These are some rather disturbing statistics. It seems that 24% (or about one out of every four) of veterans say they personally know a victim of sexual harassment, assault, or rape in the military. That's 6 points higher than the number of nonveterans who say they know a victim in their workplace, and 3 points higher than nonveteran men. But the biggest difference comes among women -- where 60% of women vets say they know a victim, while only 19% of nonveteran women know a victim.
While these figures show we have a society-wide problem with sexual harassment, assault, and rape, they also show that this problem is much bigger in the military. Some may try to explain this away by saying the military is traditionally a job for men, but that excuse simply won't fly. Sexual harassment, assault, and rape are crimes -- and they are inexcusable in any workplace, even those traditionally occupied by men.
Congress recently tried to address this problem, but they chickened out at the last moment and left the decision on whether charges would be brought in the hands of military officers. In other words, there was little change since it left the "good old boy" system intact -- and lets officers go easy on those they like and harder on those they don't like. These decisions should have been put in the hands of legal professionals (just like it is in the non-military society).
This brings up the question of what does the American public think. Do they think the military's implementation of this weak law passed by Congress is enough to solve this problem, or should more be done. As the charts below show, the public does not think the military (or Congress) has adequately addressed to problems with sexual harassment, assault, or rape. I have to agree. More needs to be done.
All of these charts were made with information from the Gallup Poll.
1,268 veterans were questioned between June 16th and 20th (with a 3 point margin of error).
1,016 nonveterans were questioned on July 2nd and 3rd (with a 4 point margin of error).
So it *was* a 'stoopid' idea to let women serve with frontline units as many of us warned!
ReplyDeleteYou really are the typical misogynistic conservative macho man, aren't you. Being raped or sexually harassmented is always the woman's fault according to them. (sorry I gave you more credit) It's never right anywhere anytime for men to treat women as sexual objects.
DeleteBy the way he who love to criticize someones use of capitalization and grammar rather than address the subject at hand, it's spelled "stupid" and apostrophes are not suitable substitutes for quotes. I should have included that neither are asterisks which you seem so fond of using for that purpose as well.
No it was not a "stoopid" idea, and that has nothing to do with this issue -- unless you think serving in a frontline units justifies rape and assault (which is a "stoopid" idea).
ReplyDeleteBrian, I use asterisks in order to emphasise a word, and a single inverted comma does not indicate a quotation, that requires two inverted commas. Single inverts indicates either a paraphrase or irony. The latter, of course, is always tricky for Americans! (And, please note, sometimes an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence also indicates irony.)
ReplyDeleteLike a pair of synchronised swimmers the pair of you leaped to the wrong conclusion. Nowhere did I condone rape but, in the same way that you would not put a bitch into a cage with male dogs, so it is exceedingly silly - if 'stoopid' is not allowed - to put women in with frontline troops. Soldiers are, in Orwell's words, "rough men ready to do violence". Only truly soppy, feminist progressives would think that women should be placed in such dangerous circumstances.
You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow men, especially those risking their lives for their country. They are no different from other men, and no more prone to criminality or violence toward women -- and those criminals among them should not be excused for their behavior because they have been thrown into combat. Even in a combat situation, decent people will act in a decent manner, and criminals will act like criminals.
DeleteWrong, actually. I have considerable experience of such men because I served nine years in the British army, five of them with the Paras. They, I can assure you, were very "rough men" indeed. And nowhere did I suggest that somehow they should be excused for any misdeeds but I definitely suggest that those 'stoopid' enough to put women in close proximity to such men deserve similar punishment as accessories before the fact.
ReplyDelete