What did these geniuses expect?
Trump’s take on sexual assault in the military is, predictably, that it’s the fault of the damn fools who thought the military shouldn’t exclude women on account of how women are not some weird aberrant species.
Speaking at a candidates’ forum, Mr. Trump defended one of his Twitter posts from 2013 concerning the high number of sexual assaults in the military, and said that he had been “absolutely correct” in posting a message that said, “What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”
Right. So by the same token…the military should be all white, because white guys will inevitably get violent if non-white guys are allowed. By the same token, the military should be all straight, because we know the straight white guys will beat up them dangerous faggots. And so on. We should always reserve everything for straight white Christian guys, because if we don’t, the straight white Christian guys will get violent.
“We couldn’t run a military without women,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He noted that an argument that the proximity of women was to blame for sexual assault could be applied to women on college campuses and in workplaces, where they are also assaulted. “Quite frankly, it’s absurd,” he said.
Even Lindsey Graham says Trump is being absurd.
It’s the same old story. The way to “protect” women is not to bring men up with basic human decency, but to keep women from being seen in public.
Maybe the real answer to the problem is to keep straight, white, Christian men out of all those public places.
When Lindsey Graham is the voice of reason it’s a clear sign of the times nigh upon us.
It’s a good thing the military disagrees so strongly with Trump. If anything, the military has been “cutting edge” when it comes to integration and inclusivity. They’re nowhere close to perfect, but they’re way ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the government.
Oenotrian has a point. The military has actually been cutting edge on inclusivity because:
1. It’s need-based. Lives depend on having competent, dedicated people. In the business world, no one dies if the CEO’s nephew bungles marketing, or you just are a bit lackluster because you didn’t pick the best people because a white guy with a C average seems a “better fit for the team” than a minority with a cum laude degree.
2. It’s top down. When Truman or Eisenhower or whomever says, “Integrate, promote, include” it *gets done*. If Private First Class Bigot doesn’t like it, he’ll be disciplined into controlling his displeasure.
3. Once people are allowed in and openly, the tight-knit community of the military tends to get people to see the issue was never important in the first place. Atheist, black, gay? The straight white Christian in the foxhole next to you can *see* that you actually hold the same values as he does in a crunch, and that changes everything about how he sees the world. Some of the strongest allies on civil rights issues have been veterans who learned via integrated service.
4. I don’t know why women haven’t benefited as clearly as other groups, but are often targeted. Somehow, it seems like there’s some need to change something in training to get these guys to respect their fellow personnel. And to improve disciplinary action to make it clear that sexual violence is unacceptable.
And the male soldiers who are sexually assaulted (a much lower percentage, but still a higher number)? Is it their own fault for choosing such a violent profession?
Well how about an all-women military? No men allowed in any of the services if they can’t be trusted to behave like decent adults. Or just make the joint chiefs all women – these things always trickle down from the top, even though the generals pay lipservice to gender equality.