5 ms·

A huge percentage of these cases would be prevented if they simply had male and female E1-E3s housed in entirely separate sections of each base/ship. The integ

by JPKab 2y ago

A huge percentage of these cases would be prevented if they simply had male and female E1-E3s housed in entirely separate sections of each base/ship. The integration of women into the service was a good thing, but there's been a lack of realism from leadership about the actual realities of dumping a bunch of 18-22 year olds together when a significant minority of them are from extremely dysfunctional backgrounds and half of them barely made it through high school.

dingnuts 2y ago
[flagged]
- pc86 2y ago
  You are taking half a sentence out of context, reinterpreting it, and replying to a statement nobody said.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > No shit! That's because the integration happened based solely on ideological and political terms, as opposed to happening in order to improve the quality of the corps. You could exclude anyone born on monday through wednesday and it wouldn't have a big impact on quality. But getting rid of that exclusion for ideological reasons would be a good thing. It's a stupid exclusion. If a very big exclusion doesn't have a very big reason to exist, then the reason to get rid of it doesn't need to be huge either. > Nobody wants to admit that women may have different needs, or worse, abilities, than men lest they be called sexist and lose their political power. > God forbid men and women actually have differences I don't see how these differences have anything to do with the problem here. An all-woman group would probably have similar rates to an all-male group. And most of the differences only exist in statistical form. Individual people have individual abilities and should be sorted based on their own scores.
gchamonlive 2y ago
Maybe this problem isn't bottom up, but top down, that is the leadership doesn't enforce rules and actually promotes this kind of very outdated masculine expression. I spent my entire adolescence in a military school and this is something that is very prevalent in the military corporation. There is a lot of victim blaming for something that is clearly systemic -- where these incidents are dismissed because "boys be boys..." -- and could be worked around by making those responsible accountable, but that will step on some very shiny and important toes, which is why you don't see a push for the correct kind of change in the military that this needs.
- pc86 2y ago
  In what possible universe could you contrive the GP's comment as victim blaming?
  - gchamonlive 2y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough. That part is continuing the thought process I started in the first paragraph, not responding directly to OP. Let me rephrase that, thanks!
- itohihiyt 2y ago
  In a profession that by nature is meant to be aggressive to the point of killing, how is any form of masculine expression outdated. Worse comes to worse these people may be required to kill other people with their bare hands. It's trained into them, it's meant to be systemic. Unfortunately a side effect is this sort of behaviour. Separating men and women in such an environment is sensible. Recognizing that isn't victim blaming.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Is the US military supposed to be aggressive, or disciplined?
    - itohihiyt 2y ago
      The two aren't mutually exclusive.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        No, but you were implicitly assuming undisciplined aggression, when what the military actually needs and tries to train for is disciplined aggression--aggression against only the right targets at the right time and place. Undisciplined aggression is an obvious violation of military discipline and should be treated as such by the leadership.
rytor718 2y ago
Can you clarify what you mean by "housed in entirely separate sections"? Because housing is separated (male barracks, female barracks for E-1 thru E-3 exactly with minor exceptions) throughout the military. But are you saying basically have a male section of the base and female section of the base? And how would this prevent sexual assaults?
ziddoap 2y ago
>the actual realities of dumping a bunch of 18-22 year olds together when a significant minority of them are from extremely dysfunctional backgrounds[...] This is either really sad or maybe I'm just naive? Since when is the "reality" of putting 18-22 year olds together (dysfunctional background and high school completion or not) sexual assault? I remember being 18-22, coming from a fairly dysfunctional background, and yet I managed to never sexually assault anyone. Even when I was in co-ed housing!
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    I wasn't attempting to prove or disprove anything. It's a comment.
  - pknomad 2y ago
    It's also unfair to lump all 18-22 year olds from dysfunction background as potential sexual predators.
    - rexpop 2y ago
      "Predation" isn't necessary to precipitate sexual assault, only sexual, social, or emotional dysfunction.
  - seneca 2y ago
    This sort of rude snark really degrades the conversation.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      It’s not meant to be rude - but the parent comment doesn’t do much either
- mc32 2y ago
rectang 2y ago
The greater problem is hostility to enforcement from the top down, as evidenced by countless scandals. Gender segregation "others" women and cripples their careers, ensuring that they continue to be underpromoted relative to their talent and thus underrepresented. We learned a long time ago that separate but equal is inherently unequal, yet it's a zombie concept that always comes back. https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/the-dark-side-of-gender-segregation-in-the-military/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/the-dark-side-of-gender-se... > It may seem intuitive that gender segregation would lead to less sexual harassment and sexual assault, but there is mounting evidence that shows the opposite might be true. Studies on workplace sexual harassment show that encouraging social integration at work can reduce sexual harassment. Other studies show that increased contact with an “outgroup” (in this case, women), improves attitudes towards individuals in that outgroup. These improvements are more likely to take place when group membership is de-emphasized during the interaction. But we're hobbled in discussing this on HN because it skews overwhelmingly male — and there's even less enthusiasm for confronting that than there is for confronting sexual assault in the military.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Even if we accept your thesis, are you prepared to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, to throw women to the wolves with the hope that over time, the men will learn? I, for one, would not do this, as it is cruel and uncaring. In the best case, it is utilitarian, and that is evil. You need some more nuance here. There is a place for mixed sex interactions. Men and women are not interchangeable. They have different needs, some of which require operating in sexually segregated settings, and because of their intrinsic complementarity, coupled with the vices that actually exist in the world and the weaknesses of human beings, there will always be tension. To refuse segregation in certain situations is to willingly put the weaker in danger. It is important that we conform our actions to reality, instead of operating from arbitrary and preconceived notions of how things "should" be. The notion of "equality as sameness" does not help people flourish, because it is hostile and ignores who people actually are and their particular needs, and in this case, the needs proper to their sex.
  - rectang 2y ago
brudgers 2y ago
Sexual assault occurs in single sex groups. This can be a factor in under-reporting.
- everybodyknows 2y ago
  Point addressed in TFA. Yes, is a problem, but male-on-female assault rate is an OOM greater.
jcranmer 2y ago
Given that the US military has a persistent problem with Marines raping Okinawan women (i.e., people off-base entirely), I don't think gender segregation is the panacea that you think it is.
- RajT88 2y ago
  Among other misdeeds. Every now and again they kill a local in a bar fight. Americans are far less popular in Okinawa than the rest of Japan.
yellow_giraffe 2y ago
A huge percentage of these cases would be prevented if the leadership at Company-level and up actually took SHARP cases seriously and didn't retaliate against [1] or belittle soldiers who report assault/harassment. Or the fact that, until recently, it was at the commander's discretion whether to prosecute an assault/harassment as a crime [2]. >there's been a lack of realism from leadership about the actual realities.. I can assure you most Platoon leaders, Company commanders, etc. are very aware of the realities in enlisted living quarters; they are simply apathetic about them. A SHARP complaint becomes another pile of paperwork on their desk they don't want to deal with (see [2]). I think the tendency to blame the 18-22 year olds with "dysfunctional backgrounds" who "barely made it through high school" places the blame on the lower enlisted while ignoring the military leadership's responsibility for decades of documented failure in addressing this issue. Consider the following: > Most Service members identified the alleged offenders as men and often of the same rank as the victim or some other higher ranking military member in their unit. However, an estimated 44 percent of women and an estimated 35 percent of men identified at least one alleged offender as someone in their chain of command [3]. Also consider reasons for not reporting: >Despite these differences, the top three reasons provided for not reporting were consistent between men and women: (1) did not think anything would be done; (2) thought it was not serious enough to report; and (3) worried about potential negative consequences from military coworkers or peers [3]. In my opinion, the problem is at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom. (Sorry to throw so much in this comment, but I grow really tired of people thinking this problem is some case of lower enlisted being dumb hooligans who can't control their urges while ignoring the consistent and systemic failures of senior officers and NCO within the DoD to address the problem at all.) [1] https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reserve-416th-sexual-assault/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reserve-416th-sexual-as... [2] https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/12/28/sexual-assault-prosecutions-officially-out-of-the-chain-of-command/ https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/12/28/sexu... [3] https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/public/docs/reports/AR/FY23/FY23_Annual_Report_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/public/docs/reports...
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
> lack of realism Yes, but... > The integration of women into the service was a good thing Was it? I, for one, would reject this thesis, except in a qualified sense. That is, I can imagine a place for women in certain roles, sure, but not all roles. Same for men. The most obvious problem is that putting men and women in a position that places equal physical demands on them either does a disservice to men by making these demands lower to allow women to meet them, or to women by imposing on them a physical regime that is wholly inappropriate for the female body. We know that men and women respond different to various physical activities. In sports, men tend to become healthier with moderate physical activity like weight-lifting. When women take up similarly rigorous exercise, you see negative consequences to their health. Menstruation can be disrupted, for example. That doesn't mean women cannot exercise, only that the range of exercises that benefits women is not the same as the range that benefits men. Sex blindness where sex is relevant is a great disservice to each sex. It ignores the needs of each sex for the sake of ticking off some kind of ideological check box. It is not kind or loving to either sex.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by JPKab 2y ago

dingnuts 2y ago

[flagged]

pc86 2y ago
You are taking half a sentence out of context, reinterpreting it, and replying to a statement nobody said.
Dylan16807 2y ago
> No shit! That's because the integration happened based solely on ideological and political terms, as opposed to happening in order to improve the quality of the corps. You could exclude anyone born on monday through wednesday and it wouldn't have a big impact on quality. But getting rid of that exclusion for ideological reasons would be a good thing. It's a stupid exclusion. If a very big exclusion doesn't have a very big reason to exist, then the reason to get rid of it doesn't need to be huge either. > Nobody wants to admit that women may have different needs, or worse, abilities, than men lest they be called sexist and lose their political power. > God forbid men and women actually have differences I don't see how these differences have anything to do with the problem here. An all-woman group would probably have similar rates to an all-male group. And most of the differences only exist in statistical form. Individual people have individual abilities and should be sorted based on their own scores.

gchamonlive 2y ago

Maybe this problem isn't bottom up, but top down, that is the leadership doesn't enforce rules and actually promotes this kind of very outdated masculine expression. I spent my entire adolescence in a military school and this is something that is very prevalent in the military corporation. There is a lot of victim blaming for something that is clearly systemic -- where these incidents are dismissed because "boys be boys..." -- and could be worked around by making those responsible accountable, but that will step on some very shiny and important toes, which is why you don't see a push for the correct kind of change in the military that this needs.

pc86 2y ago
In what possible universe could you contrive the GP's comment as victim blaming?
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear enough. That part is continuing the thought process I started in the first paragraph, not responding directly to OP. Let me rephrase that, thanks!
itohihiyt 2y ago
In a profession that by nature is meant to be aggressive to the point of killing, how is any form of masculine expression outdated. Worse comes to worse these people may be required to kill other people with their bare hands. It's trained into them, it's meant to be systemic. Unfortunately a side effect is this sort of behaviour. Separating men and women in such an environment is sensible. Recognizing that isn't victim blaming.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Is the US military supposed to be aggressive, or disciplined?
  - itohihiyt 2y ago
    The two aren't mutually exclusive.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      No, but you were implicitly assuming undisciplined aggression, when what the military actually needs and tries to train for is disciplined aggression--aggression against only the right targets at the right time and place. Undisciplined aggression is an obvious violation of military discipline and should be treated as such by the leadership.

rytor718 2y ago

Can you clarify what you mean by "housed in entirely separate sections"? Because housing is separated (male barracks, female barracks for E-1 thru E-3 exactly with minor exceptions) throughout the military. But are you saying basically have a male section of the base and female section of the base? And how would this prevent sexual assaults?

ziddoap 2y ago

>the actual realities of dumping a bunch of 18-22 year olds together when a significant minority of them are from extremely dysfunctional backgrounds[...] This is either really sad or maybe I'm just naive? Since when is the "reality" of putting 18-22 year olds together (dysfunctional background and high school completion or not) sexual assault? I remember being 18-22, coming from a fairly dysfunctional background, and yet I managed to never sexually assault anyone. Even when I was in co-ed housing!

JohnMakin 2y ago
[flagged]
- ziddoap 2y ago
  I wasn't attempting to prove or disprove anything. It's a comment.
- pknomad 2y ago
  It's also unfair to lump all 18-22 year olds from dysfunction background as potential sexual predators.
  - rexpop 2y ago
    "Predation" isn't necessary to precipitate sexual assault, only sexual, social, or emotional dysfunction.
- seneca 2y ago
  This sort of rude snark really degrades the conversation.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    It’s not meant to be rude - but the parent comment doesn’t do much either
mc32 2y ago

rectang 2y ago

The greater problem is hostility to enforcement from the top down, as evidenced by countless scandals. Gender segregation "others" women and cripples their careers, ensuring that they continue to be underpromoted relative to their talent and thus underrepresented. We learned a long time ago that separate but equal is inherently unequal, yet it's a zombie concept that always comes back. https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/the-dark-side-of-gender-segregation-in-the-military/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/03/the-dark-side-of-gender-se... > It may seem intuitive that gender segregation would lead to less sexual harassment and sexual assault, but there is mounting evidence that shows the opposite might be true. Studies on workplace sexual harassment show that encouraging social integration at work can reduce sexual harassment. Other studies show that increased contact with an “outgroup” (in this case, women), improves attitudes towards individuals in that outgroup. These improvements are more likely to take place when group membership is de-emphasized during the interaction. But we're hobbled in discussing this on HN because it skews overwhelmingly male — and there's even less enthusiasm for confronting that than there is for confronting sexual assault in the military.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Even if we accept your thesis, are you prepared to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, to throw women to the wolves with the hope that over time, the men will learn? I, for one, would not do this, as it is cruel and uncaring. In the best case, it is utilitarian, and that is evil. You need some more nuance here. There is a place for mixed sex interactions. Men and women are not interchangeable. They have different needs, some of which require operating in sexually segregated settings, and because of their intrinsic complementarity, coupled with the vices that actually exist in the world and the weaknesses of human beings, there will always be tension. To refuse segregation in certain situations is to willingly put the weaker in danger. It is important that we conform our actions to reality, instead of operating from arbitrary and preconceived notions of how things "should" be. The notion of "equality as sameness" does not help people flourish, because it is hostile and ignores who people actually are and their particular needs, and in this case, the needs proper to their sex.
- rectang 2y ago

brudgers 2y ago

Sexual assault occurs in single sex groups. This can be a factor in under-reporting.

everybodyknows 2y ago
Point addressed in TFA. Yes, is a problem, but male-on-female assault rate is an OOM greater.

jcranmer 2y ago

Given that the US military has a persistent problem with Marines raping Okinawan women (i.e., people off-base entirely), I don't think gender segregation is the panacea that you think it is.

RajT88 2y ago
Among other misdeeds. Every now and again they kill a local in a bar fight. Americans are far less popular in Okinawa than the rest of Japan.

yellow_giraffe 2y ago

A huge percentage of these cases would be prevented if the leadership at Company-level and up actually took SHARP cases seriously and didn't retaliate against [1] or belittle soldiers who report assault/harassment. Or the fact that, until recently, it was at the commander's discretion whether to prosecute an assault/harassment as a crime [2]. >there's been a lack of realism from leadership about the actual realities.. I can assure you most Platoon leaders, Company commanders, etc. are very aware of the realities in enlisted living quarters; they are simply apathetic about them. A SHARP complaint becomes another pile of paperwork on their desk they don't want to deal with (see [2]). I think the tendency to blame the 18-22 year olds with "dysfunctional backgrounds" who "barely made it through high school" places the blame on the lower enlisted while ignoring the military leadership's responsibility for decades of documented failure in addressing this issue. Consider the following: > Most Service members identified the alleged offenders as men and often of the same rank as the victim or some other higher ranking military member in their unit. However, an estimated 44 percent of women and an estimated 35 percent of men identified at least one alleged offender as someone in their chain of command [3]. Also consider reasons for not reporting: >Despite these differences, the top three reasons provided for not reporting were consistent between men and women: (1) did not think anything would be done; (2) thought it was not serious enough to report; and (3) worried about potential negative consequences from military coworkers or peers [3]. In my opinion, the problem is at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom. (Sorry to throw so much in this comment, but I grow really tired of people thinking this problem is some case of lower enlisted being dumb hooligans who can't control their urges while ignoring the consistent and systemic failures of senior officers and NCO within the DoD to address the problem at all.) [1] https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reserve-416th-sexual-assault/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reserve-416th-sexual-as... [2] https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/12/28/sexual-assault-prosecutions-officially-out-of-the-chain-of-command/ https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/12/28/sexu... [3] https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/public/docs/reports/AR/FY23/FY23_Annual_Report_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.sapr.mil/sites/default/files/public/docs/reports...

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

> lack of realism Yes, but... > The integration of women into the service was a good thing Was it? I, for one, would reject this thesis, except in a qualified sense. That is, I can imagine a place for women in certain roles, sure, but not all roles. Same for men. The most obvious problem is that putting men and women in a position that places equal physical demands on them either does a disservice to men by making these demands lower to allow women to meet them, or to women by imposing on them a physical regime that is wholly inappropriate for the female body. We know that men and women respond different to various physical activities. In sports, men tend to become healthier with moderate physical activity like weight-lifting. When women take up similarly rigorous exercise, you see negative consequences to their health. Menstruation can be disrupted, for example. That doesn't mean women cannot exercise, only that the range of exercises that benefits women is not the same as the range that benefits men. Sex blindness where sex is relevant is a great disservice to each sex. It ignores the needs of each sex for the sake of ticking off some kind of ideological check box. It is not kind or loving to either sex.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]