scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
I'd like one of these self-styled pundits to tell us what qualifies as "condoning rape."
3 USNA Football Players Face Sexual Assault Probe
- Thread starter Luigi59
- Start date
- Status
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,382
Sounds good. (From an academia point of view). I don't buy it at all from a "Real World" point of view. Rape in the military wasn't as big of an issue 20-30 years ago. (Yes it happened, but not as big of a problem). At least according to all the reports that show a supposed increase in recent years. Yet, 20-30 years ago, we were a lot more "Insensitive" to individuals. Individuals, especially women, were dehumanized more in the past than they are today. Yet, supposedly there is more rape and sexual harrassment today than there was 20-30 years ago.
And there is definitely something to be said for the "Suck it up" attitude. Half of the problems today are because too many people have too thinned skin. Too many people today don't know how to confront adversity. Today, if one employee bothers another one, the offended one goes and run to their supervisor. They never once tried confronting the other individual to try and work it out. This happens just as much in the civilian world. I had an employee recently who came to me because a fellow employee was always telling off color jokes about many topics. And the employee who came to me said "They were offended". First question I asked was: "What did "Joe" say when you asked him to stop"? The employee looked at me like I had something alien. Of course they thought I wasn't doing anything about it and went to our HR department to complain. Of course the modern culture is that you don't have to confront someone that offends you. You complain to your supervisor and it is expected that they take some type of measure to correct the situation. "Yea, that promotes respect and teamwork among the employees".
When I first came into the military, if you had a problem with another individual, you tried to work it out with them first. If that didn't work, usually peer pressure took care of it. If that didn't work, the supervisor usually went for the slam dunk. I've seen a lot of women who could definitely handle their own when it came to sexual harrassment, jokes, unwanted advances, etc...
So I guess I just don't agree with this 2004 USNA alumni. Then again, 2004 isn't that long ago; and the culture then and today is pretty much the same. His/her perspective would probably be a lot different than those of 20-30 years ago where all individuals weren't so thin skinned and knew how to handle confrontation. And no, I'm not talking about confronting rape. Simply responding to the writer's opinion on the cultural change. I agree, there's been a cultural change over the last 20-30 years. But the change isn't More dehumanizing of women. The cultural change is that people aren't expected to respect each other. They aren't required to confront adversity. Freedom of speech is only acceptable if you AGREE with what's being said. No one has to be responsible for their own actions. They're able to blame it on something else. Again, not condoning any type of rape or scenario. simply saying, simply disagreeing with the writer as to WHY there seems to be more today than in the past.
And there is definitely something to be said for the "Suck it up" attitude. Half of the problems today are because too many people have too thinned skin. Too many people today don't know how to confront adversity. Today, if one employee bothers another one, the offended one goes and run to their supervisor. They never once tried confronting the other individual to try and work it out. This happens just as much in the civilian world. I had an employee recently who came to me because a fellow employee was always telling off color jokes about many topics. And the employee who came to me said "They were offended". First question I asked was: "What did "Joe" say when you asked him to stop"? The employee looked at me like I had something alien. Of course they thought I wasn't doing anything about it and went to our HR department to complain. Of course the modern culture is that you don't have to confront someone that offends you. You complain to your supervisor and it is expected that they take some type of measure to correct the situation. "Yea, that promotes respect and teamwork among the employees".
When I first came into the military, if you had a problem with another individual, you tried to work it out with them first. If that didn't work, usually peer pressure took care of it. If that didn't work, the supervisor usually went for the slam dunk. I've seen a lot of women who could definitely handle their own when it came to sexual harrassment, jokes, unwanted advances, etc...
So I guess I just don't agree with this 2004 USNA alumni. Then again, 2004 isn't that long ago; and the culture then and today is pretty much the same. His/her perspective would probably be a lot different than those of 20-30 years ago where all individuals weren't so thin skinned and knew how to handle confrontation. And no, I'm not talking about confronting rape. Simply responding to the writer's opinion on the cultural change. I agree, there's been a cultural change over the last 20-30 years. But the change isn't More dehumanizing of women. The cultural change is that people aren't expected to respect each other. They aren't required to confront adversity. Freedom of speech is only acceptable if you AGREE with what's being said. No one has to be responsible for their own actions. They're able to blame it on something else. Again, not condoning any type of rape or scenario. simply saying, simply disagreeing with the writer as to WHY there seems to be more today than in the past.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 869
For what it's worth, "WUBA" has gone the way of calling 2/C "segundos." Is there another unsavory term for femids floating around the brigade? Maybe-to-yes, but I never heard it used by any (nonmid) authority figure and, at least from my experience, anybody caught saying it in a formal setting it in front of staff would have gotten their nuts crushed, then and there. And, actually, a lot of mids self-regulate it as well.
I'll post a more thorough response when I'm not on my phone, but to put it out there:
-I don't think there is a "rape culture" at USNA or any other service academy.
-while things could probably be "better" for women at SAs (whatever that means) I am doubtful of the effectiveness of more formal sexual assault/harassment training. More on this later.
I'll post a more thorough response when I'm not on my phone, but to put it out there:
-I don't think there is a "rape culture" at USNA or any other service academy.
-while things could probably be "better" for women at SAs (whatever that means) I am doubtful of the effectiveness of more formal sexual assault/harassment training. More on this later.
hornetguy
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,353
The mids that exchanged to USAFA a couple years ago were very fond of the term "Dubs."
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 869
pathnottaken
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 189
Reading the last several post since Luigi's post brought back flashback of the sixties. The same langauge was used by the majority to describe how the minority had it so good.
Had to laugh because it is so typical...I have a friend (wife) who one of them and they said it is not a problem. They don't have it too bad it could be a little better but overall it not too bad for them. I don't know why they afraid none of my friends who are them say they are afraid.
Or may be the flashbacks are drugged induced and I since I really did grow up in the sixties I really can't remember them
Had to laugh because it is so typical...I have a friend (wife) who one of them and they said it is not a problem. They don't have it too bad it could be a little better but overall it not too bad for them. I don't know why they afraid none of my friends who are them say they are afraid.
Or may be the flashbacks are drugged induced and I since I really did grow up in the sixties I really can't remember them
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,382
Yea, I remember how growing up being called a ginny, wop, and dago, destroyed my "Fragile little mind". (Sarcasm). And I remember when I joined the air force and was called a DART. (Dumb A$s Radio Tech); just destroyed my self esteem and held me back from my full potential. (More sarcasm). I knew a lot of women when I was in the Air Force in the late 70's through late 90's that would have no problem in today's military with "Name Calling". I remember a close friend of mine who was a pilot. She was being dogged by some fellow navy pilots. All the slangs you could think of. Including "Air Mattress". I can't remember laughing so hard with some of her come-backs. I remember one that included the Navy pilot's MOM and the navy slang seaman (semen) in the same sentence. Yea, she could handle herself quite well. As could most of the women I served with during my time.
As I said in my previous post; there is definitely a line that gets crossed. Especially when it comes to "physical" advances. But a lot of today's issues have come about because of "Political Correctness", people being too thin skinned, and people not being expected to be responsible for themselves which also means handling challenges and confrontations head on yourself, before going up the chain. Now, not just military but in the civilian world too, no one is taught how to handle confrontation. No one is taught how to handle offensive situations. It's now all about giving everyone sensitivity training and if someone still becomes offended over something; what their LEGAL OPTIONS ARE. I think I preferred it much more when an individual; whether they were woman, male, black, white, christian, jew, short, tall, slim, fat, etc.... held their own and if you offended them, they colorfully told you to pi$s off.
As I said in my previous post; there is definitely a line that gets crossed. Especially when it comes to "physical" advances. But a lot of today's issues have come about because of "Political Correctness", people being too thin skinned, and people not being expected to be responsible for themselves which also means handling challenges and confrontations head on yourself, before going up the chain. Now, not just military but in the civilian world too, no one is taught how to handle confrontation. No one is taught how to handle offensive situations. It's now all about giving everyone sensitivity training and if someone still becomes offended over something; what their LEGAL OPTIONS ARE. I think I preferred it much more when an individual; whether they were woman, male, black, white, christian, jew, short, tall, slim, fat, etc.... held their own and if you offended them, they colorfully told you to pi$s off.
OK, I'll talk some more about the current topic that seems to be getting shouted down rather defensively, if I can assess the tone of the rebuttals.
I'm going to compare the social environment described with a neighborhood that has some crime trouble.
What for a long time had been a happy peaceful neighborhood, a place where everyone saw things the same way and came from a similar background, one day started seeing some new neighbors who weren't like them. They didn't look the same. They didn't approach life's daily or weekly rituals the same way. They looked forward to their new home, learning and embracing the neighborhood's traditions they could relate to, while trying to preserve what they knew as positive from their upbringing.
There were different reactions by the long time residents. Most were so busy with living life, working their jobs, raising their kids, etc. that they had no time to pay attention to the new residents. A few were stimulated by the new traditions, different life styles, etc. that they embraced the opportunity to enlarge their world view.
Others didn't understand the new traditions and styles of living and made snide remarks because they felt their traditions and way of life was threatened, especially by those locals who embraced the newcomers. The began to make the same type of snide remarks about them as well.
Many of those who initially didn't take notice of the newcomers became conflicted upon seeing those embracing the newcomers and those disparaging them beginning to tear apart the peace the neighborhood had known forever. They didn't know what to do. Some started choosing sides.
And then there were the bad actors. Before the newcomers arrived, the norms of behavior in the neighborhood and the support between all the members of the community gave them no opportunity to act out on their worse nature. And in the old days, some of them were the keepers of the old order, because that order represented their stability in the community, defining the community and excluding those from other places as threats to their way of life. Those other people lived in their inferior community - it was inferior because it not as big or as powerful as their community, which proved their way of life was superior.
Other bad actors, not being a large enough number to draw upon each other for social support - not that they were socially oriented to begin with - never had the opportunity to cause much damage in the old days. When they acted out, they were quickly marginalized and subjected to significant scrutiny. But with the chaos and distraction arising from the social disorder started around them, this set of bad actors took the opportunity to push the boundaries to see if they could do what they wished - that dark part of their repressed inner self that never died, that inner anger from bad experiences they could never process that had just remained dormant.
These few saw those who disrespected the newcomers and the disjointed reaction of the community to that behavior. They realized that these newcomers did not yet have the support of the general community and that acting out towards these disrespected folks was less dangerous than their past failed attempts at acting upon their anger within the unified community. They also identified the differences that could be exploited to allow their actions to be accepted or at least reasoned away by the greater majority.
At first their actions were only slightly beyond the disrespect offered by others. From there it built into increasingly more physical challenges to the newcomers by the boldest of this crowd.
And when the newcomers first settled in, their initial reaction to disrespect was ignore it and try not to ruffle feathers. Many wanted so badly to fit in that accepting a certain discomfort was seen as a necessary part of learning to fit in. Others among the newcomers withdrew more from the larger community to avoid the disrespectful actions. They become invisible to many in the greater community. Except the boldest of the bad actors. These withdrawn newcomers become the prime targets of these people.
Other newcomers took the disrespect as a challenge to fit in better. They began abandoning the things from their past that defined them and their comfort. But they could never be the same as the old time residents no matter how much they tried. And they caused division within their newcomer community from those who withdrew into that community. The division within the newcomer community only served to embolden the worst of the bad actors. Not only that, the different assimilation patterns serve to confuse the old timer community with what to expect as far as behavior in the broader community. They begin tolerating the disrespect and even some of the bolder activity against the newcomers who don't assimilate.
And even within the newcomers, there are a few bad actors. These newcomer bad actors started acting out against the larger neighborhood community. And because the social order was breaking down within the newcomer community, this behavior was tolerated and even accepted as part of the struggle. Of course, this only magnified the greater strife within the community as a whole, but by this time, everyone had lost track of who was really responsible for the social strife engrossing the community.
Eventually the greater society outside of this neighborhood becomes aware of the disharmony between the original residents and the newcomers. In their own ignorance (because societies are more comfortable with that which is local just like this neighborhood), they try to install social order on this neighborhood. Of course, the first reaction is to tell everyone involved to knock it off, which under a minimal degree of threat causes some slowdown in the hostile actions. They try removing a few of the bad actors from both the majority and newcomer communities, but this just makes both communities distrustful of the greater outside community.
From this point forward the community can go in 2 directions: Either the good people and leaders from both the original residents and newcomers pick up and move out (if they aren't eliminated first), leaving the the lessers to fight it out, continuing the downward spiral until the neighborhood no longer represents the original place it was in any way OR
The good people and leaders from both groups seek appropriate help from the larger outside community to negotiate and instill an new social order that is a blended solution taking parts of both traditions that is clearly spelled out and is enforced by the outside greater force until both fighting groups have enough experience to enforce this for themselves. This takes quite a long time with many fits and starts along the way as nobody really likes the package, but eventually learn that time and a shared experience builds a stronger bond based upon this shared struggle. And a new stronger and more diverse community is born.
In a nutshell, this is the story of social change over the ages. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. When you look at the struggle described in this thread, it fits many if not all of the elements. We also see many if not all of the various roles and attitudes described above in this story to some degree in some of the participants in this thread.
Trust me, it isn't hard to get sucked into a food fight. I'm as guilty as anyone here from time to time. Tonight, I'm either having a little bit of clarity or what some of you might call insanity, depending upon your viewpoint.
I leave it to the readers to twist it as they might in their own minds and future posts...
Peace.
I'm going to compare the social environment described with a neighborhood that has some crime trouble.
What for a long time had been a happy peaceful neighborhood, a place where everyone saw things the same way and came from a similar background, one day started seeing some new neighbors who weren't like them. They didn't look the same. They didn't approach life's daily or weekly rituals the same way. They looked forward to their new home, learning and embracing the neighborhood's traditions they could relate to, while trying to preserve what they knew as positive from their upbringing.
There were different reactions by the long time residents. Most were so busy with living life, working their jobs, raising their kids, etc. that they had no time to pay attention to the new residents. A few were stimulated by the new traditions, different life styles, etc. that they embraced the opportunity to enlarge their world view.
Others didn't understand the new traditions and styles of living and made snide remarks because they felt their traditions and way of life was threatened, especially by those locals who embraced the newcomers. The began to make the same type of snide remarks about them as well.
Many of those who initially didn't take notice of the newcomers became conflicted upon seeing those embracing the newcomers and those disparaging them beginning to tear apart the peace the neighborhood had known forever. They didn't know what to do. Some started choosing sides.
And then there were the bad actors. Before the newcomers arrived, the norms of behavior in the neighborhood and the support between all the members of the community gave them no opportunity to act out on their worse nature. And in the old days, some of them were the keepers of the old order, because that order represented their stability in the community, defining the community and excluding those from other places as threats to their way of life. Those other people lived in their inferior community - it was inferior because it not as big or as powerful as their community, which proved their way of life was superior.
Other bad actors, not being a large enough number to draw upon each other for social support - not that they were socially oriented to begin with - never had the opportunity to cause much damage in the old days. When they acted out, they were quickly marginalized and subjected to significant scrutiny. But with the chaos and distraction arising from the social disorder started around them, this set of bad actors took the opportunity to push the boundaries to see if they could do what they wished - that dark part of their repressed inner self that never died, that inner anger from bad experiences they could never process that had just remained dormant.
These few saw those who disrespected the newcomers and the disjointed reaction of the community to that behavior. They realized that these newcomers did not yet have the support of the general community and that acting out towards these disrespected folks was less dangerous than their past failed attempts at acting upon their anger within the unified community. They also identified the differences that could be exploited to allow their actions to be accepted or at least reasoned away by the greater majority.
At first their actions were only slightly beyond the disrespect offered by others. From there it built into increasingly more physical challenges to the newcomers by the boldest of this crowd.
And when the newcomers first settled in, their initial reaction to disrespect was ignore it and try not to ruffle feathers. Many wanted so badly to fit in that accepting a certain discomfort was seen as a necessary part of learning to fit in. Others among the newcomers withdrew more from the larger community to avoid the disrespectful actions. They become invisible to many in the greater community. Except the boldest of the bad actors. These withdrawn newcomers become the prime targets of these people.
Other newcomers took the disrespect as a challenge to fit in better. They began abandoning the things from their past that defined them and their comfort. But they could never be the same as the old time residents no matter how much they tried. And they caused division within their newcomer community from those who withdrew into that community. The division within the newcomer community only served to embolden the worst of the bad actors. Not only that, the different assimilation patterns serve to confuse the old timer community with what to expect as far as behavior in the broader community. They begin tolerating the disrespect and even some of the bolder activity against the newcomers who don't assimilate.
And even within the newcomers, there are a few bad actors. These newcomer bad actors started acting out against the larger neighborhood community. And because the social order was breaking down within the newcomer community, this behavior was tolerated and even accepted as part of the struggle. Of course, this only magnified the greater strife within the community as a whole, but by this time, everyone had lost track of who was really responsible for the social strife engrossing the community.
Eventually the greater society outside of this neighborhood becomes aware of the disharmony between the original residents and the newcomers. In their own ignorance (because societies are more comfortable with that which is local just like this neighborhood), they try to install social order on this neighborhood. Of course, the first reaction is to tell everyone involved to knock it off, which under a minimal degree of threat causes some slowdown in the hostile actions. They try removing a few of the bad actors from both the majority and newcomer communities, but this just makes both communities distrustful of the greater outside community.
From this point forward the community can go in 2 directions: Either the good people and leaders from both the original residents and newcomers pick up and move out (if they aren't eliminated first), leaving the the lessers to fight it out, continuing the downward spiral until the neighborhood no longer represents the original place it was in any way OR
The good people and leaders from both groups seek appropriate help from the larger outside community to negotiate and instill an new social order that is a blended solution taking parts of both traditions that is clearly spelled out and is enforced by the outside greater force until both fighting groups have enough experience to enforce this for themselves. This takes quite a long time with many fits and starts along the way as nobody really likes the package, but eventually learn that time and a shared experience builds a stronger bond based upon this shared struggle. And a new stronger and more diverse community is born.
In a nutshell, this is the story of social change over the ages. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. When you look at the struggle described in this thread, it fits many if not all of the elements. We also see many if not all of the various roles and attitudes described above in this story to some degree in some of the participants in this thread.
Trust me, it isn't hard to get sucked into a food fight. I'm as guilty as anyone here from time to time. Tonight, I'm either having a little bit of clarity or what some of you might call insanity, depending upon your viewpoint.
I leave it to the readers to twist it as they might in their own minds and future posts...
Peace.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I recognize this story! This is about when men first attended Connecticut College...
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,382
The story is nice, but it talks mostly of the extreme in a society. When 2 or more groups can't "Get along" and a level of authority must intervene or facilitate a compromise and workable solution.
In normal life, societies are in a constant evolution of change. Our country is perfect proof of this. We have the large number of immigrants in pretty much world history. And the majority of the time, towns, states, and our country as a whole evolved with the addition of these immigrants. Most of the immigrants changed to fit in to their new home, (Which is the norm when moving to a new environment). Yet, because of normal day to day interaction, the society also changed to take on some of the attributes of the new immigrants. But it's usually the immigrants who make the majority of the change. As it should be. When I moved to Holland, Spain, Ecuador, and other places, I learned their language, customs, and traditions. I didn't ask them to become "American". We see this heavily in the Mexican American communities. Many of the 1st generation kids become "Americanized". Their social life, play, school, etc... is pretty much American. From playstations to hanging out at the mall to playing high school sports to language, to music. Yet, their parents, (Who came across the border), are much more Mexican. The maintain a lot more of their culture prior to being here. Yet, their children don't care as much. Many of the first generation American kids don't even know how to speak spanish.
The problem with the military, is that the military is generally a sub-culture of the rest of the nation. Individuals from all 50 states and territories. Some even from other countries. Yet, because of this mix, the military has to manually develop their own culture, rules, and social norms. This is necessary because the military a) doesn't have the time to allow natural evolution of it's own culture; and b) can't stop interaction between it's culture and that of the local area. As such, the culture of a military base in texas could become different than the culture of a base in virginia. The military needs the consistency and continuity. That's also one of the reasons militarys throughout history moved their people around on a regular basis. Part is to fill gaps, but mainly so their soldiers didn't become part of the local culture and become emotionally attached should the time come where they had to leave or worse yet, enforce military action against the local people.
The point I'm making is: it's a lot more difficult for the military to handle personal relations between military members. Whether that's men vs women; black vs white; california vs Kansas. What is totally socially acceptable to one person in the military from new york might not be so from a military person from Georgia. 2 examples I witnessed first hand, was growing up, it was quite common for guys in the north-east to call each other boy. We'd call females girl. e.g. "Hey girl, what's up". "Yo boy, you ready to go". However; in the military, I met some blacks who were from the south who didn't like it when a white guy said "Hey boy, what's going on"?
The same thing happened with affections. Southerners always called each other "Sweetie, Darling, etc.". Girls to guys just as much as guys to girls. It wasn't sexual harrassment. It was just the way their culture was. And a good ole texan guy/girl in the military speaking that way to others sometimes got some pretty wierd looks back. Growing up in new jersey as an Italian, we show a lot of affection. We hug everyone. That was normal for us, but a lot of people, especially from out west, really didn't like it. Fortunately, the tide has turned on that and today, more guys shake/hug other guys more often. But as I said in my other post, the good thing about back then, was that as individuals we were able to resolve it among ourselves. And MOST TIMES, it was resolved. We knew how to confront adversity. We didn't immediately run to a supervisor, EOC, social actions, or whatever. Today, that's not the norm. The norm is: "If you are offended, you have RIGHTS". Damn Political correctness. If political correctness was a "Person", I think I'd kick it's a$s. lol....
In normal life, societies are in a constant evolution of change. Our country is perfect proof of this. We have the large number of immigrants in pretty much world history. And the majority of the time, towns, states, and our country as a whole evolved with the addition of these immigrants. Most of the immigrants changed to fit in to their new home, (Which is the norm when moving to a new environment). Yet, because of normal day to day interaction, the society also changed to take on some of the attributes of the new immigrants. But it's usually the immigrants who make the majority of the change. As it should be. When I moved to Holland, Spain, Ecuador, and other places, I learned their language, customs, and traditions. I didn't ask them to become "American". We see this heavily in the Mexican American communities. Many of the 1st generation kids become "Americanized". Their social life, play, school, etc... is pretty much American. From playstations to hanging out at the mall to playing high school sports to language, to music. Yet, their parents, (Who came across the border), are much more Mexican. The maintain a lot more of their culture prior to being here. Yet, their children don't care as much. Many of the first generation American kids don't even know how to speak spanish.
The problem with the military, is that the military is generally a sub-culture of the rest of the nation. Individuals from all 50 states and territories. Some even from other countries. Yet, because of this mix, the military has to manually develop their own culture, rules, and social norms. This is necessary because the military a) doesn't have the time to allow natural evolution of it's own culture; and b) can't stop interaction between it's culture and that of the local area. As such, the culture of a military base in texas could become different than the culture of a base in virginia. The military needs the consistency and continuity. That's also one of the reasons militarys throughout history moved their people around on a regular basis. Part is to fill gaps, but mainly so their soldiers didn't become part of the local culture and become emotionally attached should the time come where they had to leave or worse yet, enforce military action against the local people.
The point I'm making is: it's a lot more difficult for the military to handle personal relations between military members. Whether that's men vs women; black vs white; california vs Kansas. What is totally socially acceptable to one person in the military from new york might not be so from a military person from Georgia. 2 examples I witnessed first hand, was growing up, it was quite common for guys in the north-east to call each other boy. We'd call females girl. e.g. "Hey girl, what's up". "Yo boy, you ready to go". However; in the military, I met some blacks who were from the south who didn't like it when a white guy said "Hey boy, what's going on"?
The same thing happened with affections. Southerners always called each other "Sweetie, Darling, etc.". Girls to guys just as much as guys to girls. It wasn't sexual harrassment. It was just the way their culture was. And a good ole texan guy/girl in the military speaking that way to others sometimes got some pretty wierd looks back. Growing up in new jersey as an Italian, we show a lot of affection. We hug everyone. That was normal for us, but a lot of people, especially from out west, really didn't like it. Fortunately, the tide has turned on that and today, more guys shake/hug other guys more often. But as I said in my other post, the good thing about back then, was that as individuals we were able to resolve it among ourselves. And MOST TIMES, it was resolved. We knew how to confront adversity. We didn't immediately run to a supervisor, EOC, social actions, or whatever. Today, that's not the norm. The norm is: "If you are offended, you have RIGHTS". Damn Political correctness. If political correctness was a "Person", I think I'd kick it's a$s. lol....
How many "violent sexual assault of another human being" occur each year in the military? I believe this discussion has evolved (devolved??) into a question about whether many of the alarming reports of sexual assault in the military are actually a "violent sexual assault of another human being" or something other than that.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I don't think anyone is saying "talk to your rapist before your report them" or "ask someone not to rape you again."
Rape is a capital crime. Report it. Prosecute it to the full letter of the law. Punish the criminals.
While rape = sexual assault, sexual assault does NOT always = rape.
And sexual harrassment is something different as well.
We recently as "harrassment in the workplace" training at my work. It's required every two years. I think it was very helpful. One thing I would guess comes up is unwanted advances. "Hey, do you want to go out for a movie and dinner?" Well, if you don't want to, then say no. If he/she asks again, make it more clear, that you're not interested in a relationship. Some might avoid bringing it up to the individual, and go straight to management. That action is NOT immediately appropriate.
At CGA a few years ago, just after my classmate was removed from the barracks and we graduated, a girl who had failed out of the academy came forward and said she had failed because of the trauma of an sexual assault in a day room (day rooms are rooms the entire company used. There are TV, couches, a fridge etc). True, her GPA had been extremely low for a long time, but after an investigation, no one supported her story that one person had touched her leg and letter bumped up against her. No one... in a room full of 30 people.
And surprisingly, she came out to support my classmate... why? I have no idea. Mostly her mother spoke. But for some person, as a few women were being interviewed for investigations, she actually came out to support him (I wouldn't have, and he was my classmate...)
Her story was hard to support. I could never figure out when she picked his side either.
I have been sitting back and reading these posts with great interest. Currently my DD is enlisted and going through an AF school that has an approximately 5% or less female population. She is currently the only female in her class of 23 and will only be one of 2 females if she makes it to her tech school from Endoc School. Without revealing too much information suffice to say it is SF level training. DD literally had the world at her feet after HS graduation. 2 weeks after graduation she left to be a nanny and teach English to a family in Italy. She was accepted to numerous colleges,
(All of which we could actually afford). But she chose to serve her great country and enlist in the AF. As a former Marine (almost 30 years ago, before the term "political correctness was ever around and believe me when I tell your few people can match the creativity of a pissed off Marine DI) I realize the necessity for a thick skin in the military and especially so for females. My DD can flip it back to some idiot with the best of them, BUT... SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO!!! In the military or not men and women should treat each other with respect and dignity! My point is this. Females have earned the right to be treated with respect in the military and not have derogatory terms attached to them. Our military leaders need to
"man up" and quash this culture of turning a blind eye to derogatory and demeaning labels and put into place a culture of mutual respect and intolerance to sexual harassment of any sort. Because.... If they do not, I can see where in the future the armed forces will be missing out on a vast and deep talent pool because fathers and mothers of DD's will advise them to look elsewhere for a career and way to serve our nation.
(All of which we could actually afford). But she chose to serve her great country and enlist in the AF. As a former Marine (almost 30 years ago, before the term "political correctness was ever around and believe me when I tell your few people can match the creativity of a pissed off Marine DI) I realize the necessity for a thick skin in the military and especially so for females. My DD can flip it back to some idiot with the best of them, BUT... SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO!!! In the military or not men and women should treat each other with respect and dignity! My point is this. Females have earned the right to be treated with respect in the military and not have derogatory terms attached to them. Our military leaders need to
"man up" and quash this culture of turning a blind eye to derogatory and demeaning labels and put into place a culture of mutual respect and intolerance to sexual harassment of any sort. Because.... If they do not, I can see where in the future the armed forces will be missing out on a vast and deep talent pool because fathers and mothers of DD's will advise them to look elsewhere for a career and way to serve our nation.
Because not all sexual aasult are "violent." See below for an official defintion of Sexual Assault from the Army's SHARP site.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I don't understand where "culture of turning a blind eye" is coming from.
Maybe it's because I'm a white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP) male. Uh oh, I just said WASP!
Maybe it's because I'm a white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP) male. Uh oh, I just said WASP!
Perhpas we are seing two different military. I think it's unfair say there is 'a culture of turning a blind eye to derogatory and demaning lables."
What is the threshold, 1%, 5%, 10%, 30%, or whatever.
What is the standard? What if I never public use derogatory and demeaning lables, but think about it in my head?
Laslty, I have two DDs and I have no objection if they want to join the military.
Last edited:
Political correctness.
You just got on a bus, two empty seats. One empty seat is next to a majority race. Other empty sea is next to a minority race. Regardless who you seat next to you can be call a racist. Seat next to the majority race to avoid the minority race. Or seat next to the minority race to avoid appearing like a racist. But you pick the seat next to a skinny person for more room. If so you just discriminated against non-skinny person.
I am not a WASP.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I sit next to the person I think is best for my future... and I survive.
And I'm not against discriminating...but then, neither is the government...and I do it every single day. We all do.
And we're all prejudice... it's how we learn and remember.
- Status