Several U.S. military branches are pausing training related to the prevention of sexual assault in order to comply with one of President Trump’s executive orders related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
A directive issued by Marine Corps headquarters on Tuesday “asked the fleet to PAUSE on all [Sexual Assault Prevention and Reporting] training due to recent changes within the White House to remove diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from all federal policies,” according to an email obtained by The Times.
There's been a lot of stuff like this that's been getting deep-sixed even though it has nothing to do with DEI programs. There are two possible explanations:
- Everyone is living in fear of Elon and Donald, so they're taking no chances. Anything even remotely related to non-white-males is getting axed.
- Lots of people have been wanting to get rid of this stuff for a long time and they're using DEI as an excuse to do it.
I don't know which it is, but an awful lot of programs that merely mention gay people or Black people are being halted. If that's really what Donald Trump wants, OK. But it sure isn't what he wrote in his anti-DEI executive order.
"There's been a lot of stuff like this that's been getting deep-sixed even though it has nothing to do with DEI programs."
But it does if you follow the wink-wink-nod-nod.
SA prevention training doesn't have "nothing to do" with DEI. Anti-harassment policies were the seed of an inclusive workplace movement.
Sexual assault is not sexual harassment. The difference between the 2 is right there in their respective names. Halting anti-SH training would be bad enough, anti-SA is far worse.
(re-reading your comment you get that and, also, I agree with your real point here)
The EO goes on about gender and inclusivity training which anti-assault training explicitly is.
Sexual assault in the military is bad. People shouldn't do it and those who see it should report it.
Same applies to other assault, vandalism, theft, murder, and a slew of other crimes. So I guess we should have training on preventing and reporting on each of them?
Or is the special training on sexual assault. performative virtue signaling with no actual value? Is there an iota of evidence that it has any practical value?
"Is there an iota of evidence that it has any practical value?"
Is there an iota of evidence that Trump's EO was a carefully considered directive to federal agencies including the Pentagon to thoughtfully engage in an evidence-based review of the efficacy of trainings, rules, and procedures, that led, after vetted studies and reports, to the imposition of improved policies?
"assault, vandalism, theft, murder, and a slew of other crimes. So I guess we should have training on preventing and reporting on each of them?"
I'm pretty sure that the military does include training on preventing and reporting a slew of crimes, including the heightened/different requirements placed on servicemembers through the USMCJ. It's part of how the US maintains the world's greatest military, or did, until you Republicans decided the pentagon should be run by a drunken apologist for war crimes.
Can't we all agree that MF is a poor pathetic troll and should be ignored? I have never seen anything from him that was in good faith.
No, we apparently cannot. People around these parts just can't help themselves.
Leaving the bigotry unanswered is worse.
Replying is for those who come next - to know just how the troll is wrong, and so the troll's words don't overshadow the truth.
Oh, there is no question that Trump and his appointees are going in with chain saws, not scalpels, and not all the cuts are where they should be.
That said, as I see more of what they are cutting, I am coming round more and more to the idea that chain saws are necessary.
Did you see this? https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-national-science-foundation-grants-report and https://www.campusreform.org/article/one-quarter-nsf-grants-fund-dei-new-report-claims/26593? Apparently, in 2022 the Biden administration issued a directive “Incorporat[ing] DEIA considerations into all aspects of science planning, execution, and communication.”
When you are dealing with stuff like this I am not even sure it is possible to go into every single grant and excise the DEI stuff. It probably is not even billed separately so you cannot just delete some line items. The rot goes deep and it seems to permeate everything. Maybe killing all of this stuff and rebuilding without the embedded DEI is the only way to go.
As for the training, I am pretty sure that the military does not have separate training programs for every crime. To the extent training is necessary it should be on UCMJ in general, probably with a focus on how it differs from civilian law (ie. criminalizaiton of adultery).
White lives matter!
MF lives up to his moniker again...
+1
Sexual assault of female soldiers is a lot worse to the effectiveness and good order of the army (And more common than most of) than any of "assault, vandalism, theft, and a slew of other crimes." and murder is so incredibly rare that it doesn't need to be considered.
+1
Can you provide evidence that sexual assault in the military is more common than theft, vandalism, or nonsexual assault?
Yes. Places with this training have less of it.
Gosh.
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/2023/03/17/title-ixs-unrealized-potential-to-prevent-sexual-violence/
I skimmed your source and found nothing that supported your claim.
In addition correlation is not causation.
" If that's really what Donald Trump wants, OK. "
Did you really mean to write that? There are a lot of things that the DJT wants that are not OK.
I took it to mean that if they are following Trump's orders, its slightly more explainable in an A -> B way than if they are being nixed because someone's using the EO to effect their personal preferences.
I know, and I am sure that Kevin meant it that way. But some reader unfamiliar with the blog could interpret it the wrong way.
Why? Because saying rape is a bad thing might offend rapists.
Yeah. Look who's the Secretary of Defence ...
Bravo
India
November
Golf
Oscar
👍👍👍👍👍
like trump?
Of course the issues f sexual harassment and assault or at the very core of equity and inclusion for women. And of course it is the explicit policy of Donald Trump that it should be forbidden to tell US soldiers/sailors/airmen that it is wrong to commit rape. If you tell them it is bad to commit rape you are explicitly saying Trump is a bad man.
"There's been a lot of stuff like this that's been getting deep-sixed even though it has nothing to do with DEI programs"
I genuinely don't understand this assessment. Sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention training have everything to do with DEI. What do you think DEI actually means? Just adding pronouns to email signatures and coming up with some new HR euphemisms?
DEI is whatever I don't like, and anything I do like is a common sense HR policy!
One might assume that if there were only men in the Navy, there would be no issue of sexual assault, and that this is what links to DEI.
I wonder though, if that's true. There are a number of behaviors I've heard or read about that involve sexual humiliation (in addition to physical abuse) of other nominatively cishet males.
What seems to be going on is an attempt to bring back "might makes right". If you're the biggest, or you have the biggest and strongest backiing you, then do your thing.
Rule by muscle, not by law.
"One might assume that if there were only men in the Navy, there would be no issue of sexual assault [...]"
Tell me you know nothing about the history of the Navy without telling me you know nothing about the history of the Navy.
You realize, I hope, that by using "One might assume" I was distancing myself. I do not make that assumption.
Yep. All male spaces have a history of cishet male sexual violence, from the military to prisons to frat houses.
It's almost as if spaces that encourage toxic masculinity can quickly become toxic!
Is that what Hegseth means when he refers to restoring a Warrior Culture?
Rum, sodomy, and the lash?
I had heard (no citation) that about half the rapes/sexual assaults in the military were man on man. And neither party of them being gay.
"Why is the Navy killing sexual assault training?"
Hmmm, that is a good question--why would Pete Hegseth's military be uninterested in preventing sexual assault?
A real puzzler. Somebody should ask Trump. And then maybe ask Trump if he's paid those damages to Jean Carroll yet.
Drum's continued "gee, why are these grotesquely awful people in too many ways to count doing these grotesquely awful things" shtick is getting pretty fucking tiring.
Oh, I get how/assume that Kevin's posting is a rhetorical form. I doubt he's constantly furrowing his brow, trying to comprehend how Otherwise Good Guy Trump could tolerate all this perplexing nonsense.
I don't know if I necessarily agree that's the way to post/report, but it is something of a corrective to simply (and somewhat jadedly if not outright nihilistically) accepting as a baseline that of course these awful people are awful.
That wasn’t my baseline, it was my H1, but I rejected H0 long ago, as the evidence heaped up.
ETA: Well, darn, <sub> tag doesn’t work here
"If that's really what Donald Trump wants, OK."
Are you really asking if that rapist, pussy grabbing, orange shit stain, with over 2 dozen women claiming he sexually assaulted them, would be against investigating sexual harassment of women by men.
DEI is just a cover for turning back the clock to the 1950's (or perhaps the 1850's), when white, straight, Christian males had complete and utter dominance in business, society, and government.
Another 24 hours, another 12 hours, another 6 hours.... another minute equals more and more Trump inspired slop. We have 4 years of this GIGO. Are people afraid? Yes, and with reason. It's hard to keep up with the absurd antics of the Trump minions. They break the toys and then leave the room; the debris field is growing by the second. I am no longer shocked or stunned - just numb and trying to figure out how, if and when sanity might be restored. The good news today - Time magazine cover will feature Musk sitting behind the resolute desk - that will get under Trumps thin skin.
Musk’s lackey Trump gets to deal with the really important stuff:
“President Donald Trump said Friday that he plans to sign an executive order next week that will end the promotion of using paper straws as an alternative to plastic ones.
“I will be signing an Executive Order next week ending the ridiculous Biden push for Paper Straws, which don’t work,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “BACK TO PLASTIC!””
I am waiting for Trump to write "BACK TO THE STONE AGE!"
Straws ......wow the fate of a nation rests on plastic straws and the Trump fable that climate change is a myth, we owe Mother Earth an apology. Only problem is that we are running out of time. Perhaps when Musk becomes the Dictator of Planet Mars, we can all be saved. LOL
"back to plastic"
Wow, is this 1984-style Eastasia/Eurasia retconning on stilts! I'm a few years younger than trump and even I can remember using paper straws long before plastic ones ever showed up. Some even had flavored inserts and crimps that let you bend them without kinking. Shows how useful selective attentiveness can be, I guess.
Who the fuck uses straws? Where is the outrage that Trump is expending the awesome power and responsibility of the presidency on this nonsense? It's like some fucking French Sun King decreeing that henceforth Wednesday shall be Brie Day while half the populace starves.
I'm waiting for people to start yelling at Trump "Hey fuckhead, quit dicking around with straws/Denmark/Colombia/etc. and do your fucking job and keep airplanes from falling out of the skies."
+1
Went to IKEA and got a blended Coke/Lingonberry Slurpee. They use paper straws, or at least some of them do.
“all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check.”
I have never served in the military: however, my brother is retired military, with most of his career in a Special Forces unit. My brother told me of a situation from his time in Afghanistan: mind you Obama was President, thus this was several years ago. Note, this is a single example and perhaps, not a formal training issue.
A mission that the unit had just completed had gone poorly, and one of the team members was injured/taken to the hospital. When his unit returned to base, equipment gets returned. The person checking in the equipment was female soldier.
A member of the team slammed down a piece of equipment and used some expletives about 'fix this F ing piece of .... ' The soldier was screaming and went on for about a half minute, or so. Per my brother, MANY things had gone wrong on the mission, with this piece of equipment failing being a part of challenge. Further, the person checking in the equipment, clearly, was not responsible for the equipment failure.
The soldier who did the screaming was taken aside, and told he could not speak to a female soldier in those terms. According to my brother (yes this is all second hand), whatever screaming the soldier did had nothing to do with the soldier being female: the soldier was very upset and would have, almost certainty, screamed at a male soldier in the same fashion.
Now, nothing more happened to the screaming soldier. No formal or informal consequences. But, according to my brother, the message was clear: the tone and words that one can use, with female soldiers were different than what was acceptable with a male soldiers.
Is this a training issue? Is this example too small to care? Is this a rare, one off? I don't know the answer to the aforementioned questions. But this I know, my brother (and I assume many other male soldiers) believe there was a double standard for the treatment of woman. Note, I assume/suspect the double standard went both directions: some guys mis treat woman, because they are female.
What is my point? If nothing else, the military is struggling with how to adjust to gender roles and communication styles. Getting ride of training on this topic is bad. Having appropriate training is necessary. As for the current training, I have no insight on the quality or effectiveness.
Okay, just coming in out of total ignorance of "the military mind", the whole screaming fit at another solider who had nothing to do with the malfunctioning equipment was out of line.
Whether it was to a woman, a trans-woman, a trans-man, a standard man, or whatever. And that hysterical screaming solider has no reason to "resent" women because he doesn't get to throw his little hissy fits at them, since his little hissy fits are inappropriate under any circumstances.
But yes, I know, I know. People don't think that way.
This. I will add that the soldier's supervisor failed him; he should've been broken in half, repaired, and then allowed to explain the reason to the chain. At the first tier anyway. And then flagged for a nice long therapy session. Or thirty.
+2
I agree. Telling him not to treat a female soldier that way is bad training (and sexist) but screaming at your fellow soldiers for things they had no control over is terrible teamwork and shouldn't be tolerated, because it will hamper their effectiveness. But I'm not familiar with military culture.
all the best policy is the result of anecdotia
"the soldier was very upset and would have, almost certainty, screamed at a male soldier in the same fashion."
Maybe, but maybe not. One of the things you learn working any sort of customer service job is how vastly different men are treated vs women, and among women the higher your voice, the more screaming you get subjected to.
In one office our standard for a really bad customer was if they even yelled at our only male coworker.
I never served, but for about 8 years around the turn of the century I was effectively the only civilian/non-prior military among in an HQ Intel unit. A couple observations based on significant but still limited information:
- There is a widespread feeling among White Guys that women and Black personnel got preference and had to be treated at times with kid gloves. And as an outgrowth of that, a lot of White Guys were a little suspicious of the competence of women or Black personnel. That said, if/when the individual showed that they had the goods (or someone knew them from a previous assignment and effectively vouched for them), they were embraced as part of the team with few issues.
- Similarly, there was a distinction between Women and Blacks who were "sensitive" and those who were comfortable getting along in the White Male dominated culture (which included lots of giving each other shit and a touching earnestness and camaraderie). Again, those who tried to get along were fully welcomed by all.
- While I was far away from combat, from what I could tell people are real sensitive about mistakes that could get them or their colleagues killed. It does not surprise me at all that that soldier laid into the supply soldier.
So you heard a story third-hand about two soldiers behaving poorly: the screaming soldier, and the supervisor who implicitly suggested that being abusive towards a fellow soldier is acceptable if that soldier is male. And your conclusion from that is that "the military is struggling with how to adjust to gender roles and communications styles"?
Maybe "the military has major problems with tolerating abusive behavior when it is linked either with aggressive or violent masculinity or with unaddressed stress and psychological issues" doesn't translate directly into "the military needs to think about how gender leads to double standards." In fact, in a properly governed military, the gender of the soldiers involved in the incident you describe shouldn't matter: one soldier needs immediate attention if they are unable to control themselves, and the other shouldn't be getting screamed at.
It's funny how often the people who claim they're in favor of "gender blind" policies are really talking about things like "men abuse other men all the time, and I think that's OK, so the problem must be women or gender roles and not abusive people."
Or when "race blind" means "whites only."
Also, the screaming might be defensive.
How do we know in the situation that the guy being screamed at wasn't stabbing the other?
Absent context, so much is wrong with it.
+1
Today in Kevin asks stupid questions with extremely obvious answers, more at 11.
FFS man.
See next post.
Yeah, this really came out of nowhere, didn't it?
I've been genuinely confused by some of Kevin's recent posts, and this one is a good example. Kevin, do you remember who the Secretary of Defense is?
Pete Hegseth probably fell of the wagon again, and in a drunken rage, told the chiefs to stop all sexual assault reporting, you know, just in case. I'm just waiting for the leaks to reveal that he's already broken his promise to go dry.
Could there be a third possibility? Perhaps the people responding to some of these executive orders aren't fools nor using them for their own agenda but saying, "This is what you want? Really? Hope you enjoy the pushback. We'll start them up again whenever you've stepped on enough toes that it gets painful for you. Await your orders, sir."
"Police report reveals new details from sexual assault allegation against Trump’s defense secretary nominee"
"Hegseth told senator he paid $50,000 to woman who accused him of 2017 sex assault"
"Pete Hegseth’s Ex-Sister-in-Law Tells Senate He Abused Second Wif"
yeah
real head scratcher
Looks like this has been mentioned by others here, but just to add another, sexual assault/sexual harassment training IS a part of DEI training, at least at my office.
So my guess is that the pause in part may be to see if those specific sections can be carved out and allowed if they get it out from under the 'DEI" umbrella.
Just speculative. But anyway, just pointing out that this not having anything to do with DEI may not be as cut and dry as Kevin thinks.
No idea what it actually is, but could also be someone more sympathetic "working to the rule" so to speak.
Or even "malicious compliance."
As others mentioned, men get sexually harassed, assaulted and raped too. Usually by other men but not always. So any good sexual harassment or assault training would probably mention this is prohibited too. And that’s when you start getting into DEI trouble, because even acknowledging that LGB people exist - let alone straight men who have sex with men - is enough for the right wing to accuse you of spreading DEI.
After all, saying that a man shouldn’t be raped is implying that Diversity exists in sexuality, that gay men (and women) are Equal to straight men in having bodily autonomy, and Including all those people into your presentation just makes the rightful owners of this country (straight men) sad. That’s your DEI right there.
Wait a minute there ! You're assuming male on male rape is something sexual, and not an act of Good Old Traditional Male Dominance! No "DEI" involved.
They assume it, they ignore both kinds of rape, domestic and not.
"But it sure isn't what he wrote in his anti-DEI executive order."
Someone didn't read the EO before for the nth time pretending Trump isn't as awful as he is.
Here you go:
"Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear. To carry out this directive, the Director of OPM, with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall review and revise, as appropriate, all existing Federal employment practices, union contracts, and training policies or programs to comply with this order. "
That section of the EO is as explicit as it gets in ordering the immediate stop of any type of program, including training, which focuses on any type of social accommodation unless directly allowed after review. Sexual harassment and assault prevention programs fall very much under that, since they were implemented to stop abuses and allow the integration of women in the armed forces even if they have never been the only victims of this type of abuse. Some for all other programs that focus any Blacks or any other minority. Just a few days ago West Point banned ALL groups or clubs that served minorities. Any group that had a racial, ethnic, gender, or non Christian religious component to it, got the axe including things like choirs, cultural clubs, religious groups, or sports clubs.
I'll never understand how you can be this blind or pretend to be this blind. Trump wants an all White, all Christian, men ruled nation and he has been spelling that out for a decade.
Except the Scottish group!
This is what has been in his orders. The nudge-nudge against women is intentional.
Why do so many people miss that the anti-DEI stuff is about 50% anti-woman?
Because they forget that fascists are pro toxic masculinity as well as pro bigotry.
I assume because they're men, or paid to forget.
This training is unnecessary. 😂
Kevin, you should write a post explaining what you think DEI is. A big part of it is training people to not sexually harass each other.
O/T, but some more catnip for the "Democracy is dead" doom-scroll crowd: a US judge has halted Trump's illegal evisceration of USAID.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd9p8g405no
Our democracy is taking some body blows, but it ain't dead yet! That's at least the 6th or 7th time the judiciary has checked the administration's authoritarian instincts. Now if we could only get the legislative branch in on the act...
You're overthinking this. DEI doesn't mean anything to Trump's followers. It's just a general symbol of anything too "woke", too left wing, which now includes civil rights and fighting sexual harassment and abuse. It's also a big sign from Trump that the old "rules" are out and we're going back to the 50s. So it's not clear if groups like the Navy are jettisoning things they clearly shouldn't have to because they're finally free to do it, or are they currying favor from Trump by going above and beyond, or are they truly scared of Trump.
But right now many government organizations are showing that they are ready and willing to launch into and enforce a major cultural shift. Eep!
Given the Administrations tendency to drag bureaucrats publicly based on a tweet by anonymous twitter accounts for perceived thought crimes and put their lives and careers at risk my suspicion is that someone in the L&D department at the Mavy has put a hold on all training that might be even slightly perceived as DEI and check it for any ‘woke’ language. Lest they come into the sights and Trump and Musk.
This is not hard. Sexual assault prevention courses are being halted because the President is a convicted rapist and SecDef is clearly guilty of sexual assault as are many in the Cabinet, and all firmly believe that women are inferior and exist to serve men. Also, you only see the EOs but the follow up agency directives have been much more explicit- for example, defining any contract that involves Covid as wasteful spending to be cut.
Anyone for whom DEI, which in some of its manifestations is just another annoying petty exaction our corporate overlords insist upon, is a top-25 issue is not a serious person. Or is a very serious person with an agenda that can't be honestly stated in polite company.