I have no time for men who abuse women in any way, but it is certainly a new world when this is a thing:


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....064fb79bd.jpeg

There’s always a “but” isn’t there….

This is a spoof? April 1st? No?

I know what stareing means, and starring, but what is this staring? An Americanism?

If staring means what I suppose it means, how can I do it with a sexual nature? I do remember hot pants and enjoyed stareing at the backside view.

The bottom {!} line is that I am not to make eye contact with anyone, be it female , male or indeed any of the myriad self-identifications.

This confirms my suspicion: the lunatics are fully in charge, and I and a few circles of friends and acquaintances are the last sane survivors of the human race.

beam me up/ stop the world I want to get off.

In the brilliant, hilarious, (IMHO) series "Succession", which depicts the disfunctional family empire of a right wing global media tycoon (think Murdoch) there is a brief shot, during the lead-in, of the parent news station "ATN" showing a newscaster over a banner headline which reads:
"I smiled at her by the photo copier and now I'm facing chemical castration"

Throwing up farcical headlines doesn’t excuse the problem - but probably explains why investigation and sentencing is being taken out of the hands of the military….

Agree, that seems a little over the top. Actually, a lot over the top.

​​​​​​? Stareing? Never heard of it, never seen it written, until now.

I was taught that it is rude to stare and find being stared at offensive and intimidating. Old school I suppose, but am glad that those not as well brought up are being educated how to comport themselves in public.

Probably a relic of my long ago deep Sussex grammar school ........ I shall fall in line and write staring 100 times.

I promise that I will never say "different to" as opposed to "different from".

No fule like an old fule.

staring staring staring ​​​​​​​staring staring staring ​​​​​​​staring staring staring ​​​​​​​staring staring staring ........................

excellent: always nice to see the defence committee respond quickly and have its finger ‘on the pulse’ in terms of what’s going on in the modern military. Tornado, eh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59499247

Ministry of Defence aims to double women recruits in military by 2030

The number of women recruits in the Armed Forces would be doubled and the male-dominated culture tackled, under plans from the Ministry of Defence.

The reforms are a response to a report from MPs on women in the military which included accounts of assault and rape. But the MoD did not accept a key recommendation in the report to remove cases of rape and sexual assault from military courts.

More than 4,000 women - veterans and those still serving - gave evidence. The Commons Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces published its landmark report earlier this year.

Conviction rates for rape in military courts are up to six times lower than civilian courts, the sub-committee said.

Under the reforms announced, the number of women recruits in the military would increase to 30% by 2030.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said almost 90% of the women who engaged with the MPs' inquiry "said they would recommend a career in the armed forces". But he conceded further change was needed, adding military leaders had "listened carefully and are implementing bold changes in response".

"Having tested the recommendations with our own service women's networks, we are embracing almost all of them - and in many cases actually taking them further," Mr Wallace added…….

Here follows a world-weary, very non-woke thought, driven by Occam's Razor:

If we didn't have any women in the armed services the cases of rape would probably decrease [not cease ..............]

And if we didn't have any alcohol in shops and pubs then drink driving would probably decrease too...

Langleybaston - I'm neither snowflake nor woke-ist, but find your thought to be an exceptionally objectionable one that would have been better kept to yourself. (1602hrs GMT, 2 Dec - I'll refrain from quoting in case you decide to delete, although I see that London Eye has already quoted you).

Wow. It's the victims fault they were raped because they are in the armed forces. Unreal.

You know males get raped by other males as well right?

Dash Dot Dot Dash!

Thats not what he said, Downsizer. Read his message again, slowly, and you’ll understand it.

The CAS has said that the RAF is aiming for 40% female recruitment and that we (the RAF) would drag Defence along with it.

There are plenty of historical sites for stations where such reminiscences take place. Why don't you join some and ask the former members of the WRAF what they think?

Di di dah dah di di
I think you meant Dash Dot Dot Dot Dash

Batco

.

I suggest that you take a deep breath, read the words slowly, think about it, and accept that [casting prejudice aside] what I wrote cannot be other than true.

If you can spare the time to read on, I am not against the fair sex [or any LGBT [alphabet follows] serving, indeed I have a granddaughter serving.

If you believe my statement is incorrect, instead of levelling abuse, you could always seek to demonstrate that I am wrong. Its called civilised debate.

If your grandaugter gets raped (and I hope she doesn't) I do hope you say to her it wouldn't have happened if she wasn't serving. I wonder how helpful she will find that?

I do understand it mate, it's classic victim blaming.

Shouldn't have gone out dressed like that.....shouldn't have been serving...etc, etc...

No, it isn’t victim blaming. Go and read it again in the sense it was meant.

The problem is that I can't quite fathom how it was meant...

How was it meant then?

Because it seems pretty clear his idea to solve this problem is remove women rather than you know, simply not rape people.

Either way it's a crass statement from a crass poster.

He was saying simple facts (tongue in cheek), which are correct. People have taken it one stage further and incorrectly made the assumption that he means something else by it.

It is true that if there were no women in the military, no servicewomen would be raped, and there might still be some cases of male rape. However it's such a trivial point that I fear you are rather overestimating the depth of your insight, and are being rather insulting in implying that anyone might need to take a deep breath to understand it. It's the implicit thought which is so objectionable, and if you don't appreciate that then you are nowhere near as wise as you would appear to consider yourself.

Once again, no, that’s not what he said. He didn’t say the answer is to remove women. You’ve jumped to that false conclusion through a poor comprehension of the facts he stated.

Without wishing to get caught in the crossfire from those stepping off the indignation bus, I think what LB is saying is that on the premise that male-on-male rapes ocurr in the services (which they do) having no females (in the services) would not result in 'no rapes', simply fewer. I initially thought this was a response to an earlier post, but now that I see it isn't, I tend to agree it was a rather crass and clumsy comment to make. (Inner voice vs outer voice!)

That's probably not true.

Evidently since there would be no servicewomen, no servicewomen would be raped, that is the only conclusion. Since no differentiation is made between rapes in the military and total number of rapes in society (including the military) and since the supposition that the 'probability' of the total number of rapes decreasing, the inference is that servicewomen whilst serving are more likely to be raped than if they were not serving, which could be interpreted as a form of victim blaming, but I think it is just sloppy logic badly phrased.

Sums it up nicely.

"Implicit thought"

Orwell's 1984 may just have arrived.

If I was to say that rape cases in the general population would reduce if certain restrictions were placed upon womens' freedom, for instance being confined to the home or being escorted everywhere by a male relative, what point would a reasonable person assume I was making? Would you think that was a reasonable point for someone to make in polite conversation, or something that was best left unsaid unless immediately qualified with a statement of disagreement with the idea, in which case why say it at all?

If there was nothing more to your post than the completely banal observation that "no servicewomen would be raped if there were no women in military service", then I have to wonder what on earth you thought you were contributing to the thread. I might as well post "2 + 2 = 4" for all the value it brings to the discussion. However, your reference to Occam's Razor suggests that you weren't merely making an observation, as the Razor is a philosophical concept applicable to arguments and explanations. Not to observations or facts. I suspect you no more understand Occam's Razor than you understand the term 'implicit' or the concept of thoughtcrime, which doesn't apply to a thought expressed either explicitly or implicitly. All this reinforces my assessment that you are not as clever as you think.

Harsh!



But fair



And applicable to most of us 😉

Indeed so, which is why I take care when expressing my thoughts!

Sorry, Easy Street old boy, your supposition is wrong on this. Bit of an awful discussion, but someone being raped outside the military is immaterial to the view that he put forward. He merely said that rapes within the military would reduce - which they would. There’s no victim blaming in his statement, you’ve inferred that.

Anyway, we have probably reached the end of this topic. Next!

​​​​​​I took your advice and read what was written, he didn't say "rape within in the military" perhaps he should have, if that is what he meant, but he didn't.
Is it not presumptuous and patronising to assume that easy street is both old and male?

There are some confused people with some strange ideas about logical argument here. Totally missing someone's point, and then misattributing someome else's words in an attempt to discredit them? Next, indeed.