This week, the Department of Veteran Affairs announced some good news. They are reforming the rules for claiming veterans’ benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The military is easing the burden of proof that has been required for veterans seeking this diagnosis.  No longer do they have to have witnesses, documentation, etc. regarding the incident that caused the trauma. Now, all they need is a VA-approved psychologist or psychiatrist to affirm that the vet’s trauma story is “consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service.”

The bad news is that these new rules will not apply to veterans (mostly women) whose PTSD is a result of  have experienced Military Sexual Trauma (MST).

I’ve been trying to figure out why this is. Maybe it has something to do with how the military defines the situation… 

These are the words of Virginia Woolf in her brilliant essay Three Guineas, which is more radical (therefore more reviled) than A Room of One's Own...

They are also the title of the word collage I presented last night at a literary event here in Portland (Maine), titled "Patriotica." I was one of two women reading in an evening filled overwhelmingly with readings by, for, and about men... illustrating Woolf's point beautifully.

During the evening, I thought of a quotation by Native American activist Winona LaDuke, "I would like to see as many people patriotic to a land as I have seen patriotic to a flag." Sadly, "treehuggers" are usually seen as unpatriotic.

Anyway, here is my contribution to the evening. I want to add a footnote.. In the piece I quote Colonel Janis Karpinski, who was a whistleblower about a military rape coverup. Karpinski was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, and she courageously went on to write a book, One Woman's Army, about how she was scapegoated to protect higher-ups. She tells how the prisoner abuses were perpetrated by contract employees trained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and sent under orders from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. There have, of course, been attempts to discredit her, but, tellingly, no lawsuits.

Another footnote is that the epidemic of rapes in the military was the subject of a Congressional investigation in 2008.  As a result there was an admirable military  PR campaign, "My Strength is for Defending," which, sadly, appears to have been just so much window-dressing. The raping continues, the suicides continue, and the coverups are ongoing.

One of the thoughts I had in researching this piece was that, if a situation like this had come to light in the 1970's, I believe that women's groups would have organized all over the country to picket and leaflet every recruiter's office, to let these very young, very vulnerable, often low-income women know that they had a 50/50 chance of sexual assault if they signed up, and a 90% chance of being discharged if they report, and an 85% likelihood they would be ineligible for VA support for the PTSD after the involuntary discharge. If they had a prior history of being sexually victimized, that would be used against them in their (mis)diagnoses.

Why isn't that happening today? Many reasons. The economy. Women simply do not have the luxury of activism. Also, a generation of women who seem to think that  naming and resisting oppression is what makes them victims... (WTF, literally) Lesbians having the option of insemination and adoption, so that we are no longer a predominantly childless community, and our priorities, for better or worse, reflect this shift.

I have written an essay titled "Medals for Military Sexual Trauma:A Proposal." Medals would be far more effective than a poster campaign, because the awarding of medals would necessitate a profound shift in the military mindset... a shift acknowledging that "women" and "soldiers" are not mutually exclusive categories, a shift acknowledging that an enemy soldier is a soldier who assaults any US military personnel, a shift acknowledging that that rape constitutes wounding and that PTSD is a wound.

So here is "As a Woman I Want No Country..."

These are the words of lesbian author Virginia Woolf: 

“... if you insist upon fighting to protect me, or “our” country, let it be understood, soberly and rationally between us, that you are fighting to gratify a sex instinct which I cannot share; to procure benefits which I have not shared and probably will not share; but not to gratify my instincts, or to protect either myself or my country. For,’ the outsider will say, ‘in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

According to the website of the Military Rape Crisis Center, one in three women in the military will be sexually assaulted. Two out of three women in the military will be sexually harassed. Congresswoman Jane Harmon from California has done the math: “A woman who signs up to protect her country is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.”

Over 90% of all females that report a sexual assault are discharged from the military before their contract ends. From the 90%, around 85% are discharged against their wishes. Nearly all 
of the 85% lose their careers based on misdiagnoses that render them ineligible for military service and ineligible for VA treatment 
after discharge.

"... in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

In a startling revelation, Colonel Janis Karpinski testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior U.S. military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."

The women were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark. The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. According to Karpinski, "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night." "And rather than make everybody aware of that -- because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you, then you're not much of a leader -- what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report, but don't brief it in the open anymore."

Sanchez's attitude was: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory."

“... in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

Sept 2009 The report by the Defense Department’s Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, based on 15 months of work and interviews with more than 3,500 people at 60 locations around the world, said the department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is not providing policy or oversight for key responsibilities, or interacting with military officials in the field who are accountable on this issue.

“... in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

“Administrative discharge.” The words stung, like I had just been slapped or spit upon. I couldn't follow the rest of the lieutenant colonel's words. Only that the man who raped me was being given an honorable discharge. 


The rapist would keep his rank and his benefits. His record would be unblemished. He could reenlist the day after his discharge. “With all due respect, sir,” I said with the intensity of barely controlled fury, “that isn't acceptable to me. I don't ever want to see this man wearing this uniform again, leading troops again, or dishonoring another veteran at their funeral.” 


The lieutenant appointed as my advocate told me that she had once been raped, but decided not to file a criminal report. 

“It was easier to just forget about it,” she told me, and implied that I should, too. This is how life is for women in the Army. 
When I rejoined my comrades, no one would talk to me. Not even the women. They all faulted me for breaking up the unit, for getting the rapist taken off of the deployment. The rapist had a long history with the unit, while I was the new girl. 
A few days after I rejoined my unit, we reviewed some video footage from training. At one point, the rapist’s face filled the screen. I was paralyzed, lightheaded with fear and nausea. I ran to the bathroom and vomited. Minutes later, a female I had trained with and lived with came in to use the bathroom. As I sat on the floor heaving with sobs, she stepped over me to wash her hands, survey her hair, and leave. I was alone. To her, I was worthless.

During my deployment, Major R often accused me of being promiscuous, of spending too much time with men (which made up about 85 percent of the post's population and my entire office), and of putting myself in dangerous situations. He once said this must explain the rapist’s actions. With tears and anger, and no regard to military bearing, I rebuked the major. 
“I have done nothing wrong,” I shouted. “He made his own decision to rape me.” The major cringed at the word “rape,” then stared at me with contempt and told me to leave his office.

“in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

There is no set reaction to Military Sexual Trauma. You may feel fear, shame, anger, embarrassment, or guilt. You may have a response right away, or it may be delayed for months or years. You may feel sad or scared months or years after the assault.

After Military Sexual Trauma you may:

• Avoid places or things that remind you of what happened.
• Avoid your friends, family, and other people.
• Have trouble sleeping or have nightmares
• Feel numb or feel nothing at all.
• Have relationship problems.
• Think about death or killing yourself.

“... in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

Wow... check out this headline from my hometown: "Penis Hacker Loose in Portland."

Got my attention, too.  I actually was at the opening of this gallery show yesterday evening, and one of the artists was telling me about the incident. He told me that there had been a controversial nude sculpture installed, but that there had been complaints about it, and it was being removed from the show. In fact, that morning, the artist had arrived to pick it up, but when she got there, she found that the sculpture had been "defaced." In fact, it had been "de-penised."

So, I was listening to this story, and I was seeing images of the famous "Mannekin pis" in Brussels, or Michelangelo's David, and so on, and thinking, "Really, Portland? Really?"  But then suddenly, the light went on. I turned to the artist, who was male, and asked, "Was it an erection?" And, indeed it was.

So, now,  the kaleidoscope of my brain turned again, and the patterns of my thinking rearranged themselves. This time, I was remembering Sylvia Plath's tombstone... and notice I say, "Sylvia Plath." The tombstone, which had been carved with her married name, "Sylvia Plath Hughes" had a history of defacement. Apparently fans of Plath's work have repeatedly chiseled off the name "Hughes." Some have attributed her suicide to her husband's affair with another woman, whom he would later marry, and with whom he would father a child. Hughes' second wife would also commit suicide, but, unlike Plath, she would murder her child first.

So I'm thinking about that. I am also thinking about Georgia O'Keeffe, who wrote how, at the Art Institute of Chicago, she was required  to take a course in anatomy that entailed the painting of nude male subjects. She had had a strong emotional response to the situation, and an even stronger response to her experience of the first class session. Apparently traumatized, she gave serious thought to dropping out. This did not seem to be to be about squeamishness or Puritanism. It seemed to be a survivor's response to a situation that would restimulate the trauma, the exposure to a naked man (and his genitals) being the probable trigger.

I am also thinking about a former girlfriend, who expressed a similar discomfort with an live-modeling art course. She actually went to her professor with a request for an alternative arrangement for passing the course. If I am remembering rightly, he did begrudgingly offer an alternative, gave her a poor grade, and maintained a somewhat hostile and distant attitude toward her for the remainder of her time at the school.

I am thinking of all of these things, around this "defacement." The suffusion of blood into the male organ appears to be, in the public mind, the difference between art and pornography, anatomy and indecency. Had the sculpture's penis been flaccid, I doubt it would have been excised. First, it would not have been such an easy target, and second, I doubt it would have triggered such a powerful response.

And, yes, it could have been a college prank. It could have been a group of frat boys (the gallery is located on a campus). But I can't shake the feeling that the vandal (activist?)  was a woman, or women, and that the action was political... a response to iconography that appeared to be celebrating something that  she--or they--had experienced as a weapon.

And all of this is going through my brain in a few seconds. I'm in the middle of a conversation. To backtrack: I have just asked if it was an erection. He says "yes." And everything stops for me. He stands there, puzzled. I'm not sure what he's waiting for. What I do know is that I have nothing to say. Because I have too much to say. Is it vandalism to chisel out Hughes' name? After all, Plath had chosen to publish under her maiden name.  Who was doing the disrespecting? Who owns history? Who is the dead poet's family?

And O'Keeffe... we all know her flowers and her canyons look like vulvas. Was this a response to a situation where she had been forced to make a choice between her career or her safety? Was this her revenge... that the world must now focus on, write commentary about, celebrate the vulva in order to deal with her as an artist?

And, of course, I am remembering my girlfriend. I am remembering how difficult it is for two artists, who are both women, to fight for our lives as artists and still have the resources to support each other.

I am thinking about how, as a heavily censored artist, I will probably be expected to register outrage at this act of vandalism and censorship. But I know how celebrations of the phallus traumatize and silence survivors. That is the censorship that concerns me. I know that if I express ambivalence toward, or support for the defacement, I will be miscategorized ("sex negative"). I know that to try to explain how the depiction of an erection in a public place can feel threatening... like a racial epithet in grafitti, like a swastika, will bring down even more contempt on my head. I know it will prove that my "unfortunate" and "atypical" (1 out of 3 women!) experiences have warped my perceptions, embittered me, and rendered me an enemy to freedom of expression.

If he was paying attention, my artist conversation-buddy might note the eloquence of my silence. I am inviting him to demonstrate alliance. He must know that the ball is in his court. I cannot open the survivor files without a password. Anyone who reads the newspaper should know what it is. Anyone who has ever had a daughter, a mother, a wife, a girlfriend should know it. And what about his silence... what does that signify?

I am guessing he is baffled, but there is a 3% chance that he understands, that he is a survivor also, that he is unwilling to risk an act of language here in this sunny garden, with all these art lovers holding their plastic cups of wine and their plates of camembert.

The question remains: Was it art? Where is the phallus now? Was it pulverized in an act of ritualized rage, and if so, was it a solo performance, or witnessed? Is it sitting on the mantle of a frat house, trophy of a daring prank, rite of passage to manhood? Is it stuffed in a dumpster? Tossed in a river?

Personally, I think that the statue, sans penis, should be exhibited. I don't believe that will happen, because that is too suggestive of the really censored art: women's anger, women's agency.

This morning I was reading a fascinating article about the effects of pornography addiction on the brain. Gotta warn you, the guy swings into some pretty right-wingnut, anti-feminist conclusions toward the end... illustrating some serious synaptic damage in his own brain when it comes to connecting up with women's history...

BUT... let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dude's been a neuro-surgeon for fourteen years.

Well... actually, before I get to the brain chemistry discussion, maybe it's important to talk about whether or not we should do coalition with anti-pornography or anti-prostitution activists who are in it for reasons of religious fundamentalism. That's a good question. I remember in 1986, when Reagon commissioned the Meese Report on pornography, this issue was really "up" for feminists.

During the Vietnam War we had some pretty strange bedfellows... so to speak. There were the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were conscientious objectors because they took literally the injunction to "love thy neighbor." Most of us anti-war activists embraced a wide range of liberation politics, including Women's Liberation. Obviously, this was not on the Jehovah Witness agenda. But they were part of the anti-war movement. They resisted the draft. Sometimes they got off, and sometimes they went to prison.

For me, anyone who is in the fight against child sexual abuse and who is telling the truth and researching pornography addiction is useful as an ally. It's important for me to be very specific in the "Venn diagram" of our overlapping and non-overlapping agendas. Usually these folks are virulently homophobic and anti-feminist.

Okay... that said, can we get back to the brain?

A lot of research has been done on addiction. It does affect the brain, and the brain changes occur whether or not the addiction is to a foreign substances like alcohol or cocaine, or to food or gambling.

Three things occur:
1) Cortical hypofrontality
2) Downgrading of the mesolimbic dopaminergic systems
3) Production of oxytocin and vasopressin associated with use of pornography

 Let's take them one at a time:

Cortical hypofrontality:
The frontal lobes of an addict shrink, or atrophy as a result of addiction. This damage can mimic the results of frontal lobe damage from head trauma. What are these results? According to Dr. Hilton:  "First, these patients are impulsive, in that they thoughtlessly engage in activities with little regard to the consequences. Second, they are compulsive; they become fixated or focused on certain objects or behaviors, and have to have them, no matter what. Third, they become emotionally labile, and have sudden and unpredictable mood swings. Fourth, they exhibit impaired judgment."

In other words, not good.

Downgrading of the mesolimbic dopaminergic systems:
Dopamine is a drug, related to adrenalin, that is produced in the brain. It's the drug that makes us move. It's a motivator. It's a crucial neurotransmitter in the reward/pleasure system of the brain. What happens in the brain of an addict is that this system becomes overused. The dopamine cells begin to atrophy. The dopamine receptors on the pleasure cells downgrade also. Craving sets in. The addict has to "up the dosage" of the addictive substance in order to achieve the same pleasure or "high." This is why the pornography addict gravitates toward more and more shockingly violent and bizarre imagery, including child pornography. And, of course 85% of men arrested for child porngraphy have histories of sexually abusing children.

Production of oxytocin and vasopressin associated with use of pornography:
Okay, now this is weird. The addict "falls in love" with the images of pornography. Remember, we are a species of ape whose evolutionary circuitry never took into account the possibility of visual sexual cues completely divorced from the presence of a potential partner. The erotic arousal from viewing the pornographic images triggers the "bonding" brain chemicals of oxytocin and vasopressin. The addict's relationship to the pornography is, biochemically, that of a person to a lover. Which is why so many partners of addicts experience the addiction as a form of sexual and emotional infidelity. Because that is exactly what it is.

At this point, our right-wingnut neurosurgeon veers into apocalyptic prophesy of global annihilation due to falling birthrates from "porn impotence" (which is a real thing) which he attributes to the sexual revolution of the 1960's. In fact, falling birthrates in the West are a direct result of public accessibility of birth control, and specifically the empowerment of women in terms of controlling pregnancy. He's not that specific, but I suspect that his panic may have something to do with racial concerns... you know, fewer of "us" and more of "them."

But... back to the science...  It does not matter to the brain that the drugs are exogenous or endogenous... an outside job or an inside job. The effect, in terms of neurophysiology and addiction, is the same. By far, my concerns and focus are on the women and children who are used in pornography... but it is important to incorporate all the harms... and, sadly, the percentage of women addicted to pornography continues to rise with the increasing ease of access from the Internet.

And so ends Day Two of my 5-Day Blog-off with Deb Randall! Please let me know how I'm doing!