English: WASHINGTON (March 26, 2010) A poster supporting the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. The SARC summit, hosted by the Department of the Navy in New Orleans, La., was held to bring awareness to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program, which replaced the former Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI) program in November 2009. (U.S. Navy photo illustration/Released) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
My blogging friend Moe Holland the other day highlighted the kerfuffle over sexual assaults in the military and some of the ensuing misogynistic comments by Congressional dinosaurs. In so doing she inspired me to some thought on the subject. While I am frankly relieved to be in retired status now and not have to deal with the sudden surge of women into the combat ranks, I can’t help but speculate on how this might be better handled. Currently, from what I’ve been reading, the U.S. Navy (my own service) is continuing to outfit and modify ships, even submarines!, for dual-sex crews. No more hot-bunking I guess! (That’s the term used when two men have to share because of a shortage of bunks. And no, not at the same time. Shame on you.) Concurrently, the number of officers disciplined for sexual misconduct, including commanding officers, appears to be exploding. When I was on active duty the relief of a CO for cause was exceedingly rare. Now it seems a regular occurrence. This, I’m thinking, has got to be very bad for good order and discipline, not to mention the divorce rate.
I am no misogynist, but as I told Moe,
As you must know, Moe, the more I have blogged the more I have found myself to be of the progressive political persuasion. But on the subject of sexual assault in the military I confess to contrary thoughts. First, let me stipulate categorically that women are just as intellectually capable and as mentally tough as men. The problem I see is that the sexes should not be mixed in the military environment, i.e., putting young men and women together in a stressful, dangerous and competitive environment which requires long absences from home and family. It seems like an obvious formula for trouble and the explosion of assault cases is prime evidence for me. So I have a suggestion. So instead of mixing, why not create single-sex units? Companies or squadrons that are all-women, ships the same. The mere fact that women are not as physically strong as men should not be a problem, given modern automation, and women also might have an edge on stamina and endurance. And let the games begin.
She in turn questioned whether our Navy was unique in these problems, and I said:
You won’t have to go very far afield, Moe, to discover that my suggestion of same-sex military units is, to say the least, outre’, but even though I offered it half tongue-in-cheek, I do think it ought to be considered. The sudden admission of women to combat ranks of the U.S. military is clearly (to me) a cultural shock which is very likely harming force efficiency and national security. Military culture goes back hundreds of years and is clearly unprepared to deal with this situation.
Your question about other countries is a darned good one, and one to which I didn’t have an answer. I googled it and came up with one article from the U.K.’s Guardian. I suspect many are having the same problems and they are being swept under the rugs. Here’s an excerpt:
“The film has raised similar concerns this side of the Atlantic that rape is a hidden scourge in the military. According to figures released to Labour MP Madeleine Moon, a rape or sexual assault is reported by a member of the armed forces every week. Over the past two and a half years, there have been 53 reported rapes and 86 reported sexual assaults in the army, the navy and the air force, but Moon believes the figure is an underestimation and could be as many as an attack a day.”
Female Sailors visit USS Ohio. (Photo credit: Official U.S. Navy Imagery)
The notion of women-manned (how’s that for an oxymoron?) ships competing with the men’s ships in the U.S.N. almost makes me giddy. It wouldn’t have been practical in past decades because there weren’t enough women, but I sense that has changed. Women have been graduating from the service academies now for more than three decades. Competition has always been integral to military training so it would be interesting as all get out and I’m thinking it very well might improve morale and esprit de corps. It would only need to be applied to units which deploy for extended periods.
Does this suggestion have merit? I can identify one group for sure that wouldn’t object: military spouses. I haven’t heard any remedies that appear to fit the bill, but when Congress and the White House haul all the brass up for a public tongue-lashing, you know the problem is damn serious. Heads are starting to roll, even at the flag level.
Related articles
- Amid military sexual assault crisis, Obama urges Navy grads to uphold honor (cbsnews.com)
- SHARIA USA: Obama Navy Bans “Racy” Pin-Ups; Inspections to Examine Each Pin-Up to Decide if “Degrading, Offensive” (thelastgreatstand.com)
- Navy Task Force To Set Goals For Women On Subs (connecticut.cbslocal.com)
Still Skeptical After All These Years 
Jim,
I think you know I respect you even though we sometimes disagree. I think your suggestion is based on a misunderstanding that is fairly common. Sexually Assault is not mainly about sex but about assault. It is primarily about power. Consider that most sexual assaults in the military are man against man (and please don’t assume that these guys are gay) [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all]. It is an act of dominance and power over someone else. It is the ultimate tactic of a bully.
So I think it would be difficult to argue that this problem arose because women are now in the military since most of these crimes don’t involve women as perpetrators or victims.
LikeLike
John, your link has opened my eyes to facts I was unaware of. I’m making it easier for other readers to access <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all". I think it is important to note that comparisons of “sexual assault” can be very misleading because definitions can vary markedly (as in assaults in the U.K., for instance) whereas in the U.S. it can extend to “unwanted sexual contact”, something not included in the U.K. stats. Also, given the stats reported by the Washington Times I note that the reason more men are involved than women is that there are six times more men than women in the armed forces. The statistics also show that if you are a woman, you are five times more likely to be a victim.
Clearly the DOD has a huge and hitherto unappreciated problem on its hands. I agree with your analysis, but I still think my suggestion ought to be considered as part of the fix. Thanks for your valuable comment.
LikeLike
Logical as your women-only ships might be, they would no doubt be considered a re-segregation of the sexes, something many progressive women would not abide. The problem is, as you describe, the ancient (and sexist) military mentality. Does that justify the recent assaults? Of course not. Hopefully in time the changes will be accepted and the new norm will accept and respect female soldiers and sailors. Re-segregation would be a step back and away from this. For me personally, it’s a tough call. I’m sort of a female dinosaur, I guess. I’m having a tough time adjusting to the idea of women in combat units and aboard submarines.
LikeLike
Now that’s interesting, PT. “Re-segregation”? When the sexes were separate in the past, as in the Women’s Army Corps (WACS) for example, the WACS were barred from combat assignments and restricted to administrative positions. Accordingly, their promotion potential was severely limited. Under my proposal, they would have equal opportunity and in fact would be competitive for the same administrative and flag positions as males, so please show me the inequality, and if you can’t do that, then where is the wrong in a “re-segregation” of this kind?
LikeLike
If you put the women on women-only ships and the men on men-only ships, is that not re-segregating the sexes?
LikeLike
Sure, you can define it that way, but then I have to ask, why is that bad? I mean, it’s not like racial segregation is it? Except for nurses and administrative personnel the U.S. military has been sexually-segregated for most of its history. If you are implying there might be promotional prejudice against woman-preferred units, I think public pressure and Congressional oversight would prevent that. Plus, the performance records of units and ships would be public, and under the plan, flag officers would be mixed-gender.
LikeLike
It’s not necessarily bad, but it could be perceived as once again trying to keep women from serving alongside men. As for Congressional oversight … don’t get me started.
LikeLike
I’m really not trying to pester you on this, PT, only trying to understand your objection on the proposal. The proposal is to keep women from serving alongside men, something you admit is “not necessarily bad”. There’s some psychology at issue here, let’s see if we can surface it.
LikeLike
I don’t object. But I think a lot of PC activist feminist types would.
LikeLike
On what basis?
LikeLike
Because they’ve fought so long and hard for the right to serve alongside men, and now you’re separating them again.
LikeLike
Aha. Now we’re getting somewhere. See, I thought the issue of the feminine movement was equal pay and benefits and not the social aspect. My bad. 🙂
LikeLike
Jim: An interesting article, pointing out the perplexities involved in black or white judgements. My response will doubtless label me as a troglodytic throwback to an earlier misogynistic era, but I can’t ignore certain truths that I see before me. While I agree that women are men’s equals or superiors in intellect (I only have to glance at my wife to confirm this observation!) and stamina (wife again), I cannot extend this equality to physical strength.
I know that strength may not be important in all situations, but it certainly is in some, where it may be the most important. For example:
A Marine, and it is probably exactly the same for the Army (although it hurts for an old Marine to admit it), going into the field, either on maneuvers or into combat, must carry a backpack weighing between 40 to 70 pounds, depending on the mission. The Marine also must carry extra equipment, in my case a PRC 9 radio weighing 20 pounds and a 5 pound spare battery. For others, the extra equipment might consist of a base plate for a mortar, a mortar tube, or mortar shells; others carry a 30. cal. machine gun or ammo for the 30. cal. Others share in the carrying of various other of the accoutrements of war. In addition, each Marine carries a rifle and ammo for it, two canteens of water, and extra clothing in cold weather. The materials of war must get to the war, and usually manpower (pun intended) is the best available option.
That is a heavy load for anyone, a load that I struggled under even as a healthy young man in my twenties. No matter how earnest, a 120 pound woman is going to have a very difficult time hauling her share. I grant that there are women that would have no problem with this burden and men who would, but we must live with averages.
It has been 60 years since I entered military service and I’m sure that many major changes have occurred during the interim, but certain realities about war have remained the same for thousands of years and are not likely to change, modern sophisticated technology to the contrary notwithstanding.
I fully support the integration of women into the military; I just recognize that there are certain realities that we must live with and that will determine how we perform in any given MOS. If that brands me as an unfeeling clod, so be it.
LikeLike
You are right to bring up the issue of physical strength, Bud, and there’s no doubt it is more important to a combat infantryman’s role than a sailor’s. It seems to me however that there are no absolutes regarding how much one person should carry. I have a feeling those limits were probably set not by some measure of requirements relative to missions but rather according to what is practical. Take water for example. Two canteens aren’t going to last very long. Two are better than one and three better than two, so I think two is a compromise.
I noticed in some web surfing that a tank shell weighs about 40 pounds these days. Clearly, that would be a problem for most women, even many men for that matter, but I suspect there really aren’t many other jobs like it. I was trying to imagine what jobs on a warship’s crew might also require unusual physical strength and the best I can come up with is handling stores during at-sea replenishment or handling mooring lines, both of which I think women could do well, given modern equipment like winches and electro-hydraulic loaders. But in any case, I don’t see why there couldn’t be exceptions to assignments for such cases and still have ships and units be “primarily” same-sex. Hmm. A lot of guys might enjoy such assignments, eh?
Oh, one other thought. I’ll bet combat radios don’t weigh 20 pounds anymore. My iPod nano carries my photo albums, hundreds of pod-casts, and an FM radio. It weighs 2 ounces. I’m sure weapons, like the automatic assault rifle, are lighter, but then they are going to want to carry as much ammo as possible, so there again, it’s an issue of what is practical. And they don’t use jeeps anymore, they have Humvees. The world’s changing, Bud. I think that given a chance, the women can kick butt with the guys.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments.
LikeLike
First Jim, thanks for the link to Moe’s blog. I like her views most to the time, or at least how she expresses them. Whether I agree with her views is a different matter of course.
Instead of a long comment on why I disagree with single gender units int the military, I offer instead the comment that I posted on Moe’s blog. It seems to me to be a “fact” that needs to be faced.
“Moe and Jim,
One of the real dilemmas of modern civilization is the simple fact that all “men” are not created equal. In fact half of them are women!!!
There are vastly unequal atributes between men and women and between men and men, women and women , as well. Some are simply smarter than others, can run faster than others, etc.
Put 50 men and 50 women together on a single ship as “equals” and watch out. Someone is going to get “screwed” and it won’t be many of the men!!!
That seems to me like a reality that cannot be ignored, how to deal effectively with differences between individuals, in a whole variety of areas in society.”
Anson
LikeLike
Jim, first, thanks for the link. I have a question and you will know the answer. In comments over at my place, I tried to make the distinction between sexual activity and sexual assault. People will always ‘get it on’ with people of course, no matter the rules. But if it’s consensual, it’s a breach of the rules,, but not criminal, as opposed to assault or rape. So my quesiotn is, what are the rules actually. Do they vary from command to command? Are people of the same rank allowed to have sex at all? Sometimes?
LikeLike
Moe, the navy law under the UCMJ reads like this:
For a glimpse into the chaos that is currently ensuing, just google ” ucmj fraternization navy ships “.
LikeLike
So what happens to violators depends on the service and maybe the tradition in that unit or the commander or whatever? (Did I ever tell you one of my nephews is a Navy Captain?)
LikeLike
Nooooo. Really, Moe. Why not get his take on this? The more the merrier!
LikeLike
Moe,
Your questions are very pertinent and deserve discussion. Here is a question on my part, just for example.
The big deal in the media and from some female Senators is the explosive number, 26,000. That is being reported as 26,000 cases of unreported sexual ASSAULTS in the military in one year.
Well first of all, how was that number determined? And in determining the number did the poll or whatever means were used try to distinguish between brute force physical, sexual assault, rape, etc. and sexual harrassament which does not require physical assault of any type.
If I as a “commander” raped a woman, well that is one of the 26,000 I suppose. But if I failed to recommend her for promotion to a higher rank, that would ONLY be sexual harrassment if she could prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that I took such action against her only because she was a female.
Just this morning, on CBS This Morning, a female midshipman claims that she was raped by three football players, in Feb 2012. Yet she also says she had had a “lot to drink” that night, well over a year ago, and had no recollection of what transpired. She went for medical treatment the next morning but refused to submit to a rape test examination as well. Now some16 months after the incident, we see the issue all over the media. Should we await proof in a court of law before we make her case one of the 26,000?
No way do I condone such activities, by men or women, drinking to blackout and being unable to control their own behavior or that of others. It is immoral and has no place in the military or civilian world as well. But condeming immoral acts is one thing. PROVING that such happened in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt is a different matter.
To me at least, EVERYONE is considered innocent until ……….
Anson
LikeLike
@ Moe & Anson,
FYI, a female Marine Corps officer discussed the 26,000 statistic in a WSJ column about a month ago and in a pertinent paragraph said this:
Thus, Anson is of course right that the stats are very misleading. It also explains to me why the headlines make it seem that the U.S. military’s problem is much worse than that in other developed countries like the U.K. However, if you read the full column I think it’s also apparent that it’s still a big problem and it doesn’t change my opinion as previously stated.
LikeLike
Dumb question: How do you count assaults if they’re not reported???
LikeLike
You go ask them, privately, with the “asker” being someone far outside the chain of command. The problem however is can anyone believe them, the answers!!
Anson
LikeLike
I go even a little farther in skepticism, Jim. I still have suspicions that sexual harrassment, job related harrassment, is imbedded somehow in the “numbers”. But who knows for sure.
As well my classmates are all over this issue, some anti-military command and some very skeptical of the “numbers” and all else in between. But one interesting “survey says” is that civilian colleges go FAR, FAR beyond USNA concerns over such matters, the assault type matters.
I posted a blog today after watching CBS This Morning where the midship “woman” was interviewed, in a blackout along with her mother!!! Moe at least might want to check it out as more thoughts from a Neanderthal as she may believe.
Solution at USNA in such matters? To me it all comes back to “Honor”. You cannot enforce it legally, expect in places like USNA, but everyone needs to do a better job trying hard to instill it.
Put “Education” and “Honor” side by side, and I remain convinenced that the two are the real long term solutions for all the domestic political discord we hear today, between you and me and Duane, but more important many others as well.
Now I dare Moe or anyone else to call me a “Neanderthal” for the last paragraph above.
Anson
LikeLike
Good heavens Anson – I won’t call you names for that last paragraph because I AGREE with it entirely. I think we could add to your two of Education and Honor; I’ve always believed that good manners and public courtesy can be taught, should be taught and actually make a difference.
LikeLike
It’s all well and good to call for education and honor in the conundrum of sexual assault. Agreed, that is as essential as it ever was, since the time of John Paul Jones and before, but those precepts were still being taught even as the sexual revolution and feminism exploded the numbers. Of course the 26,000 number is very misleading but when you examine the stats it can’t be denied that serious crimes have significantly increased in direct proportion to the numbers of women at sea. When you put leadership teaching up against youthful hormones, hormones are going to win. Don’t believe me? Consider this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XbmCYeHeTo&feature=player_detailpage
LikeLike
I agree. Put any bunch of physically fit young men and women together anywhere in close quarters for months at a time and the same thing would probably happen. Likely more often these days than 50 years ago, as we have regrettably become a much coarser, more ill-mannered and more overtly sexual society.
LikeLike
And that Pied is why I first and vigorously challenge the “26,000” being broadcast all over the media and on the Hill, today. At USNA the “statistics” as well show that such real assaults at that school are MUCH lower than such things on “normal” college champuses around the country. But you will not read that in any newspaper today.
Anson
LikeLike
Oops. When President Obama said this,
he apparently goofed because a Navy judge ruled that this specificity by the CIC undercuts a military court’s authority to assign punishment. Maybe it will change on appeal, but the issue appears to be in the soup if it isn’t.
LikeLike
Jim,
Technically, the judge is correct, I think. Obama’s words IMPLY that anyone even accused of such things should be……… or COULD be interpreted in such a manner.
When being the “top dog” at a big company, I HATED the dishonesty of many in the work force. They would simply lie about ANYTHING and I wanted to “hang every one of them”. But I could NOT say that, even to the Union President in a private meeting. And you know why I am sure.
And EVEN when someone is found guilty in a trial, but the results of that trial are legally overturned by “higher authority”, Obama’s words are OBVIOUSLY directed at such potential military commanders to NEVER do that again, overturn a verdict. As the Commander in Chief, it is WRONG for him to even get close to such “orders”.
JUSTICE, as ennuciated in UCMJ must prevail, all the way to a final conclusion with all involved doing the best jobs possible.
McCaskill’s action to withhold the promotion of a female general to higher command is exactly the same thing as well. She PRESUMED that the female general failed to act properly, politically properly.
Anson
LikeLike
Moe,
I thought you might agree with the last paragraph above that I mentioned. I just forgot which blog I was opining on. Had I said that on the EC blog all hell would probably have broken loose!!
But, Moe, simply as a matter of semantics, Honor, as imbedded in midshipman, at least when Jim and I attended, included “manners” as well. I offer the famous quote, in part, that Jim and I had to memorize as “plebes”. John Paul Jones said and wrote the words.
“An officer in the Navy must be a capable mariner. But he must also be a great deal more. He must be a man of refined manners, punctilious courtesy…………., etc.”
And JIM, I DISAGREE. Such things are NOT being taught in public schools today, not by a long shot. And if you as a teacher insist on such “things” in your own classroom you will be railroaded out of such classrooms by angry students, parents and some administrators, period!!!
Once as a substitute teacher in a “mainstream” classroom I reprimanded a kid for lack of …….. His reply, “I don’t have to do that shit”!!!! And guess what, he didn’t according to administrators!!!
Anson
LikeLike
No need to SHOUT, You mis-understood what I said. When I said, “but those precepts were still being taught even as the sexual revolution and feminism exploded the numbers”, I meant at the service academies, not the public schools. I know it isn’t PC to do that and I agree it would be a good thing to do, but the fault of that isn’t in just the public school systems, it’s in the whole culture. This is apparently how culture evolves in the absence of an external threat that compels social cooperation and cohesion, but I believe I told you once before that I applaud efforts to counter it. (That’s probably the period when I started calling you “Don Quixote”.)
LikeLike
Ok, Jim, no shouting. Just call it inflection in my written words. If we debated the issue by speaking, I would have “jumped” on your comment but would not have brought the roof down on your head by screaming my head off, either.
But semantics aside, or written inflection, there is a big problem at USNA today in how the Honor Concept is being adjudicated. I won’t go into all the details, but the bottom line is that in the Academy’s view, some entering midshipman have difficulty adhering to the Honor Concept even after clear and early instruction into what it means.
What it “means’ as you well know for our days is zero tolerance for dishonesty, period. One shot and your are outta there, period. Not today. There are numerous cases where egregious Honor violations (stealing from company mates, repeatedly as just an example) where the thief was “remediated” instead of discharged from the Academy.
In attempts to expand diversity at USNA some people are accepted that just don’t “understand” Honor (or more simply honesty). There are a significant number of cases where such diversity midshipman receive “less than” the full force of punishment of Honor violations today. Many in the alumni are very vocal over such matters today as well.
I used to interview local candidates applying for admission to USNA, the Blue and Gold Program. That is the first (FIRST) thing I looked for, complete honesty, in such interviews. Without it, a candidate got a big (BIG) thumbs down at least from this interviewer. If an 18 year old semi-adult does not understand the need for honesty, well “remediate” that if you please. I for sure would not want to spend $250,000 dollars, tax payer dollars, attempting to do so at USNA. If should (SHOULD) have been done, long before.
Anson
LikeLike
Unlike you, Anson, I have not stayed in touch with USNA affairs, so I find your report interesting. The only thing I can attribute the trend to would be our society’s permissive attitude toward children, something most difficult to change for sure. This comment brief, restricted to iPad – wife is in hospital. Thanks for contribution to topic. Jim.
LikeLike
Jim – hope all is okay . . . keep us updated?
LikeLike
Thanks, Moe, and to Anson too. She lost her balance Tuesday night and fractured her pelvis. The good news is that the break is not in a load-bearing area and she has already managed some very slow walking. The bad news is that this is one of the most painful kinds of breaks and one not amenable to surgical repair. We’re looking at 3 weeks of bad pain, probably, coming home maybe in another week, and 6 to 8 weeks for full recovery. No long-term effects predicted. Appreciate your concern.
I am getting a personalized close-up look at the healthcare system now – wish I wasn’t. Jim
LikeLike
Oh, Jim, so sorry to hear about this. Am keeping you and M in my thoughts.
LikeLike
I confess that I’m not a very social person, PT, but I find that a sustained online meeting of minds over time, even in disagreement, can establish a respect that equates to friendship. I hold you in that category and your sympathy means a lot to me. Thanks.
LikeLike
So sorry to hear that Molly has to go through that. Hang in you two, hang in . . .
LikeLike
To others,
Sorry about Molly, Jim and all the best for a speedy recovery.
I offer this comment to others that might be interested however. USNA, the university that Jim and graduated from half a century ago remains a very good institution of higher education, far better than many, perhaps even most such institutions today. But it too struggles with today’s social “norms”.
A recently reported scandal alleging sexual assault is one pertinent example. Yet if you dig into statistics you find the USNA’s problems in that arena are much less than the problems in most universities, problems with sexual assault on a university champus or off champus involing students.
My description of alumni debate at USNA over how the Honor Concept is administered today vs. “yesterday” is another example, a broader example. Many universities do not have such a Concept or “Code” and those that do have them pale in comparison with the intensity that the Honor Concept is brought to bear on the entire student body at USNA, even today..
USNA remains very different from the traditional path to higher education in most universitites. Yet it too struggles, mightily with issues of honesty, sexual standards of behavior, and a host of other issues generally related to “character” and the actions of the entire student body that reflect “good character”.
For reasonable Americans whose character is simply not in a “ditch” somewhere, an anything goes approach to life at the individual level, the trends at USNA should be understood as the trends around the country for college age “kids” who rarely always act like adults, productive adults contributing to society in various way.
In my view those trends, in many cases are disturbing.
Anson
LikeLike
Are you people completely crazy or what? What do soldiers do? They kill people for a living. That is what we pay them to do. And what does the average soldier want to do after a hard day killing and trying to avoid being being killed? They want to get drunk and get laid, not necessarily in that order. Soldiers have been doing this for thousands of years. And now you are going to save them a lot of time by simply sprinkling the ranks with women. And you claim you are surprised by the outcome? Are you really that stupid or are you so desperate to collect your pension that you just go along with your insanely PC “superiors “? Those that the Gods would destroy, They first make crazy!
LikeLike
Who ‘ya talking about, Charlie? It sure can’t be the military brass because I can assure you they didn’t want the problem of women in combat alongside the men. No, the problem is evolved modern culture. I think God screwed up when he gave men and women essentially the same brain design, and now look what’s happened! 🙄
LikeLike
Sorry, Charles. On re-reading your comment I now see that you think the military brass should have rebelled over the women-in-combat issue. I actually agree with you, but I also know that it would have been a futile sacrifice. The primacy of civilian control over the American military about as solid a precept as any that exist and military brass are in excessive supply and fungible in the system. Nice sentiment though.
LikeLike