|
The author seems to indicate that the Navy knowingly withheld the names of female officers involved in the incident. To what gain? There's also an obvious bias from the author regarding their opinion of the fitness of women in those specific positions so consider that when reading.
Full disclosure, I know nothing about the responsibilities and chain of command in this situation, maybe OldPotatoe or another can jump in to help me out. Could another reasonable explanation be that the publicly named individuals constituted the most egregious lack of responsibility in the situation and thus where the blame is going to hit hardest? This is obviously a complicated, multifactorial situation, where multiple redundant systems all failed, and several people had a hand in failing to act. I just find it hard to believe that the Navy would choose to single out the men for public flogging. What do they stand to gain by doing that? At some point they had to know the names were going to be revealed, at which point, any gender based preferential treatment (if such exists) would be blatantly obvious.
|