we get? It is fact that the military requires some athletic ability but not bodybuilding. What would you tell a victim of a robbery while held at gun point fight back, no you wouldn't. It's the same thing in many cases there is some sort of weapon used. It's human nature to want to live. Also, you won't see a documentary about the rapist because then they would have to admit they did something wrong.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Well, Patcheadcheat, you start off with a bad assumption and your post doesn't get much better.

I spent roughly the same amount of time in, about a year more, in both units that were exclusively male and majority-female.

Sure, we can never know the amount of real crimes versus those reported but I must naturally resist the temptation to put numbers, particularly when they are large, on estimations which only serve to inflate the numbers being talked about while never mentioning any factors which mitigate these numbers. Yes, I assume crimes like this occur more often than our actually litigated with a conviction. But we should also keep in mind that allegations does not equal crimes.

For some reason, in a discussion about rape, you switch--midstream--to discussion about sexual harassment and how women fit into majority-male organizations.

The military is not a "good ole boy" system as you seem to believe. It is mostly men and understandably the culture is male oriented. And yes, some units or organizations can be influenced by a particular flavor of soldier but it is not universal; there can be "good ole gals" too. Regarldless, commanders, good ones at least, look out for all their soldiers, both men and women. Are some young commanders forced to make difficult decisions regarding allegations of sexual assault? You bet. But they are not corrupt or nepotistic just because the numbers don't skew the way some rape victim advocates would prefer.

I doubt your claim that you've actually seen women threatened in the manner you say, but I suppose it's possible. There are some bad apples out there. We see the opposite as well, as in the Naval Academy sex scandals, when women who had committed honor violations (which led to the situation they found themselves in) were given immunity for the testimony of their allegation (I believe all ended in acquittals of sexual assault)

The fact is women do make false accusations and have motivation to do so (just like any other falsely accused criminal allegation)

As far as training, "you" get the same training as men. Regarless of sex, military members should be able to take care of themselves, at the minimum.We're not largely talking about forcible rape with a weapon though. Many of these alleged rapes are drunken he said/she said or what they call "date rape" or "gray rape" in which both participants are intoxicated, details are hazy, and some consensual sexual activity may have occurred. But since you brought up weapons, two incidents from the early years of OIF come to mind. One was a female officer drug into another room by a local national, who attempted to sexually assault her. She was armed but he wasn't. Cannot remember the specifics but she was rescued or escaped but later confessed to never thinkging about using her weapon. Another was a female officer raped by her driver. They pulled off the road and he supposedly raped her. Most people would ask how a women, who was armed, could not defend herself from a fellow soldier who was preoccupied with driving?

I don't expect to see the alleged (yep, there's that word again) rapist on the silver screen, but at least some view from his side. Or perhaps some kind of explanation for some of the rejection of the claims from the Pentagon. But no, we heard from only two or three people from the task force assigned to solve this problem. One was articulate and the other was not.

reply

[–] nettwench 11 years ago

Darling's attitude is basically victim-blaming. Rape is happening because the victims are there, and they should just expect it??!!! Not once did DARLING mention that MAYBE men should be told not to rape. Sexual predators should be kicked out. Did you not see the part of the film where almost 15% of new recruits have records of rape or attempted rape? Why are people like that even getting into the military? The problem with being in the military is that you CANNOT LEAVE, you are TRAPPED in a situation with a predator because the only way out is to tank your own career. These are not he-said, she-said situations, these are situations where women have been physically assaulted and beaten up by people who are supposed to be like FAMILY and have each other's backs. People are drugged without their knowledge so they can be assaulted, or attacked by more than one assailant, in the case of the male being raped. Women assaulted by married male officers are discharged for adultery just for bringing charges!! Most of these guys are repeat offenders, serial predators, not a misunderstanding by a couple of drunk people on a date. They could get out and rape your wife or your sister.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] swampscrapper 11 years ago

darling, you make some great points.

This movie does not look at how unnatural and trying an environment is for a young man in the pinnacle of his physicality, to be placed in life and death situations alongside what may be a young attractive member of the opposite sex.

Anyone blind enough to think that there will not be inherent conflict of interest by placing young men with young women in such a violent cold and twisted setting and not expect unintended results is kidding himself.

it doesnt excuse the illegal act, but to ignore the unnatural elements that create this environment does not paint a full picture.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Thank you. And that's the sort of lack of depth I'm talking aobut in this documentary. It doesn't even attempt to address the close confines of men and women in the military. They are in close proximity like no other civilian job.

The film takes a handful of accusations and/or cases (I cannot remember if they used any cases which were adjucated in favor of the alleged victim or not) and try to portray them as the norm, coupling the video testimony with the "military's own statistics". The far more typical case would involve two soldiers, a male and female, getting drunk, having sex and then one claiming it was rape and the ohter insisting it was consensual.

reply

[–] nettwench 11 years ago

That is disgusting, swampscraper. What you are basically saying is that all men are potential rapists, because they just can't help themselves. The mere presence of a woman turns them into rapists. Military training is supposed to raise people up to a higher level of personal responsibility and integrity. The best and the brightest, not the predator and the rapist.

Darling's whole argument is that this film is one-sided because it doesn't give the rapists any sympathy. Nobody took the time to ask these sociopaths about their "feelings," and how they prey on unsuspecting people. Next he'll be saying that murderers aren't getting enough sympathy, because we haven't heard their side of the story.

Ssssshh! You'll wake up the monkey!

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

Yes I felt the rapists should have been interviewed as well. Unfortunately, that didn't happen did it - anymore than they will ever have to pay for their crimes and of course, the military will never admit to any shortsideness on their part will they.

I think she's the saddest girl ever to hold a martini.

reply

[–] batreyud 11 years ago

Good luck getting them to come on the documentary to be interviewed.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

There is no such thing as an unbiased work of art, or really anything human created at all. The flaw is in people who think something created by humans can be "unbiased".

Also, just because something is biased doesn't make it wrong or bad. Most Americans would freely admit they're biased against Nazis, or pedophiles. This documentary has a point of view. As it SHOULD. Good for a filmmaker for standing up for something they believe.

Technically all those civil rights activists from the 1960s were "biased". Technically anyone who was anti-slavery in the USA during and before the Civil War was biased. History merely chooses which biases got to win and thus became "normal" and which didn't.

As to your original comment, the question is, do you think the film is lying? If it is, then you should speak up loud and clear about how there are no sexual assault problems within the military and anyone claiming this is LYING. Otherwise, if this film isn't a lie, then why are you angry that it takes a point of view if in your estimation that is the correct point-of-view?

Nothing is unbiased. NOTHING. Simply by being human we're biased. This isn't a bad thing. The bad thing is taking any one source or work as the end all be all of facts and accepting that as truth over anything else.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I think you perhaps missed my point and focused too much on one word. I didn't suggest it should be without bias, only that I hadn't seen something so biased to one point of view for a long time.

There is a difference between having a point of view and presenting almost entirely one side of an issue. At some point it becomes propaganda.

You response question is a loaded one, and gives us a false choice.

Most documentaries force you to think about an issue; this one is nothing more than a PSA. I don't think the film intentionally lies (except for one of its stats regarding commanders), but it never seems to wonder about the veracity of the claims, the military's justice system (except for a brief point), or other causes of the supposed epidemic of assaults and allegations. The filmmakers can be in error, uninformed, or far too biased to notice the difference without lying outright.

And it's a false choice to say the film is lying or there are the amount of assaults it claims (and not pursued, as the filmmakers would have you believe). I believe the film can give a false impression and still have a sexual assaults within the ranks (as with any population of men and women).

Why you chose to answer the question you presented to me is curious. Again, I find the film extremely lacking in objectivity and evidence. In the end, it is a few personal story lines of some women who have alleged sexual assault with some up-to-date reactions with a smattering of facts thrown in. And I do speak up, in online forums to denounce the wild claims that some make regarding this serious crime.

I agree, nothing is not biased. But some people make a little more effort to show some objectivity.

reply

[–] bobbylamx 11 years ago

Really? You watched a movie that chose to focus a handful of women who were brutally raped, beaten to the point of having their bones dislocated and how they were subsequently persecuted for reporting the crime... and what you took away from it was that you thought it was too bias?

So tell us all about “the system which contributes to what crimes do occur.” Because I’m dying to hear your take on that. And tell us about what your research has yielded regarding “false accusations.” Is that the real injustice that’s going on in the military?

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

No, I watched a movie that chose a handful of women with mostly either ambiguous or less-than-compelling cases and tried to elicit maximum emotion from it, drawing dubious conclusions in the process.

They touch on the system at the very end of the movie. The UCMJ is the military's own justice system. It pushes a lot of power down to low-level leaders, because it has to. Even with legal advice, junior and field grade officers are forced to make decisions on their personnel which they literally would not have been in a position to even forty years ago. Many, if not most, of these cases are he said/she said with little evidence of a crime.

These are the realities of having young men and women working in close proximity and on long deployments, unlike any civilian job out there.

You can stop dying now.

I've read about a few studies in which false accusations are put in the 40-80% range, one an FBI study and another commissioned by the USAF. Women have three clear motivations for false accusation: revenge, attention/sympathy, and sexual alibi. It's unconciable that in the miltary's attempt to cut down on this behavior, it defines it strictly as a prevention of male perpetrators and of rates of indictement. Women's ability to protect themselves, false accusations, situational awareness (ie. limiting risky behaviors) and prosecution of the guity should be the focus as well

reply

[–] candypants42 11 years ago

Hi, I'm curious about the studies you refer to, I've read a little about false rape accusations and I've never come across numbers like those you cite in a serious study. Do you have a link to somewhere?

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

It's been some time since I've read up on the subject but I did a quick Google search for the names I remember.

This one talks about the subject in general:

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

I think it's the McDowell study and the Kanin study which shows such numbers.

reply

[–] candypants42 11 years ago

Kanin's study had 41% and McDowell's 45%. I don't know a lot about the McDowell study but Kanin's study have been proven lacking in scientific method by peer-rewiewers and others. If you want to read about it you can go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

And both used polygraphs which is questionable in itself.

Not saying that false rape accusations doesn't occur, I just don't believe it's anywhere near as prevalent as you want to make it out to be, and I don't think you should be making such claims if you don't have facts behind you.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Like I said, it's been a while since I've delved into it. One of the two used standards which were quite solid (ie women who admitted lying) as the basis of the figures, so one can reasonably estimate--if those who believe (or have incentive to) that the numbers are higher can estimate, I suppose the same is true for those who believe they are lower--that there are more false accusations than those which are clearly proved.

Also what is considered rape has changed dramatically over the last few decades. One can look at the US Naval Academy scandals, see the drive for "no tolerance" (which, ironically, undermines the claims of actual rape victims) and realize how tenuous such claims can be with a constant push for support of the alleged victim (on whose shoulders the burden of proof rests)

Thanks for the link. Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia.

Similar to you, I'm not saying that rapes don't occur but I just don't believe it's anywhere near as prevalent as you make it out to be. And statistics like Panetta's "estimates" certainly don't have the "facts" behind them.

reply

[–] subase 10 years ago

Quite ignorant when rape is indemic in third and second world militaries.

And most first world nations don't have the rape problem the U.S military suffers from.

reply

[–] darling137 10 years ago

Lovely to be called "ignorant" by a person who uses the word "indemic".

You and I disagree that there is a rape problem. It has a perception problem.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

"I didn't suggest it should be without bias, only that I hadn't seen something so biased to one point of view for a long time."

Ah, so we're arguing about level of bias.

"I agree, nothing is not biased. But some people make a little more effort to show some objectivity."

Not really. Name a film that shows a strong effort at being objective. Then google it, maybe google that name with 'criticism' or 'bias' and you'll find someone whining about it.

The Thin Blue Line is probably the closest I can think of, but part of the reason it's so good is that it DID take stand, and it just happened to prove that was the right stand. History's written by the winners, after all.

And even that, I just imdb-ed it because I was curious. Two of the top board titles:

"Another documentary about racist cops whose case falls apart in court"

"Anti Death Penalty??"

My point is, human beings are opinionated, and those who ask for objectivity are usually the least objective of all and often they would not have those arguments with a one-sided argument that agreed with their personal beliefs.

Me, I appreciate a film that's willing to have a point of view.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

"Ah, so we're arguing about level of bias."

It would appear so. You were the one to bring up (what I assumed was understood) the fact that nothing is "unbiased"

"Not really. Name a film that shows a strong effort at being objective."

When compared to this film, any other film makes a stronger effort. Just because people will disagree with a given film (as will always occur), doesn't make it exactly as biased as any other film.

"My point is, human beings are opinionated"

As evidenced by my decision to post an opinion that this film is glaringly biased and poorly done.

"those who ask for objectivity are usually the least objective of all"

I tend to agree. I would also say that I'm the exception to the rule. I appreciate opposing viewpoints, even if I disagree with them vehemently.

"Me, I appreciate a film that's willing to have a point of view."

Me too. I just don't appreciate ones that are cartoonishly and simplistically so. 'Men, military bad, women good.' I simply found it weak and not very compelling. This was a disappointment considering all of the hype I've heard about it.

reply

[–] nuklearweasel 11 years ago

You're whole argument of bias present in the film is just a logical fallacy. And someone needs to point out your little straw man you're trying to use to discredit an otherwise brilliantly crafted and poignant film that is substantiated with research and statistics, whereas your gut reaction tries to ignore statements and discredit it as a ploy to make women weak...also, a logical fallacy.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I disagree completely. It is no straw man to point out what weak movie this is, citing the one-dimensional nature of the film and it's oddly selected choices for victims. It does not delve very deep into any possible reasons for the numbers of allegations or their root causes, instead leaning on the crutch of emotional set-ups, women making their case and reacting emotionally to it.

I found it lazy and shallow and came out of it with no more appreciation for the issue than with what I went in. Some of the statistics were absolutely ridiculous (such as the one regarding how often one's "commander" is the alleged perpetrator.

This was no gut reaction. It was regrettable reaction to a soup sandwich of a documentary.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

I'm saying I think your opinion is more one-sided than this film. Thus, the film's message is better informed and laid out than your own counter opinion.

"'Men, military bad, women good.'"

That wasn't the point at all. It's not saying the military is bad. It's saying that a power structure that abuses its power is bad, and should be cleansed of that corruption. Too often do major power structures cover for their sins by acting like their opponents hate what they claim to stand for as well, and not just their dirty ugly secrets.

For example, you can be pro-Catholic Church but anti-child rape. The Catholic Church hid behind its power to cover up the awful crimes committed and covered up by people part of their system. Corruption should always be rooted out, it doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater (FINALLY - a chance to use that phrase!)

Military good, military corruption = bad. And why should the film have to explicitly state, "but not all men are evil". That's a given. This film did not strike me at all anti-man, unless said man was ALSO a rapist.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I know you'll be floored by this, but I disagree. I am perfectly willing to admit I have biases, just as everyone does. In the case of military women's issues and policy, I have a decidedly unpopular view in that I treat them as equals. Many interpret this as a pro-male bias or anti-female but I consider it a bias for *true* fairness and equality. For me to be more biased than the film, I would have to state that all the women are lying, there is no problem, and only women are to blame. Clearly I do not support that perspective.

That's not how I took the film. I found it simplistic and did not explore much of the reasons for the numbers stated and facts mentioned. It never even *attempted* to examine women's behavior regarding this issue. It felt more like a sexual assault PSA (of which there are plenty on the Armed Forces Network) than an actual documentary.

The power structure doesn't abuse its power. Individuals do. Yes, I fully admit that organizations cover up their faults and crimes (just as people do). They do this for understandable (but unethical) reasons. But in both cases, the situation is oversimplified. Ok I give you credit for using the bathwater phrase.

The film does not have to state that. But it can acknowledge false accusations, risky behavior, rates compared to the general public for comparative demographics. And they can more fully explore the UCMJ and military organization (which lay people simply do not understand or misperceive thanks to the media)

I don't find it accurately depicted reality.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

I appreciate that you defend your beliefs in an intelligent cordial manner. Still, I think the basis of your argument is more biased than this film. I also think when an issue is simply not in the public dialogue at all, it's okay to really stand firm with your point. I think if this sort of thing were more in the public consciousness I could understand where you were coming from better, but since it's so well hidden and has been so kept to the fringe (it's not exactly front page news day in and day out like school shootings are or celeb antics) that the military power structure isn't getting any unfair treatment at all. If anything, it seems the military is unwilling and uninterested to have a frank and honest discussion about this, and that they bear the ultimate responsibility to address this issue.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

The feeling is mutual.

I guess I'm taking it from the other end, that this issue has been in the limelight for some time now (I saw the movie well after it had come out), and this film pushed it there. To me, indeed it seems to have been front page news (although I don't see newspapers). Given the reaction of well-meaning lay people, I can now see why they hold these beliefs (misconceptions, in my belief). If one knew nothing of the military, I would not blame someone for getting the impression that this is an epidemic. But I know better, or, at least, believe I know better based on my experiences.

But having worked in both the hypermasculine all-male infantry and the female-majority adjutant general corps (personnell/HR), I've seen both ends of the spectrum, in a variety of living and working environments.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

As long as people argue it intelligently without resorting to insults or angry emotion, I think things will get better and move in the right direction, whatever that may be. I do respect you for having an opinion I disagree with but reasoning it out and keeping raw, angry emotion out of it. This country needs more discussions that aren't fueled by anger and hatred, so please, keep on talking with people.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

I couldn't agree any more. Well said.

reply

[–] completelyrandomguy 11 years ago

/\ totally agree with this and original post, I actually felt upset that movie did not allow me the opportunity to draw conclusions on my own, instead of presenting the facts and allowing me to stir my own emotions it forced onesided accounts and used emotionally manipulative rhetoric in an attempt to anger me.

I guess in one way, forcing opinions upon someone unwantingly, during a documentary about rape is... clever?

---
"That ape is very very cunning and he will do what he needs to do to stop you."

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

somehow i missed the one voice of reason on this thread. thanks for your comments. i agree, propaganda is more accurate.

reply

[–] tzogas 10 years ago

Calling this film "propoganda" is rape apologia. This whole thread should be flagged.

**Have an A1 day**

reply

[–] darling137 10 years ago

That's just ridiculous on its face. And the second sentence doesn't even deserve a response.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Oh I absolutely agree. It's a matter of degree though. Some actually try to present the other side.

But, on a side note, I do find it odd that filmmakers, when doing a historical piece and reacting to complaints that the story is not accurate, defer to the "It's not a documentary" defense.

reply

[–] druss44121-1 11 years ago

I hate that as well, the "It's not a documentary" defense. Such a cop out, and it misses the point of documentaries altogether. Nothing human made is without "bias", and any narrative filmmaker who defends his work by saying "it's not a documentary" is an idiot and missed the point.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

On a side note, I realize for the sake of film format they must make certain concessions in historical pieces such as creating dialogue and amalgams of characters, but it bugs me when they change facts. I say, either record the history (knowing full well that a certain part of a generation will use the film as a historical reference) accurately or pick another story line. I think it's a sign of lazy writing to break (vs bend) the facts of history just to make a compelling story and use the phrase "based on true events". Either it's compelling or it isn't.

reply

[–] smek2 11 years ago

You know, i already had typed three paragraphs when i decided it's not worth it and i'd should just tell you to *beep* yourself.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

In lieu of your last clause, I'm glad you wasted your time and not mine. And I would encourage you to take your own advice.

I'm all for civil discussion with those I disagree but I don't appreciate wishes of malice from strangers.

reply

[–] completelyrandomguy 11 years ago

I guess "propoganda" is a better word than one sided. I think I said this in a post when this first came out, but can't recall where....

I just felt like alright, here we go, an exciting documentary that will state the unavoidable facts, and wow an oblivious nation into action.

However, what we got was sob stories and people complaining about the VA.

All the potential in the world, but in the end, manipulative propaganda.

real let down.

---
"That ape is very very cunning and he will do what he needs to do to stop you."

reply

[–] dementri06 11 years ago

"Manipulative propaganda"?

So the filmmakers should've showed the pro-rape side? How is being against rape propaganda exactly? Do you complain about anti-Nazi films/documentaries being propaganda as well? I guess the ones complaining about this being one sided want documentaries where racists talk about slavery, murderers talk about killing people favorably, and for music lovers, individuals that hate Band X, hating on Band X in a rockumentary about Band X! That way we know that not everyone likes that band when we watch their rockumentary!

"Well if it isn't fat stinking billy goat Billy Boy in poison!"

reply

[–] Heatsbaby 11 years ago

Just. thank you. I cannot believe the idiocy of people trying to pass this off as portraying all women as victims and that somehow there is credibility to the pro-rape side. Sometimes things are just *beep* wrong; rape is JUST WRONG. Thank god there are some people that are actually sane.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

no one is "pro rape". That is idiocy.

What is at odds here is portraying an issue that is an issue in the civilian world as wildly out of control with an unfeeling or incompetent bureaucracy, when my experience has been like nothing this film presented. Are there every false accusations? What's the process for reporting? What is reaction of the military in terms of policy? How credible are these accusations? Etc, etc. But none of those points were taken up, only first hand accounts of the individuals shown, mostly other advocates, some stats thrown on the screen, and, at the end, an inarticulate bureaucrat thrown in for dramatic effect to show the "other" side.

Try reading through others comments before declaring everyone insane.

reply

[–] Lana_89 11 years ago

same here, the OP is not even worth my time.

reply

[–] angel_murdad 11 years ago

lets actually play with the numbers then... so of the roughly 3,000 reported rapes in the military annually(rounding down), ignoring the fact that there are an undisclosed number of unreported rapes, we subtract your highest best guess at false accusations (80%), that leaves us with 600 legitimate rape cases and about 150 rapists who serve time. that means at least 450 for sure guaranteed rapists are out there free to do it again.

personally, even in its pathetically and absurdly reduced form, that seems like a problem that should be addressed.

also, rape is real. ptsd is real. pain is real. with the disdain and disrespect you show toward victims, i truly hope you never become one, it would probably break you.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

That is assuming that there are no serial rapists out there, that one rapist conducts exactly one rape. It also seems to imply that there are never any guilty who go free due to lack of evidence. It's certainly true that this scenario would leave many rapists free, but it's not an indicator of a crisis if a guilty person goes free.

I've got a 100% way to ensure no women in the military are raped: don't allow them to serve in the military. But that solution, however foolproof, is "pathetically and absurdly" unrealistic. At the other end of the spectrum, equally absurd, is to spend an undue amount of time and resources on a crime that affects a relatively few amount of (mostly) women, undermining the chain of command and demonizing men, all while pushing for policies which will inevitably put more women at risk.

Yes, rape,, PTSD, and pain are all real. Those statement of the obvious aside, I'm showing no victims either disdain or disrespect. I am merely challenging the presumption of guilt and/or innocence on so many who claim to be chaimpions of women yet tend to see them as powerless victims.

I appreciate your feigned concern for my well being, but I find your baseless assurances that it would "break" me both highly presumptuous and condescending.

reply

[–] Heatsbaby 11 years ago

You are a *beep* idiot. You are making this out to be a numbers game and saying all this bull about how you don't think this is an accurate representation. THIS IS *beep* HAPPENING. Does it matter to you, the nitpicky numbers? Even IF they were wrong, you're acting like it's okay if it happens to a small number of people, and THAT'S where the real problem is. Good god, what the *beep* is wrong with you? Keep women out of the military? How about teach men not to rape? Why do you assume that a default position for men is to rape because there is a woman in their midst? You get on people's case about treating women like "powerless victims" and then you go and treat all men as if they have no self-restraint and that's to be expected. Does it satisfy you to victim-blame? Seriously, what is wrong with you.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Back atcha.

Yes, numbers make all the difference because I feel that some are making this out to be what it is not: an out of control epidemic.

No, I never said (or am I acting like) it's ok but I'm keeping things in perspective.

There's nothing wrong with me. What's wrong witih you? Can you not express your views without some odd-fascination with the word "beep"

Oh, I didn't realize you could "teach" men not to rape. Yes, that's sarcasm. Some men rape and they are criminals. Some women make false accusations and they are criminals. Some men and women get drunk and then regret what they do afterward: some are criminals and others don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

I don't assume it's a "default position for me to rape"...And I have no idea where you're getting that impression.

No, I never said men have no self restraint. Please (try and) point out where I stated that.

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming legitimate criminals and those who falsely claim to be victims.

It's emotion-laden responses like this which completely undermine the very point you are trying to make....which, after reading what you wrote, is very hard to determine what is is exactly.

Feel free to respond without the venom and personal attacks and we can continue the conversation.

reply

[–] Leo_sOscar 11 years ago

So, you think this documentary is biased because it doesn't show the defense/stories of the "accused rapists?" and don't like the numbers being presented since they seem (in your opinion) inflated?

There were experts in the video estimating these numbers. Who are you, again, to give such professional expertise on what seems "inflated" or not? It appears that you're only going by your "feelings" and "gut instincts" rather than actual research--the way the film was entirely based on. I do not see a problem in raising awareness of a major issue forced to be swept under the rug. Hence why it's called "The Invisible War."

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you mention "false accusations" should've been taken into account. If you believe they are so common and in relation to the ACTUAL PROBLEM that the film was addressing, then I would like to see the same statistics/data/whatever you are getting your information from to make such a claim. Since you seem to be so aware and what-not.

You were probably unsympathetic and cynical to the people who gave their interviews. That kind of pain cannot be faked and shows tremendous courage to stand up for what they believed was injustice. Unlike you, I am not interested in hearing their rapists' point of view, which they would probably make it seem as if it wasn't a big deal that they caused such trauma to their victims' lives.

If I can't have you, I don't want nobody baby...

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] completelyrandomguy 11 years ago

^true story.

---
"That ape is very very cunning and he will do what he needs to do to stop you."

reply

[–] HornyDonkey 11 years ago

It's stupid and misguided to suggest that an emotionally appealing doc is more attractive to women than to men.

it's retarded to say that a doc is emotionally appealing but it's lacking aesthetically.

Criticizing something based on 'stories' is irresponsible and depicting one's intellectual handicap.

Accusing woman of suffering from hypocrisy as a mean to proof your point looks really misogynistic and helpless. not to mention overretarded.

Persisting on telling people about focusing on the false accusations reported by women while trying to bury the actual heinous issue (the rape) makes one sound emotionally-challenged.

But let's not worry about how you would come across. Let's worry about why you are trying to suppress the issue of the rape of men and women in the military and outside the military by attacking the 'objectivity' of the doc, showing the false rape accusations reported by women, and claiming how some women are hypocrites.
The doc is obviously one-sided and filled with emotional scenes and stories. But the doc showed the scary truth about the military justice system that allows and protects the growth of the sexual crimes.

reply

[–] darling137 11 years ago

Your almost complete reliance on personal attacks in a weak defense of this poor film only shows the lack of depth in your criticism of my review. How ironic that you would comment on another's intellect. Multiple use of the slur "retarded" is a good indicator of the level of civility and maturity I'm dealing with.

You've barely made a point here, except the obvious: you disagree with my opinion of the movie and you obviously take it personally. Then you make the amazing leap in suggesting that my criticism is motivated by a desire to "suppress the issue of the rape of men and women." As pointless as it is to respond to someone so lacking and absent of argument, here's my response:

No, it's neither stupid nor misguided to think emotion appeals to women more than men. It's naive to think it's not. It's not a new concept that women are in touch more with emotion than men. It's sad to say some are still in denial of this. One only has to examine the TV viewing habits of men and women, listen to Dr Drew for five minutes, or look at how men and women relate to each other to see evidence of that.

A documentary can be both emotionally appealing but be a mess of a film. Only a retarded person would think those things are mutually exclusive. I can clearly see the direction the makers went and just as easily see how they failed (me) in their final product.

Seeing that a movie seeks to convince us of this supposed epidemic exists, it's entirely appropriate to assail it because it relies exclusively on the testimony of the alleged victims. Using that formula, we could watch a film that declares that the Holocaust never happened, that only blacks commit violent crimes or that 9/11 was an inside job (oh yeah, they did make that "movie"...in much the same manner). The one who suggests otherwise is the one lacking in intellectual depth and understanding.

Please indicate where I accused "woman (sic) of suffering from hypocrisy as a mean to proof (my) point" and how that "looks really misogynistic and helpless. not to mention overretarded." Thanks for the new word, by the way.

I mention false accusation and unproven allegations because they are very obviously completed overlooked in this film. The assumption is that if a woman claims rape, then (1) it must have happened and (2) there must have been enough evidence to result in a conviction. The first is more doubtful than most people realize and the second is just a fact of life for a crime that, unlike larceny, assault, or murder, almost never has any witnesses besides the accuser and victim and potentially has evidence that would be the same in a consensual activity. No one is trying to "bury" rape, only putting the crime, alleged crimes, and crimes lacking necessary evidence in the proper context.

I'm glad you agree that the documentary is one sided. I don't deny that emotional scenes are necessary in all films. What I contend is that over reliance of them and a huge gap in presenting anything contrary only renders the film to the believability of a day-time talk show. It does almost nothing to delve into the military justice system or goes to any length to explain a possible reason why these incidents don't result in the conviction rate that many desire. It resorts to the lamentations of the alleged victims and depicts the military as either incompetent, complicit, or both. My experience is, while there is plenty of the former to go around, there are much better explanations why the rates appear high and why the conviction rate is low.

reply

[–] subase 10 years ago

Are you a rapist Darling? Or have you ever been accused of rape? You sound very much like an apologist and member of military defending the pro-rape military stance. Are you getting paid? Do you work for military PR?

Cause your dribble amounts to "Most women lie about getting raped, this film is bad".

reply

[–] darling137 10 years ago

No, I'm not a rapist and have not been accused of it,subase. Are you? Since you said such a thing, I resent the implication that because I am critical of a lousy movie and question the math involved in the current witch hunt that I must be a criminal or a defender of them. But then again, that is so typical of proponents of that point of view: without facts you must resort to thinly disguised libel and personal attacks.

I was a member of the US military and work with them now and can see the near hysteria first-hand. They went through offices not to long ago removing any "questionable" material, something they curiously couldn't accurately define.

I just recently saw a guy sent home from Afghanistan after being accused of sexual assault for allegedly trying to kiss a woman with whom he had been flirting (and she had responded in kind) with no proof other than her claim.

I'm an apologist for no one other than the innocent.

If you've taken that quote as a summary of what I've written then I would say you have a reading comprehension problem. Well, except for the part about the film being bad.

reply

[–] darling137 8 years ago

I thought I had replied to this way back when but since someone commented recently I thought I'd take the time to address it now.

Yes, I think good documentaries enlighten and present its subject matter in a fairly big picture. To be completely one-sided renders it something just above propaganda.

Yes, there were some experts in the film, but they all were chosen because they presented evidence which supported the narrow view of the documentary. Who am I? Nobody except someone who served and knows how those unfamiliar with the military distort it, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I find it equally ridiculous that you would discount a phenomenon which undermines the claims of rape victims, namely false accusations. It would be like doing a documentary baseball power hitters and not talking about steroids.

I am not unsympathetic to victims' suffering. But I am also cautious about believing everything a person says, especially in a crime as unique as rape in which the evidence of a consensual act so closely resembles the evidence of a criminal act, and the testimony of the two individuals typically comes down to their own testimony. I hate to break this to you, Leo, but people do lie and women are not immune from it. And yes, some are quite good at faking pain.

If you are not interested in the rapists' point of view then at least consider that the accused are not necessarily rapists, no matter how much you wish all of them to be. For me, I'm much more interested in compelling and credible documentaries which make their point effectively. This one did not.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 8 years ago

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you mention "false accusations" should've been taken into account. If you believe they are so common and in relation to the ACTUAL PROBLEM that the film was addressing, then I would like to see the same statistics/data/whatever you are getting your information from to make such a claim. Since you seem to be so aware and what-not.

It takes a sick human being to blindly believe such awful things about so many men. Most men that rape have had violence committed against them, by their mothers or fathers. They're taught at a young age to devalue the autonomy of another human being. If you actually knew anything about human psychology, you would know that false allegations are very possible because there can not be that many fcked up men out there.

reply

[–] tetrahex 8 years ago

Also, probably the most famous case.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]