What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Gravedigger]

I just want to fly, be respected, treated like a professional

What do you think women in our Air Force want? Times have changed. You sound like the people I grew up with in Georgia that wished segregation was still around. Rebel flags and lynching black folk are our heritage! How dare some white hippy politician tell me I can't continue my heritage. I've heard that shit too many times. In the 60s, women weren't in flying squadrons, now they are. For too long they've been forced to either become one of the bros and tolerate things that offend them deeply or be ostracized and penalized. That's bullshit. Be man enough to evolve. You can still tell as many dirty jokes and look at as much porn as you want outside of work.

[di1630]

What do you think women in our Air Force want? Times have changed. You sound like the people I grew up with in Georgia that wished segregation was still around. Rebel flags and lynching black folk are our heritage! How dare some white hippy politician tell me I can't continue my heritage. I've heard that shit too many times. In the 60s, women weren't in flying squadrons, now they are. For too long they've been forced to either become one of the bros and tolerate things that offend them deeply or be ostracized and penalized. That's bullshit. Be man enough to evolve. You can still tell as many dirty jokes and look at as much porn as you want outside of work.

So using STS and 69 are male only things and comparable to lynching as heritage? C'mon dude, I know female pilots who talk dirtier than the dudes. Also, yeah, people need to conform to traditions and have some thick skin. how can I have an honest debrief if I'm woried the guy/gal is going to cry when I tell them their flight sucked. "Sucked" how dare I use that. This ultra-sensitive PC shit is overboard.

Catering to the weak is a losing investment. We are shedding talent to keep in the easily offended vocal whiners. Killing people and flying fast jets in REAL combat is not a puss game.

[sputnik]

Liquid,

I'm not going to argue the point about 69, but don't forget the big picture--banning a number? There is no way to do that and not seem like an idiot. Making yourself the only one who can approve callsigns (fighter traditions aside) shows you have zero faith in your DO/ADO/Flight CC's. Micromanagement in the extreme. You can do the right thing without making yourself look like a moron. Or you should be able to.

The stupidity of putting that in a written memo brings back memories of the MAF OG's letter about t-shirts and scarves.

[Fuzz]

I know female pilots who talk dirtier than the dudes.

Oh the ironic truth that anyone who's actually been around most (not all) female pilots knows. I know a handful of female pilots who will beat any male in the room to "STS", but then again all males are rapists and fighter pilots especially.

[Darth]

While the discussion is interesting, this squadron commander is still going FULL RETARD. Everybody knows you never go full retard.

My apologies to the special needs people for using the retard word.

[skosh]

Anyone know the source unit? Gotta be DM, Hill or Mountain Home given 12AF fighters.

Mountain Home... Strike Eagles setting the CAF standard WRT appropriateness.

[Liquid]

I honestly don’t understand the constant reference to the word “sexist” or “sexism.”

Sexism is about discrimination based on gender. How is saying 69 “sexist?” ….It’s a sex position (that’s enjoyed by both genders). That's it. .....Ok....I reluctantly understand the connection to s. harassment, fine, but "69" is not a statement of superiority, nor a demand for exclusion. “So-to-speak” is no different.

--“Bitches should never be allowed to fly an airplane!” = sexist.

--“My girlfriend and I went 69 last night; it was awesome.” = NOT sexist.

This is why I find your racism analogy flawed. They thought black people were inferior and to be excluded from the service, and the vocabulary they used expressed as much. Some people think the same thing about women in the military today, but those attitudes aren't manifested in words like “so-to-speak” or "69." They’re manifested in statements like “Women can’t handle combat like men can…they’re too weak and emotional,” and in vocabularly like "bitch" or "######."

If those were the words and sentiments being thrown around fighter squadrons I'd be right with you on shit-canning them. But females in fighter squadrons today say STS and 69 all the time. Would they be saying that stuff if it were sexist towards them? ....Did black pilots in WWII drop the N-word about themselves?

Leadership is too eager to try to find a scapegoat for the sexual harassment issue, and in the process they're confusing these concepts. We banned racism from the military but we are still allowed to talk about race…..hell, we even have several months of the year dedicated to celebrating it!

Excellent point. I stand corrected on the improper use of the word sexist. I agree that it is not sexist to say "so to speak" to an Airman when he or she asks "Can I give you a hand with that?" It is however sexual harassment and it is wrong. So is putting Version 1.69 on a comm card or singing S&M Man at work or in uniform. Federal law defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature.” Federal law also says an unlawful hostile work environment exists when a work environment is intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. I think it is fair to say that reasonable people would be offended by some of the word game traditions practiced in some FS due to them using communication of a sexual nature in the work environment. The fact female pilots participate in the tradition or condone the acts is irrelevant to the application of the law and the policies in DoD.

I think we still have a problem with sexist attitudes and behaviors in DoD, but I wouldn't say it is a fighter problem. It was when females were first allowed to fly fighters, but in my experience, we don't have a problem with sexist discrimination.

We do, or did until recently, have a problem with institutional acceptance of traditions that constitute sexual harassment. We didn't care at the time because we didn't think it was a big deal, everyone went along with it, and it was good for morale. Those times are behind us and we have evolved our language and behavior in the workplace to be more sensitive to sexual harassment. That is the part of the culture that we won't miss.

Liquid,

I'm not going to argue the point about 69, but don't forget the big picture--banning a number? There is no way to do that and not seem like an idiot. Making yourself the only one who can approve callsigns (fighter traditions aside) shows you have zero faith in your DO/ADO/Flight CC's. Micromanagement in the extreme. You can do the right thing without making yourself look like a moron. Or you should be able to.

The stupidity of putting that in a written memo brings back memories of the MAF OG's letter about t-shirts and scarves.

I don't agree that it is only a number. It is a deliberate reference to a sex act and it has become a tradition that has expanded past the inner circle of those who think it is funny. So is the phrase "so to speak". The FS/CC memo clearly spells out his expectations to stop using these inappropriate phrases at work. Based on the emotional response by so many in this forum, it is hard to argue that he didn't need to be very clear on his expectations. Memos allow you to be precise with your language and enduring in your message. He probably discussed it with the squadron before or shortly after releasing it. It is not chickenshit to write a policy, especially if it is difficult to explain and not widely understood.

Agree on the call signs. He obviously lost faith with the call sign decision makers so he lifted the approval. He could have handled it differently, but I don't know enough about it to comment.

[Liquid]

Liquid, personal insults aside, I think we are getting to the core of the problem. You and your peers are simply out of touch with reality.

I am seeing the AF very much turn into just a "job". Many of us entered the service with wide-eyed, idealistic visions of service before self. Also, don't forget that a lot of people from which you are hearing these complaints joined after 9/11/01. What they are finding, though, is that their leadership has not been able to keep its eye on the ball with regard to taking care of people and putting the mission first. I'm not talking about the "mission first" we put at the bottom of a .ppt slidedeck.

So, yes, I will continue to serve until I either can't take the madness anymore, or until the opportunity cost of separating prior to being retirement eligible is too high. But, it is increasingly becoming more like any other "job" out there, with the exception of risks/inconveniences that are synonymous with military service that are not a factor in the civilian work force.

Look, I'm making arguments that mostly defend the policies coming out from senior leadership, and in this case of the FS/CC. I'm trying to articulate some rationale. I'm not being very successful, but I'm trying.

Feel free to question my arguments and perspective, but don't question how I lead because you don't know me. I have commanded at the squadron, group and wing level, and I've commanded three times in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've given flags to widows and kids and I've given too many memorial speeches. I would challenge you to find anyone I have served with that would say I can't keep my eye on the ball, don't take care of people or don't know what is important. I have explained to a 16 year old girl and her parents why I wasn't referring her case to a court-martial and I've participated in sending rapists to jail. And I have never kissed anyone's ass or worried about a promotion. You mistake my opinions on sexual harassment with my priorities. I've never said it was more important than mission accomplishment or taking care of people. If you need my bio to assess my credibility and leadership abilities, I'll give it to you.

di1630s remarks to me were ridiculously off base. I seriously question his judgment and ability to read people. I hope I run into him someday.

[Darth]

Ironic. You're several days late to the discussion.

re·tard ¹(r-tärd)

v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards

v.tr.

To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

v.intr.

To be delayed.

n.

1.

A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

Gearpig, thanks for your astute observation and cogent response. Google the quote for some context. If it makes you happy, the squadron commander is ######ing retarded for putting out this memo. I've been watching the discussion on whether or not people should be able to say 69 or STS. Makes me laugh and in some cases, glad I am retired.

Saying these things does not preserve fighter heritage. Having lived with fellow pilots who every other word out of their mouths was STS was annoying as hell at times. However, the USAF has gone overboard. Having a picture of your spouse in her bikini should be ok. Hanging centerfolds in the vault is not ok. Singing the S&M man is not ok. Singing the Balls of O'leary and Sweet Chariot should be ok. The guy asking a highly qualified fighter pilot who she had to blow to get her WIC patch should have gotten a swift kick in the junk (several times - and I would have been glad to help with the kicking.) My friend who kept introducing his female wingman as his "breasted wingman" should have been pulled off to the side and told to stop it (and I did.) We need to protect ourselves and be good wingman so the SARP idiot does not assault some woman in the parking lot after getting liquored up. Sometimes you gotta grab people by the neck and keep them from doing the "Hold my beer and watch this" routine. Keeps you off tv and off the CSAFs radar scope. Watch the video of the CSAF at the AFA convention. Where do you think he wants his attention to be focused? I am pretty sure it is not the 5am phone call to hear "Boss, you are not going to believe this...." That is enough rambling.

Sorry to gearpig for appearing to be late to the fight. Well not really.

[Hacker]

Liquid, a lot of shit you say here makes me roll my eyes and say "gimme a fucking break" to myself, but I have to give you massive credit for even coming here and engaging in the discussion. I don't know who you are, but even though I think your perspective is wildly out to lunch on many topics, I have massive respect for the fact that you are even interested enough to engage in this discussion. That part is a legit aspect of a real warrior leader.

I sure wish there were other O-6s and above from across the USAF who would be like Liquid; actually listen to and interact with CGOs on a no-stigs basis and talk honestly about stuff that bothers them, rather than the typical business where they pretend to listen to issues from their subordinates, and then respond by dishing out the same ridiculous talking points issued to them by their leadership.

I appreciate that Liquid's actually trying to articulate the message that leadership is putting out. The fact that he's having a difficult time doing it -- even in a forum like this -- should be an indicator to senior leadership that there might be some room for improvement of the message itself.

Liquid, for all the hair-pulling you are probably doing wondering why these childish, idiotic officers don't get it, you must realize that from their perspective, you come off as an out-of-touch Blue Kool Aid drinker whose eye is so far off the mission that you don't even know what the mission looks like anymore. The fact that there is a significantly different perspective on these issues -- again, even when discussed like this -- means that something of significance must be done if senior leadership really wants a buy-in on these issues. It is going to take a legitimate buy in at all levels to actually fix the problem...although in the USAF we never seem to be interested in actually fixing problems, but rather ensuring that there is a perception that the problem is fixed via scapegoating and message-managing the propaganda.

I'm all about it when military leadership says to us, "This is my decision on this issue, now quit your fucking whining and get in line" when it is on a topic that I can readily identify matters to our core mission of combat airpower. It is obvious that it is the latter part that, the lower half of the force doesn't seem to get.

Now whose problem is it to fix?

[B.M.]

Words... Endless, rambling words

You know, Congress is arguing about important shit, and the public still thinks of them as buffoons.

My supposed leaders are bitching about 69, sts, and other 7th grade bullshit... What a fine bunch of officers...

Edited October 2, 2013 by B.M.

[17D_guy]

The fact that there is a significantly different perspective on these issues -- again, even when discussed like this -- means that something of significance must be done if senior leadership really wants a buy-in on these issues. It is going to take a legitimate buy in at all levels to actually fix the problem...although in the USAF we never seem to be interested in actually fixing problems, but rather ensuring that there is a perception that the problem is fixed via scapegoating and message-managing the propaganda.

And here lies the rub: the "something of significance" is going to be some CGO/FGO or Sq CC getting destroyed publicly because they didn't comply with the above memo, or guidance similar to it at another base.

If the words weren't STS, 69 (as innuendo) or cranium/head. But instead were negro, or colored would this even be a discussion? Both are offensive to certain, but not all, people. Both required the offended person to submit or be ridiculed further and ostracized.

The definition of sexual harassment is clear. I bet your CC's have a policy memo on it alone. I'm going on a limb to say it says 0 tolerance. It doesn't matter if one female is happy to throw it around or not. It's still wrong.

What if there's another woman who's not comfortable with it.. now she's got to do it as well or risk not being one of the bros?

Edited October 2, 2013 by 17D_guy

[Wing Sweep]

Ha! My UPT studs actually referred to said memo this week and asked if it applied to them as well. I told them the memo was not part of our base and that if they use the # 69 and "so to speak" appropriately there would be no issues. Furthermore, I told them if someone gave them crap while these terms were used in proper context, they needed to let me know ASAP and refer said person to me. I understand the improper use of sexual references does not belong in the work place. To outright ban certain phrases is overkill, even if that CC is trying to make a point. In fact, the bros will just find another phrase or term to express themselves. The wild goose chase will continue. Banning "so to speak"...give me a break!

I have reached the point where I could give the square root of f#&k all about the AF's attempt to castrate the officer corps that kills or supports the killing of enemy soldiers/MiGs for a living. We have been at war for decades, yet it's as if our leadership forgets we are trained to kill MiGs/soldiers in the Air Force. That is what we do! For those who don't kill people/MiGs in their MWS, they certainly support the killing of people and MiGs. A good old-fashioned, ass kicking, warrior attitude that focuses on the mission and scoffs paperwork would do the trick. Instead everyone is looking behind their back to make sure no one is reporting them or has their feelings hurt; everyone is worried about a strat or the next job; everyone is worried about how they can make themselves look good; everyone is worried about making sure there is no empty space on the right side of their OPR. What the hell is our leadership doing?! The CSAF needs to have another meeting (this time a closed door meeting) with his Wing/CCs and start ripping craniums apart until they get the message that PC, leadership by email, DE through correspondence to go in-residence, masters degrees, and banning words/phrases are not the anwer. My goodness, what is becoming of our leadership?!

PC can be left to politicians. It doesn't belong in the military. PC kills good guys. PC has taken something that is valid (e.g. SAPR, MEO) and made it a joke that people roll their eyes at.

Rant switch - OFF

[Jaded]

Hacker, great post. Completely agree.

[nsplayr]

Liquid, I would say that your biggest problem in understanding the other side is when you ask people to be more corporate wrt sexual harassment, but then also turn around and demand very un-corporate things like wanting to serve just because it's the military, putting up with the unique pains of military life, or trying to reinvent that kind of camaraderie seen in past eras.

Nailed it.

::Entire post::

Well said on all counts.

[di1630]

Feel free to question my arguments and perspective, but don't question how I lead because you don't know me.

di1630s remarks to me were ridiculously off base. I seriously question his judgment and ability to read people. I hope I run into him someday.

Liquid, its a message board so of course I don't know your background or experience unless you put it out there but my apologies if I hit a nerve. Maybe my assumptions were a bit uncalled for but in my defense, I've seen a ton of poor leader careerists put on rank well above O-6...most spouting the same lingo you do seeming out of touch with the commoner. Maybe you've run into me already. If you have, I doubt you ever heard an inappropriate comment or anything unprofessional.

Have you read the modern dear boss letter? Does it make sense to you that people leave the mostly highly regarded and sought after job (pilot) in the USAF even when we throw $$ in their faces? Have you ever heard the reasons? I hear em every day as I watch the USAF shed talent. "Sick of the stupid shit", "poor leadership" are probably most common. I could name many but most revolve around things leadership could change, hell not change, just leave alone......that is if leadership weren't so concerned about CYA measures, catering to the vocal minority and bowing to the Ultra-PC crowd.

Hacker summed it up well, no need to beat a dead horse. Thanks for engaging though.

[C-21.Pilot]

Please tell me that letter didn't come from Two Dicks....(sts)

Edited October 2, 2013 by C-21.Pilot

[Warrior]

What if we just got rid of all the chicks in the military? Go back to an all-male force. That would do wonders for our sexual assault numbers.

Kinda kidding, but not really. I know a class of '75' academy grad who can/will argue passionately that opposition.

[Liquid]

Liquid, a lot of shit you say here makes me roll my eyes and say "gimme a ######ing break" to myself, but I have to give you massive credit for even coming here and engaging in the discussion. I don't know who you are, but even though I think your perspective is wildly out to lunch on many topics, I have massive respect for the fact that you are even interested enough to engage in this discussion. That part is a legit aspect of a real warrior leader.

I sure wish there were other O-6s and above from across the USAF who would be like Liquid; actually listen to and interact with CGOs on a no-stigs basis and talk honestly about stuff that bothers them, rather than the typical business where they pretend to listen to issues from their subordinates, and then respond by dishing out the same ridiculous talking points issued to them by their leadership.

I appreciate that Liquid's actually trying to articulate the message that leadership is putting out. The fact that he's having a difficult time doing it -- even in a forum like this -- should be an indicator to senior leadership that there might be some room for improvement of the message itself.

Liquid, for all the hair-pulling you are probably doing wondering why these childish, idiotic officers don't get it, you must realize that from their perspective, you come off as an out-of-touch Blue Kool Aid drinker whose eye is so far off the mission that you don't even know what the mission looks like anymore. The fact that there is a significantly different perspective on these issues -- again, even when discussed like this -- means that something of significance must be done if senior leadership really wants a buy-in on these issues. It is going to take a legitimate buy in at all levels to actually fix the problem...although in the USAF we never seem to be interested in actually fixing problems, but rather ensuring that there is a perception that the problem is fixed via scapegoating and message-managing the propaganda.

I'm all about it when military leadership says to us, "This is my decision on this issue, now quit your ######ing whining and get in line" when it is on a topic that I can readily identify matters to our core mission of combat airpower. It is obvious that it is the latter part that, the lower half of the force doesn't seem to get.

Now whose problem is it to fix?

Ok, I'm not being clear or effective. I'll take a different approach. It is my problem to fix.

I fear what our enemies are capable of doing to our nation. I respect the hell out of our ground teams that have taken horrific casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a firm believer that we will be fighting violent extremist organizations for the rest of my life. I think we will need to kill many, many people because there is no other way to prevent them from harming our families. I believe in a strong, independent and aggressive Air Force. I know that there are those in the Army, Navy and congress who would argue we don't need an independent AF. I fight them all the time, in resourcing, programming, policy and authorities. I believe that mission must come first because that is our job and nobody else is doing it. Kool Aid drinker? ###### you.

I am also a senior officer in the AF with full understanding of the concept of civilian control of the military, the value of protecting our military profession, the importance of following lawful orders, the importance of being flexible enough to stay lethal in dynamic environments and just how challenging it is to get the authorities to kill people that need to be killed. I am a part of an incredibly effective joint force that hunts and kills terrorists. Trust and competence are important to my community. Bullshit traditions are not. Using the number 69 and saying so to speak is a bullshit tradition. ######ing get over it. You look like complete asses simultaneously arguing how it isn't really sexual harassment and how important it is to your warrior ethos. I am perfectly capable of participating in these relatively minor discussions about policy and being a leader who values our mission and our people. You are mistaken to think our senior leaders only focus on the small stuff. You focus on the small stuff by making a big deal out of a FS/CC MFR that should not have even raised an eyebrow.

Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, the DoD's failure to properly address sexual assault has limited our freedom of maneuver with our civilian leadership and eroded the trust of our elected leadership and made moms and dads question the wisdom of encouraging their daughters to serve. Like it or not, our senior leadership has determined that a culture change needs to be a part of the comprehensive and aggressive campaign to address the sexual assault problem. "Warrior" just posted an example of this culture. Get on board to change the culture that values and encourages sexual harassment or get the ###### out. Not because I don't understand your culture, or appreciate your contributions, or feel your pain. Get the ###### out because you are too stupid to know which fights to pick and which traditions to value.

Go ahead and argue that sexual harassment is acceptable and worth defending. Fall on your sword over your right to act like an unprofessional ass while you tell 7th grade sex jokes and giggle about your songs. You'll either quit because it isn't like it used to be or you'll be kicked out. It cracks me up that some gray beards will post how they would kick someone's ass or pull them aside for saying inappropriate, harassing things to females, while the rest of you argue that you need to act like that to be good at what you do. You don't even listen to each other.

I respect the hell out of fighter pilots. I know many, many great leaders, warriors and officers in the CAF. None of them make these stupid ass arguments to defend the "right" to sexually harass someone.

So go ahead and roll your eyes. I really don't give a shit what you think about me. Quit your ######ing whining and help stop the relatively few cases of sexual harassment incidents we are talking about here. We have more important things to spend our time on than defending word games.

Last point. CSAF has given you the opportunity to identify bad policies and stop doing them. Sexual harassment prevention is not bad policy, but there are plenty of others. The best most of you can come up with is sock checks. When I tell you to tell the sock checker to piss off, you whine about how your wing cc and chief will get mad and your career will be over. ######ing cowards. Pick some good fights and make a difference. Sock checks, reflective belts and gym bag policies are retarded and you should aggressively challenge them. I asked for some other examples of bad policies and got nothing. I personnally ignored, changed and waived a shit ton of bad policies at my wing and I challenged my subordinate commanders to do the same. Take your tough talk on the message boards and try to actually make some change in your unit and on your base. Be a ######ing hero to some enlisted troops for doing the right thing and looking out for them. Take some risk, do the right thing and make this job better. Quit bitching that senior leaders just don't understand your pain you ######ing babies.

Out.

[Liquid]

Ha! My UPT studs actually referred to said memo this week and asked if it applied to them as well. I told them the memo was not part of our base and that if they use the # 69 and "so to speak" appropriately there would be no issues. Furthermore, I told them if someone gave them crap while these terms were used in proper context, they needed to let me know ASAP and refer said person to me. I understand the improper use of sexual references does not belong in the work place. To outright ban certain phrases is overkill, even if that CC is trying to make a point. In fact, the bros will just find another phrase or term to express themselves. The wild goose chase will continue. Banning "so to speak"...give me a break!

I have reached the point where I could give the square root of f#&k all about the AF's attempt to castrate the officer corps that kills or supports the killing of enemy soldiers/MiGs for a living. We have been at war for decades, yet it's as if our leadership forgets we are trained to kill MiGs/soldiers in the Air Force. That is what we do! For those who don't kill people/MiGs in their MWS, they certainly support the killing of people and MiGs. A good old-fashioned, ass kicking, warrior attitude that focuses on the mission and scoffs paperwork would do the trick. Instead everyone is looking behind their back to make sure no one is reporting them or has their feelings hurt; everyone is worried about a strat or the next job; everyone is worried about how they can make themselves look good; everyone is worried about making sure there is no empty space on the right side of their OPR. What the hell is our leadership doing?! The CSAF needs to have another meeting (this time a closed door meeting) with his Wing/CCs and start ripping craniums apart until they get the message that PC, leadership by email, DE through correspondence to go in-residence, masters degrees, and banning words/phrases are not the anwer. My goodness, what is becoming of our leadership?!

PC can be left to politicians. It doesn't belong in the military. PC kills good guys. PC has taken something that is valid (e.g. SAPR, MEO) and made it a joke that people roll their eyes at.

Rant switch - OFF

Just so I can more clearly understand your point, what is the appropriate use of the #69 and sts at work? Not sure I understand your comparison of PC and sexual harassment/hostile work environment. There is more to sexual harassment than political correctness. And I'm sure you understand the concept that politicians write the laws we are supposed to follow. There is a law that prohibits sexual harassment at work. And how exactly does PC kill good guys?

[FallingOsh]

Ugh...

[Liquid]

Ugh...

Don't worry. My bullshit TDY ends tomorrow and I have to go back to work. No more rants for a while.

[raimius]

Liquid, I think the difference is that one side of this debate can see dirty jokes as funny rather than sexual harassment (yes, situation dependent), while you seem to be advocating a black-and-white position designed to prevent incidents or bad PR.

Saying things like "Go ahead and argue that sexual harassment is acceptable and worth defending," makes you sound tone deaf (besides being a bit of a straw man). Quoting federal definitions also makes your argument sound more like a CBT than the sage advice of a combat tested leader.

PC has taken something that is valid (e.g. SAPR' date=' MEO) and made it a joke that people roll their eyes at.[/quote']

Comments like that indicate that there is a problem. (I also think g2s shacked it, with that one.) When we don't know when to bring the hammer down on someone who has crossed a line vs. someone being overly sensitive or simply misinterpreting a innocuous comment, we are hurting ourselves AND the real victims.

Unfortunately, I don't think our AF is mature enough to solve this at the lowest level. For all our oratory on mutual respect and dignity, we are terrible at doing little things like respectfully asking people to tone down their jokes and having the SA to not continue to crack those jokes after someone has asked.

[FallingOsh]

Don't worry. My bullshit TDY ends tomorrow and I have to go back to work. No more rants for a while.

I don't think anyone minds a good conversation (or argument) on these forums. You're welcome to keep coming back for a discussion, but throwing a temper tantrum like that won't get you very far. It's evident to me that you've already made up your mind about fighter pilots and no amount of talking will change that. None of us is in favor of sexual harassment. None of us actually thinks saying STS and 69 are required in order to get the job done. The problem is that you think stopping those silly games is going to stop sexual assault in the Air Force.

Clearly, eliminating songs and STS isn't the answer since sexual assault rates aren't dropping. Like I said before, why don't senior leaders stop collectively pointing a finger at fighter squadrons and actually make an effort to root out the true problems. If the OG consistently has the lowest amount of SAPR reports in the wing, why are leaders continuing to crush us?

You say we're stuck on the little things, but it's exactly the opposite that's true. We don't care about that stuff. You do. Senior leaders do. There's only so many times you can call someone a sexist rapist before they start ignoring you and walk off. I've got better things to do than listen to so called leaders accuse me of being a sexist rapist.

Then... THEN... you tell us we should grow some balls and stand up against the injustices of gym bags and reflective belts. You're exactly right that those issues are minuscule. They're minuscule, but they're manifestations of the larger problem. The problem (wait for it) is that senior leaders focus on the tiny, useless crap. It's the same mentality that thinks outlawing STS will stop sexual assault.

If you want to stop sexual assault, stop blaming pilot culture and instill some sense of responsibility among your airmen. IMO, sexual assault and rape stem from a culture of entitlement. Young airmen are told they're warriors. They are the key to all things military and without them the castle would crumble. Give every kid a trophy. Stroke every ego. Well, now you've got a force full of people who think they're next in line for CSAF. If they choose to slap some chick on the ass or take some drunk girl home after a party, well that's their right as an award winning warrior goddammit. Stop telling everyone how supremely special they are and try focusing them on the mission for a change.

Of course, this is just my opinion. But what do I know...

Welcome to the forums.

Edited October 2, 2013 by FallingOsh

[LookieRookie]

Just a FAIP, but what are some of the enduring traditions the Air Force can have/has? We have roll calls, bro calls, squadron events and outings where we cut loose and drink. MWS guys I've talked to say that this squadron is a lot more tight knit than any AMC unit they've been apart of because of these things.

And as well, if sock color (seen that thrown around a bunch) is such a stupid rule, why is it in an AFI? I get the whole don't follow stupid regulations, but what exactly is the mechanism for change? I know it's an 847 for crap pubs, but what about AFI's etc?

A FS/CC wrote a memo to provide no nonsense guidance so is there CSAF memo stating his view on unnecessary or stupid regs? An Air Force Times article quoting the CSAF isn't enough.

And who determines, when changing that reg, whether it's good to follow? I'm getting the vibe of "be a man" and take a stand against dumb regulations. But then what? Why have all these random restrictive regs if I'm just supposed to ignore them anyways.

Edited October 2, 2013 by LookieRookie