What's wrong with the Air Force?

[BitteEinBit]

Well, in the MSG singing songs of those type, drinking at work at all, or crude name aren't tolerated. Of course there's still the knuckleheads who think calling names/grabbing SrA Yummybritches is ok. Any they get handled, quickly. There's no "that's what she said" or "69" or the "cranium" bullshit. It degrades our fellow Airmen, which impedes our mission.

We don't tolerate that shit. I've never had a commander that did. It was understood, and there didn't require a MFR. MFR's are to show that it was briefed and understood, so that after someone does it you can show proof of "leadership" instead of having the offender run to the ADC for help after they get slammed. It's for clarity, if you don't like it, that's ok.

I disagree. I worked at MSG and Wing staff and: YES, there was drinking at work after hours; YES, there were people saying "that's what she said"; and NO, it did not lead to sexual assaults or harassment while I was there. Perhaps in your corner of the world, it is not allowed, but in other corners of the world it is allowed in the MSG and Wing Staff. Certain organizations have traditions, others don't. Why are we trying to end squadron bars when it has not been shown to increase DUIs any more than drinking downtown? I'm not a fighter pilot so I don't "get" the "cranium" and "container" thing, but I don't have to...that is not my work environment. They do "get it" and having "traditions" like that helps their morale, so be it. I'm pretty sure people aren't groping and raping women because of it. The people who have and will grope women are going to do it whether I say "69" or not.

I'm sure in some COMM Sq somewhere in the world, there are jokes about Bytes and RAM and those guys think it is funny, while in my community we won't "get it." That is what we do, we try to have fun at work believe it or not. Studies have shown that productivity is directly tied to job satisfaction. When morale is high, productivity is high. Yes, I agree that degrading women (or men for that matter), discrimination, etc have no place ANYWHERE (not just work), but I just don't see how anything in that memo is offensive. I guess I have different standards of offensive material. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have "fun" at work if while flying an 8-hour oceanic crossing, all I had to talk about were AFIs, PME, and sock checks. Perhaps we can start to attribute CLASS A mishaps to the types of conversations we have in the cockpit...excuse me...flight deck...if we really want to drive the point home.

Seriously, what is the ultimate goal here? Are we trying to create a workplace environment where everyone goes to work and just talks about work, PME, AFIs and rules and then goes home for the day never to discuss anything from outside of work that could potentially offend someone? Good luck with that. I don't think you'll find that ANYWHERE in the world...except maybe Chinese or N Korean work camps.

Sexual harassment and assault are very distinct entities than from what we are talking about here. I don't see a cause and effect connection between the two. I'm sure that 96.9% (actual made-up statistic)posters on this board believe sexual assault and harassment are wrong and will never do it...yes, even with the Squadron Bar Photo of the day thread. I'm also sure that 99.6% of those who will commit some kind of sexual assault or harassment in the workplace will probably do it regardless of what is discussed at work.

Edited September 30, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[Lord Ratner]

The MSG and MXG don't need to release MFRs that say don't use sexual innuendo, inappropriate call signs, explicit lyrics and early afternoon drinking. Their enlisted and officer leadership does not tolerate it.

Everything you said, which I mostly disagreed with but still respected as valid, was undone right here. When's the last time you were around a group of maintainers? I've heard more horribly inappropriate shit come from maintainers, some even female, than any other group in the AF (except perhaps EOD). Whatever metric is being used to measure the problem, it's ######ed if someone actually believes the OGs have a bigger (rather than more visible) problem with SA/SH.

Here's the other side to the coin: Never in human history has the military operated this way. That doesn't mean it won't work, hell, I'd bet it will. But to me it's like the uniform battle. Every time an E-9 goes on a rant about pilots with their zippers down or maintainers with dirty boots or personnelists with jackets on indoors, they fall back on the "history" that the uniform represents and the "heritage" we are shitting on by wearing it "disrespectfully." Yet every picture I see of WWI and WWII looks like a competition for who can wear their hat funnier, or not at all. Vietnam vets could be seen wearing more than the required pieces of flair, if any uniform items at all. It's made up. They're using a fictional history to justify the new direction. Just like our current battle with SA/SH in the workplace.

There's no historical precedent for a non-sexualized military, so instead of attacking how fighter pilots (or whoever) have been doing it wrong all this time and we just "finally have a senior leader with the balls to confront it," be honest about it. Times have changed, and we have to change with them. The Captains and Majors complaining about having to change aren't to blame any more than the Colonels and Generals (now the ones telling them how stupid and offensive they are) are for doing it when they were captains and majors. But if you think our culture is worse than others, I challenge you to spend some time with an army unit living next door in Bagram. It may calibrate your expectations.

Sir.

[Warrior]

Disco nav touched on it (sts). I asked the sarc at my last sapr refresher how many sexual assaults come from the OG. The answer was 3 or 4 over his 10 year tenure ( out of 112 cases). The point is that at a base with 9 flying squadrons, the numbers show it's not that big of an issue. Should we help the victims? Absolutely. And to those who claim it's under reported I say prove it. I've been called a rapist since day 1 when I showed up at the academy and I'm tired of it.

All of the data that we're quoted is how Sex assault is such a prevalent problem in the DoD or AF wide. Is any OG immune? Absolutely not but I don't think we're focusing in the right place.

As for restricted reporting, I've never gotten a straight answer from a sarc-does a restricted report affect someone's flying status? What if they're on PRP?

[ThreeHoler]

I'm sure in some COMM Sq somewhere in the world, there are jokes about Bytes and RAM and those guys think it is funny

Oh, you mean like the official slogan of the comm sq at Al Dhafra? The one that they stamp on every in- and out-processing checklist as well as have on their walls, etc.

"Shooting comm all over your base"

Real professional, that one.

[pawnman]

Disco nav touched on it (sts). I asked the sarc at my last sapr refresher how many sexual assaults come from the OG. The answer was 3 or 4 over his 10 year tenure ( out of 112 cases). The point is that at a base with 9 flying squadrons, the numbers show it's not that big of an issue. Should we help the victims? Absolutely. And to those who claim it's under reported I say prove it. I've been called a rapist since day 1 when I showed up at the academy and I'm tired of it. All of the data that we're quoted is how Sex assault is such a prevalent problem in the DoD or AF wide. Is any OG immune? Absolutely not but I don't think we're focusing in the right place. As for restricted reporting, I've never gotten a straight answer from a sarc-does a restricted report affect someone's flying status? What if they're on PRP?

I once had a SQ/CC brief us up that the AF actually has fewer assaults per capita than most major organizations our size, especially ones with our demographic (young people living away from home for the first time...like any major college in America). Unfortunately, we don't see presidents of public universities hauled in front of congress every time a sorority sister passes out at a frat guy's place, but one "so to speak" and the military are all classified as sexual predators.

[BitteEinBit]

Oh, you mean like the official slogan of the comm sq at Al Dhafra? The one that they stamp on every in- and out-processing checklist as well as have on their walls, etc.

"Shooting comm all over your base"

Real professional, that one.

Thanks ThreeHoler. While I actually laughed a little bit at that one....perfect example. A fighter pilot must be in command of that squadron....no way anyone in the MSG would tolerate that.

[JarheadBoom]

Why is it weak sauce and why do you expect non-fighter pilots to say it more than fighter pilots?

It's weak because it should have been handled face-to-face, commander to subordinates. LEADERS have the balls to look their people in the eyes and tell them to their faces when they announce a policy that will be unpopular. MANAGERS have one of their staff write the memo for their signature, name others as their POC on the matter, then have the staffer email it to the unit on their behalf. LEADERS do not threaten to "tell Dad" about those who choose to violate the policy, they deal with those people themselves.

I expect chickenshit from certain flavors of "leadership" (and not others) based on my personal experiences and observations, after 18+ years of service in two different branches.

[DFRESH]

Holy fucking shitballs... I just completely agreed with a Nav (nsplayer at the top of the page). It is the end of the world as we know it.

[BuddhaSixFour]

I've had this discussion with people in person, and I've realized that there is a massive fighter/bomber squadron echo chamber going on where everyone agrees that all of this is some sort of travesty witch hunt against tradition and culture.

Just realize that to much of the rest of the Air Force (Liquid, 17D_Guy), just about anyone you'll ever work with in a joint environment, and the entirety of the outside world, you look like stupid frat boys at best.

Maybe this is all misguided emphasis, and maybe this is important enough to you that you don't care, but you should be 100% aware of that before continuing.

[theSituation]

I've had this discussion with people in person, and I've realized that there is a massive fighter/bomber squadron echo chamber going on where everyone agrees that all of this is some sort of travesty witch hunt against tradition and culture.

Just realize that to much of the rest of the Air Force (Liquid, 17D_Guy), just about anyone you'll ever work with in a joint environment, and the entirety of the outside world, you look like stupid frat boys at best.

Maybe this is all misguided emphasis, and maybe this is important enough to you that you don't care, but you should be 100% aware of that before continuing.

Who cares how they're viewed? Why is that important? What IS important is that there is nobody else on the planet who can do what they do as well as they do with the resources they have. If jokes and songs help them unwind after a day of practice or actual killing, then so be it. If you are offended by that, then don't hang out in their squadron bars. Why is a 69 or so to speak joke more offensive than the massive amount of violence these guys inflict on our enemies? Im not saying im offended by the violence, just trying to bring up a point that priorities are skewed here.

Yeah, these guys are a very small segment of the force. It IS a fraternity/brotherhood. Nobody else does what they do. Everyone else is there for support. Let them be.

And why bring up the joint argument? Why should they care? Is there anybody else they would like to have providing the service of killing from the air? I think not.

[herkbum]

Oh, you mean like the official slogan of the comm sq at Al Dhafra? The one that they stamp on every in- and out-processing checklist as well as have on their walls, etc.

"Shooting comm all over your base"

Real professional, that one.

Anyone going after them like they are the fighter squadrons?

[JarheadBoom]

Anyone going after them like they are the fighter squadrons?

As of today, no.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Is 69 and "so to speak" really that funny that everyone gets pissed off when they remove it in a squadron?

I went on a raptor coronet and one of the new raptor guys was in the cockpit, and he kept saying shit like: "Next AR is in 69 miles," "The Raptor burns anywhere from 0 to 69,000 pounds per minute," and "There are 6.9 thousand pages in this damn dash one." It was just him and the -10 aircrew up front...

I didn't find it that funny to begin with, and it got a little annoying after the first five times. I'm all for sexual innuendos, and extremely inappropriate jokes (by the way, the worst shit I've heard comes from crew chiefs, not aircrew). But 69 really isn't that funny after 9th grade... kind of like how saying "ur gay" isn't a good insult anymore. At least be creative with your innuendos.

But I guess if it's a community tradition to incorporate 69 into every sentence, I can see why folks would get upset. I'm not offended by it--I find it slightly irritating, especially when you're trying to have a decent conversation--but is it really that big of a deal to use real numbers and refrain from saying "so to speak?" Does saying 69 really help you unwind that much after a flight?

I don't agree with the rest of the memo (removing explicit music from a military squadron--really? No inappropriate callsigns--really?), but for the sexual innuendos... is it that bad to save them for the bar/cockpit/any place that isn't your desk job?

Anyone going after them like they are the fighter squadrons?

Gonna go do a quick check on said squadron tomorrow morning.

[herkbum]

I know everyone keeps talking about fighter pilot songs, but what about rap/hip hop music? It's offensive, and not just sexual innuendos. Are they going after that as well. Got to apply the rule across the board if it is going to be applied.

[Hacker]

Many policies are stupid and CSAF has directed you to not follow the stupid ones. Have the courage to identify them and get rid of them.

I'm eager to see how that "rationale" plays out in the next CDI, or FEB, or Article 32 hearing, or even reply to an Art 15 or LOR.

It'll go something like this:

"You thought that rule was 'stupid', and IAW your massive misunderstanding of the CSAF's intent, and your ridiculously ignorant and dangerous judgment, you chose to not follow it. Under Article 31 of the UCMJ, you have the right to remain silent...."

Does anyone seriously believe that if they see something dumb in the regs and disregard it, that they're NOT going to be severely punished be leadership for disregarding something in the regs? This is the Air Force leadership who has, downrange during actual combat operations, stated "compliance is more important than achievement."

Whose judgment, exactly, is going to be considered the standard for determining if something in the regs is stupid and should be ignored? The current USAF culture effectively requires leadership at the Wing and below "mother-may-I" practically every minor deviation from the status quo because of this "compliance" mindset (you won't find that in the regs, natch, but you'll see it in the actions of Commanders as well as their stratifications following those "decisions"). So, can an Airman decide? Does he have to ask an NCO? Does that NCO have to ask their OIC? Does that OIC have to ask their Ops O or CC? Group CC? Wing CC? What level is the appropriate "judgment" level? My guess is that it is going to be at least one level higher than anyone who actually chooses to take this path.

The first guy who does it is going to get paperwork, and then told that it was not in their authority to make such a decision. Anyone who actually values their career, their wings, whatever, is going to play the most conservative card possible and not dare to either think or color outside the lines, as that is what our experiences have shown us is the safest path. The only "courage" it is going to take for someone to break that conservative mold will be the willingness to lose your ability to honorably serve and risk being labeled as a problem child rule-breaker. For all the talk about "moral courage" I hear, what it translates to in the real world is falling on your sword and sacrificing your ability to continue serving honorably. Everyone I've known who has shown moral courage and tried to speak up about real problems with the status quo has been sidelined with paperwork, go-nowhere jobs, etc., because it has ruffled the feathers of officers who don't like to be told when they're not wearing any clothes, especially by people junior to them.

I applaud what the CSAF is saying and wants us to do (because it is common sense to warfighters who are actually interested in, and focused on, professional warfighting), but it goes contrary to every other message on the topic of "compliance" that all levels of AF leadership other than the CSAF given over the last 6-9 years (to wit: reflective belts, uniform queep, mustache length -- you know, all the real important stuff for accomplishing the mission of combat airpower).

Edited September 30, 2013 by Hacker

[czecksikhs]

I wonder if Major General Maggie Woodward has her old name tag from Del Rio that said "Helen Bed" on display at her new office as SAPR chief?

[Steve Holt!]

If 69 is just a number, no different than any other number, than start throwing 25 into sentences instead.

Pilsung.

[addict]

...CSAF given over the last 6-9 ....

STS

I know everyone keeps talking about fighter pilot songs, but what about rap/hip hop music? It's offensive, and not just sexual innuendos. Are they going after that as well. Got to apply the rule across the board if it is going to be applied.

Vault music was above the number 69 on the list of things to eliminate in that MFR.

Edited September 30, 2013 by addict

[herkbum]

STS

Vault music was above the number 69 on the list of things to eliminate in that MFR.

I'm not only referring to vault music. Many listen to iPods or radio at work. If the music can be heard by someone else, I would think that would make it a target.

[17D_guy]

I love how some people try and make it sound like pilots are all constantly drunk at work.

As I've said elsewhere I don't have a problem with pilots drinking. i don't drink at all, but I wish we could have a Sq Bar, and a beer light. I think it would be great for our ALL Sq's.

Additionally, no the jokes and comments don't lead to sexual assault. I never implied that, or meant to. That's as stupid as saying the "hook up" culture leads to rape. I was trying to contrast what I have seen in my corner of MSG (comm specifically).

Comments/jokes do increase the likelihood of someone feeling harassed/reporting harassment. Lived through it, sucked big time. Same thing has been covered in every level of management training (undergrad, make your jokes) and PME. Ugh, I had problems with female Amn saying offensive crap to other female/male Amn.

BitteEinBit has had a very different experience. Not sure if it's been Comm centric, which is where all mine has been. Sounds like an interesting environment, hope I get to experience it.

I'm just trying to inject what my little bit of the MSG has been like at my bases in regards to this, not trying to take your flight suit. Cool your jets.

Edited September 30, 2013 by 17D_guy

[busdriver]

sniff sniff sniff

Still smells like a jock strap don't it?

[Dupe]

Stuff Hacker said...

This is the fundamental problem. The boss wants folks to break the rules, color outside the lines, or to take risks. However, the promotion and compensation system we have inherently rewards those who take a conservative approach.

[brabus]

Gimme a fucking break. It's colossally low SA like this that has caused this little bit of unwanted attention.

Wrong. I and 98% of the other fighter pilots I know/have met execute colossally high SA by removing "69," "6-9," "sts," etc. from our lexicon when outside the FS, at meetings with non-ops, etc. It's like Toro said, you sound like an idiot when you talk like that around others who aren't in the community. The 2% who don't do this are the new Lt's who haven't learned quite yet (reference Raptor wingmen story above).

Bullshit, it happens too frequently and "you" encourage it and protect it. No other "culture" or AFSC actively defends their "right" to act like a sexist asshole like some (not all or most) in the fighter community

Did you read what I said? We DO NOT act like sexist assholes, there you go again branding an entire community because you met a couple asshole fighter pilots over your career. I'm not defending those idiots, I'm pissed that my senior leadership is focusing on not having "verson 1.69" on a lineup card instead of putting that weight of effort into smashing the balls of those who actually harass/assault people.

your persistent use of this number in inappropriate situations is also absurd.

See my response to Danny.

I chose to go to AFSOC and I am glad I did.

Ironically one of our 1COs has said multiple times the AFSOC squadron she PCS'd from was FAR worse than our squadron in every way of sexual harassment. She said she was shocked at how professional and nice a FS was after "everything she had heard." So here's a data point: one AFSOC squadron is FAR worse than one FS. The point is this stuff can be everywhere, yet the AF is myopically focused on FS because it's the easy, visible target post-TSgt Whatever at Shaw.

Focusing on one group of people because they have 'traditions' that can be visibly eliminated and reported as 'action taken' is not going to fix the problem. No...not as long as you still sell those magazines in the BX that have women in bikinis and sell 'sexuality.' Not as long as you play sexually explicit movies at base movie theaters, not as long as you play sexually suggestive programs on AFN TV and radio (by the way, I learned 'that's what she said' on a program I watch on AFN). It is difficult to take leadership seriously when they selectively target eliminating sexuality in one place, but promote sexuality (ie sexual preference) in another place.

Shack. I hear more offensive shit on AFN than I do in an entire day at work. They play songs about doing drugs, banging chicks, killing people...that's OK dudes, but anything other than a pleasant "hello" in a FS is deemed sexual harrassment. What gives Liquid? I do appreciate you coming on here and giving the senior leader perspective, but at least to us line O-2 to O-5 guys, the tone is very "we are the senior leaders and you will put this dick in your mouth or get out of the AF, end of story!" Senior leadership says it wants to hear from the trenches, find answers as to why so many dudes hate this corporation and can't wait to get out, etc. But it clearly falls on deaf ears the majority of the time. I'm completely with you that TRUE sexual assault and harassment is completely wrong and I'll be the first guy in line to kick offending assholes in the balls. What I want to see my senior leadership do is put their money where there mouth is put their entire weight of effort against the real problems, not bullshit like v.169 on a lineup card.

[Karl Hungus]

I hear you that morale is not high.

Why do you think that morale is not high?

Why do you think that so many pilots want out of active duty as soon as possible?

What are you and other "leaders" doing to fix those very real issues?

Please be honest and detailed. Thanks.

[Flaco]

In ten years, we will look back at the fighter-centric culture that embraced these unprofessional, sexist and inappropriate traditions and we will wonder why our institution allowed it to happen for so long. sts, 69, sexist callsigns, squadron song books and word game traditions will die and our AF will be better off for it.

When 82 year old Robin Olds lead us in the singing of "Balls of O'Leary" at the Sheppard O-Club in 2004 with a room full of 200 pilots (men and women) it was the most beautiful thing I had ever heard. It was right then and there that I understood why the "unprofessional, sexist, and innapropraite traditions" that you know nothing of were so important.

You want to convince me that your perspective, the "senior leader" perspective, is better than Robin's. You have failed to do so.