…
Analyzing over 14 years of Defense Department death data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Intercept’s investigation is the first to compare rates of violence against women in the Army to factors like duty location, jobs, and relationships with perpetrators. The FOIA data also reveals deaths not previously announced by the Army and the Department of Defense.
Violence against women in the military also appears to take a mental toll. In addition to the 41 women who died by homicide, another 128 died by suicide, the majority of them lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. From 2011 to 2024, the last complete year of data, homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide.
The Army doesn’t make any of this public, and the Intercept’s investigation has found flaws in what data collection currently occurs: Homicide and suicide death rates are not separated by gender or calculated per capita, preventing deeper analysis and comparison.
There’s also nothing publicly accessible on how many homicides are committed by service members, who their victims are, or where homicides occurred. The Defense Department’s annual suicide report doesn’t note how many of the deceased had experiences with sexual assault or harassment.
Meanwhile, systems meant to protect women are being rolled back and dismantled.
…
You can risk your life to kill brown kids but you might get raped by your fellow murderers.
What, you don’t want to die for Epstein?
Join army ran by people who rape and murder kids.
Get raped and murdered by said army.
Poetic.
I don’t recall what podcast, but I was listening to something about the first military academy in the USA that admitted women and how horribly they were abused. Fucking shit.
The study is poorly designed.
To paint a more accurate picture, the study should compare deaths of the same type across gender. In other words, do more women die from homicides committed by service members compared to men who die from the same cause?
There’s also nothing publicly accessible on how many homicides are committed by service members, who their victims are, or where homicides occurred. The Defense Department’s annual suicide report doesn’t note how many of the deceased had experiences with sexual assault or harassment.
The Intercept notes that, but the information isn’t available from the Defense Department.
We lose very few servicemen to enemy fire. I’m not sure why it doesn’t go into this, but my suspicion is this headline is true for all servicemen, not just women.
It doesn’t go into all servicemen because the authors are looking specifically at violence that women in the army experience.
This is incredibly dismissive. Women face a disproportionate amount of violence by the hands of their fellow servicemen. It’s ok for us to talk about that without saying “what about men???!?”
A first-of-its-kind analysis by The Intercept found that in the Army, women are more likely to be killed by their fellow service members than by enemy combatants, in a reversal of the threat soldiers are trained to face. Between 2011 and August 2025, at least 41 women died by homicide in the Army — more than half of them at the hands of other service members or veterans. Using Defense Department manpower data to calculate per capita death rates, The Intercept found that active-duty Army women face a higher risk of homicide than male soldiers, the opposite of national and global trends.
I believe the complaint was more about the headline than the research. I mean, the headline does seem to be misleading, I don’t think it’s dismissive to point that out.
I also think there’s a lot of value in doing this research and uncovering this data. But if your going to go to all this effort, it sucks to then open with a misleading headline when you didn’t need to stretch the truth, the truth is shocking enough.
It’s not a misleading headline.
Women in the army are more likely to be killed by fellow soldiers than enemy combatants.
Then the article does a great job explaining the title.
Ok, so the headline reads:
Women in the Army Are More Likely to Be Killed by Fellow Soldiers Than Enemy Combatants
Well the clear implication by saying “women” in that headline, is that this is not the case for men. But I don’t see where that case is made.
Another way this could be addressed is by simply dropping the comparison to enemy combatants. If the headline had instead compared women in the military to men in the military, they’d eliminate any ambiguity.
Women in the Army Are Three Times More Likely to Be Murdered by Fellow Soldiers Than Men in the Army
And I agree that the article is great, and the effort behind it must have been extensive. It’s just that the headline seems disingenuous.
That’s not what they’re comparing though. They’re comparing the rates of homicide and violence against women in the army against rates of violence against women in general.
The title doesn’t need to mention men.
The headline does not compare women in the army to women in general.
The headline compares fellow soldiers to enemy combatants (in the context of the deaths of women in the army).
The argument you’re making is a core part of the problem, because the rest of the article does indeed mostly compare the violence against women in the army to violence against women in general. But if that’s what the article is about, why does the headline state something completely different? This is the problem.
Did you read the article?
It goes into detail and does compare the violence women in the army experience to general population of women.
Talking about women doesn’t necessitate talking about men.
Men arent being murdered by their fellow servicemen at the rate women are because of the reasons outlined in the article: intimate partner violence and misogyny. Men already overwhelmingly murder women and it’s not any different in the army.
Looking at the numbers of women murdered and sexually assaulted doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to men.
From 2001 to 2023, nearly 1 in 4 women service members experienced sexual assault, according to the Brown University’s Costs of War project, much higher than the numbers annually reported by the Pentagon. Research identifies those experiences as a key driver of suicide risk. Over the past two decades, suicide rates among women veterans have risen faster than among men.
Another important piece of information that you decided to ignore.
AND THIS ONE:
While Hegseth rolls back protections, the issue of violence against women in the military appears to be getting worse. The Intercept’s analysis shows that from 2011 to 2020, the per capita rate of women dying by suicide or homicide in the Army was 15 per 100,000. From 2021 to 2024, following the Army’s attempted reforms in the wake of Vanessa Guillén’s killing, the rate increased over 35 percent, to 21 per 100,000.
And deaths continued their pace in 2025.
It’s like you didn’t even read the article:
Analyzing over 14 years of Defense Department death data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Intercept’s investigation is the first to compare rates of violence against women in the Army to factors like duty location, jobs, and relationships with perpetrators. The FOIA data also reveals deaths not previously announced by the Army and the Department of Defense.
Violence against women in the military also appears to take a mental toll. In addition to the 41 women who died by homicide, another 128 died by suicide, the majority of them lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. From 2011 to 2024, the last complete year of data, homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide.
The Army doesn’t make any of this public, and the Intercept’s investigation has found flaws in what data collection currently occurs: Homicide and suicide death rates are not separated by gender or calculated per capita, preventing deeper analysis and comparison.
I just want to emphasize that that’s still a massive problem if true because your comment could be interpreted as minimizing the situation. It’s shameful how we treat our service men and women during and after their service.
In addition, women are much less likely to be in jobs that involve fighting on the front lines where being shot by an enemy is likely.
I remember back in one of the Gulf wars they released some statistics about members of the armed forces being killed, and a significant number were killed just loading and unloading equipment that was being shipped to the middle east before the war even started. These days you’re very unlikely to be killed by an enemy, but the military still involves some high-risk jobs like construction work, welding, aircraft pilots and engineers, iron and steel workers, etc.
Also, keep in mind, these numbers are extremely low. They counted 41 over 14 years, so an average of 3 per year out of around 230,000 total women in the armed forces (military demographics PDF).
The article says, in addition “homicide and suicide rates for women in the Army were double their equivalents for women nationwide”. I wonder how much of that is simply due to the ages of the people involved. 45% of members of the armed forces are under 25. Homicide rates are much higher for people around 25 than older people. It may be that if you pick any job where you mostly get younger people: cashiers, waiters, retail sales, etc. you get a much higher suicide / homicide rate than the national average.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I’d imagine a mostly male workplace is very likely to have more problems than one with an even mix of genders. I wouldn’t be surprised if weapons availability and training led to more incidents than average. And, if you’re teaching people to kill, it shouldn’t be surprised if they kill. On the other hand, most jobs don’t involve the kind of supervision you get in the military. And, most employers aren’t as obsessed with procedures, discipline, etc. as the military. So, it might be that despite all those things, it remains safer for female workers than say being a woman on a construction site.
So, it might be that despite all those things, it remains safer for female workers than say being a woman on a construction site.
If you read the article thoroughly, the rate of homicide per 100k between 2021-2024 for women in the army is higher than men in the army, women nationally, and women globally.
What about by women in similar age groups and similar occupations nationally?
At a quick glance, the article notes that over 70% of victims had an intimate relationship with the perpetrator and that the rate of homicides among women soldiers from intimate partner violence is at least 3 times higher than the national average. (EDIT: IPV is common. It affects millions of people in the United States each year. More than 1 in 3 women (nearly 43.5 million) and more than 1 in 6 men (20.7 million) experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes Source )
Of the 41 women who died by homicide, 23 of them were killed by other service members. Which is the focus of the article - the extra danger that women face in the army at the hands of their fellow servicemen.
128 died by suicide - double the rate for equivalent women worldwide. (“In fact, The Intercept’s investigation found, suicide is the leading cause of death of Army women.”)
And since the Army doesn’t separate by gender:
The Army doesn’t make any of this public, and the Intercept’s investigation has found flaws in what data collection currently occurs: Homicide and suicide death rates are not separated by gender or calculated per capita, preventing deeper analysis and comparison.
It’s difficult to get the real numbers to compare to women worldwide.
Edit: This article that The Intercept has written here is the first to look at these numbers. It says so in the article.
A first-of-its-kind analysis by The Intercept found that in the Army, women are more likely to be killed by their fellow service members than by enemy combatants, in a reversal of the threat soldiers are trained to face. Between 2011 and August 2025, at least 41 women died by homicide in the Army — more than half of them at the hands of other service members or veterans. Using Defense Department manpower data to calculate per capita death rates, The Intercept found that active-duty Army women face a higher risk of homicide than male soldiers, the opposite of national and global trends.
This doesn’t matter. Friendly fire doesn’t really happen in non-combat jobs.
These victims didn’t die from friendly fire. They were murdered by fellow servicemen.
Ok so then the article shouldn’t call it friendly fire
It doesn’t.
Maybe you should read the article.
Women in combat positions is newer than the vietnam war. The headline should present it the other way around.
Is it not the same for men?
Are none of you going to read the article?
No ❤️
Militaries are inherently fucked up places and organizations. Anybody with a pea of common sense and understanding for women will understand that millitary is not a healthy, good place for women. They only brainwashed generations into thinking “women should be in military for equal rights” because they needed more staff/flesh.
No sympathy for the war machine.
Leave the military. Now.
Because i sure as fuck have no sympathy for women who willingly serve a rapist pedophile going on war crimes to manipulate the stock market.
Reminds me of this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_G_wXt_NxrY
