Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfraggle
By stating it in the way he did, he is trivializing the actions of the people engaging in assault. While not condoning it, he is providing a partial excuse and, in doing so, absolving the leadership and culture from taking full responsibility.
Yes, there's a biological component to these actions. It is the other components that are in question. If we fix those deficits, there is no reason sexual assault and harassment can't be minimized in the military.
It is wrong to accept that this will always be a problem because of biology. That is why he was wrong to say what he did, even though it may have been factually correct. Anything said by top military men to the media that tries to minimize what is going on is absolutely inappropriate.
I do not think he condones sexual violence. I do not think he is against trying to fight it. He still should have known better than to say what he did, given his position.
|
I have to say you've changed my opinion. It was poorly constructed reasoning, and was definitely not the right thing to say. In his position, and at this time when he's overseeing an effort to change it, it's a incredulous.
When I first read it, I took it without context. That is a legitimate contributor to sexual assault.
However, people know this without pointing it out. The context of the question was the relatively high rate of sexual assault compared to other cohorts. With that in mind biology is irrelevant as the same humans are involved outside the military without the same levels of sexual assault