DADT

[jachyra]

Since the president repealed Dont Ask, Don't Tell the military has been working on integrating the new order into the system. Military law has to be reviewed and rewritten, these changes must be taught down through the ranks so every soldier from general to private knows what they should be doing

Comments

[carmenwoods]

You may not want them in the military, but good gracious, there they are. You seemed happy enough to have another 30% of minorities to draw potential recruits from, but another 50% of potential recruits is something to sneer at? And the question was not "Do you want to serve next to someone who doesn't have a penis," but "Does the military need to take sexual assault seriously or not?"

Much as you seem to want otherwise, the military is not a monolith that will remain forever unchanged. Policies will be updated and rewritten, technology will be modernized, global power structures will shift, tactics will adapt, and people who are different from you are no longer going to be prevented from having the same opportunity to serve their country that you enjoy. All of those changes are going to require new training. The military cannot and will not remain a stagnant entity in a world that changes around it. Any time you have to spend on training to keep up with the rest of the world is entirely necessary, and time well spent.

No doubt people thought that integration was a risky "social experiment". But it had to be done, and it was done, and we seem to have done pretty well since then, all fears to the contrary.

Your military superiors decided that this so-called "social experimentation" was not a significant risk. So, you claim that it's about efficiency, etc. etc., but I see nothing but you resenting that some of your fellow soldiers are finally getting the same treatment as you. Not better treatment, not special treatment: the same.

[jachyra]

Of course it needs to take sexual assault seriously because we've been forced to accept women into the fold. Countless hours myself and every other servicemember has lost because it was decided it's unfair to discriminate against women. Add in their inability to physicaly keep up with males, their out-of-proportion use of medical resources, and added expense of seperate facitilies and I see the addition of women to the Army as a detriment rather than improvement in military strength.
Now a whole new can of worms is being opened on an unnecessary change.

[carmenwoods]

You're confusing what is fair with what is legally required. It wasn't "decided it's unfair to discriminate against women," it was recognized as unconstitutional to do so. Often, the two are the same, but the reason the military let women in was because it was unlawful for them not to, not because it was unfair of them not to.

Maybe they're hours lost for you because you would never sexually assault someone. But until any of your buddies no longer rape people, it is necessary to take everyone aside and say, "Here is how you can safely report sexual assault, and here is the proper way to handle such a report." So that's countless hours lost, not because women had the gall to join, but because some of the men decide they have to intimidate and dominate anyone they perceive as weaker than them (including other men, who are also sexually assaulted in the military).

The military could easily change its fitness requirements. So that's a policy failure, not sin by the women who want to serve their country. And I'm pretty certain you have women there who can keep up with you regardless.

They might not need separate facilities if they could count on their brothers-in-arms not to assault them for being female.