More SARC briefings soon.

[Catbox]

Except...is she really able to give someone paperwork for having a picture of a girl in a swimsuit in a public area. If it's so wrong, didn't she violate the invisible-ink reg on putting the picture up by "testing" her unit?

White male NCO: "Ma'am, you wanted to see me?"

"Yes, I'm counseling you because I caught you red-handed displaying a picture of your family at the beach. Your wife is wearing a bathing suit. Clearly, you inspire and facilitate rapists."

White male NCO: "Wait didn't you put a picture of a woman in a bathing suit out on a desk recently too?"

"Yes, but that similar photo didn't inspire rapists because I was doing it because I'm writing an article about how good of a leader I am for the af.mil website."

That was my thought exactly...the way she wanted to prevent "sexual harrasment" in the workplace was by...comitting "sexual harrasment" in the workplace.

[Fuzz]

What aircraft? Not trying to identify her, just trying to get a better sense of which community this story relates to. Not all flying squadrons are even remotely alike.

I believe he mentioned earlier she was on RC-135s.

[arg]

That was my thought exactly...the way she wanted to prevent "sexual harrasment" in the workplace was by...comitting "sexual harrasment" in the workplace.

Like a flu shot.

[Liquid]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material. It is inappropriate for the workplace and should not be displayed on your desk, whether it is your wife, sister or favorite supermodel. We should regularly correct inappropriate behavior. Not with the "paperwork" you are all so concerned about, but with direct language and action that demonstrates your intolerance for sexually inappropriate material, language and actions.

A major factor in this discussion is the "at work" part. I could care less that nsplayr says he would "hit that" on a message board when he looks at an official photo of an Air Force officer, but I would put a boot up his ass if he said that in the squadron, while in uniform or deployed. On a forum he thinks he is being funny. At work, he may still think he is being funny, but he would be absolutely failing his duties to be an officer, a leader and a professional. Many of you think it is easy to keep your off duty humor, language and actions separate from what you do at work and in uniform, but it is not easy. The Shaw CDI clearly showed inappropriate behavior, a hostile work environment and leadership's failure to enforce standards. You cannot defend how playing a cartoon video at Balad that showed a horse d*ck and sang a song about drinking horse urine called sweet lemonade. Many argue that as long as you stop doing it when someone says they are offended, you are ok. You are not. The standard is not whether someone is offended. The standard is whether it is appropriate for work and professional. Discrimination, sexual harassment and sexually offensive material should not be tolerated at work, period. Whether anyone in the group is offended or not is irrelevant. When you try to keep it separate with "bros", you actively condone the behavior and fail. Sure some people make bad decisions and judgments about what is sexually offensive material. People, including commanders, make bad decisions every day. Challenge them directly and make your case. Work towards the right decisions, not against the entire concept.

I do not think most squadrons or flyers put up with this shit. Which is why I find it interesting why so many on this forum strongly defend the value of a culture and traditions that tolerate sexually offensive actions and language at work. Nobody cares if you say package. Everybody should care if you say package, then so to speak, changing the conversation from aircraft and mission to your obsession with sex and your junk. It is juvenile and you should be swiftly corrected for doing it at work. If you are an officer doing it in front of enlisted, you should probably find another profession. Maybe Delta airlines will be more tolerant of your jokes towards the stews. I doubt it.

The USB analogy does not work. We failed to enforce standards and guidance to not use USBs on SIPR and we paid the price. Hammering people after the enemy has exploited our vulnerabilities is not a good strategy. Ensuring a strong defense, of the network or the installation or our Airmen, is much better than only punishing those who fail to follow standards afterwards. Training, standards, enforcement, defensive and offensive measures, and the ability to rapidly adapt to the most effective procedures are important tools that must be used together.

Neither does the old car or disabled brother analogy. Our government, department and Air Force has a zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace. There is a big difference between sex jokes and old car jokes. Should we outlaw all jokes? No. But we have outlawed sexually offensive jokes and racist jokes. If you haven't figured that out or you don't agree with it, you probably need to look for employment elsewhere. You won't last long.

The recent actions taken by commanders to prevent hostile work environments (sts memo, bikini test, black eye) may not be effective, but they are not wrong. They show commanders are serious about preventing hostile work environments, mentoring their Airmen and making sure they understand what they should do when they see something wrong. These actions, and the recent efforts to change the inappropriate culture that exists in a small portion of our force, will not ruin our Air Force. They may piss you off, and make you long for the times when the word games, songs, posters, panties and call signs were allowed at work, but we will get over it and move on to other more important issues. I don't think these actions alone will make an impact on the number of sexual assaults, but as part of a comprehensive effort to educate our force, investigate allegations, deter and punish offenders, take care of victims and stop tolerating illegal behavior, we will reduce the number of sexual assaults. Reducing them is the right thing to do and we owe it to the mothers and fathers of the young sons and daughters they trust us to lead.

[Rusty Pipes]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material. It is inappropriate for the workplace and should not be displayed on your desk, whether it is your wife, sister or favorite supermodel. We should regularly correct inappropriate behavior. Not with the "paperwork" you are all so concerned about, but with direct language and action that demonstrates your intolerance for sexually inappropriate material, language and actions.

So do you agree with this then, Liquid? Its on the base webpage so it is obviously being applauded by "Leadership"…

http://www.vance.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123368125

[Karl Hungus]

Jesus. Here we go again.

move on to other more important issues.

This is exactly what a lot of us wish you and your peers in management would do. So many bigger (and fixable) problems with this organization, yet nothing changes.

[RTB]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material.

Maybe to you. I think you're just crazy for saying that and think it's a clear sign we've lost our minds. A swimsuit is sexually offensive?? Good god, how on earth do we allow base pools! Explain to me where the line is drawn? Can I have a picture of my wife after running a race in her scandalous running top and shorts? Is a cocktail dress acceptable? Anyone offended by a swimsuit needs to get a reality check.

I guess these pictures are ok since they're on af.mil sites? Picture1 , Picture 2, Picture 3

GMAFB.

[pcola]

Maybe to you. I think you're just crazy for saying that and think it's a clear sign we've lost our minds. A swimsuit is sexually offensive?? Good god, how on earth do we allow base pools! Explain to me where the line is drawn? Can I have a picture of my wife after running a race in her scandalous running top and shorts? Is a cocktail dress acceptable? Anyone offended by a swimsuit needs to get a reality check.

I guess these pictures are ok since they're on af.mil sites? Picture1 , Picture 2, Picture 3

GMAFB.

Completely agree. Exactly where is the line and who is responsible for drawing it? The grand ayatollah, maybe the Pope, Larry Flint? I'd like to suggest a pretty good rule of thumb: If he or she is wearing clothing that is legal to wear in a public place in the US of A, then we should all agree that it is sufficiently inoffensive to the majority and therefore acceptable.

[HeloDude]

Maybe to you. I think you're just crazy for saying that and think it's a clear sign we've lost our minds. A swimsuit is sexually offensive?? Good god, how on earth do we allow base pools! Explain to me where the line is drawn? Can I have a picture of my wife after running a race in her scandalous running top and shorts? Is a cocktail dress acceptable? Anyone offended by a swimsuit needs to get a reality check.

I guess these pictures are ok since they're on af.mil sites? Picture1 , Picture 2, Picture 3

GMAFB.

This...this right here. RTB, good on you man.

The hypocrisy of leadership is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I'm sure Liquid will get right on having it removed...as it is sexually offensive to me that I may have to see this just in case I check out an Air Force PA site and come across this horrible picture.

[F16Deuce]

8 Shaw Air Force Officers Reprimanded in Sexual Misconduct Investigation thrown under the bus.

Fixed

Edited October 31, 2013 by F16Deuce

[HeloDude]

Should we outlaw all jokes? No. But we have outlawed sexually offensive jokes and racist jokes. If you haven't figured that out or you don't agree with it, you probably need to look for employment elsewhere. You won't last long.

Also...are we going to ban the radio at work? Not sure if you've tuned in recently to what the kids are listening to these days but it's fairly 'suggestive' to say the least, even on FM radio. What about the A1C in uniform stopped at the light on base with his windows down listening to some 'gangsta rap' with racist undertones and sexual offensive words'...and what if it is just the FM radio in general? Where is leadership going to draw the line? If leadership is going to send out memo's saying you can't say 'so to speak', then are they going to tell us what music is allowed on base? What about watching Seinfeld on network TV if you're pulling alert...a lot of 'sexually offensive' jokes on that old 90's sitcom.

...I have an idea, maybe we should all march in the gay pride parade in our uniform? (which was actually supported by DoD last summer) No big deal if we're in uniform walking next to people with sexually offensive outfits on, I mean hey, it's all about diversity!

Leadership won't even enforce tattoo regulations, but yet they'll all jump at banning pictures of your wife in a bikini on your desk..."yes sir, yes sir...3 bag full".

Just let me know what rules are going to be enforced and which ones won't be enforced and I'll act appropriately.

[FallingOsh]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material.

Every time I start reading one of your posts, I think it's from a snap, green horn Lt.

I don't think these actions alone will make an impact on the number of sexual assaults, but

but we just do it anyway because actually fixing the problem would be too difficult. Blaming fighter pilots for Air Force woes is easy and vogue so we'll just do that.

I'm not surprised the Air Force is going this direction. It was only a matter of time. It does absolutely baffle me that people of your rank actually sit around scratching their heads trying to figure out why active duty members are running for the hills. You can only accuse good people of being racists and rapists for so long before they eventually push back or walk off.

Edited October 31, 2013 by FallingOsh

[TarHeelPilot]

Maybe to you. I think you're just crazy for saying that and think it's a clear sign we've lost our minds. A swimsuit is sexually offensive?? Good god, how on earth do we allow base pools! Explain to me where the line is drawn? Can I have a picture of my wife after running a race in her scandalous running top and shorts? Is a cocktail dress acceptable? Anyone offended by a swimsuit needs to get a reality check.

I guess these pictures are ok since they're on af.mil sites? Picture1 , Picture 2, Picture 3

GMAFB.

Base pools will continue to operate as normal with the following stipulations: all participants MUST wear a full-body wet suit and cameras/smart phones/tablets with camera function must be checked at the door. If this guidance is not followed, HQ AF will be forced to restrict pool usage by gender in the following schedule: males: M/W, females: T/TH, gender neutral: weekend.

[SocialD]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material.

So, what about Runners world magazine? This particular issue had a cover of a chick in a sports bra and spandex shorts? Inappropriate? GMAFB! I found it mildly entertaining that the chick who confiscated the magazine was rather fat. I wanted to tell her to take it home, maybe read it...

A major factor in this discussion is the "at work" part. I could care less that nsplayr says he would "hit that" on a message board when he looks at an official photo of an Air Force officer

You'll have to excuse nsplayr, he must be deployed to say he would hit that...

Sure some people make bad decisions and judgments about what is sexually offensive material. People, including commanders, make bad decisions every day. Challenge them directly and make your case. Work towards the right decisions, not against the entire concept.

This is one of the problems I have with this sexual harassment witch hunt. People call shit offensive and unprofessional, because they THINK someone MAY get offended. Mermaid handle mugs...are you fucking kidding me? When you try to make your case (not just the mermaid mugs), you're told to get on board or called part of the problem. What?!?!?! You don't agree with me? You're obviously sexist and a rapist in waiting! It's like the liberal hippies I dealt with in college. Their argument just spirals down to personal attacks and other non-fact based comments.

Another problem is the fact that all it takes is one chick to say something and you're guilty until proven innocent.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jeffrey-krusinski-charge-dropped_n_3618658.html Sadly, I have seen this happen to others (outside of the mil). All were found not guilty/charges dropped, but not before their names were drug through the mud. This shit happened in college, >10 years ago, but if you search their name this shit still comes up. No matter what, they will listen to the chick (ref: lady known to lie to get what she wants in Lt Col Wilkerson case), and you WILL be guilty until proven innocent. Sure, your leadership will say you're innocent until proven guilty, but your clearance will be taken away, off flying status, removed from your position and off course the papers will fry you if they catch wind of it! Then when you're found innocent, the newspaper may publish a story but will likely bury it in a small corner of page 16.

Maybe Delta airlines will be more tolerant of your jokes towards the stews. I doubt it.

Have you ever flown for the airlines? Some of my (female) flight attendants have said shit that even made me blush! When the Capt has to take a piss, we are required to have an FA up front...sure glad CVRs don't have a video camera!

The recent actions taken by commanders to prevent hostile work environments (sts memo, bikini test, black eye) may not be effective, but they are not wrong. They show commanders are serious about preventing hostile work environments, mentoring their Airmen and making sure they understand what they should do when they see something wrong.

They just scream, look at me, look at me! I'm doing something I think you want me to do...give me your next DP. Most people have moved on, or are trying (this forum is the king of all sport bitching...it's what we do). Doing shit like what this Major did, just pulls back the scab on the wound. If you can't do something effective, do something visible!

The best is being segregated and making us watch stupid ass videos that basically say you guys are all rapists. Especially love the part with the chick who calls 911 after she brings home a dude, that she had just met in the bar (seriously, wanted to grab a dry erase board and break out the DFP process on this one). What the fuck did you think he wanted, to have some fucking tea?!?! Before you get your panties in bunch, I'm not condoning the guys actions. I would fry the dude if I had my way, rapists are the lowest form of scum. I have a problem with insulting my intelligence, by forcing me to sit through a whole day of briefings on shit I already know! Then labeling me sexist and freaking out on me, when I bring up the fact that maybe she should use a little fucking common sense and not put herself in that bad situation in the first place. Just like you shouldn't wear a shirt/bra combo that pushes your cleavage to you chin and wear a skirt that ends a foot above your knee. Then get all pissed off when guys stare at you or get the wrong idea about your intentions! I'm not sexist, I'm a realist!

On the other hand, if the AF wants to pay me ~$500 (2 drill periods) to sit in an auditorium all day and make it clear that they are not interested in my opinion, I'm cool with that. Just don't get mad when I spend the briefing surfing the web on my phone. Also, don't get pissed when someone comes in with a fake black eye and I make some comment about another fake black eye test.

But this Major is on to something, maybe I should start wearing my uniform out of regs. Then I will see if my co-workers have the integrity to correct me on my clear violation on 36-29 o'what the fuck. Hell yeah, friday shirt and morale patch for me tomorrow, maybe I'll get real crazy and put on my black boots. Next, I'll make up fraudulent charges on my DTS, just to make sure finance does the right thing and calls me on my inappropriate use of funds.

Alright, the Jack is really kicking in now...rant over!

Edited October 31, 2013 by SocialD

[deaddebate]

Two of my MDG commanders at two separate bases did the black eye test thing in coordination with Family Advocacy awareness. This isn't new.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

[jcj]

Base pools will continue to operate as normal with the following stipulations: all participants MUST wear a full-body wet suit and cameras/smart phones/tablets with camera function must be checked at the door. If this guidance is not followed, HQ AF will be forced to restrict pool usage by gender in the following schedule: males: M/W, females: T/TH, gender neutral: weekend.

Or - no swimsuit restrictions but smartphones/cameras checked and all males blindfolded for the the entire duration of their presence in the facility.

Maybe to you. I think you're just crazy for saying that and think it's a clear sign we've lost our minds. A swimsuit is sexually offensive?? Good god, how on earth do we allow base pools! Explain to me where the line is drawn? Can I have a picture of my wife after running a race in her scandalous running top and shorts? Is a cocktail dress acceptable? Anyone offended by a swimsuit needs to get a reality check.

I guess these pictures are ok since they're on af.mil sites? Picture1 , Picture 2, Picture 3

GMAFB.

The hypocrisy of the policy as written is obvious. But if the intent of the policy is to gather up all photographs of attractive, scantily-clad women, I think these would be OK to stay.

[Sim]

I have yet to see this crap come from people that actually employ weapons...

[waveshaper]

Yes, Men Really do Ogle Women's Bodies. I can see some motivated commanders and SARP leadership conducting exercises using this technology to highlight/spot potential sexual offenders/rapist. The geniuses running the SAPR program could even take this technology to the next level by setting up a USAF wide, random sexual offender/rapist identification program, similar to how the USAF accomplishes random urinalysis testing. This type of program would certainly reduce the likelihood of a hostile work environment. In my case, if I was ever randomly picked to take this type test, I would request that my commander not waste every ones time and I would accept my LOR/ART 15 and UIF up-front. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/29/body-shape-objectification-technology/3287287/

[pawnman]

his is not being taught at the Weapons school....yet. Apparently, for better mission effectiveness in the future, you can't push to the target until you have fullfilled certain quotas guaranteeing a diverse package. (Can I still say package or has that gone on the "do not say" list, also?)

I'll remember that next time I'm the mission lead.

"Our notional package is 2 F-16CMs, one piloted by a woman, the other by a Pacific Islander. We've got a 4-ship of F-15Cs, pilots are a Hispanic woman, an African American, an Asian American, and the youngest wingman is a white guy, don't expect too much out of him..."

Edited October 31, 2013 by pawnman

[TreeA10]

I'll remember that next time I'm the mission lead.

"Our notional package is 2 F-16CMs, one piloted by a woman, the other by a Pacific Islander. We've got a 4-ship of F-15Cs, pilots are a Hispanic woman, an African American, an Asian American, and the youngest wingman is a white guy, don't expect too much out of him..."

Pawnman, you have already failed, dude. Don't even leave the briefing room. I detect a noticeable lack of fabulosity in your line-up. No rainbow in your coalition, so to speak. If you can up your diversity accounting, your mission will be a successful even if your bombs only prove that gravity works because you don't hit squat or get shot down enroute. Consider a "two-fer." A gay female with transgender issues might be all that is needed to make your plan a winner.

Regarding the idiot and the bikini picture. The problem is crusaders like Liquid who are driving the bus that somehow think we can isolate ourselves from our society at large. Reminds me of that movie "The Village" where people were unhappy with the way the world was going so they built a large wall and sealed themselves off from the rest of humanity. That actually might work at Cannon but the rest the AF deals with societal interactions involving commonly accepted topics, images, words on television, radio, internet, magazines, books, parties, beaches, malls, or just walking down the street that are now deemed offensive by a few inside the AF. Unfortunately, this is going to continue because there is no scale. Any offense is deemed valid. A Supreme Court justice, when writing about hard core pornography wrote, "I know it when I see it and the motion picture in this case is not it." Nobody is willing to stand up and say "This is not offense worthy, thanks for your input." Instead, we have people inventing problems (black eye or bikini picture) and getting animated over the response or lack thereof to the invented issue. No doubt the AF has real problems. Defining the problem is the first step. If your definition of the problem iincludes "Everybody else's generally accepted behavior on the planet", then I think you are going to have a real hard time fixing your problem.

Edited October 31, 2013 by TreeA10

[Boxhead]

...I think you are going to have a real hard time fixing your problem.

I totally agree with the "scale" aspect of your post, but I think it's missing a very important aspect. It's also about CYA. They know they can't fix it, they also know "fixing it" is not what really matters, all that matters is they LOOK like they are trying to do something, and then quietly praying that it happens on someone else's watch.

[HU&W]

A picture of a woman in a bikini is not sexual harassment but it is sexually offensive material.

Our government, department and Air Force has a zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace.

The recent actions taken by commanders to prevent hostile work environments (sts memo, bikini test, black eye) may not be effective, but they are not wrong.

That's the thing about "zero tolerance" policies. They are so often interpreted as zero judgement policies. Most situations involve various shades of grey, but a zero tolerance policy makes situations black and white, go or no go. These policies, although they sound good on paper, create the infamous line of offense nobody wants to cross. If you do cross someone's line, wherever they personally have it drawn, your commander must take action. It's in his policy. Although "zero tolerance" is a great soundbyte, in practice it is the surrender of a commander's judgement to the person taking offense. The worst part is that the offendee's judgement is a moving target. At least a commander with "zero tolerance" for PT failures is surrendering his/her judgement to a fixed and definable metric, but sexual harassment?

So, what is sexual harassment? You mentioned that the picture of the bikini woman isn't sexual harassment, but is sexually offensive. You also mentioned that it was OK for the commander to plant sexually offensive material in the workplace as a training tool, but it is not OK for a normal person to have a similar picture of his vacation in the work environment. Here's some historic irony: my family recently went through a box of a deceased relative's military records from the 60's and 70's. In it, we found SOS courseware from around 1970. One of books had a drawing of a naked woman in the center of the page and words all around it and instructions that said "Read this quickly and don't look at the naked lady." It was a timed exercise for reading comprehension to show how easy it is to be distracted by your environment. Would something like this be in the same vein as the previously mentioned squadron commander's "test?" Or should this commander be prosecuted, under a zero tolerance policy, for willfully harassing her workforce by placing content that she had personally deemed sexually offensive in full view of her employees? That's where the argument breaks down. Although possession of an item that has been deemed offensive may not be harassment, once that item's been deemed offensive, the way it is used could be defined as harassment under US Law.

[lj35driver]

Tony Carr just dedicated his latest blog entry to the Vance experiment. http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=558

[nsplayr]

I have yet to see this crap come from people that actually employ weapons...

Seen it, both from Gunship and Pave guys.

Here's what we're all forgetting...we're part of the military and it's essentially a dictatorship. If you Commander, with a capital C and the accompanying broad powers, says something is inappropriate then he gets to be right unless his Commander or ultimately Congress tell him otherwise. Logic, common sense, reason, etc. play absolutely no part unless that particular Commander want to consider those things. We all have a duty to tell the Boss when he's wrong and to give suggestions on how to improve, but in this instance I just don't see a course correction happening.

The biggest problem with all this stuff is we don't have the right kind of leaders within the military and also that in today's super-charged politically environment we don't have the right Congress that can tell those leaders to use common sense and their best judgement. Everyone, EVERYONE is CYAing to the max extent possible to defend against lawsuits and butthurt.

Whenever you see a Commander putting out a policy letter that includes something like "zero tolerance for sexual assault," just mentally picture him or her in the break popping chaff...it's basically the same maneuver.

Edited October 31, 2013 by nsplayr

[di1630]

Glad to see Liquid back with his view. Maybe I could send him some pictures and he could tell me at what level I should be sexually offended at the workplace so that I may as a leader pass my USAF learned sensitivity and subjective morality scale onto the enlisted guys/gals that work for me. Then I could figure out when I am supposed to be upset when I work out at the gym an see girls in tights or read an af.mil news article where they show bodybuilders.

Liquid, I work with many senior leaders who at least in the bar will admit this is CYA Bullshit and is hurting the service more overall than it is helping but their hands are tied and must enforce it. You seem to have bought into it what we are doing and how we are executing is right which worries me.

I just saw a list of actions and punishments against senior leaders during this with hunt and I was blown away with how far we have taken it. Makes me wonder who would want to even be a CC in this environment. I bet I could act more like a warfighter at the local knitting club than I can in the USAF.