Well girls you got what you wanted...

[TaraJo]

Might I remind others here that Blacks in the Military suffered tremendous crimes done to them during the processes of integration?

I was thinking of that, too. Or, in my case, I was thinking of the extreme hostility black pioneers had to make across the board to make progress. Jackie Robinson, for example, faced some pretty harsh hate when he took the field, especially when he went to games in places like Atlanta. But had he been unwilling to face that kind of hate, professional sports would have kept black people locked out of itself even longer.

[Shell B]

After a while, I feel that others "concerns" are merely code words for "I do not support this because <insert a circular logic problem>"

Oh, can it. My "concerns" are actually fucking concerns. Instead of digging for reasons to have your sensibilities offended, try taking a step back and realizing that I never said I do not support women in combat positions. Every single time you and I disagree and it boils down to this kind of rhetoric it is because of shit like this. It gets old, Syn. I simply am concerned. It is really that easy. What other reason could I possibly have? Do you see me as someone whose sensibilities would be affected by women in the military? Do you think I'm sexist? If no to either, what other fucking reason could I possibly fucking have other than concern?

I'm the teensiest bit sorry to go off, but it really is annoying. Can't I just think the idea of women being raped by their comrades in combat scary or do I have to be a fucking bad guy to possibly show the least bit of concern over something?

---

Might I remind others here that Blacks in the Military suffered tremendous crimes done to them during the processes of integration?

I was thinking of that, too. Or, in my case, I was thinking of the extreme hostility black pioneers had to make across the board to make progress. Jackie Robinson, for example, faced some pretty harsh hate when he took the field, especially when he went to games in places like Atlanta. But had he been unwilling to face that kind of hate, professional sports would have kept black people locked out of itself even longer.

Yeah, and had we been willing to fix the problem first, people wouldn't have gotten fucking hurt.

[TaraJo]

I was thinking of that, too. Or, in my case, I was thinking of the extreme hostility black pioneers had to make across the board to make progress. Jackie Robinson, for example, faced some pretty harsh hate when he took the field, especially when he went to games in places like Atlanta. But had he been unwilling to face that kind of hate, professional sports would have kept black people locked out of itself even longer.

Yeah, and had we been willing to fix the problem first, people wouldn't have gotten fucking hurt.

Then the question becomes, how do you resolve the problem without hurting people?

[Shell B]

Yeah, and had we been willing to fix the problem first, people wouldn't have gotten fucking hurt.

Then the question becomes, how do you resolve the problem without hurting people?

In my opinion, that should always be the question. Of course, I would substitute people with "innocent people."

P.S. Sorry I'm a crabby patty, Syn. I still like you. <3

[TaraJo]

Then the question becomes, how do you resolve the problem without hurting people?

In my opinion, that should always be the question. Of course, I would substitute people with "innocent people."

P.S. Sorry I'm a crabby patty, Syn. I still like you. <3

True, 'innocen people' is better than just 'people.' But it's still a legitimate question: how can we resolve the problem without innocent people being hurt?

Another question: If we follow Syn's idea and get a lot of women into combat roles quickly, there will be more rapes. But it will help fix the problem for future generations. On the other hand, doing something else may fix the problem, but put women on unequal footing for a longer period of time. So, either path has a cost. If we lift the women in combat ban as it is now, more women would get raped. If we wait, women have to be second class soldiers even longer (and if other options don't work, we may have to use Syn's 'flood the field' plan, anyway). Either way, we're choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Gilgamesh]

So, basically, for rape in the military to stop; it has to happen - a lot?

[Something completely different]

So, basically, for rape in the military to stop; it has to happen - a lot?

?


explain your reasoning?

[Gilgamesh]

?


explain your reasoning?

I think that's what Moros is saying. By the way, I have no problem with that notion. I think it would fix the 'rap epidemic' but it's unfortunate, of course.

[Shell B]

In my opinion, that should always be the question. Of course, I would substitute people with "innocent people."

P.S. Sorry I'm a crabby patty, Syn. I still like you. <3

True, 'innocen people' is better than just 'people.' But it's still a legitimate question: how can we resolve the problem without innocent people being hurt?

Another question: If we follow Syn's idea and get a lot of women into combat roles quickly, there will be more rapes. But it will help fix the problem for future generations. On the other hand, doing something else may fix the problem, but put women on unequal footing for a longer period of time. So, either path has a cost. If we lift the women in combat ban as it is now, more women would get raped. If we wait, women have to be second class soldiers even longer (and if other options don't work, we may have to use Syn's 'flood the field' plan, anyway). Either way, we're choosing the lesser of two evils.

I'm not in a position to solve the problem. The onus is not on me to come up with a solution. However, I would say the steps are beginning and the subject is gaining a lot of attention lately. This is all good.

Now, women are not second-class soldiers. Not being allowed into combat (which is just silly, as women are already in combat in reality) does not make a person a second-class soldier. You would not believe the jobs that women do in the military. If you consider women simply not going into the field in a major capacity the greater evil, you've got your priorities wrong. Rape is clearly a greater evil. This is why I have a problem with such absolutism. People so eager for the very idea of freedom that they sacrifice sanity for what really amounts to a small win. You do realize that women will still have to qualify to do these jobs and few will. It's a physical job. Women are typically physically inferior. In the cases where they are not, they will get through and good for them, but this imagined influx of women in combat situations is not going to happen in the United States. I would like to see an average women take the role of a mortar man. My insanely strong ex husband was a fucking ox and he still barely did it and has shin splints to show for it.

[Autumnlicious]

Oh, can it. My "concerns" are actually fucking concerns. Instead of digging for reasons to have your sensibilities offended, try taking a step back and realizing that I never said I do not support women in combat positions. Every single time you and I disagree and it boils down to this kind of rhetoric it is because of shit like this. It gets old, Syn. I simply am concerned. It is really that easy. What other reason could I possibly have? Do you see me as someone whose sensibilities would be affected by women in the military? Do you think I'm sexist? If no to either, what other fucking reason could I possibly fucking have other than concern?

You're right, and I was overt in being conclusory. I apologize.

I'm the teensiest bit sorry to go off, but it really is annoying. Can't I just think the idea of women being raped by their comrades in combat scary or do I have to be a fucking bad guy to possibly show the least bit of concern over something?

No, no, you do have a point. I've let my battles with concern trolls color me thoroughly into targeting you. I do not want to paint you with the same brush or imply your concerns are invalid. In fact, they are quite valid.

Rape, the violation of one by another, is one of the more abhorrent crimes, and to think that it is expected is, to say the least, disgusting.

Once again, I apologize for striking at you so.

I'm not in a position to solve the problem. The onus is not on me to come up with a solution. However, I would say the steps are beginning and the subject is gaining a lot of attention lately. This is all good.

Yes, the military is a government unto itself and in the end run, while we, The People, can rake them publicly over the coals for their faults, we cannot make changes to their policy lazily and expect it to "work".

Over a hundred years of an institution does not change character in even a fortnight. (I had to use that word)

Now, women are not second-class soldiers. Not being allowed into combat (which is just silly, as women are already in combat in reality) does not make a person a second-class soldier. You would not believe the jobs that women do in the military.

On the contrary, I would believe that precluding potentially valid candidates for active combat duty by virtue of their sex alone (but not their physical, mental capabilities) is akin to precluding male candidates the opportunity to serve in certain roles because of their skin color.

If one can do it, and do it well, then it is our obligation as a People to allow them to serve the Republic to their utmost, even if it means we must protect them from criminals and scum who've worked their way into our armed forces.

If anything, the "rape epidemic" speaks more to an increasing infestation of criminals serving under our command, as if criminals like Lt. Calley should wear the same uniform as heroes who have died in the line of duty for their squads and country.

Rooting them out, however, will require horrible events.

After all, these monsters that hide, whether in uniform or amid the People as common scum, from the light only reveal themselves when they feel they cannot be touched, cannot be caught.

It will cost blood. Hopefully we can minimize that.

But as it stands, the epidemic is not going away.

And a problem not addressed only grows.

So we have two choices:
- Reduce the epidemic in some unspoken manner
- More investigations and more accountability.

If you consider women simply not going into the field in a major capacity the greater evil, you've got your priorities wrong. Rape is clearly a greater evil.

It's worse than that, I'm afraid. We're seeing not just rape, we've seen warcrimes be committed as well.

I would not forget certain crimes upon Iraqi civilians, where murder and rape seemingly go hand in hand, perpetrated by soldiers under US uniform.

There are monsters among us, even in our armed forces, that wear the honorable uniforms and hide. Hide until they get the chance to vent, to indulge, to kill.

I would ask, is unsanctioned death truly "less" than the act of rape itself?

As I said, there are monsters among us that have to be rooted out.

I would like to hear your ideas on the matter. Maybe public anger and a critical eye can split away the wheat from the chaff.

It's a theory. One that might be quite wrong. And I grant you that, that you might be unimaginably correct in nothing significantly gained.

This is why I have a problem with such absolutism. People so eager for the very idea of freedom that they sacrifice sanity for what really amounts to a small win. You do realize that women will still have to qualify to do these jobs and few will.

Yep, and as a minority, we're going to see elements of the majority try to use their isolated status against them.

Then again, as you noted the rape epidemic, it already happens.

I see this as a chance to strangle those elements.

Then again, you might be perfectly prophetic -- it might be that few to none women ever get in such that nothing changes.

There is a fair chance.

If that is the case, the Public will need to rake the military continually over the coals until things change.

If the Public does not, then degrees of criminality will be tolerated.

Criminality that, given opportunities, has soldiers under our flag commit warcrimes, violations and gross conduct.

It's a physical job. Women are typically physically inferior. In the cases where they are not, they will get through and good for them, but this imagined influx of women in combat situations is not going to happen in the United States. I would like to see an average women take the role of a mortar man. My insanely strong ex husband was a fucking ox and he still barely did it and has shin splints to show for it.

Chances are there will be no women mortar men, or if there are, either technology will have changed once again or for some reason said women will be oxen themselves.

If anything, there needs to be right now even more furor over the rape epidemic given this incredible change.

The timing might be advantageous for detecting and flushing scum out of the system.

---

So, basically, for rape in the military to stop; it has to happen - a lot?

If it is happening right now in droves, then what better time for the public to get angry and demand change than now?

Or should we pretend that nothing has changed fundamentally?

Remember, this is the public we're talking about. The more interested and agitated they are over the Military, the better the Military must conduct itself to reduce it's discomfort at being excoriated for it's failings.

I can't think of any other external forces that will cause the Military to change itself. Can you?