another scandal at usna

[wink]

If they are willing to sell their advocacy to one group, what about others?

Like the pro campus rape advocacy? Transparency works like that. Where is the link between MacDonald's view in this piece and tobacco?
As to the 25% figure, MacDonald calls into question the methodology of the study that produced that figure and points out example flaws. Does she have to come up with another number? Isn't it enough to point out that the 25% number touted by the media and advocacy groups is based on flawed research? If I point out that 2+2 does not equal 6 but don't provide another alternative does that make 6 any less incorrect?

 

[wink]

It should never be an issue @ USNA, as the Boat School "stat" SHOULD be ZERO.

Officers and gentlemen (and ladies) .. pre-screened leaders ... examples to follow and all ...

Yes sir. Don't ever accept the excuse that the Academy, or the rest of the Navy for that matter, is a microcosm or reflection of our society. It is not. The USNA for one is an elite institution on many levels. Lots of people work hard to make sure that it is populated by people that ARE better citizens then our society as a whole. That is true for the entire Navy as well, though to a lesser extent for obvious reasons. That we have problems like sexual assault is as much a failing of those that work to screen, mentor and supervise our people as it is human nature. We can do better.

 

[FSSF]

Yes sir. Don't ever accept the excuse that the Academy, or the rest of the Navy for that matter, is a microcosm or reflection of our society. It is not. The USNA for one is an elite institution on many levels. Lots of people work hard to make sure that it is populated by people that ARE better citizens then our society as a whole. That is true for the entire Navy as well, though to a lesser extent for obvious reasons. That we have problems like sexual assult is as much a failing of those that work to screen, mentor and supervise our people as it is human nature. We can do better.

Good point, and your right we do can do better, and are always striving to do better. In fact if you read the article (which is still a little to nonobjective for my tastes) you can see documented improvement. I was merely trying to head off A) random back an forth about who's at fault based entirely on conjecture and rumor B) Soap-boxing about right, left, women, etc. and C) the usual implications that the Academy as an institution is at fault and actually caused this to happen by making rapists and pedophiles, that follow these cases.

These actions are intolerable, and yes a more perfect screening process is waranted. Unfortunately, as said earlier. Do you like Kiddy porn? and Do you plan to or have you ever murdererd, raped, or killed? don't work.

I would contend that the evolution needed might fall on the Mids shoulders. You know the last four years of the screening process where your peers and superiors observe your behaviors. Maybe "Hey man you tend to get a bit violent with the ladies when you drink too much, and if you pull that shit again I'll turn you in myself" might have saved this unfortunate incident.

I think I'm up to $.10 cents now. Probably time to get off my aforementioned soap box.

 

[xj220]

I would contend that the evolution needed might fall on the Mids shoulders. You know the last four years of the screening process where your peers and superiors observe your behaviors. Maybe "Hey man you tend to get a bit violent with the ladies when you drink too much, and if you pull that shit again I'll turn you in myself" might have saved this unfortunate incident.

I would say that's the best point I've heard on this subject.

 

[Lonagan]

You don't think this happens or that the rest of her paragraph is remotely true?

Very open minded ain't we? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. The Manhattan Institute is no Mother Jones and Heather MacDonald's bona fides are well established. She is a sound researcher and good writer. If you can't bring yourself to finish the article now then take a look at the organization and the writer in more detail. There is no benefit to you in disregarding the piece simply because you don't agree with it.

Having taken 15 credits of women's studies and never seen one of my professors either bang a pot or blow a whistle, no, actually, I don't really think that happens.

I'm really not going to quibble with you over whether Mother Jones magazine or the Manhattan Institute is a bigger flack their respective ideological camps. Neither entity speaks to anyone that doesn't already agree with their position. Mother Jones is never going to publish a story saying "hey, the war was alright after all," regardless of what happens in Iraq. The Manhattan Institute is never going to publish anything lending credence to anything the women's movement has produced, regardless of the facts.

It takes quite a dizzying leap to go from a single methodologically flawed study to "campus rape is a myth."

 

[mmx1]

Having taken 15 credits of women's studies and never seen one of my professors either bang a pot or blow a whistle, no, actually, I don't really think that happens.

I guess that makes you an expert, huh.

They parade down frat row and have a grand old time blowing whistles and shouting "empowering" slogans.

 

[Lonagan]

The women's studies professors on your campus look pretty young!

I have not seen such a march at the University of Florida, they usually just table on the plaza like everyone else. Sans pots and whistles no less.

 

[raptor10]

The Manhattan Institute is never going to publish anything lending credence to anything the women's movement has produced, regardless of the facts.

I'm guessing you haven't read the article...

 

[Lonagan]

Yeah since I wound up investing more energy in this thread than I planned, I did go and read the article. Which part of it lent credence to the women's movement? The parts that continuously attacked it, or the parts that said rape isn't real if it isn't reported, and if it is reported the woman is probably just a slut anyway?

 

[wink]

Yeah since I wound up investing more energy in this thread than I planned, I did go and read the article. Which part of it lent credence to the women's movement? The parts that continuously attacked it, or the parts that said rape isn't real if it isn't reported, and if it is reported the woman is probably just a slut anyway?

So you say you read it. I'll believe you. But you certainly didn't comprehend it if that is what you took from it. I guess it only takes 15 credit hours of Women's Studies to dull your critical thinking skills. MacDonald says nothing good about the so called women's movement in the article because it was about campus rape. I happen to agree with her that there isn't anything good to say about women's movement with regard to campus rape. Forget for a moment the 25% study. It is very clear there are much better ways to prevent rape, no matter how many, then the programs and methods promoted by most campus rape organizations and the Women's Study groups. For all I know MacDonald can find an area where she agrees with the typical Women's Studies Department. But the article was about campus rape. I think it is clear these self appointed advocates of womens safety and many college administrations have done nothing to help and are likely making the problem worse. Is it any wonder? If there is no rape epidemic, they go out of business. If women are not abused and subjugated by men, womens rights groups can not argue for more empowerment.

 

[Amall]

Are people with HIV allowed to (stay) in the Navy?

 

[Lonagan]

A) If you insist on opening your posts with petty ad hominems, this is really not worth my time.

B) I guess it isn't entirely shocking that the community that brought us Tailhook still includes members who think 'rape, eh whatever.'

C) Google is fun. Heather MacDonald seems to have a fairly permissive relationship with facts. I'd give you links, but she doesn't seem to feel any need to cite her sources either!

D) I'm done with this thread.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Are people with HIV allowed to (stay) in the Navy?

Yes, as long as they have not progressed to AIDS, but they are non-deployable. There are a bunch of other constraints as well.

-ea6bflyr

 

[wink]

D) I'm done with this thread.

Yahoo!! If you think you know about Tailhook based on news accounts or what your Women's Studies Profs told you then you are, again, mistaken.

Since you won't be spending time on this thread I suggest you contact the people MacDonald quoted in the article saying stupid, dangerous and illogical things and get them to deny it on the record. Then write your own article claiming MacDonald fabricated her quotes and PM me the link where it appears. You can try Mother Jones, but if you have the balls you will simply write a letter to the editor of City Journal and call her out. If you get the best of her I will make a donation to N.O.W. in your name.

 

[Flash]

Yes, as long as they have not progressed to AIDS, but they are non-deployable. There are a bunch of other constraints as well.

-ea6bflyr

I read recently that about 300 people with AIDS are on active duty, I believe it was from a brochure that I picked up at the clinic in the Pentagon recently. I was really bored and there were no mags........