A first-of-its-kind investigation by The Intercept found that the greatest threats to women serving in the Army come at the hands of male soldiers.

…

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.

…

  • velma@sh.itjust.works
    369·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      83·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        62·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          62·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • velma@sh.itjust.works
            35·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              51·
              3 days ago

              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.

              • velma@sh.itjust.works
                15·
                3 days ago

                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.

          • velma@sh.itjust.works
            14·
            3 days ago

            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.