Safety Videos

(But, I mean, prior to the sanitization, was there not an excess of sexual assault? Isn't that the whole thing of the Tailhook scandal?)

Actually, no, there was not. The number of sexual assault reports in the military have actually risen over the past 20 years. This is most likely due to the higher rates of women reporting such attacks and the fact that more women are integrated into previously all male units.

Despite this, the rate of sexual assault in the military is still lower than the nation overall.
 
Actually, no, there was not. The number of sexual assault reports in the military have actually risen over the past 20 years. This is most likely due to the higher rates of women reporting such attacks and the fact that more women are integrated into previously all male units.

Despite this, the rate of sexual assault in the military is still lower than the nation overall.
I didn't mean it as a comparison. I meant "an unreasonable amount" that warranted addressing.

Ian and I were talking about this last night, and he agreed some of the resulting measures were probably kind of strict, but it's probably hard to know exactly how to minimize sexual assault in a sub-culture that seemed to otherwise accept it. In any case, making things a little boring in an effort to stop people from doing crap like this, well - suck it up, I say. Boring beats this any day (unless you ["you" understood, not "you" specific] are someone who's into this kind of behavior, but who cares what that kind of person finds "boring"?):

If a woman approached--and over the three nights of the 1991 Tailhook Assn. convention hundreds did--a scout would shout out "clear deck" and when she tried to make her way through, the walls would close in with a flurry of grabbing, pinching and groping of her breasts, buttocks and legs. Some women had part of their clothing ripped off.
link

P.S. Side note: That the children who behave this way at conventions like Tailhook are the same people who are charged with defending the country worries me more than a little. It seems like it should be a job for grownups.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean it as a comparison. I meant "an unreasonable amount" that warranted addressing.
As the father of a little girl (who may join the military), there is no such thing as a "reasonable" amount. I know you feel the same way.

Having said that, the key point of my post is that many studies have shown that sexual assault is actually much lower in the military than it is in the rest of America. The same holds true for suicide, spousal abuse, drug use, and virtually every other category of crime.

P.S. Side note: That the children who behave this way at conventions like Tailhook are the same people who are charged with defending the country worries me more than a little. It seems like it should be a job for grownups

Again, there is no excuse for that sort of behavior, none. However, the idea that that sort of behavior is common within the military is wrong. It is LESS common than most civilian workplaces.

Overreactions such as this http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/10/hunter-yelton-firstgrader_n_4421398.html are what so many of us men find offensive about this debate.
 
As the father of a little girl (who may join the military), there is no such thing as a "reasonable" amount. I know you feel the same way.

I'll try to be much, much more precise with my words from now on. I meant, "an amount that stood out and therefore attracted attention." :)

Having said that, the key point of my post is that many studies have shown that sexual assault is actually much lower in the military than it is in the rest of America. The same holds true for suicide, spousal abuse, drug use, and virtually every other category of crime.
And that is good. Not good enough (that is, I'd hate to see it used in this way: "So? It happens less here, so why the stink? Let us be."), but good.

It should happen even less than it does, though, obviously.

Again, there is no excuse for that sort of behavior, none. However, the idea that that sort of behavior is common within the military is wrong. It is LESS common than most civilian workplaces.
Like at civilian business conventions, or in the everyday workplace? Or are you comparing different kinds of harassment (physical assault vs. workplace sexual harassment, both of which are gross, but one of which is more violent)?

(I'm just curious/wanting to clarify for myself.)

Overreactions such as this http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/10/hunter-yelton-firstgrader_n_4421398.html are what so many of us men find offensive about this debate.
No doubt, and I totally understand. That is absurd.

But it's hardly over-the-top to make rules or set guidelines, even if they're a little harsh, in an effort to prevent the kind of thing that happened at Tailhook (and in fact to erase the idea that it's even remotely acceptable. From the article I linked to above: "In fact, many of the younger officers who attended Tailhook '91 felt the excesses that occurred there were condoned by the Navy.").

I honestly had no intention of getting into another conversation about sexism, but complaining about rules being "sterile" and people being reduced to "eunuchs" just sparked something. Be mad at the people who made those rules necessary or that the assaults happened. Be mad at idiots acting like idiots.
 
Last edited:
Of course I don't. (But, I mean, prior to the sanitization, was there not an excess of sexual assault? Isn't that the whole thing of the Tailhook scandal?)

Interesting, though, that you seem to have more of a problem with the sanitized environment than with people being groped and assaulted in what is supposed to be a mature, professional institution.
I have zero tolerance for sexual assault or harassment. Most officers I know share that standard.

I am not aware of any evidence that has shown that the response to Tailhook has reduced sexual assaults. As far as sexual harassment, I will concede that the response to Tailhook has resulted in a less hostile workplace, especially in the enlisted ranks.

Now the downside. Tailhook, in many ways, was bad for women, especially officers. It took the strongest and most capable women in America and told them that they were incapable of handling and addressing inappropriate yet benign behavior like profanity, off-color jokes, songs, and pornography. Tailhook resulted in mortal fear that a woman would be offended, not harassed or assaulted, offended. Offended on a magnitude no greater than other social offenses that are closer to bad etiquette than misogyny.

I have never seen one officer or sailor not respond to a simple, "hey guys, not when I'm around". I have seen women that embraced the frat-boy hijinx and partied hard, drinking like a sailor and cussing like a Mick. Among those women, I have seen poorly conceived alcohol-induced romantic gestures met with a slap or harsh words, not discipline. In a couple of cases, I have asked women if I could intervene. I was met with a strong rebuke from strong women that were insulted that I thought they couldn't handle their business.

It got worse, standards were lowered and respect for fellow officers suffered. Tailhook hurt the Navy and set women in the Navy back a decade or more.
 
I have zero tolerance for sexual assault or harassment. Most officers I know share that standard.

I am not aware of any evidence that has shown that the response to Tailhook has reduced sexual assaults. As far as sexual harassment, I will concede that the response to Tailhook has resulted in a less hostile workplace, especially in the enlisted ranks.

Now the downside. Tailhook, in many ways, was bad for women, especially officers. It took the strongest and most capable women in America and told them that they were incapable of handling and addressing inappropriate yet benign behavior like profanity, off-color jokes, songs, and pornography. Tailhook resulted in mortal fear that a woman would be offended, not harassed or assaulted, offended. Offended on a magnitude no greater than other social offenses that are closer to bad etiquette than misogyny.

I have never seen one officer or sailor not respond to a simple, "hey guys, not when I'm around". I have seen women that embraced the frat-boy hijinx and partied hard, drinking like a sailor and cussing like a Mick. Among those women, I have seen poorly conceived alcohol-induced romantic gestures met with a slap or harsh words, not discipline. In a couple of cases, I have asked women if I could intervene. I was met with a strong rebuke from strong women that were insulted that I thought they couldn't handle their business.

It got worse, standards were lowered and respect for fellow officers suffered. Tailhook hurt the Navy and set women in the Navy back a decade or more.
How do you think it should have been handled? What is the appropriate response to the kind of thing that had apparently been happening for years, sometimes worse than the one in the news, and that resulted in women being vocal about their mistreatment?

Studies conducted from 1974 to 1997, the University of Michigan reports, show factors contributing to sexual violence include sex-role socialization, rape myths, lack of sanction for abuse, male peer support groups, and all-male membership groups such as fraternities and sports teams. (And, I would say it makes sense to add, the military.) What would be the best way to ingrain in such a group that that kind of behavior is simply not tolerable?

It is a little unfortunate that there's a fear, I guess, of telling sexist jokes ("off-color" can also have to do with death, race, or politics, but I'm guessing those wouldn't pose a problem), but isn't there something to the idea that all these little things - sexist jokes, songs about raping women (what if the songs were about raping men or beating the crap out of someone? would they be received as well, or is it just rape of women that doesn't elicit a "WTF?" reaction?) - add up to an unwelcome environment for women and a feeling of entitlement among those who treat women that way. It's never one thing, it's all the little things.

So, really curious - how would you fix it? And why do you think assaults have gone up? (I mean, what do you think the cause is?)
 
How do you think it should have been handled? What is the appropriate response to the kind of thing that had apparently been happening for years, sometimes worse than the one in the news, and that resulted in women being vocal about their mistreatment?

Studies conducted from 1974 to 1997, the University of Michigan reports, show factors contributing to sexual violence include sex-role socialization, rape myths, lack of sanction for abuse, male peer support groups, and all-male membership groups such as fraternities and sports teams. (And, I would say it makes sense to add, the military.) What would be the best way to ingrain in such a group that that kind of behavior is simply not tolerable?

It is a little unfortunate that there's a fear, I guess, of telling sexist jokes ("off-color" can also have to do with death, race, or politics, but I'm guessing those wouldn't pose a problem), but isn't there something to the idea that all these little things - sexist jokes, songs about raping women (what if the songs were about raping men or beating the crap out of someone? would they be received as well, or is it just rape of women that doesn't elicit a "WTF?" reaction?) - add up to an unwelcome environment for women and a feeling of entitlement among those who treat women that way. It's never one thing, it's all the little things.

So, really curious - how would you fix it? And why do you think assaults have gone up? (I mean, what do you think the cause is?)
I am much more confident in describing the unintended consequences of the Tailhook-response than suggesting the best remedies for addressing the culture and providing remedies to workplace offenses.

That said, I'll take a stab at it. What should have been done? First, we should not have destroyed the careers of innocent men. This was the worst act. Beyond that, we didn't listen to the women, those that were directly involved and those that could have offered guidance on positive change.

After Tailhook, we winged women that couldn't fly worth a damn, gave poorly qualified women commands, and everybody was afraid to complain that half the women on the carrier got pregnant and had to go home.
 
Last edited:
I am much more confident in describing the unintended consequences of the Tailhook-response than suggesting the best remedies for addressing the culture and providing remedies to workplace offenses.
I have some sympathy for those who have to try to fix things. It has to be hard to know what to do, and it seems all you can do is your best, then modify as needed. (?)

That said, I'll take a stab at it. What should have been done? First, we should not have destroyed the careers of innocent men. This was the worst act. Beyond that, we didn't listen to the women, those that were directly involved and those that could have offered guidance on positive change.
I didn't know innocent men's careers were destroyed. (Reading up on it now.)

I just found a list of articles, and much of what you said about women handling themselves and men feeling scared to do ANYTHING is in one of them. Also in it, re: women handling themselves, is this:

"Are these women going to be warriors or not?" he asked, suggesting that a female soldier fondled without permission should hit back on the spot--or return with enough friends to even the score. "That's how a warrior would handle it," he said. "They don't go crying to daddy. . . . If women want to get respect, that's how they earn it."

1. Victim blaming. 2. Ideally, yes, one solitary woman in a crowd of men could hit back and it would all stop. But I don't think anyone really thinks hitting a man in a crowd of men, all of whom can reasonably be said to be engaging in group mentality, is the surest way to get out without further damage. I can't say what I would do in that situation, as much as I'd like to think I'd catch a few sets of nuts with my foot. 3. Are there that many women in the Navy that it would be easy to find a force in equal numbers?
 
I didn't know innocent men's careers were destroyed. (Reading up on it now.)

Unless you have a clear and accurate understand of how the careers of innocent men were destroyed, you really can't understand the effect of Tailhook on the Navy.

Do you really think that Navy officers just want to preserve a culture of profanity, drinking, and effing? In the wake of Tailhook and the careers it ruined, nobody wanted to be accused of slowing a woman's career progression.

Damn, we killed Kara Hultgreen because the Navy needed a female F-14 pilot.
 
Unless you have a clear and accurate understand of how the careers of innocent men were destroyed, you really can't understand the effect of Tailhook on the Navy.
That's why I'm interested/reading.

Do you really think that Navy officers just want to preserve a culture of profanity, drinking, and effing?
I really don't know. Some? Certainly enough enjoyed engaging in it. If you mean do I think the majority of them want to preserve that culture, no. I don't think... I honestly don't know.

Edit: No. I really don't think the majority want it to continue.

In the wake of Tailhook and the careers it ruined, nobody wanted to be accused of slowing a woman's career progression.
This makes it sound like they don't want to do that because they'll get in trouble.

Damn, we killed Kara Hultgreen because the Navy needed a female F-14 pilot.
You've just given me more to look up and read. :)
 
That's why I'm interested/reading.

I really don't know. Some? Certainly enough enjoyed engaging in it. If you mean do I think the majority of them want to preserve that culture, no. I don't think... I honestly don't know.

Edit: No. I really don't think the majority want it to continue.

This makes it sound like they don't want to do that because they'll get in trouble.

You've just given me more to look up and read. :)

Walter Williams got it right in this essay:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/costly-affirmative-action.htm

Grabbed from Wikipedia, but is consistent with other accounts:

Frontline on PBS reported:
Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention.[6] Vice Admiral Richard Dunleavy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, was demoted to a two-star Admiral (from a three-star Admiral) and retired because of the scandal. Rear Admiral Wilson Flagg, censured for failing to prevent the Tailhook conference scandal. Flagg later died in the crash of American Airlines flight 77 in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
 
Walter Williams got it right in this essay:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/costly-affirmative-action.htm

Grabbed from Wikipedia, but is consistent with other accounts:

Frontline on PBS reported:
Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook. For example Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and CNO Admiral Frank Kelso were both at Tailhook '91. Garrett ultimately resigned and Kelso retired early two years after the convention.[6] Vice Admiral Richard Dunleavy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, was demoted to a two-star Admiral (from a three-star Admiral) and retired because of the scandal. Rear Admiral Wilson Flagg, censured for failing to prevent the Tailhook conference scandal. Flagg later died in the crash of American Airlines flight 77 in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Will need to read up on these guys. I'm assuming none of them directly sexually harassed/assaulted anyone, didn't pooh-pooh any complaints made by victims, and didn't cover up or condone the behavior.
 
Will need to read up on these guys. I'm assuming none of them directly sexually harassed/assaulted anyone, didn't pooh-pooh any complaints made by victims, and didn't cover up or condone the behavior.

Mixed bag. I'm not aware of any cover-ups or refusal to act by military or civilian leadership.

Some weren't there. Some were there but did not witness any of the unsavory events. Some witnessed but did not act. Some acted and their acts were labelled as consensual or their participation was described by their own testimony without any accusations. Some acted and their acts were labelled as inappropriate by their victims, but not worthy of discipline or legal action in the opinion of the victim. The behavior of a couple was deemed worthy of military discipline by the victims.

Tailhook presents some interesting social questions. What judgements can you make about men that like to slap women's asses in public and women that like their asses slapped in public?

blank.gif

blank.gif
"A significant number of witnesses reported
blank.gif
that women went through the gauntlet and seemed to enjoy the
blank.gif
attention and interaction with the aviators."
blank.gif


In a perfect world, signs would identify these ass-slapping zones so those that aren't of the ass-slapping nature can stay clear. To most involved, the third floor was one of those zones. What happens when you touch a breast in an ass-slapping zone, I'm not sure what the sanctions should be. Call me a Southern gentleman, I'm not a big public ass-slapper, regardless of the desires of some women.
 
Of course I don't. (But, I mean, prior to the sanitization, was there not an excess of sexual assault? Isn't that the whole thing of the Tailhook scandal?)

Define "excess", and in relation to what?

Ideally, that number would be zero, of course. But it is important to keep things in context -- are the numbers of sexual assaults in the military higher or lower than the rest of civilian US society? How do those numbers compare to the rest of "western" society? How about compared to the rest of the world?

How about the trend? Has the trend for reported assaults been increasing over time, decreasing, or staying the same? How do those trend lines compare when matched to the wider cultural trends?

Thusfar there is a propensity to say that things are or were a certain way (for instance, saying there is an "excess" of something) and use exactly zero objective data to back that up.

Again, I think that in an ideal world the number should be zero. There is no place for harassment, assault, rape, what have you in a professional workplace. But we also exist in a society, and the military isn't some pod floating in space that does not generally reflect the same behaviors that the rest of American society does.

Interesting, though, that you seem to have more of a problem with the sanitized environment than with people being groped and assaulted in what is supposed to be a mature, professional institution.

Where exactly did I say that? If you are inferring that from my statements, you are dead wrong.

It also assumes that there is a proven cause-and-effect relationship between the environment that "was" and the instances of being "groped and assaulted". Can you provide any? Nobody else is able to provide such sociological data anywhere.

It begs the question, and that, too, is a logical fallacy.

So, when we get to something like the Man From LOX video, I find it disturbing that someone so easily sees something that has a humorous sexual subtext as being directly contributional to assaults, rapes, or what have you.
 
Back
Top