White Male Club

[HeloDude]

I think you are reading too much into it. It is not degrading or discriminatory. Yes, diversity and the protections EO enable make us a stronger and more professional force. You are naive to think there are not legitimate complaints and resolutions handled by EO every day across our AF. The quotes you reference from this document do not call for reverse discrimination.

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. This wasn't some 'study', this was an actual product produced by the Pentagon to be used to train EO's in how to reduce/deal with workplace discrimination.

But yet, you don't see that this is discriminatory! You're either a person who assumes that 100% of what comes out of the Pentagon is perfect...or you're a huge liberal who truly buys into the fact that 'white, Christian, heterosexual males' truly do receive many 'unearned advantages'. Do you know my background good sir? Do you know if I have received 'unearned advantages'...or do you just assume this because the Pentagon said so, and because of what my skin color is, what gender I like to bang, and what I do on my Sundays? If the Pentagon came out and said 'black women, who also happen to be homosexual and atheist' have unearned advantages and largely get to where they are because of affirmative action policies'...would this be ok to you? That's essentially what this article says about whites, just the reverse.

I do believe racism exists and there are issues that EO handles everyday...I never said anything to the contrary. But it seems that you don't have a problem with one group being singled out unfairly.

[Liquid]

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. This wasn't some 'study', this was an actual product produced by the Pentagon to be used to train EO's in how to reduce/deal with workplace discrimination.

But yet, you don't see that this is discriminatory! You're either a person who assumes that 100% of what comes out of the Pentagon is perfect...or you're a huge liberal who truly buys into the fact that 'white, Christian, heterosexual males' truly do receive many 'unearned advantages'. Do you know my background good sir? Do you know if I have received 'unearned advantages'...or do you just assume this because the Pentagon said so, and because of what my skin color is, what gender I like to bang, and what I do on my Sundays? If the Pentagon came out and said 'black women, who also happen to be homosexual and atheist' have unearned advantages and largely get to where they are because of affirmative action policies'...would this be ok to you? That's essentially what this article says about whites, just the reverse.

I do believe racism exists and there are issues that EO handles everyday...I never said anything to the contrary. But it seems that you don't have a problem with one group being singled out unfairly.

I either assume 100% is true or I'm a liberal? Wrong. What exactly is unfair or discriminatory about this report/training again? Do you know what discrimination is? You don't like the author's assertion that WCHMs have unfair advantages or should be singled out as privileged? Ok, me either. Quit being so dramatic about this.

Do the math. What percentage of the US population is military age MCHM? What percentage of serves in the military, all the way down to what percentage of those who fly AF aircraft are MCHM? I just guessing, but I bet the percentages go up and you get to your unit. How do you explain that? These authors probably (again, I haven't read the report) think it has to do with institutional and cultural advantages. Not saying I agree or disagree because as I have said, I haven't read the report, but I don't see what is pissing you off so much about this.

[pawnman]

I either assume 100% is true or I'm a liberal? Wrong. What exactly is unfair or discriminatory about this report/training again? Do you know what discrimination is? You don't like the author's assertion that WCHMs have unfair advantages or should be singled out as privileged? Ok, me either. Quit being so dramatic about this.

Do the math. What percentage of the US population is military age MCHM? What percentage of serves in the military, all the way down to what percentage of those who fly AF aircraft are MCHM? I just guessing, but I bet the percentages go up and you get to your unit. How do you explain that? These authors probably (again, I haven't read the report) think it has to do with institutional and cultural advantages. Not saying I agree or disagree because as I have said, I haven't read the report, but I don't see what is pissing you off so much about this.

The question is, what is the Pentagon's plan to act on this information? Because what I'm seeing is that the Pentagon is pushing for promotions based on race, religion, and gender...doesn't that run counter to the idea of EO?

[TreeA10]

Make any generalized statement regarding any other group other than HWCMs and you would be the guest of honor at the end of the a rope. So, if you are a HWCM, better keep your mouth shut, if you aren't a HWCM, feel free to see every problem you encounter in the framework of racism and sexism because I'm sure that is the reason you have a problem.

[Masshole]

I think you are reading too much into it. It is not degrading or discriminatory. Yes, diversity and the protections EO enable make us a stronger and more professional force. You are naive to think there are not legitimate complaints and resolutions handled by EO every day across our AF. The quotes you reference from this document do not call for reverse discrimination.

It is very degrading. To everyone. How offensive is it to be part of a group that seemingly needs protection and can only succeed by toppling the "white male club?" I would like to think that my efforts and skills are what gets me to the place I want to be, not some outside force that feels the military is too homogeneous. Will I have to go through my career wondering if I got awarded or promoted because I'm an Asian female and there are few of us in the services? Or can I take pride in the fact that I dedicate myself 100% to my job?

[Grabby]

Do the math. What percentage of the US population is military age MCHM? What percentage of serves in the military, all the way down to what percentage of those who fly AF aircraft are MCHM? I just guessing, but I bet the percentages go up and you get to your unit. How do you explain that? These authors probably (again, I haven't read the report) think it has to do with institutional and cultural advantages. Not saying I agree or disagree because as I have said, I haven't read the report, but I don't see what is pissing you off so much about this.

Are you ######ing kidding? How many black, homosexual, atheist woman want to fly fighters? Why are those at the Pentagon (and liberals leaders) so damn interested in quotas? Filling quotas is bad business if you're truly interested in hiring the highest quality individuals for an extremely demanding job. Sometimes it sounds like you've forgotten any lesson you may have learned as a CGO (for instance, like how spectacularly unfair of an advantage minorities have getting into and staying in UPT). It appears that you and your cronies have totally succumbed to the liberal/corporate mentality that pervades the upper echelon. The ideal of completely perfect quotas is not an enlightened viewpoint which the lower ranks are either not privy to, or too barbaric to understand. It's just a short-sighted appeasement which weakens our fighting force.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Grabby

[Jughead]

It is very degrading. To everyone. How offensive is it to be part of a group that seemingly needs protection and can only succeed by toppling the "white male club?" I would like to think that my efforts and skills are what gets me to the place I want to be, not some outside force that feels the military is too homogeneous. Will I have to go through my career wondering if I got awarded or promoted because I'm an Asian female and there are few of us in the services? Or can I take pride in the fact that I dedicate myself 100% to my job?

Masshole, this is probably your best post ever. Spot on. Liquid, take note: your incomprehension of what everyone on this board is trying to tell you on this subject has just been boiled down to four sentences. By a ROTC cadet.

Unfortunately, Masshole, the answer to the rhetorical question in bold is (barring some big cultural changes, and NOT related to those which Liquid espouses) an unequivocal "yes."

There are dirtbags of either gender in any community--those who make you scratch your head and wonder how they got there in the first place. Speaking from first hand experience (various -135s over 21 years), the men are usually dealt with, up to & including administrative separation where warranted. The women... not so much. Everyone is so terrified of charges of sexism that they will ignore, coddle, look the other way, etc., rather than address the issue if the person in question happens to be female.

Thus you end up with a situation where a minority group (last time I looked, females were something like 20% of the total force, and much smaller yet in rated billets) has its normal share of bad apples to start--no more & no less than the men--but, since those bad apples aren't weeded out, an already more visible group (by virtue of their minority) gains a disproportionately high share of the under- or non-performers, where they REALLY stand out.

That's not fair to anyone (and certainly is counter-productive to mission accomplishment). Staying on this particular point, though, is it fair to the women who perform well? Hell, no--and, also in my experience, it is those women who are MOST pissed off about the situation, for precisely the reasons you cite: they're forced to deal with people questioning their qualifications simply because of their gender coupled with the institutionalized pattern of allowing sub-standard performance from a "protected" group.

[Spur38]

Here's what we used in Army Aviation. In reality, it seems that both the society and the military are or are being forced into a culture that is far from the "What Being an American or a Cogent Team Means" ethic that I was taught and still believe...very sad to see. Masshole: Take pride!

DA_Form_Hurt Feelings.pdf

[Warrior]

Masshole, this is probably your best post ever. Spot on. Liquid, take note: your incomprehension of what everyone on this board is trying to tell you on this subject has just been boiled down to four sentences. By a ROTC cadet.

Unfortunately, Masshole, the answer to the rhetorical question in bold is (barring some big cultural changes, and NOT related to those which Liquid espouses) an unequivocal "yes."

There are dirtbags of either gender in any community--those who make you scratch your head and wonder how they got there in the first place. Speaking from first hand experience (various -135s over 21 years), the men are usually dealt with, up to & including administrative separation where warranted. The women... not so much. Everyone is so terrified of charges of sexism that they will ignore, coddle, look the other way, etc., rather than address the issue if the person in question happens to be female.

Thus you end up with a situation where a minority group (last time I looked, females were something like 20% of the total force, and much smaller yet in rated billets) has its normal share of bad apples to start--no more & no less than the men--but, since those bad apples aren't weeded out, an already more visible group (by virtue of their minority) gains a disproportionately high share of the under- or non-performers, where they REALLY stand out.

That's not fair to anyone (and certainly is counter-productive to mission accomplishment). Staying on this particular point, though, is it fair to the women who perform well? Hell, no--and, also in my experience, it is those women who are MOST pissed off about the situation, for precisely the reasons you cite: they're forced to deal with people questioning their qualifications simply because of their gender coupled with the institutionalized pattern of allowing sub-standard performance from a "protected" group.

Well stated. Giving preference to minorities cheapens the efforts of the strong performers who happen to be part of that minority group.

[Dupe]

For what it's worth, all the crappy, yes-sir-no-sir-two-bags-full-sir leaders who didn't spend the time to listen to my problems and didn't provide me top-cover when I really needed it were WHCMs.

The AF has a problem, and I don't think its anything related to this corporate EO spew.

[waveshaper]

112 retired AF Generals oppose Gillibrand Bill to change UCMJ. First I agree with the good Generals on this particular subject. I did a quick review of the listed names and recognized about 30 Generals, all white males. The list only contains the name of one female General and I guess there could be some Generals that are possible LGBT members. In an odd but somewhat humorous way could this list of Generals be an example of a exclusive USAF White Male Club if they all end up being White Males (minus one white female General)? And yes I have been drinking.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131122/NEWS05/311220036/112-retired-AF-generals-oppose-Gillibrand-bill-change-UCMJ

[Skitzo]

As if commanders don't have enough on their mind they now have this to contend with this? I disagree with this proposal as the fact that I am an Air Force officer subject to unlimited liability under the UCMJ I believe that any commander that I have had or will have has the intestinal fortitude to consult with the SJA and either enforce or suspend the judgment handed down upon the accused. As such I think commanders discretion should be honored.

Striking down the law as it exists opens up a can of worms... We might as well abandon the UCMJ and prosecute under civil law exclusively.

Oh yeah, how do we do that when we are in shit-hole-astan?

Military justice as it appears to me does not favor the accused...

If only we could keep our hands to ourselves...

Edited November 24, 2013 by Skitzo

[HeloDude]

If you're in the Army, you better check that white privilege of yours...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/army-diversity-training/25250733/

Slide is here:

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a.391474713605.169598.242181938605/10153243786443606/?type=1

[LookieRookie]

If you're in the Army, you better check that white privilege of yours...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/army-diversity-training/25250733/

Slide is here:

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a.391474713605.169598.242181938605/10153243786443606/?type=1

Should be European Americans instead of white.

[MooseAg03]

Did anyone else take the mandatory Sexual Assault Prevention Bystander training back around mid-2011? The only thing I remember from it was how it was completely full of untrue racist propaganda. According to the teaching material, the term 'bitch' and the saying 'bang for your buck' both originated from white slaveowners and how they used to refer to their slaves. Female slaves were often called bitches, and male slaves called bucks and the phrase supposedly meant how much work one could expect to receive from his male slave. Everyone in class was sitting there absorbing all of this B.S. and then an IP in my squadron Googled 'Bang for your Buck' and tells the whole class the phrase originated during the Cold War as a reference to the power of atomic weapons. From then on, I view anything mandatory that is taught to me by the government with extreme suspicion. They used the 'mandatory' nature of this sexual assault prevention class to spew a bunch of racist propaganda to the entire Air Force. What a crock, and it doesn't surprise me that this stuff is being forced down the throats of all the EO guys in training.

Edited April 4, 2015 by MooseAg03

[sky_king]

... According to the teaching material, the term 'bitch' and ...

My favorite part of that class was when the instructor asked the class if it's ever OK to call a woman a bitch. One guy immediately said (very loudly), "Yeah. If she's being a bitch." I about lost it.

[Homestar]

Now 2015 has brought us Sexual Assault Awareness Karaoke.

[guineapigfury]

Now 2015 has brought us Sexual Assault Awareness Karaoke.

Is "Rape Me" by Nirvana on the playlist?

[deaddebate]

Slide is here:

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a.391474713605.169598.242181938605/10153243786443606/?type=1

For those that hate that how slow FaceBook is on the AF networks or otherwise can't access it:

"The luxury of obliviousness"

• Awareness requires effort and commitment
• Being able to command the attention of lower-status individuals without having to giving it in return is a key aspect of privilege.
• Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them. "To be white in America means not having to think about it"

[WeTheSheeple]

I have a difficult time understanding privilege. I define it as a psychological weight when you are a member of a significant and obvious minority. In the Air Force, there would be white, male, and Christian privilege. But what can I do about the psychological weight of someone else? Where you have significant minorities--gender, race, religion--our AF community contains large elements that are prejudiced against them. That prejudice sometimes manifests in obvious or subtle discrimination.

It is the discriminatory actions that are the real problem, and we must be aggressive in finding and rooting it out. Bias, prejudice, and privilege are good to understand as the foundation for later discrimination, but I don't think we can do much about them. People can think and believe in whatever crazy nonsense that they want; it is taking action on them that becomes a serious problem for the rest of us.

[StoleIt]

I have a difficult time understanding privilege. I define it as a psychological weight when you are a member of a significant and obvious minority. In the Air Force, there would be white, male, and Christian privilege. But what can I do about the psychological weight of someone else? Where you have significant minorities--gender, race, religion--our AF community contains large elements that are prejudiced against them. That prejudice sometimes manifests in obvious or subtle discrimination.

Have any proof of prejudice against these minorities?

[Lawman]

If you're in the Army, you better check that white privilege of yours...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/03/army-diversity-training/25250733/

Slide is here:

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a.391474713605.169598.242181938605/10153243786443606/?type=1

Why? It's obviously working out for me. I mean it's not like there are any women or minorities that outrank me or anything.....

Such a crock of shit.

[guineapigfury]

That was the point where full classroom meltdown occurred in our Sq. It is worth nothing it was our instructor's first class with aircrew. One of our Navs tried to make the point that the term "bitch" is gender neutral and he applies it equally to males and females. One of our favorite females who never misses a beat replies, "If you weren't such a dick, Brad, maybe everyone wouldn't such a bitch around you." The instructor just sat down and shook his head while the chaos ensued.

When I got this training, the "bitch" discussion was also the point where the instructor lost the room. Aircrew gonna aircrew. Our culture has a cruel and nasty side for good reason. We'd lose some of our edge if we gave it up in order to accomodate people who are soft mentally. I think that would be a bad trade.

[sqwatch]

Aircrew gonna aircrew. .

Nice.

[Majestik Møøse]

In the Air Force, there would be white, male, and Christian privilege. But what can I do about the psychological weight of someone else? Where you have significant minorities--gender, race, religion--our AF community contains large elements that are prejudiced against them. That prejudice sometimes manifests in obvious or subtle discrimination.

It is the discriminatory actions that are the real problem, and we must be aggressive in finding and rooting it out. Bias, prejudice, and privilege are good to understand as the foundation for later discrimination, but I don't think we can do much about them. People can think and believe in whatever crazy nonsense that they want; it is taking action on them that becomes a serious problem for the rest of us.

If I had to choose the dominant religion of Air Force officers, it would be non-religious. I'm sure many of us believe in the Christian God, but no one brings it up. I can literally count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone talking about Christianity at work. If a Muslim airman were ever discriminated against, it would be because they were religious in general, not because they were a member of the wrong religion.

As far as race goes: same. Nobody gives a shit. The US military is probably one of the world's most diverse organizations without the newest diversity push. Only 10% of Army officers are black? Well, the US population is 13% black. Sounds about right, and nobody treats them any differently.

The most important criteria for how well someone fits in, at least in an Air Force flying squadron, is still 1. How much of a bro you are and 2. Whether or not you're any good in the jet.