Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No sexual harassment when I served. There were no women..........
On my first shore-duty I was working for the Police Department on a Navy base. About a third of the police department were civilians hired to fill those positions, and of those civilians a few of them were females. We were all in 12on/12off shift work. One of the females was ordered to go from working the night shift to working days, she whined that she liked working nights and did not want to go to days. The first name she say on the duty roster was my name as she filed a complaint to our command that I had harassed her. That day when I showed up for work, the first thing I was called into the office to sign a statement that I acknowledged a harassment complaint was made against me, by a female that I had not met. The supervisor and I then reviewed the Navy policy and that if a second complaint was made against me, I would be processed out of the Navy. My assignment that day was to stand Gate Guard duty at a gate with that same female.
The proper procedure at that time, would have been for her to approach me and tell me face-to-face that I had offended her. But she couldn't do that as she had never met me. So she went to our supervisor instead.
When I was serving on the USS Alaska SSBN 732 [male-only crew], one of the junior officers made a complaint about a watchstander's clipboard. He had taped a photo of his wife on the clipboard under 100 pages of logsheet paper.
At that time, the policy was that the person being offended or harassed had to notify the offender and the offender was to stop. If the behavior continued, then the offended person was to go to the chain of command, and the offender was to be processed out of the Navy. No charges, no NJP, you could do an investigation, but why? It makes no difference. Two complaints and your out.
Up until that time, nearly all crewmen had photos of their wives taped up in their bunks and/or watch stations. The entire crew had to remove all photos of wives and girlfriends. To avoid further offending that junior officer.
There is no need to have any outside source because there is already an outside source it's called Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC)...every installation has one, and it is completely disjointed from that command, just for that reason....the command won't be doing the investigation.
A review began in 04 and the program (then SAPR) started to be implemented in training in 06.
SHARP was expanded in 09. How is that going? I will say that usually the person assaulted will say something within their own Company before calling the MPs and in many cases they are pressures (or talked out of ) reporting.
When I was at our reception center in 1985 we had a block of instruction on sexual harassment (I don't remember if it was actually called this at the time).
The female 'plt' was formed as were the 4 male 'plt's. We had been told to yell "SNAP!" as we moved to parade rest.The males yelled "Snat*h!".
Oh so funny right? The instructors almost pis*ed themselves laughing. So much for that program.
If the SHARP program is working the way it is intended to then there shouldn't be the numbers that are still occurring. Something is wrong and for the sake of both accuser and accused it needs to be fixed.
I don't know if something new needs to be formed or if SHARP needs to be taken seriously.
On my first shore-duty I was working for the Police Department on a Navy base. About a third of the police department were civilians hired to fill those positions, and of those civilians a few of them were females. We were all in 12on/12off shift work. One of the females was ordered to go from working the night shift to working days, she whined that she liked working nights and did not want to go to days. The first name she say on the duty roster was my name as she filed a complaint to our command that I had harassed her. That day when I showed up for work, the first thing I was called into the office to sign a statement that I acknowledged a harassment complaint was made against me, by a female that I had not met. The supervisor and I then reviewed the Navy policy and that if a second complaint was made against me, I would be processed out of the Navy. My assignment that day was to stand Gate Guard duty at a gate with that same female.
The proper procedure at that time, would have been for her to approach me and tell me face-to-face that I had offended her. But she couldn't do that as she had never met me. So she went to our supervisor instead.
When I was serving on the USS Alaska SSBN 732 [male-only crew], one of the junior officers made a complaint about a watchstander's clipboard. He had taped a photo of his wife on the clipboard under 100 pages of logsheet paper.
At that time, the policy was that the person being offended or harassed had to notify the offender and the offender was to stop. If the behavior continued, then the offended person was to go to the chain of command, and the offender was to be processed out of the Navy. No charges, no NJP, you could do an investigation, but why? It makes no difference. Two complaints and your out.
Up until that time, nearly all crewmen had photos of their wives taped up in their bunks and/or watch stations. The entire crew had to remove all photos of wives and girlfriends. To avoid further offending that junior officer.
Lol, some JO, never found out who but knew it was one of the new guys, complained about the tube girl, so we had to take that down and never had it up again while I was on board. Kind of actually, we placed her in the bunks on the tubes, moving from room to room as we counted down to the end of patrol.
When you have gone through with a couple of 'Safety stand downs' where you must generate 20 manhours of training on the subject of harassment. Even in an all-male command, guys will get creative on things to file complaints about.
There is a political push to have the military developed a lot of new commands to exclusively focus on investigating sexual harassment complaints.
I have been seeing a few articles about the White House wanting to change how the military investigates sexual harassment incidents.
It seems they want harassment complaints to go to an outside command, that focuses on nothing else but investigating this type of complaint.
I am not sure if I support this idea. I understand that there have been a lot of reports of sexual harassment made from within the military and that each complaint needs to be thoroughly investigated.
I had thought the military was getting 'better' in this regard.
If we set up a thousand additional commands, of exclusively senior desk-jockey personnel, focused on investigating these complaints. The added infrastructure for all of these new commands will be an added burden to the cost of maintaining a standing military.
Is that what we 'need'?
More offices for POGs to sit in and make up useless memos. There have to be some vacancies at the Pentagon.
Anything except combat readiness.
There is a political push to have the military developed a lot of new commands to exclusively focus on investigating sexual harassment complaints.
I have been seeing a few articles about the White House wanting to change how the military investigates sexual harassment incidents.
It seems they want harassment complaints to go to an outside command, that focuses on nothing else but investigating this type of complaint.
I am not sure if I support this idea. I understand that there have been a lot of reports of sexual harassment made from within the military and that each complaint needs to be thoroughly investigated.
I had thought the military was getting 'better' in this regard.
If we set up a thousand additional commands, of exclusively senior desk-jockey personnel, focused on investigating these complaints. The added infrastructure for all of these new commands will be an added burden to the cost of maintaining a standing military.
Is that what we 'need'?
Quite frankly to me, it sounds like someone has a SVU mentality about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k350
Lol, some JO, never found out who but knew it was one of the new guys, complained about the tube girl, so we had to take that down and never had it up again while I was on board. Kind of actually, we placed her in the bunks on the tubes, moving from room to room as we counted down to the end of patrol.
Reminds me of the time I walked into a workspace, they had the playboy centerfold up with some heavy rocker face pasted on it. I glanced at it, recognized Kelly Tough's body, so stated, and carried on. My recognition ability of patterns was rather getting known at that time......and being the picked on one anyhow, complaining would not have served me.
I usually got picked to play the terrorist for security drills. I was suppose to hold the CDO at gun point in the wardroom. What I wanted to do was have an X-rated flick playing on the TV so when the security team broke in.....would their attention shift to that and give me the first shots?
BUT.....the CDO wouldn't hear of it. He just wanted me to hold the gun on him while he sat there doing his paperwork.....and then, there are letterbombs and staples in the navel that I could theorize about but never run an actual experiment.
Us Spook types, we can be a devious sort. Whether Stinger missiles or methods of distraction, they are all weapons of a sort. Unfortunately for training, we are never allowed to show our side how minds and other things can be controlled when you know their fine details.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 05-04-2021 at 04:41 PM..
I get what you are saying about costs, but what if it was entirely made up of retired veterans? they could still get paid but wouldn't affect the readiness of the military, and retiree's wouldn't feel like they might be retaliated against for being stationed there like a military member might.
The first step to halting sexual harassment/assault cases in the military is to make it so that if the accuser makes a provable false accusation they are automatically dishonorably discharged from the military.
Nearly 10 percent of cases are shown to be false.
Assuming your 10 percent figure is correct, you really think that's a bigger problem than the 90 percent that are true?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
