The second link contains a lot of profanity, as well as some idiots who don't know how to discuss a serious issue with any sense of logic.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. The article is interesting, but the letters really made me sit up and take notice. Amazing.
I appreciated the voice on Post 3 of Page 3: this is not a necessary, predictable result whenever women serve alongside of men in the military. It is heavily culturally informed, and the lack of this as such a significant problem in other countries with women soldiers should be noted. And underscored.
--------
Edited to add: And also Post 3 on Page 6, albeit for different reasons. The writer references The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as well as eloquently arguing that seeing war as ugly and brutal only when women are involved is a problem in itself.
War is sometimes necessary. It is always harsh and always brutal. Sometimes that harshness and brutality is necessary, but it still remains what it is.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wow. The article is interesting, but the letters really made me sit up and take notice. Amazing.
I appreciated the voice on Post 3 of Page 3: this is not a necessary, predictable result whenever women serve alongside of men in the military. It is heavily culturally informed, and the lack of this as such a significant problem in other countries with women soldiers should be noted. And underscored.
--------
Edited to add: And also Post 3 on Page 6, albeit for different reasons. The writer references The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as well as eloquently arguing that seeing war as ugly and brutal only when women are involved is a problem in itself.
War is sometimes necessary. It is always harsh and always brutal. Sometimes that harshness and brutality is necessary, but it still remains what it is.
If the incidence of rape in other countries' militaries is lower, which I'm not necessarily sure is true, but let's have it as a given for now, what elements of which culture are causing the number of rapes in the American military? Can you elaborate?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If the incidence of rape in other countries' militaries is lower, which I'm not necessarily sure is true, but let's have it as a given for now, what elements of which culture are causing the number of rapes in the American military? Can you elaborate?
I think it is a given that (if one grants the hypothetical, as you note) the issue must be heavily informed by culture, because the difference would not be explainable by basic human nature. You would have men in one cultural context behaving differently from men in another cultural context; the men are still men, and it is the culture which changed.
But I'm not sure I know enough to make specific claims about which differences in the cultures would be the relevant ones. I can think of several possibilities, but as I understand it, you aren't asking me to list hypothetical possibilities -- rather, to tell you which possibilities I think are the ones actually at play. I'm not sure I am prepared to do that at the level of confidence for which you are asking.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If the incidence of rape in other countries' militaries is lower, which I'm not necessarily sure is true, but let's have it as a given for now, what elements of which culture are causing the number of rapes in the American military? Can you elaborate? I think it is a given that (if one grants the hypothetical, as you note) the issue must be heavily informed by culture, because the difference would not be explainable by basic human nature. You would have men in one cultural context behaving differently from men in another cultural context; the men are still men, and it is the culture which changed.
Of course.
quote: But I'm not sure I know enough to make specific claims about which differences in the cultures would be the relevant ones. I can think of several possibilities, but as I understand it, you aren't asking me to list hypothetical possibilities -- rather, to tell you which possibilities I think are the ones actually at play. I'm not sure I am prepared to do that at the level of confidence for which you are asking. [/qb]
I'm cool with you hypothesizin' on this issue, with the given that the level of confidence may be low.
quote:I appreciated the voice on Post 3 of Page 3: this is not a necessary, predictable result whenever women serve alongside of men in the military. It is heavily culturally informed, and the lack of this as such a significant problem in other countries with women soldiers should be noted. And underscored.
I agree. These incidents of rape and assault come down to a lack of character, and it's cultural. Addressing this issue cannot merely be about setting up punishments or rewards or policy, there needs to be a deep moral discussion about why this behavior is unacceptable. I'm not going to pretend to be a big fan of the military, because I'm not. The authoritarian hierarchy incumbent in military culture rubs against my democratic intuitions.
But I do believe that if you grab a hundred military men at random, the quality of their character isn't going to be much better or worse than a random sample 100 fraternity guys of relatively the same age. The problem is that the fraternity guys aren't going to be under the same amount of stress. My solution, and I know this is going to be a shocker, is that we teach character. Rape, I imagine, is the by-product of a surplus of entitlement and a lack of empathy. I think that wrestling with good literature can go far in cultivating ones sense of empathy, and if the classes, which should be part of Basic Training, don't go far enough in dissuading the rapist, they will at least strengthen the moral character of would be Allies, and hopefully, change the overall military ethos in general.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
while certainly abhorrant, I'm not terrible suprised by this article at all. Many of the points brought to the front here are point which were used ing trying to keep women from serving on combat situations.
Rape is never excusable, but one does have to consider some of the circumstances involved. high stress sitations for months/years at a time with little-no true rest/relaxation time. The only members of the opposite sex you encounter being your comrades in arms. no outlet for your sexual frustration etc. no outlet for your social leanings outside your unit... these kinds of things are recipe for trouble.
Additionally, there's the trouble of calling out commanding officers and the like causing a vew of the victim as a traitor. In the military, of prime importance to the men serving under an officer/leader would be his/her capacity to lead and care for them well. Anything else is going to be secondary. If your CO sacrifices goats to chtulu in his spare time but keeps your unit supplied and has a good tactical head on his shoulders you probably wont care. So I'd venture to say that at least some potion of the animosity would be in the accusation and punishment of an otherwise good leader. I agree that this kind of behavior is not to be tolerated, but I'd also be willing to give a little more leeway to the rest of the soldiers feeling betrayed (at least in some circumstances).
Trouble is that while there are many paralels to civilian life, there are also a lot of aspects to military life that make seemingly simple differences in situation/reaction rather huge. Even if my boss is replaced by someone much less capable but more politically correct the worst I face is losing a job (which I can probably easily recover at another company or the like) the very real possibility for a combat unit losing a good leader over a more social issue is death at the hands of a less effective, but more sensitive leader.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rape is never excusable, but one does have to consider some of the circumstances involved. high stress sitations for months/years at a time with little-no true rest/relaxation time. The only members of the opposite sex you encounter being your comrades in arms. no outlet for your sexual frustration etc. no outlet for your social leanings outside your unit... these kinds of things are recipe for trouble.
See, this is where I think you are setting the bar too low. We trust these guys with guns and bombs; I don't understand why we can't expect them to keep their pants on. And if this is really an issue of humanity, then lets talk about how we are going to address it in the prisons. If we become apologists for military rapes, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for prisoners.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, it's not clear to me that this article is, uh, absolutely true. I hope we're all reading it with a grain of salt.
One of the reasons that I provided the link to the letters is so some kind of context could be given to the article.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'm cool with you hypothesizin' on this issue, with the given that the level of confidence may be low.
Well, then, I'm yours.
My best guess is that the primary reason is the newness of this shift in gender divide. I think Israli men who have grown up in families where their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and female friends have (or will have) served in compulsory military service probably have a whole different set of stories and underlying assumptions about women in general, as well as women in the military.
Secondarily, I think that growing up with the expectation of going into military service makes for a less, hmmm, abrupt and traumatic transition into doing this work. That is, even if young men in the States choose willingly to go into such service (as opposed to being drafted), that transition is a time of becoming something which is not the norm. So the act of joining may become (for a given individual) symbolic of bravery, or nobility, or of Being a Man, or of any of a host of things. Or not. Or that break with the rest of society (a setting off of oneself, of marking oneself as different) may be dealt with in ritualized ways, such as taking a lonely hike on one's own into the desert before one begins Basic Training in order to mark this time as different. Or getting a tattoo. Or not.
And, of course, in countries with compulsory service, there are doubtlessly such rituals, too. But I expected they are more standardized in the culture, that there are ways that have come up organically in order to mark that time in a more structured and, hmmm, better-acknowledged way. I suspect there are a lot of young men who are dealing with the stress of that setting apart of oneself on their own. And that, I suppose, may lead to extra and unresolved tensions when it is not the norm to be set apart in one's culture this way.
Plus, there is the issue of greater income disparity and over-representation of young men from particular backgrounds on the frontlines. I think this is a force at play, but not the major one. That's why I listed it last. However, it is a tension that will arise out of a non-compulsory-service culture that isn't there (at least, not effectively much) in a culture where everyone must serve.
Those are my guesses for a first pass. They make sense to me, but I'm not wedded to them. I'm also not interested enough in either exploring or defending them at this point to get into an extended discussion, but I'm okay with just setting them out there on the shelf to sit on their own. (Feel free to poke and prod as you wish, but they are on their own now. )
----
Edited to add: In case it isn't clear, I am not saying that individual male soldiers don't have personal responsibility. Nor am I saying that most of them do or will rape female colleagues. Far from it.
This was an attempt to list some of the cultural differences that might inform some of the different behaviors we may see among some of our male soldiers that may not be seen in male soldiers of some other countries.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: By the way, it's not clear to me that this article is, uh, absolutely true. I hope we're all reading it with a grain of salt.
One of the reasons that I provided the link to the letters is so some kind of context could be given to the article.
I think it was not a very stellar piece of investigative journalism, for sure. Not on the level of the chocolate expose we discussed here recently. And there are certainly several bones to pick with the data collection referenced in the article.
But it wasn't the article that intrigued me -- it was the responses and the arguments used in them. That was intriguing reading.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, like I said "rape is never excusable" but there are many factors that are going to make it more likely. just like murder is never excusable but if you put a bunch of very angry people in a small room with dangerous weapons it's a lot more likely to happen than in the general public.
and you make a good point in comparing this to prisons. I think many of the same factors are true of the prison system/population and it is also a problem there.
Certainly there are going to be some aspects of this that are influenced by cultural specifics (perhaps we are too sexually repressed on some fronts and not enough on others, perhaps the pervasiveness of sexual objectivisation of women in the media causes inherently less respect for their persons than other cultures, perhaps we are taught too much that masturbation and the like is something to be ashamed of but promiscuous sex is not...) but there are also going to be some aspects that are true across cultures, and I'm sure that if someone did a study of other militaries with similar situations (i.e. females in effectively combat positions) that at least somewhat similar results would be found (but obviously not necessarily the same results)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Certainly there are going to be some aspects of this that are influenced by cultural specifics (perhaps we are too sexually repressed on some fronts and not enough on others, perhaps the pervasiveness of sexual objectivisation of women in the media causes inherently less respect for their persons than other cultures, perhaps we are taught too much that masturbation and the like is something to be ashamed of but promiscuous sex is not...)
Of note, these were not the cultural differences that came to my mind. Not that you have to defend yours, or me mine -- I was just pointing out the difference.
quote:but there are also going to be some aspects that are true across cultures, and I'm sure that if someone did a study of other militaries with similar situations (i.e. females in effectively combat positions) that at least somewhat similar results would be found (but obviously not necessarily the same results)
I actually doubt this, but I'm interested enough to go looking to see what information has been gathered on this topic cross-culturally. I don't, however, expect that if I found I was right, it would change your mind, not anyone else's. (Am I wrong? Would it make a difference to you if this were not the case? I'd find that pretty cool, actually.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it was not a very stellar piece of investigative journalism, for sure. Not on the level of the chocolate expose we discussed here recently. And there are certainly several bones to pick with the data collection referenced in the article.
But it wasn't the article that intrigued me -- it was the responses and the arguments used in them. That was intriguing reading.
I agree. For instance:
quote: I think this article would have been more compelling had the author actually taken the time to report on how rape and sexual assault reports are treated by the military. From the article, it is unclear who does investigations and prosecutions, although it is erroneously implied that both are done at the command level. While a commanding officer may decide to prefer charges, investigations in the military are done by military or civilians investigators. Cases are prosecuted and judged in a well-established legal system. As a (civilian) woman who works in a remote location with the military, I believe that these women could have been harassed and assaulted, but this article presents little more than anecdotal stories. Where are the interviews with the COs who let harassament occur? What about interviews with male soldiers serving in Iraq? The problem is worth probing, in-depth coverage and we don't have that here.
In my civilian capacity, I work for the military and investigate such crimes. Although I have not been in Iraq, they are incredibly difficult crimes to bring to prosecution even under "good" working conditions. Commanders, even ones with best intentions, may try to "fix" the problem themselves, and, at some level, all crimes in the military are viewed more with an eye towards maintaining command readiness than the pursuit of justice. That said, even out of Iraq, the environment of the military creates its own, non-gender-biased problems. Many of those serving in our military are very young and the environment in which they work if akin to a civilian's college days, but with the addition of guns and life-threatening dangers. Drunken parties, indiscriminate sexual practices, and the immaturities that come with being in your late teens and early twenties abound. It is often difficult to find witnesses to rape or sexual assault cases, much less ones who were sober and can provide an account that will stand up in court. Imagine if the random hookups and debauched parties of your college days influenced your career advancement and were also subject to prosecution. For the 18-24 year olds (who make up the bulk of sex crime victims and perpetrators in the military), this is what is happening. In some ways, the only way to substantially reduce these crimes would be to eliminate alcohol consumption and unsupervised parties, neither of which would go over well. To address the problems of sexual assault in and out of a war zone, we need to address not only the very real problem of bias against women, but also the culture that our soldiers live and train outside of war.
My best guess is that the primary reason is the newness of this shift in gender divide. I think Israli men who have grown up in families where their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and female friends have (or will have) served in compulsory military service probably have a whole different set of stories and underlying assumptions about women in general, as well as women in the military.
Secondarily, I think that growing up with the expectation of going into military service makes for a less, hmmm, abrupt and traumatic transition into doing this work. That is, even if young men in the States choose willingly to go into such service (as opposed to being drafted), that transition is a time of becoming something which is not the norm. So the act of joining may become (for a given individual) symbolic of bravery, or nobility, or of Being a Man, or of any of a host of things. Or not. Or that break with the rest of society (a setting off of oneself, of marking oneself as different) may be dealt with in ritualized ways, such as taking a lonely hike on one's own into the desert before one begins Basic Training in order to mark this time as different. Or getting a tattoo. Or not.
And, of course, in countries with compulsory service, there are doubtlessly such rituals, too. But I expected they are more standardized in the culture, that there are ways that have come up organically in order to mark that time in a more structured and, hmmm, better-acknowledged way. I suspect there are a lot of young men who are dealing with the stress of that setting apart of oneself on their own. And that, I suppose, may lead to extra and unresolved tensions when it is not the norm to be set apart in one's culture this way.
Plus, there is the issue of greater income disparity and over-representation of young men from particular backgrounds on the frontlines. I think this is a force at play, but not the major one. That's why I listed it last. However, it is a tension that will arise out of a non-compulsory-service culture that isn't there (at least, not effectively much) in a culture where everyone must serve.
Those are my guesses for a first pass. They make sense to me, but I'm not wedded to them. I'm also not interested enough in either exploring or defending them at this point to get into an extended discussion, but I'm okay with just setting them out there on the shelf to sit on their own. (Feel free to poke and prod as you wish, but they are on their own now. [Smile] )
----
Edited to add: In case it isn't clear, I am not saying that individual male soldiers don't have personal responsibility. Nor am I saying that most of them do or will rape female colleagues. Far from it.
This was an attempt to list some of the cultural differences that might inform some of the different behaviors we may see among some of our male soldiers that may not be seen in male soldiers of some other countries.
Thank you for your thoughts!
The idea that much of modern American culture is missing mature, substantive initiation rituals into adulthood is one that I've always found very intriguing.
Along the lines of the letter I posted previous to this, larger ritual initiations of binge drinking of Americans would exacerbate the problem of rape in the military, and might be one factor.
I'm not sure if your belief that most of the front line soldiers come from lower income families is true.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'm not sure if your belief that most of the front line soldiers come from lower income families is true.
"Lower income?"
---
Ahhh. Greater income disparity in the general society, not as the over-representation. I shouldn't have put those side-to-side without clarifying.
I was thinking more along the lines of disproportionate rural representation, not disproportionate economic representation. And not because rural people are more likely to rape (good grief), but just that the disparity of backgrounds could lead to increased levels of general tension.
I think SES disparity in a culture works as a rough proxy for indicating (causally or not) other disparities in a society, and that level of background tension is one that soldiers would bring in with them to their military training. When then faced with specific background disparities, it just makes for a mix of tensions that needs to be dealt with in some way. Most will deal with it [healthfully], I expect, but some will not. And, like I said, I don't think this is a primary force.
posted
I thought that's what you meant because it's a somewhat common accusation leveled at the military.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
good points SS, and CT I am certainly open to other information on other militaries, as well as more authoratative data on our own. I was just throwing out a few potential cultural differences, as well as my own hunch about others. I'm certainly willing to accept that it is more or less cultural/universal than my initial reaction leads.
I just wanted to offer some points as to why this kind of behavior can happen and not seem as one-sidedly abhorrant as the article puts forward. Storm Saxon's quotes of other posters seem to point out similar concerns as well.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I thought that's what you meant because it's a somewhat common accusation leveled at the military.
See edit above. Once I posted the quizzical look, I went back and reread what I had written, trying out different meanings. I think I spotted it immediately.
I think it's easy to (mis)read what I wrote, even with the clarification, as "poor (or rural) recruits are more likely to rape." That isn't at all what I meant. What I meant (and was trying to say carefully, because it is muddled with what other people have said as a matter of course) to say is that when you have people of different backgrounds and from a society with marked inequalities, it makes it harder for everyone to deal with the situation, regardless of where the individual falls on the spectrum.
Not impossible, just harder. Another tension that is tied to this culture moreso than many of the cultures we might be using for comparison in this thread.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I thought that's what you meant because it's a somewhat common accusation leveled at the military.
See edit above. Once I posted the quizzical look, I went back and reread what I had written, trying out different meanings. I think I spotted it immediately.
I think it's easy to (mis)read what I wrote, even with the clarification, as "poor (or rural) recruits are more likely to rape." That isn't at all what I meant. What I meant (and was trying to say carefully, because it is muddled with what other people have said as a matter of course) to say is that when you have people of different backgrounds and from a society with marked inequalities, it makes it harder for everyone to deal with the situation, regardless of where the individual falls on the spectrum.
Not impossible, just harder. Another tension that is tied to this culture moreso than many of the cultures we might be using for comparison in this thread.
Oh, o.k.. I get it now. Thanks. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. And you don't have to agree, of course, or even comment one way or the other. I just wanted what I said to be clear, and it certainly was not in the form it was originally written. I was sloppy (tired, and dealing with an infection, and kinda subpar mentally all around).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't say anything one way or another about that bit because I'm not sure what I think about that idea. I'm thinking about it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, like I said "rape is never excusable" but there are many factors that are going to make it more likely. just like murder is never excusable but if you put a bunch of very angry people in a small room with dangerous weapons it's a lot more likely to happen than in the general public.
Fair enough, but the answer to both situations is character. In your angry men and weapons example, we can address the anger, and we can limit the weapons, but in the end, the real answer is cultivating a sense of dignity such that no matter how small the room and how many weapons, we do not stab each other.Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Well, I didn't say anything one way or another about that bit because I'm not sure what I think about that idea. I'm thinking about it.
posted
I agree that this is the best solution, and is the end-all solution. I unfortunately don't think we're terribly near achieving that solution. Perhaps I'm being too much the pessemist, but I think American culture over the past generation or so may very well have transitioned towards rape and the like being more acceptable rather than less (or at least I seem to hear a lot more about today's youth lacking so much in terms of common courtesy and general behavioral skills than previously). I freely admit that I don't have actual data to back up these feelings, just anecdotal evidence, but I do feel that there is at least some legitimacy to it.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I agree that this is the best solution, and is the end-all solution. I unfortunately don't think we're terribly near achieving that solution. Perhaps I'm being too much the pessemist, but I think American culture over the past generation or so may very well have transitioned towards rape and the like being more acceptable rather than less (or at least I seem to hear a lot more about today's youth lacking so much in terms of common courtesy and general behavioral skills than previously). I freely admit that I don't have actual data to back up these feelings, just anecdotal evidence, but I do feel that there is at least some legitimacy to it.
I think the exact opposite, on the other hand. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
To elaborate, the reason that I think it happens less is because it's out in the open more. The stigma associated with it is less than it was because of a variety of factors, like the lack of need for virginity at marriage; expanding economic opportunities for women that make marriage an alternative; the public punishment of rapists; the many voices speaking out against rape and hailing those coming forward as heroic and brave.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of a few minds on the death of "common courtesy."
There is a class of decadence in which civilized behavior remains, but the thought that inspired such behavior has long sense been extinguished. It's as if a people are following manners by rote, and I think that way of going about living is problematic for a few reasons, especially when society becomes dependent these habits and upon maintaining a certain appearance of dignity rather than the actually character which inspires these habits or comprise dignity. An appropriate analogy-- and depending on who you talk to, it's an natural exponent of decadence-- is someone who says all of the right words to keep society going, but then doesn't believe or understand the import of the words uttered, whether those words be, "All men are created equal," or "rape is never excusable."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely up for opening up the discussion further on this topic (and any others that are deemed reasonable) and by no means are my preconcieved notions set in stone (as I was trying to infer with my lack of solid evidence one way or the other).
Irami, I certainly agree that the kind of fasade of courtesy you mention has little value compared to an actual respect for others and the like, which is exactly why I'm concerned that there seems to be such a lack of even the pretense of courtesy. For the most part I see this in the small acts on a day to day basis, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to draw connections between the little things and the big things.
Respecting others' right of way while walking probably has little-no direct correlation to societal willingness to commit rape and murder, I have the gut feeling that there is still a connection. When I'm bowled over into some bushes while walking along the sidewalk because someone didn't take one step out of their way to give me room it implies (at least in my mind) a lower level of respect for others rights. Similarly, when I see others having little/no concern for the wellbeing of public property (whether defacing or destroying it) it implies (at least in my mind) an inherent lack of respect for some combination of others' property and/or societal welfare. Even if these offenders aren't thinking on these broad terms it seems to speak of an inherent selfishness which indirectly points there.
Now I really can't say that in the past people were difinitively more respectful of each other and each other's property, it certainly seems like much of today's society lacks this courtesy. (and I am largely speaking ill of my own generation here, so take that as you will) So maybe this is all a big misconception, or maybe prior generations simply kept up a better face of civility than now, but it all adds up to make me think that currently this kind of lack of respect is more prevalent and more likely to lead beyond the small stuff to the big stuff.
It seems silly, but I'm basically saying that sticking your gum on the underside of a desk or bench is a gateway act to theft, murder and rape.
And I've probably just rambled way too much and way too incoherently, so I'll stop.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
It captures the sense of a society that is falling down or falling from a previous peak. In the situation I'm talking about, the word decadence captures a place in time where thought and language were more closely connected. Take wedding vows, for instance. There was a time when both where the wife said and meant her pledge, "To love, honor, and obey." Then there was a time when the wife said, "To love, honor, and obey," but she didn't really mean obey, and a good half of the audience knew that she didn't mean obey, but the vows became a bit of going through the motions, even if she didn't believe the words she promised. That's decadence.
Thankfully, the problem has been remedied by changing the vows appropriately. Some people look at the substitution of "cherish" for "obey" as a sign of the degradation of institution of marriage and civilization. I actually see it as an improvement on two levels: 1) I'm not sure that a wife should be vowing to obey her husband 2) I don't think that people should make public declarations that they have little intention of fulfilling, even if the audience is supposed to understand that the declaration is merely ceremony.(I guess another example of this is when Bush says he is going to get serious about fuel cell technology.)
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When do you think American society's peak was,Irami?
Storm, who knows? 40s? 60s? 90s before Clinton started messing around? I list those decades because those were when people spoke up and voiced their true thoughts to the community, and not only that, those true thoughts were wise.
I think that in some way, the Founders precluded the possiblity for a peak as soon as they proclaimed that all men were equal, then went about subjugating women and minorities. The disconnect between thought and action has plagued the character of our nation ever since.
My point with the marriage analogy was that the difference between women saying "obey" and meaning it, and saying "obey" as purely a matter of ceremony is the difference between a rich tradition and an empty husk held over for appearance. The latter is an example of decadence.
"Don't ask, Don't tell" is a queer sort of institutionalized decadence. We say that we expect these soldiers to behave like gentlemen. If that's the case, then we should expect that they behave like gentlemen, no matter what is asked or told. The policy is a primary example of a society which lacks the moral character support its professed goals.
posted
Hmm... That original article was indeed very disturbing. I'm not really sure what to say about it...
In Finland military service is obligatory for the men but not for the women. However, those women that want to can go to the army. This usually means that unlike the men who go to the army because they want to get it over and done with, the women go to the army to create a career, or because they think it'll be useful in whatever job they are pursuing to get in the future. Anyway, of all the women I know who've been in the military I've never heard anyone say they felt threatened while there. Certainly It never seemed any of the women I served with ever seemed to feel threatened, not even when sleeping in a tent full of guys, but then I'm a male, so I suppose they wouldn't have told me.
I suppose that the situation during wartime - such as in Iraq - might offer a bit different mental stress than the boy-scouting-with-guns stuff we did, though. Yet I've never heard of Finnish women being raped in the UN forces in Kosovo or Afghanistan either.
I tried to find some statistics about this but there really weren't any... A Google search for rape cases in the Finnish army gets absolutely no results. The best I could find was a story about a male and female soldier who began dating after the army, and the girl was now suing the guy for posting porn pictures of them to the internet.
Now I wonder what the situation is in the Swedish army... I mean there men and women shower in the same showers like in Starship Troopers.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that anyone is necessarily ready to think about potential solutions (barring teaching folks to act with civility and decency, no matter the conditions), perhaps women and men should serve in their own individual units as opposed to together.
posted
It seems to me that you'd lose a bit of efficiency, though. If men and women can't serve together, that means you now have some units that can't go here, others that can't go there - you lose flexibility by introducing an extra constraint that doesn't have anything to do with what the enemy is doing.
Might not a better solution be to deal with this as racism was dealt with in its time? The military did manage to clean up its act on that, so it doesn't make sense to say that it's incapable of policing the attitude of its soldiers. Perhaps it just needs a good booting up the ass? (Granted, the sex drive is a bit more inbuilt than racism.) Or take a leaf from the WWII solution, and have army-run brothels, if the soliders are really that desperate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, any time period can be taken and idealized. I don't think this is a particularly productive nor healthy idea. We can look to the past for guidance, sure, but to grant them moral superiority may be glossing over their lackings. For instance, Britney Spears is a symbol of America, yet the silent but vast majority has nothing to do with her.
So, yes, I think the 50s were a lovely time with suits and smiles, and innocence. But I also think they were a time of fear, of paranoia, of a hidden fester which would grow to the explosion of expresion in the late 60s+70s. They also were the years in which Robert Lowell created his Life Studies...
posted
I don't know that you'd lose efficiency, KOM. I'm not saying these units can't both serve in combat situations, but I think it makes sense to have female COs for female soldiers, and male COs for male soldiers.
There's an insiduous fear and threat that go with power and sexual assault that is less likely to happen if the CO is a woman (for women) IMHO.
And, of course, the need to confront the issue directly and change the cultural norm is critical, too . . . but not at the expense of more sexual violence.
Just thinkin . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the first step would be to ask the women soldiers what they think. Not to come up with a final solution, but to hear from the frontlines. As it were.
I imagine that if this is a pretty widespread problem, then there must be several women affected who've been mulling through what they would change, if they could.
---
Clarification: not that this contradicts anything said before, obviously.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was struck by the paragraph about how if commanders don't tolerate mistreatment of women in their units, it doesn't happen. I thought about that, and was horrified to think that those commanders might be in the minority-- and that the majority of commanders must then (if that is true) tolerate and/or participate in such behavior. I find that almost inhuman behavior. It is almost unthinkable to me that you could be in command of other people and not discourage them from harming each other.
But then, I'm always amazed at people who suppress reportings of rapes in any situation, or treat the victims badly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely, CT. And proposing solutions is a gazillion steps away from implementation -- of which some of the most important first ones is getting the information about problems and potential solutions directly from those affected.
But as an outsider looking in, I wonder if separate units might not help.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
"Lower income?"
