exubereft

I had a friend (woman) who was in the Navy. She mentioned all the minor infractions members of her unit would make that would cause everyone to be punished (cleaning floors or such). One such "minor infraction" that kept getting the unit in trouble was a woman who reported being sexually harrassed. Instead of believe her, they were all punished for her "false charges."

My instinct was to gasp in horror for that poor girl. My friend spoke of her in disgust, like of course she was lying, just being a troublemaker. But I know how statistically unlikely it is that she was lying, and how incredibly likely in such an environment it is to be harrassed. Perhaps she was expected to "take it" and keep quiet, and by not doing so she was deemed a nuisance and an embarrassment to her group.

I should think the group should be embarrassed, that they didn't pursue her claims seriously, that they were more ok having predators as one of them than have someone brave enough to speak out against such actions.

Big freakin' sigh. This is a little on the side so feel free to skip, but my favorite thing in all the world is reading about/watching (on TV shows) tight-knit groups where everyone is valuable to the group to the point where the well-being of each other is tantamount--that for one of their own to victimize one of their own is a break of that contract, so to speak. Therefore, the victimizer has to leave (to get help if possible) and the victim is supported in all the right ways. Just...what is the point of a single unit of people, who, in the military's case, are suppopsed to be merged as a single force, if they don't care about each other...?

EDIT: In other words (just a quick tag, and then I'll shut up!), learning about all the hyped sexualism in the military (including hurting citizens of the country they reside in) has been a huge shock to me as I thought, as a little girl, those in the military were held to a higher standard.

Or, right--I meant proportionally/relatively. But the article (which I should have read first) answers my question: "The moment a man enlists in the United States armed forces, his chances of being sexually assaulted increase by a factor of ten. Women, of course, are much more likely to be victims of military sexual trauma (MST), but far fewer of them enlist."

Higher by number or percentage?

Yikes :-s

Just to clarify, while A LOT of men have been sexually assaulted in the military, if you are a woman in the military you are MORE LIKELY to be sexually assaulted. That is the difference. Still, in terms of raw numbers, adding women to the force probably didn't raise the average number of assaults that much (being as there are far fewer women who sign up).

With all the mental health clearances that enlisters have to go through to be accepted in the military, why don't they include testing for inclinations towards being a sexual predator and exclude such people? (Not that I think any such test would be completely fair, but neither is all the other mental health tests that are applied.) Sure, being a sexual predator won't hurt your chances of being a good soldier in the field, but it can drastically lower the morale of your other soldiers, the good will of the country you are in (if friendly; or innocent citizens at least, if it's hostile terratory), and really, how can the person be trusted if they blatantly go against rules and laws for their "pleasure"?

It's like in companies today, who don't value the employee and reduce pay and benefits and increase work loads, etc. Morale sinks, the company sinks. If the military wants to be a proficient machine, cutting out predators is necessary. IMHO

Yes, please answer these! Also, off-set, how do you get along? As a sister with a brother I like to act goofy with or talk serious with, I have been a fan of both you and Joan, wondering how things are between you guys.