Leaderboard

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.

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

Jesus. Here we go again. 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.

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.

Pretty big "NO" from me. Here is what surprised me the most: out of the ~100 items on the multiple pre-deployment checklists I had to accomplish (many including CBTs such as cultural sensitivity, foreign language modules, sexual harassment, OPSEC, etc), not one of those items was "Sit down and read the three Class B-E mishap reports from MC-12's in the past." All past in-flight mishaps were related to stalls while in orbit with the autopilot on. I would say 90+% of the deployed pilots have not read these, and wouldn't you agree that they would be the most important readers of such reports? I'd say that's a pretty big failure at multiple levels. Not to mention after arriving to deployment, we have another 20+ item reading list, and guess what is still absent from the reading list?

Let's be honest. She's now destined for O-7+

Point was more about what TreeA10 made, not the same discussion as in the thread you linked. Blows me away that a sitting Sq Commander would take the time to purpously take away from the focus of the mission to use those under their supervision to conduct a "gotcha" social experiment. She has no business commanding anything… yet this behavior is celebrated by the Big Blue management. She purposly put the picture on an Officer's desk in a predomenantly enlisted environment… for what purpose? Are we training the future "sock checkers" in the AOR at the E-1 through E-3 level?

If it is AF policy to not display such items and this person intentionally displays such an item, is this person guilty of violation of AF policy? What other rules are okay to violate to see if someone calls you on it? Speeding? Altitude restrictions? Financial fraud? I don't think this is should be an acceptable technique for the evaluation of AF guidance.

This is my $.02 as a current -135 AC, and a Coronet Detail Planner with one of the Guard TTF shops. I have about 6-7 years in the 135 and about 3 years now of traveling around the world as a Coronet Planner on KC-10s. I'm not going to engage in any of the community/culture bashing or wenis measuring contests. Most tanker dudes are good pilots/booms and want to do their job well. Some suck, and want to keep sucking. No community is immune. From a planning perspective, JarheadBoom hit the nail on the head. A safe rule of thumb in the coronet world is that 1 x KC-10 = 2 x KC-135s. As a planner, we obviously love to reduce the number of moving parts whenever possible. But could we do some of our most complex coronet mission sets (ie, Strikes from KMUO-AOR or 22's from PAED-AOR) with only 135s? Of course. We have done it, all the time. We have also done them with only KC-10s. In the end, the missions are completed with similar rates of MX issues, etc. What matters to the people who’s opinion matter is that the fighters get delivered nearly on time, not a 10-20% cost differential. I have also seen it go both ways with receiver units. Some Navy/Marine units have squawked about 135s. Some got KC-10's. Some were told that the 135 was their only option. It mostly had to do with tail availability. I have yet to see a unit wait for a KC-10 to free up rather than deal with a 135 and go on time, especially when headed westbound. In the case of FMS sales, the rcvr units (most recently Tornados for me) get what they want for obvious reasons. As others have said quite accurately, if big blue does cut the 10 it will be completely about $$. A smaller inventory (less than 20% of the 135 fleet size) with overlapping capabilities would seem to be an easy target. All semantics about who has more items of flair aside, we have other jets that can offload gas and move cargo in the inventory, and rcvr units will adapt. We as planners will adapt, but it will suck. All that being said, I think this and discussions about chopping the A-10 are mostly posturing to wake politicians up to the impacts of sequestration. But anyone who convinces themselves that their job, airplane, base, etc, are indispensable in today's military is just setting themselves up for failure. ~NH

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.

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.

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..."

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

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

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.

Fixed

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.

Rog. Sorry man--good luck.

And of course 5 years down the road is someone else's problem.

Yep. This is all about the money, and the post-9/11 blank check has finally run out. Capabilities 5 years down the road are largely a problem for 5 years from now in our current management's eyes.

Dude, are you new here or something? When the politicians get involved it's always a huge knee-jerk reaction that is taken to the extreme. Sexual harassment and assault was illegal 7 years ago, and yet we were allowed to have Maxim's on the desk, say 'so to speak' (which I think is just a stupid saying anyway), mention 6.9 seconds, have funny Friday patches, etc. But yet, not everyone was sexually harassing females and not every female was feeling sexually harassed. But in typical fashion, the leadership was told by the politicians to fix the problem and so the leadership went overboard to cover their ass. All the leadership had to do was investigate and prosecute as necessary those 'specific' instances of sexual harassment and assault, and discipline/remove the leadership involved as necessary if they weren't doing a good job. So hate to say it man, it's your line of thinking that has caused all these issues, whether you wanted it go forward to this level or not. I can be against sexual harassment and assault while at the same time saying 'so to speak' once in a while after a sexual innuendo or mention that I ran my 1.5 in 11 min and 6.9 seconds without offending anybody (male or female)...but since it was deemed as 'potentially' offensive, the knee-jerk reaction was to end all of it without only dealing with specific instances where there were problems. And I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but anytime you, I, or somebody else is teased or is the topic of a joke, then it can be considered offensive. If my buddy teases me about my car being old, is he harassing me of my disabled brother who I give money to and hence why I can't afford a new car? If we make fun of someone because it looks like they didn't get much sleep the night before, are we offending them because maybe they are having PTSD issues and can't get a good night's sleep? I can give more examples if necessary, but I think you get the idea. Should we outlaw all joking in the military, or just be sensible and and deal with issues when the come up? That also goes along with people either directly telling the other person to cut it out or using the chain of command/IG complain process as necessary? The leadership is turning this military gig more and more into an everyday job and that's how more and more people will begin to treat it--like a 9-5 job, do what's needed, skip out on the going away parties after work hours, put your self interests first above the mission because leadership doesn't have your back...

It was a diversion for the duffel bags of Ecstasy being taken off a jet...

Going active duty instead of direct to the guard/reserve.

This isn't about Health Care

Watch it. 17% growth this year on my IRA, 10% on TSP due to his advice. Simple math on OCare, it is terrible, it will fail.

So tell us about yourself.

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.