Analysis: After 60 years, black officers rare

[Bluehawk]

Originally Posted by cato2

Alas, opinion is subjugated by reality once again.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081013t.pdf

One might say so, but then the GAO testimony stated:
"At the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip."

1. How about the other possible realization that the "sexual assault" was not either sexual or an assault to start with?

2. How is it that 103 servicemembers could have "indicated" (is that not the same as reporting?) they had been sexually assaulted but 52, or slightly more than half, then say they did NOT report or "indicate" the assault? Either the crimes happened and were reported or they did not happen and were not reported, which is it!
For what possible reason would 84% of female troops spill their guts to the GAO and not to her next in command or the Chaplain at least! In addition, there is probably not a single military unit which lacks an officer and/or NCO whose sole responsibility it is to keep track of and immediately deal with these sorts of matters and crimes.... entire offices and staffs have been set up specifically for that purpose!

3. How can this be explained... it is being pronounced simultaneously that:
> 4 of 10 female military personnel are victims of sexual assault.
and
> Only 16% of sexual assaults are reported (or, 52 of 103 are NOT reported?)

What those two statistics would have us accept, when taken together, is that instead of it being 4 of 10 (on the face of it a highly improbable ratio to begin with), the number is more like 8+ of 10... or whatever figure would result from calculating the 84% of victims who do NOT report the crimes, added to the 16% who do. In other words, somewhere north of not less than 60-70% of American females serving in uniform experience sexual assault?
Or, are we once more talking about a tiny fraction of a fraction of a miniscule percentage of all females serving, who are being presented in testimony as IF they represent victims of rampantly uncontrollable throbbing horny and rude sex-crazed pack of post-pubescent horny criminals wearing the uniform attacking the sanctity of womanhood in America...

Does that make ANY sense at all to anyone?

Does it seem in the least way plausible that something like 8 of 10 female military are victims of sexual assault, or that (as was inferred) it is MORE likely that assaults will be unreported in the services than outside? Remember, unlike in civilian life these are people living 24/7 in group conditions where very little privacy exists and almost nothing goes unnoticed, sometimes under extreme hardship circumstances, and always with a very rigid chain of command and authority structure in place... AND, with a very sincere and open policy of zero tolerance for sexual misconduct being paramount at least among NCOs and officers.

We are talking about hundreds of women who have been professionally trained with deadly weapons and in a variety of self-defense techniques, who have all heard the shrill insults of a drill Sergeant filling their ears day after day for weeks on end, who are often doing dangerous work in and around machines and combat conditions... these women, of all women, are MORE subject to sexual assault than any other ones?

To believe the statistics as factual one must accept that 4 of 10 military females are sexually assaulted, AND that an additional 84% on top of that ratio do not report assaults.

The above also assumes that the 16% of reported assaults ARE, in fact, actual verifiable provable criminal assaults; which, in turn, means that the men in uniform are spending an unusually large amount of the time assaulting females.

Either the statistics are way off the mark, or someone is attempting to advance a gender and racial social engineering agenda at the expense of good morale and unit cohesion.

Apparently I may be alone in questioning the truthfulness and accuracy of these reports?

[Leo2man]

How is it that 103 servicemembers could have "indicated" (is that not the same as reporting?) they had been sexually assaulted but 52, or slightly more than half, then say they did NOT report or "indicate" the assault? Either the crimes happened and were reported or they did not happen and were not reported, which is it!
For what possible reason would 84% of female troops spill their guts to the GAO and not to her next in command or the Chaplain at least! In addition, there is probably not a single military unit which lacks an officer and/or NCO whose sole responsibility it is to keep track of and immediately deal with these sorts of matters and crimes.... entire offices and staffs have been set up specifically for that purpose!

Simple. The GAO questioning functions under the cloak of anonymity, whereas reporting of sexual assaults does not.

Do you really not understand what a woman would be subjected to if she reported an assault from a co-worker or superior?

Opening her mouth to a Chaplain is akin to speaking to her superior officer. While the information may be treated as confidential, her name and identity is not. Good-by career as she is now labeled as a troublemaker.

If 84% of sexual assaults in the military were not being reported, I am willing to bet my life that the female NCOs and officers (along with the men who would also be outraged) in all branches would have put a fast end to ANY further female recruitment of any kind until the problem was permanently resolved.

WHY would you imagine that the solution to all these sexual assaults should be the end to any further female recruitment??? WHY would you punish the women for something that the men are doing???

The solution is simple: education and a lack of tolerance for any form of sexual assault. Whether that assault is a pat on the bum, or non-consenual sex.

And for the record, when one examines sexism in the military and talks about the glass ceiling for women, look at the prohibition on women being in combat arms positions and ask yourself, if higher rank is based upon combat experience, how does a woman get that experience when she is not able to fill a combat arms position? Archaic, misguided attempts to exclude women from the profession of arms are not the answer.

[Bluehawk]

The situation is somewhat analogous with what we so often hear members of Congress, the MSM and leftist anti-war activists saying when they quote the statistic that we have suffered "30,000 wounded" in the GWOT thusfar. They leave it at that, with an impression that 30,000 people have been wounded, without anyone bothering to tell the rest of the story... which is that about 17,000 of that number experienced injuries the nature of which allowed them to return to the lines within 1-7 days. It is very damn convenient to leave uneducated people with the notion that ALL 30,000 of our wounded are at Walter Reed learning how to walk again, or having other serious rehabilitation. That is unfair to the truly badly wounded because it minimizes their suffering, and gives undue credibility to those whose wounds were not as severe... to say nothing of degrading the careful battlefield management our NCOs and officers are striving to do.

The point I've been trying to make on this thread is that citing such statistics can be, and is in these two instances, totally out of proportion with the actual problem. Judging from the extremely tiny number of those in Congress, the MSM or any other level of government (such as the GAO) who have ever in fact worn a uniform, it is not surprising.

The truth of these issues would not make the news, as bad as it would ever be and in need of redress. To keep the drums of dissent rumbling along, somebody is very determined to interpret facts in the most dire and partial manner possible.

Originally Posted by Leo2man

Simple. The GAO questioning functions under the cloak of anonymity, whereas reporting of sexual assaults does not.

> Nevertheless, the "assaults" either did or did not happen, and were or were not reported. One thing is for sure, the matter IS being falsely reported as if it all did take place!

Do you really not understand what a woman would be subjected to if she reported an assault from a co-worker or superior?

> I do understand that potential, of course... however, I do not subscribe to the belief that it is absolutely a 100% certainty that she will suffer MORE because of her gender or the nature of her report than would ANY male reporting any kind of complaint. Every GI of any type has had to eat a parcel of crap to get by, and that's just how the game is played. Females are not being systematically singled out or picked on unless they demand to be... in which case, they need to suck it up and do their job. Most guys in mixed units wouldn't tolerate their female comrades being mistreated either. Barracks justice is a functioning reality for richard craniums of that type.

Opening her mouth to a Chaplain is akin to speaking to her superior officer. While the information may be treated as confidential, her name and identity is not. Good-by career as she is now labeled as a troublemaker.

> That can happen, too... but it is against the regulations, and anyone who takes that step is subject to disciplinary action under the UCMJ.

WHY would you imagine that the solution to all these sexual assaults should be the end to any further female recruitment???

> Why would anyone want to continue wholesale recruitment of women when it is supposedly "known" that 4 of 10 (or more if the statistics are believable) will be subjected to "sexual assault" and that 84% of those will not be reported?

WHY would you punish the women for something that the men are doing???

> Nobody said anything about "punishment." What was suggested was a moratorium until this "epidemic of sexual assault" got squared away. If those statistics are truthful or factual, then it would have to be regarded as outright negligence to do otherwise.

The solution is simple: education and a lack of tolerance for any form of sexual assault. Whether that assault is a pat on the bum, or non-consenual sex.

> That has been taken care of already... like 40 years ago and more, and is monitored extremely closely on a 24/7 basis in the military. Maybe the solution is to cease reporting statistics that do not make sense and which are intended to further another agenda?

And for the record, when one examines sexism in the military and talks about the glass ceiling for women, look at the prohibition on women being in combat arms positions and ask yourself, if higher rank is based upon combat experience, how does a woman get that experience when she is not able to fill a combat arms position? Archaic, misguided attempts to exclude women from the profession of arms are not the answer.

> Last time I noticed, women ARE these days carrying arms, doing extremely dangerous jobs, piloting all kinds of aircraft and vessels, driving vehicles into free fire zones, and otherwise doing probably 95% of all jobs males do and have always done in uniform.

> As a general rule, not more than 25% or so of ALL troops at any level will ever see anything resembling combat. Is it then a form of discrimination against the remaining 75%?

> The only "glass ceiling" that exists for women anymore is in their own minds and nowhere else.

> Higher rank is NOT always based on combat command experience anymore, and even when it is still, the very same identical prejudice operates against males as females. So, that is the definition of equity.

> There are some extremely good reasons for women to be excluded from certain very specific jobs, at this time. I hope it stays that way, permanently. The only alternative is female only combat units, and nobody has shown the least interest in forming those to date.

[Leo2man]

Nevertheless, the "assaults" either did or did not happen, and were or were not reported. One thing is for sure, the matter IS being falsely reported as if it all did take place!

I don't understand your comment. The assaults took place: the issue is why a large number are not being reported.

You appear to be treating the fact that the lack of an 'official' report means an assault did not take place. That is contradicted by evidence.

It is possible that many of the assaults reported and unreported were relatively minor, although even minor assaults indicate evidence that education and current policy are not working.

It is equally likely that assaults are being under-reported because of legitimate fear of retribution/retaliation.

Your solution which would call for a moratorium on the continued recruitment of women IS punishment aimed at women. Why not cease recruiting males instead? They are the problem here, not the women. Unless you are suggesting that mixing male and female soldiers will naturally and inevitably lead to assault?

There are some extremely good reasons for women to be excluded from certain very specific jobs, at this time. I hope it stays that way, permanently. The only alternative is female only combat units, and nobody has shown the least interest in forming those to date.

I would disagree. I see no legitimate reasons for excluding women from any jobs. And the alternative to the current male-only preserve within combat units is mixed units. Works quite well in a number of countries including Canada and Britain. Female combat arms officers and soldiers are serving with distinction within combat zones today, beside their male counterparts. No issues. Proper education and enforced policies on sexual assault/fraternization make it a workable reality.

[cato2]

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

One man's opinion... I believe people need to be much more careful in their choice of words when reporting that ^ kind of thing. There is not a possibility in heaven or hell that 4 of 10 military females have been "sexually assaulted."

Chances are, the actual rate of actual "sexual assault" is probably more in the range of less than 1 out of 10 female personnel; certainly not in excess of the civilian rate in any case... and, nothing is said or implied to account for the sexual assaults that DO occur female on female either, nor anything about false reports, consensual sexual encounters reported as otherwise, etc etc etc.

That is precisely the kind of thing that I have been talking about in this thread from the start.

I think you entirely missed the point that the figures were for one institution. The first line of the story itself makes this very clear, as well as its placement guides the reader when they continue to read further.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being sexually assaulted while in the military.

[Bluehawk]

Originally Posted by Leo2man

I don't understand your comment. The assaults took place: the issue is why a large number are not being reported.

> WHAT proof is there that an "assault" took place? Assault has a very specific legal definition, and is a serious criminal act. We had a GAO rep sitting in front of Congress alleging that 52 out of 103 "sexual assaults" are not reported. Since they were not reported, and the interview was anonymous, then how in the world can anyone be confident in the findings, to the point of saying that there was proof and evidence? Or, did we just have somebody expressing an opinion based on guess-work with the hope of influencing legislation, earning brownie points or pandering to a noisy constituency?

> If one states that there are "a large number" of "assaults", and yet the number is unknown, then how in the world is it rational to claim that the number is large, small or anything in between!

You appear to be treating the fact that the lack of an 'official' report means an assault did not take place. That is contradicted by evidence.

> What evidence?

It is possible that many of the assaults reported and unreported were relatively minor...

> Precisely

...although even minor assaults indicate evidence that education and current policy are not working.

> Is it the education and policy that is not working? Or is it just the simple presence of rude and disgusting behavior in a very small minority of people who lack the inner conscience to avoid the conduct in the first place?

It is equally likely that assaults are being under-reported because of legitimate fear of retribution/retaliation.

> Some of the time, possibly. But, my experience of 62 years with females (including 4 wives and 2 daughters) has assured me that if there is a reason, legitimate or not, to complain about something, then it will certainly be heard about... often at the top of her lungs with accompanied head snapping, finger jabbing and eventually tears. I'm not worried about females refusing to complain.

Your solution which would call for a moratorium on the continued recruitment of women IS punishment aimed at women.

> I do not offer a moratorium solution, but I do think people need to embrace the idea that IF what they are alleging IS true, then it is negligent of management to persists in purposefully enticing females into those situations.

Why not cease recruiting males instead? They are the problem here, not the women.

> That question answers itself.

Unless you are suggesting that mixing male and female soldiers will naturally and inevitably lead to assault?

> It will, absolutely... because it leads to seduction, enticement, provocation, indulgence,
pregnancy, discplinary action and all the rest. We are far beyond that point now, however... women are present in force, and will remain so.

I would disagree. I see no legitimate reasons for excluding women from any jobs.

> We disagree on that... how 'bout nose guard for the Oakland Raiders?

And the alternative to the current male-only preserve within combat units is mixed units.

> No, the sole workable alternative is female-only combat units. In those units, the only assault and harassment issues would be lesbian in nature and character... every bit as destructive and real, if not as frequent.

Works quite well in a number of countries including Canada and Britain. Female combat arms officers and soldiers are serving with distinction within combat zones today, beside their male counterparts...

> Yes, it does... and we have plenty of it in the American forces, doing just fine... in spite of these ludicrous statistical projections that say otherwise.

No issues...

> Canadian and British forces have NO sexual assault and harassment problems in their mixed combat units? Horse puckey. They have as many in theirs as we do in ours.

> Also, there is a world of difference between serving in a "combat zone" and serving in a combat infantry squad or on a submarine. I believe we see isolated instances in which females IN COMBAT who are part of units rise to the occasion as well as any other troop. But, taking the step of saying that any person can do any other person's job just as well as the other one can is a leap I am not willing to take. If that were true, then there would be no difference in training for a clerk typist and a Navy carrier weapons officer.

Proper education and enforced policies on sexual assault/fraternization make it a workable reality.

> At one time that did work. Now that such training is standard procedure and the numbers of females are increasing, we are supposedly seeing an increase in the frequency of "assault"; which would seem to argue against such a solution.