• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

I would like to see some verifiable evidence of what you are stating here.

I've already posted the Army's definition of sexual harrassment. Anyone with any real amount of reading comprehension can see how vague and broad the definition of sexual harrassment is. Anyone that's been in the service, especially the Army, can support what I'm saying.
 
I've already posted the Army's definition of sexual harrassment. Anyone with any real amount of reading comprehension can see how vague and broad the definition of sexual harrassment is. Anyone that's been in the service, especially the Army, can support what I'm saying.

I saw what you posted and they aren't very vague at all. As you claimed earlier, being open about your sexual orientation could be deemed as sexual harassment. Nowhere in the definitions that you posted would that be considered sexual harassment.
 
I saw what you posted and they aren't very vague at all. As you claimed earlier, being open about your sexual orientation could be deemed as sexual harassment. Nowhere in the definitions that you posted would that be considered sexual harassment.

Sexual harrassment, in the Army, is all about interpretation. Anyone that's been in th Army can tell you the same thing. Were you in the service?
 
I saw what you posted and they aren't very vague at all. As you claimed earlier, being open about your sexual orientation could be deemed as sexual harassment. Nowhere in the definitions that you posted would that be considered sexual harassment.

Nor would opening the door for some one of the opposite sex, as aspdt claimed. He has also failed to come through on his claim that there are regulations against romance onboard ship. Funny how he can offer not evidence to support his claims..
 
I've already posted the Army's definition of sexual harrassment. Anyone with any real amount of reading comprehension can see how vague and broad the definition of sexual harrassment is. Anyone that's been in the service, especially the Army, can support what I'm saying.

I've already agreed with you that sexual harassment is abused in the armed forces. I'm just wondering if there is any kind of study with empirical evidence to verify/support said argument. And if not I do think one needs to be undertaken. Since you are obviously a military person I thought you might have knowledge of a study outside of your own realm of experience.
 
I've already posted the Army's definition of sexual harrassment. Anyone with any real amount of reading comprehension can see how vague and broad the definition of sexual harrassment is. Anyone that's been in the service, especially the Army, can support what I'm saying.

Actually, from my Navy experience I can say yes and no. But you're probably not going to like the no part.
I agree that when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment it usually does end up being something that is trivial and could have been handled at a lower level and with more common sense. And I could see this starting to occur on the ship (in the SY, most of the time, I was the only female where I worked, either sailor or civilian, so there really were no issues).

However, this isn't true from my firsthand experience of sexual harassment from same sex. The girls in my berthing were all accused of being lesbians and flaunting ourselves in front of the girls in the berthing below us. The only outcome was EO and tolerance counseling for us and them. And one of the girls in my berthing was getting out for being gay, but only because she signed the statement so that she could take a job that provided benefits for her partner. So they had proof that she was gay, but she did not get in any more or less "trouble" than the rest of us. And most of the guys that I knew on the ship knew which guys were gay, but it didn't matter, most of the time. We did have a Master Chief that always seemed to be touching the guys. Even though it made a lot of them uncomfortable, no one ever brought any formal complaints/charges against him for it, despite rumors that he was gay.
 
I've already agreed with you that sexual harassment is abused in the armed forces. I'm just wondering if there is any kind of study with empirical evidence to verify/support said argument. And if not I do think one needs to be undertaken. Since you are obviously a military person I thought you might have knowledge of a study outside of your own realm of experience.

Of course there isn't. Wh's going to do that study? The Army? Congress? They're going to do a study that calls women who file sexual harassment complaints liars? Those docs don't exist. I can only relate to you my personal experiences. Redress can call me a liar all she pleases, but it's the truth.
 
Actually, from my Navy experience I can say yes and no. But you're probably not going to like the no part.
I agree that when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment it usually does end up being something that is trivial and could have been handled at a lower level and with more common sense. And I could see this starting to occur on the ship (in the SY, most of the time, I was the only female where I worked, either sailor or civilian, so there really were no issues).

However, this isn't true from my firsthand experience of sexual harassment from same sex. The girls in my berthing were all accused of being lesbians and flaunting ourselves in front of the girls in the berthing below us. The only outcome was EO and tolerance counseling for us and them. And one of the girls in my berthing was getting out for being gay, but only because she signed the statement so that she could take a job that provided benefits for her partner. So they had proof that she was gay, but she did not get in any more or less "trouble" than the rest of us. And most of the guys that I knew on the ship knew which guys were gay, but it didn't matter, most of the time. We did have a Master Chief that always seemed to be touching the guys. Even though it made a lot of them uncomfortable, no one ever brought any formal complaints/charges against him for it, despite rumors that he was gay.

I don't see anything that is that far away from what I've already said.
 
Actually, from my Navy experience I can say yes and no. But you're probably not going to like the no part.
I agree that when a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment it usually does end up being something that is trivial and could have been handled at a lower level and with more common sense. And I could see this starting to occur on the ship (in the SY, most of the time, I was the only female where I worked, either sailor or civilian, so there really were no issues).

However, this isn't true from my firsthand experience of sexual harassment from same sex. The girls in my berthing were all accused of being lesbians and flaunting ourselves in front of the girls in the berthing below us. The only outcome was EO and tolerance counseling for us and them. And one of the girls in my berthing was getting out for being gay, but only because she signed the statement so that she could take a job that provided benefits for her partner. So they had proof that she was gay, but she did not get in any more or less "trouble" than the rest of us. And most of the guys that I knew on the ship knew which guys were gay, but it didn't matter, most of the time. We did have a Master Chief that always seemed to be touching the guys. Even though it made a lot of them uncomfortable, no one ever brought any formal complaints/charges against him for it, despite rumors that he was gay.

I saw personally 2 sexual harassment cases, one dismissed, the other the guy got 30/30 and had to take a class. It takes some time to learn the rules, but they are not hard to understand really.
 
Of course there isn't. Wh's going to do that study? The Army? Congress? They're going to do a study that calls women who file sexual harassment complaints liars? Those docs don't exist. I can only relate to you my personal experiences. Redress can call me a liar all she pleases, but it's the truth.

http://www.research.va.gov/programs/JRRD/45_3/street.pdf

(Page 1 of 27) - Power, Gender Integration, and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military authored by Vijayasiri, Ganga.

Sexual harassment in the U.S. military: individualized and environmental contexts. - Armed Forces & Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal | Encyclopedia.com

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE MILITARY

There isn't? Really?
 
Did you even read reefedjib's post? That's not what he was referring to. I don't expect you to see anything that you don't want to see, however.

You where not replying to him, but to Winston. He asked for studies, I supplied them for you since you did not. I did not even complete the first page of a google search to get those links. You just claimed without looking apparently that no such studies had been done.
 
You where not replying to him, but to Winston. He asked for studies, I supplied them for you since you did not. I did not even complete the first page of a google search to get those links. You just claimed without looking apparently that no such studies had been done.

Those links show how sexual harrassment regulations have been abused in the military? I opened them and they didn't appear to support such claims.
 
Sexual harrassment, in the Army, is all about interpretation. Anyone that's been in th Army can tell you the same thing. Were you in the service?

I don't see how that could even be interpreted as sexual harassment. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
 
What are you specifically referring to?

According to the guidelines of sexual harassment that you listed, how could being open about your sexual orientation be interpreted as such?
 
According to the guidelines of sexual harassment that you listed, how could being open about your sexual orientation be interpreted as such?

Being open about it, as in if someone asked you a question and you answer it, is one thing. If you're speaking directly to another soldier and you're not actually on that subject and you blurt it out, then that could be interpreted as a sexual advance. I know, you're going to say I'm full of ****, but know this, valid complaint, or not, a commander has no choice but to investigate any claim of sexual harassment and the details of that investigation will be filed in your permanent record.
 
Sure,

The moment the White House doesn't need the support of the military, President Obama will tackle its traditions. Worked out great for President Clinton.


The irony here is that gays in the military were left relatively alone until Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell." It gave gays a way out of the military and forced the military to have to deal with obvious offenders.
 
Sure,

The moment the White House doesn't need the support of the military, President Obama will tackle its traditions. Worked out great for President Clinton.


The irony here is that gays in the military were left relatively alone until Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell." It gave gays a way out of the military and forced the military to have to deal with obvious offenders.

Gy, this post is beneath you. You usually express a well thought out position in your posts that I respect even when I disagree with you. This however is just silly.

Obama got what, about 1/3 of the military vote. It's not like he needs military support for anything. It won't help him carry a single state in 2012. Any military officer who tries to buck him politically will find their career at an end, and rightly so. Any who cannot follow the orders of him as CiC will similarly find their career over. "The military" is not why this is not done yet.

Further, the idea that Obama should "need the military" is shows a very poor way of thinking. The military serves the country, and needs to do as it is ordered, in the best way it can, and not play politics with anything. You do not have to like it, but that is how it is. I did not like everything I had to do when I served either, but that was not an excuse to do as I please.

The military opposed racial integration, but it was time, and it needed to be done, and it was done, and the military today is better for it. This will be much less disruptive to the military than racial integration is, and it is time, and it needs to be done. A few people who cannot adjust to the way of the world will be pissed, but most will just get on with their jobs.
 
Gy, this post is beneath you. You usually express a well thought out position in your posts that I respect even when I disagree with you. This however is just silly.

Obama got what, about 1/3 of the military vote. It's not like he needs military support for anything. It won't help him carry a single state in 2012. Any military officer who tries to buck him politically will find their career at an end, and rightly so. Any who cannot follow the orders of him as CiC will similarly find their career over. "The military" is not why this is not done yet.

Further, the idea that Obama should "need the military" is shows a very poor way of thinking. The military serves the country, and needs to do as it is ordered, in the best way it can, and not play politics with anything. You do not have to like it, but that is how it is. I did not like everything I had to do when I served either, but that was not an excuse to do as I please.

The military opposed racial integration, but it was time, and it needed to be done, and it was done, and the military today is better for it. This will be much less disruptive to the military than racial integration is, and it is time, and it needs to be done. A few people who cannot adjust to the way of the world will be pissed, but most will just get on with their jobs.

You don't have a clue.
 
You don't have a clue.

Says the guy who thinks that congress cannot change the UCMJ and that you can be guilty of sexual harassment for opening a door, and that there are regulations against shipboard romance.
 
Says the guy who thinks that congress cannot change the UCMJ and that you can be guilty of sexual harassment for opening a door, and that there are regulations against shipboard romance.

All true. Can't expect an E-3 to know all that.
 
Well, let's get something cleared up: female soldiers don't go on patrol with combat units. Do they see combat on un-conventional battlefields? Sure they do.

Thank you.

But what the hell are you talking about? When a female medic is at an FOB, who is she with? A combat unit. When they all go out on patrol who is she patrolling with? A combat unit.


It's been my experience that co-ed units see more discipline problems than all male units, because of males and females working in close proximety. Have you seen something different, or are you just talking?

In my experience co-ed units are less likely to tear up the bar when they have females around - the need to impress with calm maturity you see.;)


Morale can and will break down if you tell soldiers that they no longer have rights.

What rights?




The standards in the military are higher than those applied to civilians, actually. It's the reason that it's so easy for a soldier to be discplined for sexual harrassment.

Exactly, so apply these higher standards of conduct and enforce them - simple.
In the end this argument is over in any case, both morally and effectively thanks to the British enforcement of anti-discrimination practices regarding gays. If the British are doing it, it wont be long before the worlds biggest and most modern army, the US armed forces is doing it also.
 
Back
Top Bottom