The head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response branch has been charged with sexual battery after groping a woman in a parking lot over the weekend.

http://www.stripes.com/air-force-sex-assault-prevention-chief-charged-in-sex-assault-1.219860

Consider this a "sequel" rant to that Church abuse problem, with another institution with a massive sex crimes problem being answered with little or indifferent cries for justice. A day after the arrest I mentioned above, the Pentagon revealed this long-running problem has gotten much worse.



My favorite (as in this makes me sick) is that an Air Force-published brochure which advises servicewomen to not resist getting raped. Are you kidding me? (I'm also surprised it didn't suggest to enjoy it too.)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/air-force-sexual-assault-brochure/

So tell me this local men. Where's the anger from some of you at this instead of Benghazi thread #37? I know there are little to no political profit to be made from this. I know its easy for some to instant knee-jerk to think maybe women who want to defend our nation, our freedoms deserve this for demanding equality. But rise above yourselves, demand justice, strive against evil. Follow Robocop's example.

The report showed there were a fair number of men getting raped too. It's a serious problem. I'd like to know how much access do non-combat military personnel have to weapons?

This is truly awful & sickening. And, yes, surprisingly (or not) it is happening to men as well. However, what I don't get is does the military itself act as their own judge, jury? Are they the law, and are lawyers helping these victims? I really have a problem with that. Too many power hungry and obviously abusive SOBs in charge of other power hungry/abusive sobs.





TIS

Again, one has to wonder if you really care about this or it's just a counter-talking point you've chosen in defending your guy in the White House on the Benghazi situation.

To answer your question, being serious on crime as I am, there should be severe criminal penalties for men who commit sexual harassment, rape, etc., whether in or out of the military.

At the same time, those who support something as wrong as women being in combat, really have no ground to moralize on this issue here. The military will always be a very testosterone-driven, male-dominated institution; as it should be. And, while not condoning sexual harassment in the least bit, we also shouldn't water the military down with liberal, PC-driven sensitivity training and other bullshit. Women will never be as needed as men are in the military. So, in a general sense, they're not equal. Though they certainly deserve to be treated with respect and not be subjected to harassment.

I think the problem with the military is exactly because it is a male dominated institution. Just like Catholic Church there's a hierarchy that would protect the powerful high ranker to abuse those bellow his station. With Catholic Church there's not much hope, but with the military there is.

Women were already serving in combat, but were prevented to advance their carriers and receive higher ranks. With this new approval for women serving in combat, the brass ceiling is fallen. Hopefully when there are more females in higher ranks of the military, the plight of women who are abused is addressed more thoroughly. Men and women keep each other in check. I think whenever you make a gender-based institution, all goes downhill morally.

Women have been in combat in relatively few instances. It's never been a widespread, institutional thing. And, in order to institute it now, the military will inevitably have to lower the standards for most women to qualify. That's where PC bullshit starts to weaken our military. The military needs men. It doesn't, and never will, need women.

It needs men, as it needs "horses and bayonets." They don't want boots on the ground anymore. They are trying to minimize that, so compared to the whole scale of military missions, it would be an absolutely necessary minimum. It's the age of missiles and drones. At most plane attacks. It's machinery. Even the most fragile women can master working with machinery.

Need is a tough word....Want is more like it.
Smart people is what they need.

Drones not Dragons.

They have it down to almost no gap between what a operator of a drone does here and what happen across the world. The best part with no risk to a pilot.

So Now when you hear someone say push a button on a guy...it is just that!

Not surprisingly, you live in a PC-driven, liberal fantasy world where there's no inherent difference between men and women. First, there will always be boots on the ground no matter how much technology we have. And even within technological parameters, there's something to be said for the male psyche being better for warfare than the female psyche. What you and other liberals want to do is completely revamp the military based on affirmative action, essentially feminizing it, rather than what will really make it most efficient.

Again, you go with your little fantasy world where every female is a barbie doll and all men are Ken dolls. Just as there are men who would cringe at the thought of shooting a gun, there are females who crave for it. Psyche doesn't adhere to one's gender. If there are females who would be happier serving in military than working in a hair salon, I don't see why they should be excluded just because you feel your manhood is threatened by a GI Jane.

That's just it. Outside of Hollywood, there are no GI Jane's. Most women don't want to be in the military, and most of those who are in the military don't want to be in combat. It's only a relative few shrill ones who do. Never mind the fact that virtually all of them won't be able to measure up to the same physical requirements as the men. Nobody is saying all women are Barbies and all men are Kens. But there certainly is a distinct and inherent difference between men and women, generally speaking, and a handful of feminist libs who want to revamp the military to their liking isn't going to change that.

I'm not saying there are a lot of women who feel this way. I'm saying if there are, and we know there are, they shouldn't be denied the ranks. We'll see if that makes a whole lot of difference or not. They did get their way after all.

They only got their way because Obama cares more about appealing to his liberal base than the the actual efficiency of the military. I wouldn't necessarily deny women the ranks either but that's not an excuse to open combat to them. Unless faced with destruction (i.e. Israel) women in combat, besides being unnecessary, is immoral. And I say that because I hold them in higher esteem, not because I don't think they're equal. But equality doesn't mean being the same. Liberals who want to re-engineer society have never learned that.

You only repeat one thing, a woman can't be as good as any of men in her platoon. I think it has a lot to do with her height and weight and her physical strength. There's only one period of time a woman might not be fit for serving and that's pregnancy. Aside form that, she could be better than some of men and yet not as good as some others. I don't think a woman has to be the strongest one among men to prove herself. It's not a sword fight anymore, even on the ground.

I have to keep repeating it because you don't want to accept reality. Virtually all woman are simply not going to be able to measure up to the same physical requirements as the men. That's a fact. That's biology. It's not a matter of them measuring up to the strongest man. It's virtually all of them not measuring up to even the weakest man, physically.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. See what Capt. Katie Petronio said on the subject.

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Are you talking about general population? If so, let me know, so that I just ignore your points altogether. If you just mean in the military, then where is the data backing this up?

And she seems to be more concerned about mental health of women after the combat. Personally, I think someone who has seen combat first hand, is going to be scarred for life, regardless of their gender.

Just heard from someone who was up there that the reason the man had cuts and scratches on his face when arrested is that he first went into a gay bar and got into it with a transsexual who clawed his face. Following that he went out into the parking lot and groped a woman there which resulted in his arrest.

Where is the data that virtually all women are not able to measure up, physically, to the weakest man in the military? I don't think there have been any studies because it's called common sense. Very few, if any, women will be able to measure up to the exact same standards as the men; even the weakest of men in the military. That's a fact.



Uh, no, she goes into great detail the problems women will have while in the field. But what she's saying doesn't agree with your wishful thinking so you misquote her.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/...ft=1&f=1001

Ivy here's an article regarding Israel's allowance of females in combat roles. About 50 percent of the lieutenants and Sergeants are women. We all know how tough Israel's military is, they appear to be alright.

Anyway, all that aside, I'd like to know what you think.

Look closer...they aren't women..they are Gay Guys!

No really strength is one thing...but Guns are the great equalizer. That is a fact no one can argue about!
and in Isreal everyone serves!

Like I've said before, it's a different situation if a nation is faced with destruction. Israel is the classic example.

Out of all the so-called scandals, to me this is the most real & serious, and not covered enough. I want to see something done about this. It's absolutely horrible and must not be tolerated.



TIS