There is a new plan in the works that will crackdown on overseas UK army troops mixing fluids with sex workers. It will come into effect for those that have been deployed and are on duty. The new policy could affect troops in other branches of the military.
When asked about the potential policy shift, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace stated that it would help change the military culture. He hopes that it will address the mindset of deployed troops.
Speaking about the possible shift in policy, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said it will help change the military culture. He hopes that it will address the mindset of deployed troops.
“There are plenty of countries where the British Armed Forces are based, in Northern Europe, where the sex industry is legal and licenced and everything else. But that still doesn’t make it an acceptable part of the 21st century culture,” he said.
“We’re in a different era and the challenge is we’ve got lots of women, we want more women serving, and what does that say to those women if half the platoon goes out, does all that and comes back in?”
On the other hand, not all quarters think the move is all fluff and no impact. It is more focused on addressing a symptom and not the problem. Banning sex workers will do nothing to teach men to respect women.
It is also unclear whether the army can really force troops to follow their rules. For instance, can off-duty men be pushed to do their command’s bidding? This will be a tricky policy to implement. And not just because of the off-duty issue, but also because sex work is completely legal in the UK.
“What I do know is that in countries in Africa and Central America the sex industry is driven by exploitation and poverty, and I think the army has to uphold the values of today’s world, of today’s values. I can see a scenario where the regulations are tied down to implement a policy that respects women, and that could cover sex workers as well,” Ben Wallace argued.
Earlier, a parliamentary report highlighted that two-thirds of women serving in the UK military suffer from bullying and sexual abuse. It is unclear how the ban will truly impact women, if at all. It wouldn’t be surprising if it had no impact on women joining the UK army. The British army is a good employer for women though, so they may have something up their sleeves to make the policy work.
What do you think? Will the decision actually force men in the military to respect women? Will more women join the military if such a ban is brought about?
Leave a comment and let us know.
I think that ending a piece with the fact that two thirds of serving females experience sexual abuse and bullying (put the sexual abuse first because biggest issue and ties into the issue you’re writing about – sex workers), then saying the army is ‘a good employer for women, though’ without qualifying HOW, does two things. 1) Minimises the sexual abuse and bullying experienced by MORE serving woman than NOT. That’s a huge fact. That’s huge. Should be nearer the top. Huge facts go near the top cos readers drop off as they go down. 2) Not qualifying how the army is a ‘good employer for women, though’ renders that claim meaningless in the face of the fact that two thirds of serving women are sexually abused and bullied while serving. The phrase reads as if written by a young or naive writer as it is, without the lack of reason as to why it’s a ‘good employer…though’. Be honest, if a company or corporation saw TWO THIRDS of its female staff sexually abused and bullied, it would not continue operating as is, and never would it be described as a ‘good employer of women, though’. When writing, pick a pitch. Don’t try to play both sides of the fence – pick one. You weakened your own words here. Pick one. Not both. Did you worry about the tone of this piece and so insert ‘it’s a good employer of women, though’ in case anyone felt annoyed at the negative facts? Pick a pitch. Stick with it. Cos your piece proves it’s not a good employer of women, though, if two thirds of their female employees are at risk. But a good effort. Don’t think you have a trained and experienced journalist or writer on staff, cos the touches are missing, but good effort.
And ‘troops that are deployed…’ or ‘troops WHO are deployed…’ ‘That’ makes those troops and individual soldiers an ‘it’ and no human is an it. If speaking of humans, it’s ‘who’, not ‘that’ because we’re none of us an ‘it’ or a ‘that’. We need to stop this dehumanisation. We all know words do matter. Cos if I used certain words in my comments, they’d be gone. We say certain things in the forum and they are gone. Words matter. Especially if meant to be professionally published. Our troops are a ‘WHO’, not a ‘that’ or ‘it’…Fiiiiinally, did you run a story on the huge story that two thirds of serving women are sexually abused and bullied? You have a brilliant platform here upon which you could help tackle misogyny within the military and our culture. You DO rely largely on civvy women funding this site, and you KNOW there have been issues here afterall…🤷♀️
Two-Thirds of women serving in the UK Military suffer from bullying and sexual abuse thats absolutely appalling i’m shocked to hear this I did see a TV programme about this a few years ..its disgraceful!! Shame on the ones that are assaulting and abusing these women..one word ANIMALS!!!
Ur absolutely right @sillygilly12