More SARC briefings soon.

[HeloDude]

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.

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month.

I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot.

Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

Edited November 2, 2013 by HeloDude

[Beaver]

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?

Oddly enough I flew in all the squadrons Jen Smith worked in at Shaw. I know every single person in her complaint (and I'm not one of them, despite my oh so offensive callsign). I also know and have corresponded with female airmen that she worked with. She went looking to be offended and she was. If I was her commander, who was also my commander, I would probably have handled it the same way he did, which obviously wasn't good enough for our sensitive TSgt.

Good people got crushed for no good reason because of her. The fighter community is weaker because of it.

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?

And by the way, since you obviously don't know, a 1c0 doesn't have access to the vault, therefore shouldn't be exposed so the evil doofer book or songbook. Or the flyer posted in the men's room.

[ViperStud]

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 blah blah blah

Or maybe a dude just has a picture of his Frau from their honeymoon, one of te happiest times of his life. Or maybe it's from his wedding and she was showing a little cleavage. Gasp - God forbid.

Liquid, why does it have to be more complicated than that? It's standard to have pics of your family, but now you are saying it's only ok if I have pics of sports teams and everything else in my life. You've gone full retard when you argue that such a picture is offensive when you can turn on CBS and see some ho like Miley Cyrus fornicate on stage.

But yeah, it's my honeymoon (not a bikini, but with a little cleavage) picture that's the problem. You're a fvcking idiot.

[xaarman]

I know it's against popular opinion, but I really appreciate hearing Liquid's thoughts on these items. It's already been quoted, but saying you ordered the removal of that specific nose art will make it a lot easier for an internet detective with a grudge to vet you out - FYI.

[Beaver]

I know it's against popular opinion, but I really appreciate hearing Liquid's thoughts on these items. It's already been quoted, but saying you ordered the removal of that specific nose art will make it a lot easier for an internet detective with a grudge to vet you out - FYI.

Anyone toeing the party line this closely has little to worry about being outed.

[Flaco]

Liquid,

What about WSV where Taliban are vaporized into hair, teeth, and eyeballs by the dozens in vivid detail - do you find those images offensive too?

You are astonishingly disconnected from the mindset of the fighting man.

The mentality you have displayed here is better suited to managing a Staples than Generalship of a force that holds as its motto "Fly-Fight-Win".

You can have a force of warriors, or you can have a force of monks, but General, I'm sorry, you simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Hacker]

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.

Of note, "Camera Shy" was a 25th Photo-Recon Sq F-5 (a recce P-38, more specifically an F-5B-1-LO Serial # 42-67561), which is now the T-38 Squadron at Vance (25th FTS). The Wing/CC at Vance during the 2012 "purge" is the same one who is there now. What is your Wing's connection to that aircraft, Liquid?

Regarding it now being "not appropriate", reference the July memo from CSAF in which he directed that noseart with verifiable provenance could be displayed if verified by the MAJCOM Historian.

[Hueypilot]

Here's where you web off the reservation, Liquid:

Runner's World skin suit = sports

Wife in bikini swimsuit = sex

When actually it's this:

Runner's World skin suit = sports

Wife in bikini swimsuit = day at the beach/pool with the family

Or hell, I don't know, maybe you really do think women put on bikinis to go prowl the beach or pool for sex. Wait a minute! You better get to the base pool ASAP!

BTW no one here is advocating letting Airman Snuffy to display soft porn glamor shots of his wife in lingerie. If you'd just let people exercise common sense, 99% of us will do right and we'll hammer the 1% that doesn't. And we need to stop encouraging people to go out and be offended, because if you do, they will. Being a victim can be a form of attention-seeking. I know because I have family members that are always throwing butthurt fits over nothing. We are smart people. We can filter the real issues from the perceived. There is a Nav in the Herk community who is infamous for always being wronged and harassed. I'm glad she left the USAF before leadership got uber retarded or dozens of good people would be in ruins because of her.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Hueypilot

[ViperStud]

And liquid, before you quote me to point out that the Hobag Miley thing was controversial and over the top...I get it.

My point is this - who arbitrarily decides where the line is? Every channel on TV routinely has women in bikinis, fashion crap with tight clothes and language that is borderline offensive. Society as a whole has said that these things are acceptable, especially if the context is legit. Has anyone ever really complained when they saw a family/couple picture on the beach together?

So, which moron in the AF gets to arbitrarily decide that socially acceptable norms are now taboo and contribute to sexual harassment? The answer is that no one should. Common sense should prevail and someone should have the balls to say enough is enough with the PC bullshit. Unfortunately, we promote box-checkers who are afraid of their own shadows and they would be terrified to make such a call, even if they know in their heart of hearts they are just being weak. Liquid, your story about Camera Shy is proof that this describes you to a T.

Edited November 2, 2013 by ViperStud

[GreasySideUp]

I normally don't pitch into these discussions on BO but I find the Bikini Sting Operation at Vance fascinating. https://www.vance.af....sp?id=123368125 Granted I only did SOS in correspondence, this leadership style is interesting to say the least.

Not that long ago when the Air Force spent money on flying....

So there I was flying my Viper 1 foot high and 1 knot under the max speed limit over an NFL stadium full of screaming fans after a full ACM mission, we hustled home, debriefed in the car and found ourselves back at the game before half time. At some point we were escorted into the bowels of the stadium where we took photos with the NFL cheerleaders - them in a two piece, us in uniform, which were then displayed on the jumbotron, saluting the military to thousands of red blooded americans cheering our prowess.

That picture hung in the squadron for years. No one that saw that picture ever mentioned it in a bad way, we were in the squadron and certainly approachable about it. Most of us were married with kids. Now there is an off colored empty space where it used to be. Next to the now void space is a large plasma that we spent end of year funds on that usually shows ESPN, often displaying highlights of the same cheerleaders in full HD.

I saw those same cheerleaders in the desert during the war, brought in to increase morale. Airmen, and officer alike lined up to have their picture taken with them. PA then took pictures of the airmen having their pictures taken and posted them on the base web page and news letter. I had a picture already with the cheerleaders so I skipped that page of the base paper. There were often musicians that were on that desert base that had lyrics that I didn't agree with - mainly the country singers. I usually just didn't go.

I have to do water survival every few years. This has taken place at the pool, the beach, a river and even a water park where the family was invited to spend the day afterwards as a unit cohesion family day. Work and play in the same outing. I was never issued a swim suit by the Air Force so I wear the same board shorts I use to surf. The women wore the same suits they use to surf, the enlisted life support and the officers alike. PA was there and they took pictures of the day, all in our swim suits and put it in the base paper saying how great of a day it was to accomplish the mission and build that camaraderie.

My little girl and I went to to the beach a few dozen times this summer. She is 3 and has two bathing suits. A pink one piece with Cinderella on it, and a two piece with Dora. She picked them out at Walmart. I think they only make 5 swimsuits total for kids her age because I saw many other kids wearing the same thing. On babycenter.com you can find discussions on what is appropriate for a child to wear to the beach. Some think children should wear jeans and long sleeves as not to attract predators. I see these children in full clothing at the beach and some of those kids even play with my daughter. I know the views of the parents are different, but I have never been lectured on it. She thought it was hilarious to smash sand castles that I built, so I took videos and pictures and showed them to friends at work when I wasn't busy learning how to kill. I have framed pictures of the same. They all thought it was adorable. What if she was 16? Could I show those same pictures? 18? Does the difference in age make them appropriate or not? Maybe it is worse displaying a minor in a bikini? If someone said something inappropriate about my daughter in the way the sting implies, we would discuss it after they woke up from being knocked out. Or maybe I invited inappropriate remarks for showing the picture in the first place.

Possibly we are finding controversy where there really is none. The Vance sting is an interesting experiment.

I know the exact day the Air Force lost its mind and it is somewhat related. I'm working on a story for my story thread but it is a little out of order. I think I'll bring it to the top.

Edited November 2, 2013 by GreasySideUp

[Hueypilot]

Of note, "Camera Shy" was a 25th Photo-Recon Sq F-5 (a recce P-38, more specifically an F-5B-1-LO Serial # 42-67561), which is now the T-38 Squadron at Vance (25th FTS). The Wing/CC at Vance during the 2012 "purge" is the same one who is there now. What is your Wing's connection to that aircraft, Liquid?

Regarding it now being "not appropriate", reference the July memo from CSAF in which he directed that noseart with verifiable provenance could be displayed if verified by the MAJCOM Historian.

I was raised being taught that painting over history was stuff the Soviets and People's Republic of China did...not America.

[TreeA10]

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. No judgement or skills required, it makes a lot of noise and gives the impression to those you work for that you are actually doing something.

[HU&W]

I was raised being taught that painting over history was stuff the Soviets and People's Republic of China did...not America.

During the great purge, many senior leaders worked to destroy anything that could possibly be construed as offensive, regardless of heritage. Museums were picked over. Walls were cleared of squadron history. Historic noseart was painted over. It felt like one more attempt to rewrite our past to make it more acceptable to the most sensitive elements of the present. There was one wing commander who was actually willing to stand up for Air Force heritage and defended artifacts in the AF Museum, accepting the risk to her command during this fervor. Here are her comments: “I think the tradition and history at the Air Force museum is just that,” Col. Cassie Barlow, commander of the 88th Air Base Wing, said Friday. “That’s our history. We’re not going to go back and change those things because that’s part of our history and that’s an important part of our organization. I think the museum will keep the displays that they have just as they are.”¹ Emphasis added. I don't know her, nor have I ever worked for her, but I have great respect for her decision.

[Danny Noonin]

And we need to stop encouraging people to go out and be offended, because if you do, they will.

This

[Hacker]

There was one wing commander who was actually willing to stand up for Air Force heritage and defended artifacts in the AF Museum, accepting the risk to her command during this fervor. Here are her comments: “I think the tradition and history at the Air Force museum is just that,” Col. Cassie Barlow, commander of the 88th Air Base Wing, said Friday. “That’s our history. We’re not going to go back and change those things because that’s part of our history and that’s an important part of our organization. I think the museum will keep the displays that they have just as they are.”¹ Emphasis added. I don't know her, nor have I ever worked for her, but I have great respect for her decision.

Her response was to the suggestion that Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, actual combat veterans in the NMUSAF, be covered or painted over.

[AnimalMother]

I was raised being taught that painting over history was stuff the Soviets and People's Republic of China did...not America.

You were taught wrong. Unfortunately, so were most of us. The problem is that it generally takes less than a generation for people to accept censorship or omission as fact. History is always pirated to serve an agenda.

Your kids probably won't even know what nose art is.

Edited November 2, 2013 by AnimalMother

[Day Man]

Of note, "Camera Shy" was a 25th Photo-Recon Sq F-5 (a recce P-38, more specifically an F-5B-1-LO Serial # 42-67561), which is now the T-38 Squadron at Vance (25th FTS). The Wing/CC at Vance during the 2012 "purge" is the same one who is there now. What is your Wing's connection to that aircraft, Liquid?

Some sleuthing led to me find that it was also in the 475th Fighter Group, predecessor to the 53d WEG currently at Eglin.

[Red Fox]

Your kids probably won't even know what nose art is.

They think nose art has to do with piercings.

All this SARC crap is CYA by the leadership who have been given their marching orders by the civilian authority.

IMO, you cannot regulate common courtesy with an MFR, letter, etc. Maybe the USAF needs to review how they recruit its enlistees (that seems to be where the majority of the problem is) and look more at the quality of the individual as opposed to meeting a recruiting goal.

In my 25+ year career, most of the aviators I knew, had the proper judgement and were courteous/respectful when and where appropriate. They didn't need some damn letter or class or CBT. I doubt things have changed that drastically in the 5 years I've been retired. In the near front of the Dash-1's I had, there is a statement that the manual is not to take place of "sound pilot judgement", meaning it is impossible to give guidance on every possible scenario and that the USAF trusts its aviators to make the best decisions based on the situation. Should be the same with this. Trust your officers to make sound decisions (or is the USAF now thinking they have not properly trained them?). If they demonstrate they are unable or unwilling, show them the door. Enlisted is a different story. I've seen some real idiotic behavior by youngsters.

Nose art is part of our heritage/culture. It should be embraced and accepted by those joining. The USAF should not change its heritage to appease the accute sensitivites of a few. Years ago when I was a PIT IP at Randolph AFB, then Colonel, Lee McFann ordered all artwork painted on the walls of the squadron (559th FTS) to be removed. All that heritage gone - damn shame.

Regards, RF.

[Liquid]

Oddly enough I flew in all the squadrons Jen Smith worked in at Shaw. I know every single person in her complaint (and I'm not one of them, despite my oh so offensive callsign). I also know and have corresponded with female airmen that she worked with. She went looking to be offended and she was. If I was her commander, who was also my commander, I would probably have handled it the same way he did, which obviously wasn't good enough for our sensitive TSgt.

Good people got crushed for no good reason because of her. The fighter community is weaker because of it.

And by the way, since you obviously don't know, a 1c0 doesn't have access to the vault, therefore shouldn't be exposed so the evil doofer book or songbook. Or the flyer posted in the men's room.

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.

I once witnessed an Afghany "terror suspect" going to town mounting his precious livestock! I thought it was hillarious but many might be appalled in our new PC culture. How is that for offensive sexual misconduct? To think that this behavior was viewed and recorded on USAF equipment. Since those "terrorists" certainly aren't going to listen to the aircrew, that is on a mission to exterminate them, perhaps our leadership can inform the Afghan populace that their behavior (during my workday) is offensive and must stop immediately. We should stop the war until this resolved!

You crack me up Viper.

[Liquid]

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month.

I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot.

Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

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.

[sputnik]

Quit being so logical and shit

[HossHarris]

It's "amazing horse" not "sweet lemonade"

How else are folks going to find it on YouTube if you're improperly referencing it.

And it's hilarious.

[Beaver]

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.

I am blaming the victim. It wasn't that the female that I talked to wasn't offended, it was that she never saw the shit in the squadron that Jen Smith dug up. She was known among her peers as a liar and a backstabber. She scoured the squadron computer network to find things to give to Sharon Burke. She went in the vault and dug through desk drawers and found a doofer book and a Playboy from 1987. The majority of the "exhibits" in her lawsuit are laughable. I don't know exactly where I would draw the line, but most of that shit wouldn't be over it. The problem was that the Capt she took her complaint to didn't know her backstabbing background and didn't take it seriously enough. Lesson learned.

[HU&W]

You make a pretty good argument and I agree with most of what you said. But this?

you could make a strong argument that the picture the sq/cc used in her exercise was not inappropriate.

This doesn't make sense to me. The sq/cc selected the picture because she wanted it to be offensive. The whole purpose was to be offensive and see if anyone would speak up. She willfully placed material that she personally felt was sexually offensive in the workplace. You can't have it both ways. Unlike the person who doesn't know they've crossed somebody's line and makes a correction when informed of an accidental indiscretion, she knowingly subjected her subordinates to things she felt were sexually offensive enough that they should have been reported. I'm honestly a little surprised that she's being lauded for her actions instead of being investigated for sexual harassment herself.

Edited November 2, 2013 by HU&W

[Champ Kind]

Soooo.... Crews are not to use "special books" as landing fees in certain SE Asia countries anymore...?