Hey, I know... why don't you pull your head out of your ass. You quote me, then give this bullshit, as if I buy everything that is on NPR. The post you quoted by me even says that I don't buy those numbers.
Yeah, I saw that you said and my response and reason for the quote was directed at your response to Vi, not the NPR portion. And it wasn't bullshit, my claim of bias has 50 times more validity than the endless and flaccid attempts on this forum and by the Obama administration to discredit Fox News. The LAST bastion of journalism.
Why do you act like it's obvious that being in combat together will lead to rape?
Can you explain why you think that rape of women soldiers is something that should have been expected by the liberals?
I guess you mean, OTHER than the fact that the generals, military leadership and pretty much every expert that matters, said that this is PRECISELY what would happen? You know, all the people the progressives ignored, who were actually in positions to analyze the likelihood of these scenarios and publicly and loudly protested the integration of women in those roles. That's why its OBVIOUS.
As to your second question, nope, sure can't explain it. I can't explain why a great deal of human atrocities and violence occur either. But, that doesn't keep it from happening. However, there are a great many of experts who can and did explain why it would happen. Not pipedreaming liberal douchebags with no concept of what happens in combat, who couldn't see past their quest for political correctness, no... experienced soldiers who know what happens in war, know what happens when you put men in those situations and KNOW what would happen if women were introduced to that environment. But, PC and progressivism won out. But again, to simply answer your question, they should have expected it because they were TOLD TO EXPECT IT. They just didn't listen... as usual.