Liquid

No sweat, thanks. It is easy to get us mixed up.

I agree with you on the way we should lead (focus on mission, reject careerists, provide direct and honest feedback) but I don't agree that we don't have leaders like that anymore. They may be scarce in your "tribe" but they are not scarce everywhere. I don't understand your point that we can't be effective leaders because we must be afraid of offending someone. Can you clarify? Look at it through the lens of the most recent high profile scandals (TSgt Smith, Lt Col Wilkerson and Lt Col Krusinski). Are you arguing that if we had allowed dynamic leadership, we could have swiftly and effectively dealt with the those who lacked the discipline to do the right thing? Did "my kind" tie the hands of the commanders at Shaw and Aviano, preventing the commanders from correcting in a meaningful way those who lacked discipline? Why do you think we can't have dynamic leaders and commanders anymore?

I'm getting the sense that you are a disgruntled employee. https://blogs.hbr.org/2012/07/are-you-creating-disgruntled-e/ Some of the pros say disgruntled employees and employers need to start trusting each other. Others say you need to protect your "company" from the damage disgruntled employees will do. I think I get why you don't trust "my kind", but I don't know why "my kind" doesn't trust you. Can you explain?

We are bringing this exact conversation to the conference. I agree, too many are oblivious. If bringing it up at the conference doesn't work, this issue will be brought up directly to the chief. Guaranteed.

Good points. Maybe she did all that after the experiment. Maybe she did all that prior to the experiment. Maybe she is being very effective at teaching young airmen how to be adults. Maybe not, who knows. But attacking this one instance, simply because PA did an article on it, isn't useful. Particularly when when you add the "I'd hit that", "finance sucks" and "my wife is hot" bullshit to the discussion. Part of the "treat them like adults" involves correcting poorly led and misinformed crewdogs and pilots that think it is ok to bring sex into work with bullshit word games, call signs and traditions. It is time for all of our officers to act like adults, and professional military officers, and not frat boys. The vast majority of them do. This may be tough to do, tough to change, and may impact retention and morale, but it is worth it. It is time for our current officer leadership to step up and lead our force to accomplish our assigned missions with the resources and constraints given to us by our senior leadership. That is the true challenge of command. Get it done. So I challenge all of you to be great leaders, that understand the dynamics and specific guidance regarding sexual assault, hostile work environments and the intolerance of inappropriate materials at work, understand the METT-TC environment and get the critically important job of killing people, breaking things and defending this nation done. You must take the current guidance, continue to build esprit d' corps, camaraderie and brotherhood, and get it done. Stop the f*cking bitching and whining and lead this force. The negative attitudes and constant threats of separation and revolt are not doing our force much good.

Ok, thanks for correcting me. I just watched it. I laughed. My wife thought it was moronic asked why I was laughing, then she made some departing comment about how guys are idiots. Not sure though, I wasn't really listening. Bottom line, the video should not have been repeatedly shown at the duty desk in Balad. TSgt Smith's allegation was properly substantiated in the CDI and the IG report. Her leadership had a duty to keep that shit from happening at work. They failed. Valid point. What message should be sent to her CPTS squadron Airmen? How could she have done it better?

Not sure that is true. On the scale of unprofessional and sexually offensive material, a model or a wife in a swimsuit is on the very low end. You could easily argue that you had no duty to remove it because it was not sexually offensive or inappropriate. There is a difference between inappropriate and sexually offensive, and harassment. The picture and the exercise are not sexual harassment. Look up the definition in AFIs and federal law, it is clear. She used a relatively minor prop to try to make a point. Not sure if it was effective, or what her Airmen thought about it. Why do you care? You aren't in her squadron and you don't know her challenges. If you don't agree with it, do it differently when you are a commander. If your commander does the same thing to you, tell him/her why you think it is such a bad idea.

This exact argument was used to mask deployment dates from the Officer Selection Brief. Non-deployers thought the advantage given to deployers was unfair, so we took the information off the brief. You can get the AF wide combat flight hours from the HARM office. I agree with Chuck, including this factual data is a good thing.

UCMJ Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Punishable by dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for a year. I don't make the laws, but I try to know them. As a rule, I avoid conversations about politics. Commissioned officers have a duty to be politically impartial. We should not violate the trust between the military and our civilian leadership. This should apply to our retired GOFOs. Their remarks damage the trust and confidence our civilian leaders have with current GOFOs.

If you don't like the monthly diversity months, don't participate. Not many do anyway. The events and procedures are mandated by DoD and the AF. Take it up with your Congressman. They don't cost much and most people that attend them have a good time. Before I was a commander, I never attended any of them. I didn't whine about them either. Just because they weren't important to me at the time didn't mean I thought we should stop doing them. The Pride Month move is controversial. I don't agree with it. But like many decisions that come down from above, I will support unless they are illegal, unethical or immoral. I won't attend the events, but I won't whine and bitch about it either. The federal government restricts explicit and offensive material on the radio and TV. Seinfeld and radio songs are censored and controlled, so they are not good examples for your argument. Digital music and cable TV have definitely increased the level of offensive material available at work. So yes, we should limit the overtly sexual and racist music played at work. No reason to force your co-workers to listen to hard core rap lyrics. The standard should probably be where the feds draw the line, for at work. Males and females sleep in the same billets/pods/huts/apartments when required. Most of the time, we build enough to segregate the living quarters. Makes sense to do when we can. We we can't, we are expected to behave like professionals. Remember, most of our force is very young and tends to need a little more supervision than the majority of the posters on this forum. The whole AAFES cheerleader thing was stupid to begin with. They should be enjoyed on your own time, not government time. Same with dirty magazines and movies. Just because you can buy something at a store on base, doesn't mean it is acceptable in the workplace. AAFES sells plenty of items that are not appropriate for display at work and that should not be the standard you use to determine it. Commanders should still talk about and emphasize combat, readiness and mission. If they don't they are wrong and should get immediate feedback about misplaced priorities. No argument there.

Ok, blame the victim. Got it. You would have handled it the same way because the females you talked to weren't offended. 1COs are allowed in vaults in other squadrons, but the concept that the vault is a protected area because no enlisted females are allowed in there is flawed. The threshold for appropriateness is not whether someone like Jen Smith is offended. It is whether it is appropriate for the workplace. Porn in the vault is just as bad as porn at the ops desk. How about the Sweet Lemonade video at the ops desk? That one was ok too? Yes, drawing the line is difficult. Notice I didn't get many answers to my question, where would you draw the line. Right below porn? Above a grainy picture of a Taliban molesting a goat? How about the slides about sex underage teens like the ones Jen Smith turned in to her lawyer? Let individuals judge themselves? Aren't we doing that now? Obviously the line has been raised above where it was. Our senior Air Force leadership, including the top fighter pilot, has decided that we will no longer tolerate the sexually offensive material and behavior we did last year. This was probably brought upon by the Jen Smith lawsuit and the embarrassing press that followed, and the unacceptably high number of sexual assaults in the AF. And by the fact our culture is evolving to not value overtly sexual behavior at work. Much like we did when we rejected the overtly racist behavior. Just because we did it xx years ago, doesn't mean it is right. Look, for the 8th time, I am not personally offended by this shit. I enjoy the good old fashioned Western culture that values sex, violence, and raunchy humor in our entertainment. My personal tolerance for offensive material is quite high, but also irrelevant to where our institution should draw the line. What we value in entertainment is not the same as what we value at work. The museums should not have changed anything with nose art, that is what museums are for. But we should not be putting the nose art that was acceptable in WWII on our current aircraft. And there is probably a line that needs to be drawn with regards to 10-15 sexy nose art pictures lining the halls of an ops squadron. The 69 discussion summarizes our current situation well. Many people think there is nothing wrong with using the number 69 and sts in order to sexualize a situation. This happens in the professional workplace. People like doing it, people do it by habit and people get pissed when you tell them to knock it off. The unnecessary sexualization of workplace actions and environments is wrong and should be stopped. And there is a difference between a picture of your wife wearing a bikini, posing on her knees like a swimsuit model, and a family photo with someone wearing a bikini. One is overtly sexual, the other not. The suitability is a judgment call that should be made by officers and SNCOs and validated/confirmed and enforced by commanders. We shouldn't be unreasonably sensitive and you could make a strong argument that the picture the sq/cc used in her exercise was not inappropriate. Make the argument, but don't just say we should accept every behavior and workplace material we used to because those were the good old days. You crack me up Viper.

Sorry dude, I shouldn't have slammed you. It is the AFSEC and MAJCOM/SE policies that prevent you and other safety shops from getting the video and ppt that have failed. Hopefully we will get some traction next week at the safety conference.

I was not clear on that post. By beloved WWII nose art, I meant that nose art means a lot to me. I wasn't being a smart ass. I think it is a shame that we are removing nose art from our culture. My grandfather flew B-17s in the Bloody 100th and I own nose art. I did not like directing the removal of "Camera Shy" at our wing, but I did it and moved on. It is now not appropriate. It was at the time, but now it is not. We should preserve it in our museums and as a proud part of our heritage, but not as a part of our current culture. Specifically, the nose art that was acceptable in WWII is not acceptable on our aircraft today. Or on posters in our workplaces. I think it is unfortunate. I absolutely do not feel the same regret when it comes to stupid ass word games, sexually offensive traditions or most of the bullshit that was taken off the walls during the "purge". None. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Do you think the Sweet Lemonade video at Balad contributed to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment experienced by TSgt Smith? How about the Doofer books and Fighter Pilot Song book she got from the vault? Do you agree with the findings in the CDI and IG report? Many of her allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence. Most of the substantiated allegations were for a failure of leadership. Were those commanders wrongly judged due to civilian pressures?

Post 547. Ok "Beaver", where do you draw the line? Let's pretend you are an officer and you lead people. What do you tolerate, on the scale of porn played on a work computer to a poster of your favorite sports team? There is a line on what is acceptable. The discussion should be about where the line is. I think it is sexual in nature with no other purpose. A picture of a woman in a bikini, posted by someone who likes to say "check out my hot wife" is above the line. Runners World magazine cover is below it. That picture is about sports, not sex. Unless the same idiot who has the "hot wife" photo also has 25 pictures of scantily clad female "athletes". That would be obviously sexual in nature and should be corrected. Not with a firing squad or referral OPR. With direct feedback that he is being an idiot and to knock it off. Not direct feedback from a Chief, or CPTS Sq/CC, but from everyone who sees it. This whole discussion is about where the line is drawn. Many think it is right below porn because of the sexualized society we live in. I think the threshold is much lower, primarily because it is the workplace and has nothing/nothing to do with defending the nation, killing people of precisely executing your mission. Did you read the IG report and CDI on the 55 FS? What did you think about the substantiated findings and punishment? What do you think about TSgt Smith's allegations and what would you say to her if you were her commander? Come on "Beaver", are you up for really talking about this bullshit?

I don't work at the puzzle palace, hunt pictures or desecrate AF heritage. #### you and your "here you go" bullshit. I am doing something about this.

Fail. The powerpoint presentation given by the board president to the convening authority, with the accompanying CVR and simulator recreation, is a much more effective training tool than the written report. We should have access to that SIB data and analysis, while ensuring we protect the privileged info.

Why don't I obsess about it? Because we received CSAF guidance to take down the sexually offensive and inappropriate material, so we did. No paperwork, no courts-martial, no tears. We took them down, even the beloved WWI nose art, and we moved on. We started correcting people for saying stupid inappropriate shit like "that's what she said". No firing squads, DNPs or Q-3s. Immediate, direct verbal feedback to knock it off. No big deal. No whining. Focus on leading and warfighting. Not sure if you've been paying attention, but we have some serious challenges with funding, threats and readiness ahead of us.

Seriously, why do you guys obsess about this shit? You would think warfighters would say "noted" and move on to more important things. It isn't rocket science and it isn't hard to comply. Keep the sex talk/pics/songs off duty and focus on warfighting while you are in uniform, deployed and at work.

Lots of talk about what you wouldn't do to prevent the unacceptable and disgusting number of sexual assaults that occur every day in our Air Force. What would you do as a squadron commander, wing commander or CSAF? Hold offenders accountable? Like Wilkerson? Protect victims? Of which half don't want to report unrestricted because they think/know they won't be protected? Got it, you wouldn't ban bikini pics, videos about drinking horse urine or saying sts after someone says package. What would you tell 35 first term Airmen that just arrived at your base about your philosophy on sexual harassment and sexual assault? Like I've said, I'm not easily offended. I still don't want to see the pic. At work or in a bar. Keep it in your damn wallet or your phone like normal people do.

I've always flown aircraft in squadrons with female crewmembers, so I never referred to pilot peers as "bros". I've never been in a squadron that blatantly used word games, sexual innuendo or songs about sex. I have given shit to my fighter pilot friends my entire career for those traditions. I did tolerate Maxim style pictures in combat zones, using the "bought it at the BX" test. I told inappropriate jokes when I was a crewdog. I probably use too much profanity and try to cut down on it at work. During my career, I saw plenty of what is now considered "inappropriate" material and didn't say anything. I didn't do that as a commander. Gen Welsh told us it was time to change the culture in our Air Force that tolerated sexual harassment, hostile work environments and sexually offensive material in the work place. He explained that it was a part (not the only) of a strategy that will reduce sexual assault. I think he genuinely believes it. I agree with him. I also think we need to get serious about the other lines of operations like training, education, response, prosecution, and prevention. The culture change is not the most important, but it is time to change. Time to grow up and stop acting like frat boys at work. We changed the racist culture in our AF after WWII and we will change this culture. A few years from now, nobody will care that we don't get to have mermaid handle coffee mugs at work.

Why should I or anyone else be subjected to a picture of your wife in a bikini? Why do you want other people to look at this picture? What message are you trying to send those you work with? You shouldn't wear a bikini to work, display calendars of models wearing bikinis or put up a picture of your wife in a bikini. It is clearly sexual in nature and not appropriate for the workplace. However, the picture of the wife in the bikini is not that big of a deal. It is probably on the lowest end of the sexually offensive material scale. That is probably why the sq commander used a picture of a model in a bikini. It is not so offensive that it crosses the line of performing sexual harassment exercises by actually sexually harassing people. It is an example of a commander being creative and aggressive in the effort to prevent sexual harassment and assault. Nobody is arguing for paperwork or NJP for inappropriate material at work. Most are encouraging self policing, awareness and a better understanding of what is inappropriate at work. No clear line, but a clear objective: clean up the workplace by removing sexually offensive and inappropriate material. Like Tony Carr points out, putting the fake picture on a Lts desk in a predominately enlisted workplace was not smart.

I don't think Runners world magazines are sexually offensive, unprofessional or inappropriate. I don't know why anyone would need to display their favorite magazines in the workplace. Put your recreational reading down and do what you are being paid to do. Read your magazines on your own time, not at work. With as much bitching about how you can't read the -1 or the SPINS because you have to get your bullshit AAD, I'm surprised how many people want open and visible access to their magazines. If you need them or want to read them during your break, just put them in the damn drawer. And keep your stupid ass mermaid handle mug at home. Some stews like to talk about sex with the pilots while they fly. Some female pilots say "sts" and 69. So what? That doesn't make it right. Ask your chief pilot or union rep if you can hang your Maxim calendar on the back of your seat without being hassled by "leadership" and let me know what he says. Maybe you can convince him that it makes you a better pilot.

How does singing dirty songs, displaying Hooters calendars, listening to sexually explicit songs, using sexual innuendos or putting pictures of sexy women in your crew briefs (all at work) make you a better warfighter? Don't go after the red herring that is a photo on your desk of your wife in a bikini. Comment on how our tradition of glamorizing sex makes us better.

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.

I think we overuse "privilege" protections. Our current safety system does not adequately use the information the SIB gathers to prevent future mishaps through education. However, I respect the rules and procedures that deliberately restrict the public release of safety board information and analysis. AIB information is for the public, the family and lawyers. SIB information is for the Air Force to prevent future mishaps by figuring out what happened without worrying about the threat of prosecution. Not a perfect system since convening authorities see both versions, but the protection of "privilege" has merit. However, we go overboard protecting the SIB information at the expense of mishap prevention. I asked the safety center for the video of the C-17 crash during the airshow practice in Alaska. I was officially told I could not have that video (with tower footage, CVR and sim recreation) because it belonged to AMC/CC and was not intended for my use. So during my 1.5 hour long discussion to 600+ wing crewmembers about flight safety, flight discipline, risk management, CRM and standards, the Air Force Safety Center and AMC/SE thought I did not have a valid use for the video. Undeterred by bad decisions and bureaucracy, I got a bootleg copy of the video and showed it during my brief because it was an effective tool to discuss mishap prevention. I also showed the video of the MC-12 doing a barrel roll, an RPA landing mishap with horrible CRM, a CV-22 mishap and several recent ground mishaps. I read this MC-12 AIB and attended the SIB VTC to (A)SECAF. I thought the AIB did a good job investigating the crash and I thought the findings were solid. I disagreed with some of the SIB findings and recommendations. Not appropriate to get into details here. So, questions for this distinguished forum. Have any of you have seen the full MC-12 SIB brief, with CVR and simulator animation? Did your sq/wing safety shop brief the mishap with all of the tools available? Do you think we do an adequate job preventing mishaps through education gained from SIBs?