The New York Times is running a series on women in the military. One article is devoted to harassment, molestation, and rape.
Obviously, trigger warnings apply both at the site and under the cut.
Here's one deep, sensitive comment:
This is the inevitable consequence of putting young men and women in their sexual primes, trained to be as agressive as possible, in close quarters under immense stress. When the military decided to allow women in forward combat areas, I and many others predicted this result. We in turn were decried as out-of-date throwbacks, but the military didn't want to "limit women's career opportunities," so here we are.Here's an all-purpose one:
As the father of two military-age sons, you won't find me complaining about women in combat however, because their presence there makes one of my sons less likely to be a casualty - simply by dilution.
Get used to scenarios like this. War is not dinner at your grandma's; its whole purpose is the infliction of grisly, painful death. When the day's activities include the likelihood of getting your brains shot out, maybe a little slap and tickle - while not desirable - is not the end of the world.
Why are women serving on the front lines again? How does their presence help American war efforts? Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.Then there's this beauty:
A society which hurls mothers, sisters and wives into the crucible of war is an immoral society, the alleged noblemindedness of that abstraction known as "equality," that trite Jacobin lie, notwithstanding!And, one of my all-time-favorites:
Little girls playing soldier frightened by sex.
The definitions of 'sexual assault' and 'harassment' are so expanded and broadly defined it can mean anything.
It is an issue only possible because women are weak, finicky, fearful and unwilling to define relationships without ambiguity.
These, and many other thoughtful responses, can be found here.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:35 am (UTC)When the day's activities include the likelihood of getting your brains shot out, maybe a little slap and tickle - while not desirable - is not the end of the world.
I am guessing this asshole doesn't have a wife, daughter or sister who's been raped. Or, more likely, he does and they just haven't told him because he's a GIANT FLAMING ASSHOLE.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:38 am (UTC)Except for !#(W#GNNN#U$%T!!! >:| , which technically isn't one.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 01:59 am (UTC)HOW DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENSE.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 02:18 am (UTC)Ironic how many male commenters condemned Capt. White for having an affair with a fellow officer, and probably would've high-fived Tiger Woods for being a man's man. Sickening.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 02:49 am (UTC)Feminism? We sure as heck don't need that!
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 03:56 am (UTC)Surprise, look what I found: "Women are contributing to our war effort but they have to be fully aware of testosterone surplus of many of their male colleagues, some of them simply not capable to control themselves.".
To be honest, I've so far (page 3 of 12) found only one response that I thought was even halfway decent. It was simple, it was direct, and it asked what needs to be asked: "Don't be a stalker, don't be a rapist, control your behavior, and no means no. Why do many men have a hard time with this?"
I cannot phrase it better than that.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 12:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 07:25 pm (UTC)Did I tell you that Frog's daycare was pulling the "{boy} hits her because he likes her" thing when she was one? THAT'S how young this crap starts.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-30 01:18 am (UTC)