Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

191011121315»

Posts

  • Options
    TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?

    My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.

    Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?

    I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.

    Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.

    Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.

    The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.

    one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms

    followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier

    I see why the concern was brought up!

    Who's belittling the idea?

    A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!

    Yeah it is.

    That's only one post.

    Your post seemed pretty sarcastic on the topic as well, but I'll withdraw my comment and stick to saying PJs post was the one that really bothered me.

    I'm sorry if I came off that way, but it wasn't my intent nor was it how I felt.

    EH28YFo.jpg
  • Options
    CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    One of the things I found interesting in that article I linked earlier, is the assertion that one of the hallmarks of a fully integrated military was a higher level of maturity.
    I took from the symposium that the hallmarks of successful integration are maturity at all levels of the institution and a commitment to view and lead servicemembers as military professionals without consideration of gender.

    A few observations in support of maturity:
    • At the individual level, the panelists used a typical military no-nonsense communication style to convey egalitarianism rather than self-importance, reason rather than bravado. They were over themselves.
    • The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
    • The allied representatives had the eminently realistic view that sexual activity is both inevitable and manageable: Develop a set of ground rules and get over it.

    That said, the Nordic personnel cautioned the American attendees not to overlook the cultural differences in the societies from which their militaries originated. Even with highly egalitarian values, the Nordic countries only integrated their combat arms in the last decades of the Twentieth Century. The US’ relatively elitist culture makes it all the more imperative that senior leadership accept integration as the new normal and impress upon subordinate commands that the time has come to integrate for the benefit of the military and of the country.

    There's a bit more in there, but the discussions about maturity of the environment matches my experience in most jobs in the civilian world that have been male dominated for a long time. Typically, the introduction of women participating at an equal level in these situations has led to a much higher level of maturity and professionalism in the long term for everyone involved. It is something I see every time I go into a mining camp where there is close to gender parity among the workers versus a camp where it is all men. There is a much lower level of machoism, people behave more professionally, and typically there is less stupidity on display. I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be the same in the military.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?

    My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.

    Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?

    I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.

    Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.

    Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.

    The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.

    one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms

    followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier

    I see why the concern was brought up!

    Who's belittling the idea?

    A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!

    Yeah it is.

    That's only one post.

    Your post seemed pretty sarcastic on the topic as well, but I'll withdraw my comment and stick to saying PJs post was the one that really bothered me.

    I'm sorry if I came off that way, but it wasn't my intent nor was it how I felt.

    And I apologize for misinterpreting as well.

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    One of the things I found interesting in that article I linked earlier, is the assertion that one of the hallmarks of a fully integrated military was a higher level of maturity.
    I took from the symposium that the hallmarks of successful integration are maturity at all levels of the institution and a commitment to view and lead servicemembers as military professionals without consideration of gender.

    A few observations in support of maturity:
    • At the individual level, the panelists used a typical military no-nonsense communication style to convey egalitarianism rather than self-importance, reason rather than bravado. They were over themselves.
    • The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
    • The allied representatives had the eminently realistic view that sexual activity is both inevitable and manageable: Develop a set of ground rules and get over it.

    That said, the Nordic personnel cautioned the American attendees not to overlook the cultural differences in the societies from which their militaries originated. Even with highly egalitarian values, the Nordic countries only integrated their combat arms in the last decades of the Twentieth Century. The US’ relatively elitist culture makes it all the more imperative that senior leadership accept integration as the new normal and impress upon subordinate commands that the time has come to integrate for the benefit of the military and of the country.

    There's a bit more in there, but the discussions about maturity of the environment matches my experience in most jobs in the civilian world that have been male dominated for a long time. Typically, the introduction of women participating at an equal level in these situations has led to a much higher level of maturity and professionalism in the long term for everyone involved. It is something I see every time I go into a mining camp where there is close to gender parity among the workers versus a camp where it is all men. There is a much lower level of machoism, people behave more professionally, and typically there is less stupidity on display. I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be the same in the military.

    It already is the same in the military. I've seen the contrast in integrated support units with near parity versus combat arms. The latter is basically a high school locker room with guns.

    Which is fun sometimes, but gets old.

  • Options
    TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    One of the things I found interesting in that article I linked earlier, is the assertion that one of the hallmarks of a fully integrated military was a higher level of maturity.
    I took from the symposium that the hallmarks of successful integration are maturity at all levels of the institution and a commitment to view and lead servicemembers as military professionals without consideration of gender.

    A few observations in support of maturity:
    • At the individual level, the panelists used a typical military no-nonsense communication style to convey egalitarianism rather than self-importance, reason rather than bravado. They were over themselves.
    • The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
    • The allied representatives had the eminently realistic view that sexual activity is both inevitable and manageable: Develop a set of ground rules and get over it.

    That said, the Nordic personnel cautioned the American attendees not to overlook the cultural differences in the societies from which their militaries originated. Even with highly egalitarian values, the Nordic countries only integrated their combat arms in the last decades of the Twentieth Century. The US’ relatively elitist culture makes it all the more imperative that senior leadership accept integration as the new normal and impress upon subordinate commands that the time has come to integrate for the benefit of the military and of the country.

    There's a bit more in there, but the discussions about maturity of the environment matches my experience in most jobs in the civilian world that have been male dominated for a long time. Typically, the introduction of women participating at an equal level in these situations has led to a much higher level of maturity and professionalism in the long term for everyone involved. It is something I see every time I go into a mining camp where there is close to gender parity among the workers versus a camp where it is all men. There is a much lower level of machoism, people behave more professionally, and typically there is less stupidity on display. I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be the same in the military.

    It already is the same in the military. I've seen the contrast in integrated support units with near parity versus combat arms. The latter is basically a high school locker room with guns.

    Which is fun sometimes, but gets old.

    I really think combat arms ultimately won't have too much trouble making the transition. You just need good leadership enforcing the standard. Good leadership looks after their subordinates no matter what and accomplishes the tasks they're given. Everyone dresses off of the leadership to a large extent, so correcting offensive aspects of line culture should be as simple as getting rid of toxic or simply incompetent leadership. If they couldn't facilitate the transition and maintaining of an equal opportunity atmosphere then they were never the leaders we wanted.

    On the other hand, the military has a terrible track record when it comes to fixing toxic aspects of its culture. Leadership derides, and often denies, people seeking medical attention. They also threw the baby out with the bathwater when addressing corrective training.

    I'm curious to know how the transition after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell went. The two situations have a few parallels.

    EH28YFo.jpg
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.

    Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.

    As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.

    Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?

    My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.

    Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?

    I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.

    Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.

    Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.

    The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.

    one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms

    followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier

    I see why the concern was brought up!

    Who's belittling the idea?

    A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!

    Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.

    "Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.

    So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.

    For years women (and men, I am sure) have dealt with sexual harassment in the military, and have been told to suck it up, it isn't that bad. Sexual harassment shouldn't be "minor shit you deal with in the military". All EO complaints should be taken seriously and investigated, even if ultimately no remedial steps are needed.

    Your first reaction to a rumor about someone filing an EO complaint is to dismiss it as hurt feelings and declare them a shitty soldier. I'm sorry if I don't accept that that's just the way military culture is or should be.

    In my entire tenure in the army, every person with a legitimate EO complaint didn't file it (which was 1.5 cases. The one I mentioned before, and another borderline, where what was said wasn't appropriate, but OTOH, who it was said to is relevant context), and everyone person that filed one was worthless as fuck. I fully believe actual cases happen, but I'm not impressed based on my actual experience.

    Particularly with the detail that fisters may have been whining about being called fisters. That's below penny ante bullshit.

    If you're going to be a squeaky wheel, start with, "...and this will get someone killed," and work downwards in priority.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Why are they "whining" about it? You don't know anything about the complaint! Yet you make a lot of assumptions.

    Maybe that's why people with legitimate complaints don't file them.

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Taranis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    One of the things I found interesting in that article I linked earlier, is the assertion that one of the hallmarks of a fully integrated military was a higher level of maturity.
    I took from the symposium that the hallmarks of successful integration are maturity at all levels of the institution and a commitment to view and lead servicemembers as military professionals without consideration of gender.

    A few observations in support of maturity:
    • At the individual level, the panelists used a typical military no-nonsense communication style to convey egalitarianism rather than self-importance, reason rather than bravado. They were over themselves.
    • The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
    • The allied representatives had the eminently realistic view that sexual activity is both inevitable and manageable: Develop a set of ground rules and get over it.

    That said, the Nordic personnel cautioned the American attendees not to overlook the cultural differences in the societies from which their militaries originated. Even with highly egalitarian values, the Nordic countries only integrated their combat arms in the last decades of the Twentieth Century. The US’ relatively elitist culture makes it all the more imperative that senior leadership accept integration as the new normal and impress upon subordinate commands that the time has come to integrate for the benefit of the military and of the country.

    There's a bit more in there, but the discussions about maturity of the environment matches my experience in most jobs in the civilian world that have been male dominated for a long time. Typically, the introduction of women participating at an equal level in these situations has led to a much higher level of maturity and professionalism in the long term for everyone involved. It is something I see every time I go into a mining camp where there is close to gender parity among the workers versus a camp where it is all men. There is a much lower level of machoism, people behave more professionally, and typically there is less stupidity on display. I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be the same in the military.

    It already is the same in the military. I've seen the contrast in integrated support units with near parity versus combat arms. The latter is basically a high school locker room with guns.

    Which is fun sometimes, but gets old.

    I really think combat arms ultimately won't have too much trouble making the transition. You just need good leadership enforcing the standard. Good leadership looks after their subordinates no matter what and accomplishes the tasks they're given. Everyone dresses off of the leadership to a large extent, so correcting offensive aspects of line culture should be as simple as getting rid of toxic or simply incompetent leadership. If they couldn't facilitate the transition and maintaining of an equal opportunity atmosphere then they were never the leaders we wanted.

    On the other hand, the military has a terrible track record when it comes to fixing toxic aspects of its culture. Leadership derides, and often denies, people seeking medical attention. They also threw the baby out with the bathwater when addressing corrective training.

    I'm curious to know how the transition after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell went. The two situations have a few parallels.

    I hate just popping by and throwing out anecdotes but good god, I know a guy (marine) whos leg got injured in Iraq during the town to town fast moving HIGH TEMPO BATTLEFIELD MOMENTUM phase of the 2003 war, he got basic treatment for it but all they gave him was ibuprofin I think?

    anyway his leg kept hurting more and more to the point he could barely walk, at one point he passed out from the pain and he got some actual treatment for it. They told him it was compartment syndrome and he needed emergency surgery and he got a medical discharge

    that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd bothered to check it earlier

    override367 on
  • Options
    Waffles or whateverWaffles or whatever Previously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen" Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Why are they "whining" about it? You don't know anything about the complaint! Yet you make a lot of assumptions.

    Maybe that's why people with legitimate complaints don't file them.

    @programjunkie isn't completely in the wrong about the worthless soldiers filing those complaints. I've seen soldiers threaten EO because they were being given negative counselings or bad NCOERs/OERs for simply not being good soldiers. The most recent one I saw was a Platoon Sergeant from our Maintenance Company a few months ago filed an EO Complaint because they were given a 3 block NCOER not because of their race , but because they literally had no idea where their soldiers were 90% of the time (Platoon Sergeant's #1 job), forgot key stuff to any and all field events (Forgot the Water Buffalo even after the PCC/PCI was complete), and was always late with LOGPACs to the soldiers in the field because "they could wait while she went home to eat dinner with her family". Our chow came out to us usually by 10 AM and 8 PM on the dot because of her. That's mega late and negatively impacted our ability to train.

    The other more familiar story was when Captains were being given pink slips left and right Army Times posted a story of a Captain who said they were being forced out because of race. Then in the comment section a bunch of soldiers in that Captain's CoC narced them out for being woefully incompetent. That they dedicated absolutely no time to becoming proficient at their job and just floated on the success of the XO/PLs who struggled to keep the Company afloat and was removed for being toxic after multiple command climate surveys.

    Not saying that only shit bags overall file EO complaints or the like, but that its fairly common to see the low guy on the totem pole try to wave the EO Banner and pretend they were victimized to avoid being fired or separated from service.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    One of the things I found interesting in that article I linked earlier, is the assertion that one of the hallmarks of a fully integrated military was a higher level of maturity.
    I took from the symposium that the hallmarks of successful integration are maturity at all levels of the institution and a commitment to view and lead servicemembers as military professionals without consideration of gender.

    A few observations in support of maturity:
    • At the individual level, the panelists used a typical military no-nonsense communication style to convey egalitarianism rather than self-importance, reason rather than bravado. They were over themselves.
    • The Swedish Marine Corps, which seems to have gone the furthest of the participating allies in creating a gender-blind force, does not distinguish between men and women in berthing assignment. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and showers are shared. People deal with it. This strikes me as the logical endpoint of integrating an expeditionary force.
    • The allied representatives had the eminently realistic view that sexual activity is both inevitable and manageable: Develop a set of ground rules and get over it.

    That said, the Nordic personnel cautioned the American attendees not to overlook the cultural differences in the societies from which their militaries originated. Even with highly egalitarian values, the Nordic countries only integrated their combat arms in the last decades of the Twentieth Century. The US’ relatively elitist culture makes it all the more imperative that senior leadership accept integration as the new normal and impress upon subordinate commands that the time has come to integrate for the benefit of the military and of the country.

    There's a bit more in there, but the discussions about maturity of the environment matches my experience in most jobs in the civilian world that have been male dominated for a long time. Typically, the introduction of women participating at an equal level in these situations has led to a much higher level of maturity and professionalism in the long term for everyone involved. It is something I see every time I go into a mining camp where there is close to gender parity among the workers versus a camp where it is all men. There is a much lower level of machoism, people behave more professionally, and typically there is less stupidity on display. I don't really see any reason why it wouldn't be the same in the military.

    It already is the same in the military. I've seen the contrast in integrated support units with near parity versus combat arms. The latter is basically a high school locker room with guns.

    Which is fun sometimes, but gets old.

    I really think combat arms ultimately won't have too much trouble making the transition. You just need good leadership enforcing the standard. Good leadership looks after their subordinates no matter what and accomplishes the tasks they're given. Everyone dresses off of the leadership to a large extent, so correcting offensive aspects of line culture should be as simple as getting rid of toxic or simply incompetent leadership. If they couldn't facilitate the transition and maintaining of an equal opportunity atmosphere then they were never the leaders we wanted.

    On the other hand, the military has a terrible track record when it comes to fixing toxic aspects of its culture. Leadership derides, and often denies, people seeking medical attention. They also threw the baby out with the bathwater when addressing corrective training.

    I'm curious to know how the transition after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell went. The two situations have a few parallels.

    I hate just popping by and throwing out anecdotes but good god, I know a guy (marine) whos leg got injured in Iraq during the town to town fast moving HIGH TEMPO BATTLEFIELD MOMENTUM phase of the 2003 war, he got basic treatment for it but all they gave him was ibuprofin I think?

    anyway his leg kept hurting more and more to the point he could barely walk, at one point he passed out from the pain and he got some actual treatment for it. They told him it was compartment syndrome and he needed emergency surgery and he got a medical discharge

    that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd bothered to check it earlier

    That's unacceptable. He really could have lost the leg.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Waffen wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Why are they "whining" about it? You don't know anything about the complaint! Yet you make a lot of assumptions.

    Maybe that's why people with legitimate complaints don't file them.

    @programjunkie isn't completely in the wrong about the worthless soldiers filing those complaints. I've seen soldiers threaten EO because they were being given negative counselings or bad NCOERs/OERs for simply not being good soldiers. The most recent one I saw was a Platoon Sergeant from our Maintenance Company a few months ago filed an EO Complaint because they were given a 3 block NCOER not because of their race , but because they literally had no idea where their soldiers were 90% of the time (Platoon Sergeant's #1 job), forgot key stuff to any and all field events (Forgot the Water Buffalo even after the PCC/PCI was complete), and was always late with LOGPACs to the soldiers in the field because "they could wait while she went home to eat dinner with her family". Our chow came out to us usually by 10 AM and 8 PM on the dot because of her. That's mega late and negatively impacted our ability to train.

    The other more familiar story was when Captains were being given pink slips left and right Army Times posted a story of a Captain who said they were being forced out because of race. Then in the comment section a bunch of soldiers in that Captain's CoC narced them out for being woefully incompetent. That they dedicated absolutely no time to becoming proficient at their job and just floated on the success of the XO/PLs who struggled to keep the Company afloat and was removed for being toxic after multiple command climate surveys.

    Not saying that only shit bags overall file EO complaints or the like, but that its fairly common to see the low guy on the totem pole try to wave the EO Banner and pretend they were victimized to avoid being fired or separated from service.

    It's not your place to determine if the complaints are worthwhile or not. Are you a case worker at MEO? Unless you've got real hard evidence and actual hands on experience with exactly what happened at MEO with those cases, using them to say that people go to MEO to fake it is a real dumbfuck thing to do.

    Your second example is exactly the problem with MEO and SARC reporting in the military, because damn if everyone doesn't come out of the woodwork to complain about people filing false reports when they have zero idea what is actually going on. The problem is that soldiers like to close ranks and damn if they don't push out the people they don't like for stupid reasons while doing it. If MEO is investigating something, let them investigate it. It's bad enough that you've already decided that the person is wrong without knowing what they reported, but then everyone tries to sandbag the very investigation that is there solely to prove whether the allegations are true or not.

    And yeah, I saw people do some heinous shit to people they don't like and intentionally set them up to fail, or apply the rules more strictly to them, or hell just set it up so they have to be less safe than everyone else. I also worked with a guy who wrote down every reprimand in a book and told people that if anything happened he didn't like he'd send it to MEO. That gives me exactly zero authority to talk about any MEO cases I wasn't directly involved with investigating however, because if you can't hold the MEO files in your hands you don't have any authority to say what was or wasn't legitimate. You definitely don't have any authority to say that people should be suspicious of reporting or to comment on other reports.

    They have people for that, it's called the MEO office, and they're the only ones qualified to give information on those cases.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Bullshit. If you are personally familiar with the case, you absolutely can give insight. MEO is not brimming with Doylesque super investigators, they just have the responsibility to give the formal ruling. It's not like, say, I haven't be in the room before when shit went down that went to investigation (although that wasn't EO, and yes, I gave a signed statement in the matter).

    But, it's not like anyone is advocating not properly investigating EO complaints, just that some, after fully and properly reviewed by a neutral party, will come back with a result of, "Why the fuck was this filed? This is stupid."

    Besides, odds are Waffen has already done at least one military investigation himself, or will in the near future, as they generally grab junior officers to do a lot of those, depending on whether it is something that has to be done at higher echelons or not.

  • Options
    DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    If you say, with a straight face, that you have complete faith in a system like that to produce optimal outcomes at even close to a 50 percent rate, then you've never been in that sort of organization.

    What is this I don't even.
  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    So the argument is that:
    A) System has no people trained for it to do the work
    and
    B) We should trust Waffen's opinion because he probably was part of this system of untrained people

    Please tell me i missed something.

    Nyysjan on
  • Options
    Waffles or whateverWaffles or whatever Previously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen" Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    I'll be honest. I haven't had to deal with these incidents yet. Being in a cav squadron there's not a whole lot of rape or sexual harassment going around because it's a close, tight knit community of mostly men at this time. However, we do have these talks almost weekly as leaders and how to handle it. It's basically sop here that if something does happen we have a list of resources on post that can help a soldier get the assistance they need because we admit that we aren't qualified to handle these situations or cases and act based on that organizations investigation.

    Equal opportunity is a different beast because because our organization encourages dialogue between the two parties involved in that incident. If the individuals are not able to handle it at their level or the victim feels that there is no corrective action being taken they are advised to take it to a high-ranking individual. The goal that incidents and claims can be handled at the lowest level possible. The problem with equal opportunity though is that proving the incidents occurred because usually the incidents are he said she said incidents. I'm not saying that it's not right to pursue her chase after he said she said but usually you can't pursue equal opportunity cases without solid proof or evidence. Military is an organization that wants solid proof or evidence. While he said she said incidents usually get documented and can be used later as proof of being a toxic leader or negative command climate you can't really act on it he said she said because there is a lack of evidence supporting that the claim took place for the incident took place. Too many people have abused it in the past.
    Besides, odds are Waffen has already done at least one military investigation himself, or will in the near future, as they generally grab junior officers to do a lot of those, depending on whether it is something that has to be done at higher echelons or not.

    I haven't yet. The only one I've done was for an Infantry Recon Platoon losing their RTO while conducting a Zone Reconnaissance. Yes, I'm serious. They lost their RTO. It as stupid as it sounds.

    Now I've had a personal EO issue before with a previous Commander. I posted it on reddit a while ago on an anon account if anyone wants to read it. TLDR of that one is that I just notified my Senior Rater about the incident, told him I wasn't considering going to EO, and that it's just something he might want to look into. He appreciated the gesture, (nobody likes the guy who straight up goes to IG without warning) had a talk with that Commander, and we all went on about our lives. Just because I don't like the guy and think hes a toxic dirt bag doesn't mean I'll EO him because in that case I don't think his intent was to deliberately offend or piss me off with that comment.

    Waffles or whatever on
  • Options
    WyvernWyvern Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.

    Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.

    As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.

    Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?

    My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.

    Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?

    I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.

    Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.

    Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.

    The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.

    one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms

    followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier

    I see why the concern was brought up!

    Who's belittling the idea?

    A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!

    Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.

    "Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.

    So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.

    For years women (and men, I am sure) have dealt with sexual harassment in the military, and have been told to suck it up, it isn't that bad. Sexual harassment shouldn't be "minor shit you deal with in the military". All EO complaints should be taken seriously and investigated, even if ultimately no remedial steps are needed.

    Your first reaction to a rumor about someone filing an EO complaint is to dismiss it as hurt feelings and declare them a shitty soldier. I'm sorry if I don't accept that that's just the way military culture is or should be.

    In my entire tenure in the army, every person with a legitimate EO complaint didn't file it (which was 1.5 cases. The one I mentioned before, and another borderline, where what was said wasn't appropriate, but OTOH, who it was said to is relevant context), and everyone person that filed one was worthless as fuck. I fully believe actual cases happen, but I'm not impressed based on my actual experience.

    Particularly with the detail that fisters may have been whining about being called fisters. That's below penny ante bullshit.

    If you're going to be a squeaky wheel, start with, "...and this will get someone killed," and work downwards in priority.

    So, military culture correlates "filed an EO complaint" with "is a worthless human being" so strongly that people with legitimate EO complaints are afraid to file them, and you A) don't see this as a problem, and B) take the fact that you have never observed a legitimate EO complaint being filed as circumstantial evidence that instances warranting a legitimate EO complaint must be incredibly rare, because otherwise more people would be filing them (even though you are personally aware of violations that definitely happened but were not reported because of the stigma against doing so).

    Do I have that right?

    Wyvern on
    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Wyvern wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    He's not belittling the idea nor is he saying that the person bringing up the EO charge is a bad soldier. He's saying the person whom committed it should've just been beaten by everyone else. In-house, low-level, "we will take care of it on our own" aka wall-to-wall counseling, kind of thing.

    Yeah. For context, the guy who needed a wall to wall counseling was a misogynist piece of shit who was too scared go on missions himself, but was also a dick in general, and we're talking about a case where other tools didn't work so well. And this was in Afghanistan, so that sort of problem was a major issue, as opposed to just making garrison unfun.

    As to EO in general, anyone who actually discriminates based on protected factors or who engages in genuine harassment, especially quid pro quo type stuff, should be drummed out so fast their commander sprains their wrist on the paperwork, but OTOH, anyone who can't take a joke is bad for unit cohesion and calls into question their mental toughness.

    Maybe their was more context to the specific situation that would radically alter my opinion, but, again, fisters are fisters, and only fresh-faced 2LTs actually call fire support specialists 'fire support specialists.' And yeah, if your name shortens down to fister, it rather comes with the territory that someone is going to make a joke about that at some point.
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    Most of my concerns are more nonsense: What is the female equivalent to "Jody"? Will the female latrines be bombarded with crude drawings of vagina's? Will females in combat arm units also be slightly homophobic and homoerotic at the same time? Will we see women partake in the hatred of POG's and REMF's?

    My real concern is that there are some really bad apples in the military, more so in combat arms, so what will the Military do to deal with an increase in Sexual Harassment? Maybe this could also lead to more males coming out about sexual harassment.

    Will women still be Joes? Who will watch the first female privates pee for their urinalysis? Will someone come up with a gender neutral version of Yellow Bird? Will someone deem it inappropriate to call SAW ammo pouches "nutsacks"?

    I've heard a rumor that one of the first females in artillery has already filed an EO complaint for being called a fister, which I saw as shorthand only because it makes saying fire support easier. Though it's not hard to believe that someone may have used it inappropriately.

    Fisters are fisters. I don't even think I heard a 13F called anything but that.

    Not even a few days and someone already filed a hurt feelings report, eh? I'm sure they will be super held together when someone yells at them while they're being shot at downrange. 10/10, would risk my life in their weak willed hands.

    The one case where someone should have actually filed an EO report I know of, honestly, they should have just beat the living fuck out of the guy instead, so it's still kinda zero, really.

    one post with some concern about sexual harassment in combat arms

    followed by two posts belittling the idea and one post extrapolating that a report of sexual harassment means the person is a bad soldier

    I see why the concern was brought up!

    Who's belittling the idea?

    A "hurt feelings" report is a pretty awful way to describe someone reporting sexual harassment!

    Now, this isn't to invalidate your opinion, but for context, that is basically what you call any type of complaint about a lot of minor shit that you just deal with in the Army.

    "Are you fucking retarded?" is not necessarily an unacceptably unprofessional statement in a military context, and if someone has a problem with that, well, that's pretty weird.

    So, "You fisters need to pull your hands out of each other's asses and PMCS (do preventative maintenance) on these vehicles," would be an appropiate reminder to properly use time management techniques and work efficiently, and not genuine harassment on their choice of sexual acts or partners.

    For years women (and men, I am sure) have dealt with sexual harassment in the military, and have been told to suck it up, it isn't that bad. Sexual harassment shouldn't be "minor shit you deal with in the military". All EO complaints should be taken seriously and investigated, even if ultimately no remedial steps are needed.

    Your first reaction to a rumor about someone filing an EO complaint is to dismiss it as hurt feelings and declare them a shitty soldier. I'm sorry if I don't accept that that's just the way military culture is or should be.

    In my entire tenure in the army, every person with a legitimate EO complaint didn't file it (which was 1.5 cases. The one I mentioned before, and another borderline, where what was said wasn't appropriate, but OTOH, who it was said to is relevant context), and everyone person that filed one was worthless as fuck. I fully believe actual cases happen, but I'm not impressed based on my actual experience.

    Particularly with the detail that fisters may have been whining about being called fisters. That's below penny ante bullshit.

    If you're going to be a squeaky wheel, start with, "...and this will get someone killed," and work downwards in priority.

    So, military culture correlates "filed an EO complaint" with "is a worthless human being" so strongly that people with legitimate EO complaints are afraid to file them, and you A) don't see this as a problem, and B) take the fact that you have never observed a legitimate EO complaint being filed as circumstantial evidence that instances warranting a legitimate EO complaint must be incredibly rare, because otherwise more people would be filing them (even though you are personally aware of violations that definitely happened but were not reported because of the stigma against doing so).

    Do I have that right?

    Not at all.

    1. There weren't many legitimate EO problems, IME. I didn't spend a full career in and go all over, so mileage may vary, but it was not a substantial problem.

    2. Reasonable people can and do address it at the lowest level. That isn't just for EO, but for everything. Having a 1:1 conversation with the person or their immediate supervisor is the correct way to deal with most issues. Just like the Islamic hadith goes, “If a man says to his brother, ‘You are an infidel,’  then one of them is right.” One of the two parties is a huge asshole if a formal EO complaint is filed. Which party is up for debate, but I've seen more ridiculous claims than legitimate actually get pushed through formal channels, so particularly with the context of people taking offense to fister jokes, I'm willing to guess 67/33 likelihood on that situation, especially as I have no formal responsibility to investigate it impartially.

  • Options
    TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    The military, or at least the army, has an irrational fear of anyone who reports problems -- professional, medical, or otherwise. The way many regard EO is only one symptom of the larger issue. Everyone knows of at least someone abusing one of the systems dealing with these. That doesn't mean we oughtn't give people the benefit of the doubt. It's not like people are really affected by an unsubstantiated complaint. A false negative is far worse than a false positive.

    With regards to not lowering standards:
    The legendary Navy SEALs have no plans to alter their strenuous physical fitness standards as they open the doors to women in 2016, according to the Navy's personnel boss.

    After a review by Naval Special Warfare and U.S. Special Operations Command, the tried-and-true run, swim, sit-ups, pullups and push-ups scheme used by the SEAL and Special Warfare Combat Crewman communities will stay, the chief of naval personnel said.

    ...

    "The standards were thoroughly reviewed by SOCOM and SPECWARCOM for the Navy. [Rear] Adm. [Brian] Losey's team fed that to SOCOM, SOCOM approved that the standards we have are the standards we need," Moran said. "And if you meet the standard and you're able to become a SEAL or a SWCC."

    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/17/navy-seals-wont-change-standards-women-admiral-says/77417136/

    EH28YFo.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.