Respect for Women

[Gunner98]

Bruce,

your time served in the CAF is certainly valued and appreciated.  As well, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but times have changed since you were in.  Whether good or bad, that is your choice to comment on, but at the end of the day the direction from the Chief of Defence Staff for serving members shall be followed.

Every serving CAF member,

if you are still unsure if this type of behaviour is acceptable, take another look at my post above.

Sorry Scoobs - this is a discussion and I agree with Bruce and my time in uniform is not that much in the past.  I have a daughter and she regularly speaks up for herself. Was the interaction or lack thereof appropriate - no, however, coming on here to rant about it from a one-sided perspective is not going to resolve it.  As a former Harassment unit guru, one of things I always found interesting was the concept that perception became reality.  The first level of resolution was and is always going to be "did you find the action offensive, did you address it".  I am not suggesting this is always going to be the way things get handled; but it will be one of the first questions asked by the convening authority or terms of reference. 

Saying that Remembrance Day and a mess demands higher than normal levels of deportment is part of the reason that like Legions; Base messes and unit messes are in decline.  That a Sgt is expressing an ill-advised opinion after consuming alcohol on Remembrance Day should not make everyone rush to say the "CDS said this is wrong" and it should be handled by the unit leaders, regardless of rank. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Define Harassment unit guru; if by that you mean HA-trained, many of us are and some would find those actions meet the CAF definition.  We could also discuss this situation as it does, or may, relate to the DND and CAF Code of Values and Ethics.

CAF members are expected to have 'higher than normal levels of deportment', more so when in the publics eye.  Would this type of talk be acceptable at a mixed dining-in, as another example?  I doubt it.

Agree it should be handled by the lowest level; a cautionary informal talk with the Sgt-Major being an example.

Regardless of what regulation or policy might and might not apply, the 'don't be a rude blowhard' rule always applies.  Sounds to me like some militia Sgt was trying to be a big shot. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sounds to me like some militia Sgt was trying to be a big shot.

The old drunken who ever can act like the bigger asshole to women wins,  game.

 

[Gunner98]

Define Harassment unit guru; if by that you mean HA-trained, many of us are and some would find those actions meet the CAF definition.

Guru (IAST: Guru) is a Sanskrit term that connotes someone who is a "teacher, guide or master" of certain knowledge.  IMHO, being a good Harassment Advisor takes more than being "trained".  Some of "us" have attended multiple versions of the course, lectured units, been at times, the complainant (who was threatened by a harasser that he would and subsequently did take career action as a result of my complaint) and at other times the alleged "harasser", and finally caught in the middle between a CO (alleged harasser) and Cpls (complainants).

By having the CDS state that it is wrong, IMHO has no more weight than the laws and directives that pre-existed.  If his direction makes more people talk, observe and take action that is a good thing. Whether it stops people from acting like a drunken idiot at a Remembrance Day levee, you folks have a long way to go.  I wish you good luck in stamping it out; however, I think those in uniform have higher priorities than this.

 

[ballz]

To be fair, Op HONOUR wasn't specifically about harassment. The intent was much more so about changing our culture in the CAF to one that is less sexist.

The unfortunate thing about "well did you speak up?" is the double-standard. If she had said anything, she would have been labelled as that loud-mouth spouse of Pte so-and-so, and Pte so-and-so would have been getting the gears given to him at work about how he can't control his spouse. This is a no-win situation for a female, she either stands by idle while some idiot like this Sergeant runs his mouth, or she says something and is ridiculed for doing so regardless of the fact that she was probably well within her lanes.

This kind of double-standard needs to change as much as all the other pieces of "sexual misconduct."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was trying to point out (badly, it seems) that the harassment definition, concept is subjective and people have different ideas of what constitutes 'harassment' and 'the workplace' based on their personal values and feeling.  And, as I am sure you well know by your experience, different people will 'feel/react' differently to the same incident.  If the poster was to contact the unit CO, by means of say a well-formulated letter, would the letter go to from the CO's desk to his shredder after finding out a unit mbr (Snr NCO) may have said some thing that caused offense in one of his messes?  My TI tells me that, at the least, he/she would hand it to the Adjt or RSM for informal review.

My experience tells me one of the important aspects that people consider in situations like these is the "knew or reasonably ought to have known" part and I think most of us commonly believe a Snr NCO usually 'reasonably ought to have known'.  :2c:

 

[George Wallace]

To be fair, Op HONOUR wasn't specifically about harassment. The intent was much more so about changing our culture in the CAF to one that is less sexist.

The unfortunate thing about "well did you speak up?" is the double-standard. If she had said anything, she would have been labelled as that loud-mouth spouse of Pte so-and-so, and Pte so-and-so would have been getting the gears given to him at work about how he can't control his spouse. This is a no-win situation for a female, she either stands by idle while some idiot like this Sergeant runs his mouth, or she says something and is ridiculed for doing so regardless of the fact that she was probably well within her lanes.

This kind of double-standard needs to change as much as all the other pieces of "sexual misconduct."

Sorry, but I find that naive.  She has every right to state to the offenders in this situation that what they were saying was offensive and could be construed as harassment if taken too far.  That is one of the first steps in changing the culture.  Remaining silent only condones that culture and does not affect change.  If she remains silent, there is nothing preventing her boyfriend, spouse or companion(s) from pointing out that the conversation was offensive. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Problem is, we don't know the other side of the story, nor the exact words used. The individual making the statements could have meant something completely different, but used the wrong words, which boils down to attempting to solve it at the lowest level. If you flipped the gender, and a female Sgt was talking about men in the same way, would she have been offended? Or laughing it up as well?

 

[ballz]

Sorry, but I find that naive.  She has every right to state to the offenders in this situation that what they were saying was offensive and could be construed as harassment if taken too far.

Where did I say she shouldn't or can't or doesn't have the right?

What I stated was the way it would most likely be received by the audience. It is the *reality* that women often face a double standard in social situations such as this. You sit here and say "you should have spoken up," but if she would have said something, there is a very very good chance she'd have been dismissed as being a loud-mouth b*tch. Those women that speak up are often informally sanctioned by the group for doing so. You are naive if you think that this doesn't exist or doesn't happen.

If she remains silent, there is nothing preventing her boyfriend, spouse or companion(s) from pointing out that the conversation was offensive.

And if her boyfriend did say something, people would have probably listened and changed the subject or something. This is also part of the problem. If *she* said something, she'd likely have her concerns dismissed, but if a man said something, it would more likely be taken seriously.


The first step to changing our culture is to recognize and acknowledge that yes, we *do* have these double-standards.

 

[Flavus101]

Do you really believe that a brand new reserve private would have been able to change the subject a group of intoxicated people were having when the group was being spoken to by a (intoxicated) Snr NCO? There are a lot of aspects at play here, one of them being that the boyfriend most likely just wanted to fit in with the group and not ostracize himself.

Perhaps the best course of action would have been for the GF to signal to the BF that she would like to remove themselves from the conversation and then when all parties were sober she could have explained to the BF exactly what made her uncomfortable.

I am not saying that this is morally right, however we do not live in a perfect world and sometimes the "best" course of action is not always the "perfect" course of action.

 

[ballz]

Do you really believe that a brand new reserve private would have been able to change the subject a group of intoxicated people were having when the group was being spoken to by a (intoxicated) Snr NCO? There are a lot of aspects at play here, one of them being that the boyfriend most likely just wanted to fit in with the group and not ostracize himself.

You are right, my mind was straying off the situation at hand and speaking more to generalities. Because we have a rank system, that makes it all the more of a leadership issue as, like you say, all the Pte(T) Bloggins of the world can't be the drivers behind change. That is what makes this particular SNCO's misstep all the more of a problem.

 

[Gunner98]

Where did I say she shouldn't or can't or doesn't have the right?

What I stated was the way it would most likely be received by the audience. It is the *reality* that women often face a double standard in social situations such as this. You sit here and say "you should have spoken up," but if she would have said something, there is a very very good chance she'd have been dismissed as being a loud-mouth b*tch. Those women that speak up are often informally sanctioned by the group for doing so. You are naive if you think that this doesn't exist or doesn't happen.

There is no doubt that you are further pointing out how the culture needs to change- being "dismissed" or "informally sanctioned" is a big part of what needs to be eliminated.  Everyone in uniform or a even visitor to a mess should have equal standing when it comes to speaking up.  Stores, hospitals and many other workplaces have signs reminding people that aggressive, demeaning or violent actions or words will not be tolerated.  The issue with the mess is that once you add alcohol to the mix, people forget their manners.  As we see in this case, the young Private who does nothing then he becomes part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not sure how many people remember what it is actually like to be a Pte, but correcting the Snr NCOs in your unit is not something that comes naturally to most of them. 

So, while I understand the 'speak up/be the voice of reason/part of the solution' part, the reality is that Pte's may not have been able to grow beyond the "you will do as your Cpl/MCpl/Sgt tell you to do!" stuff that is drilled into them up until this point in the military service.

Leadership is, usually, supposed to function from the top down vice the bottom up.  By the account, it sounds as if there was one or more other NCO's present;  THEY should be the ones having the conversation with the Sgt (IMO).  We treat Cpl's like 'glorified Ptes' instead of proper Jr NCOs (which, IMO is exactly why many of them ACT like glorified Ptes vice NCOs, but that a different topic...).  The Pte should be comfortable to discuss his/her concerns with their Cpls, who should be comfortable to bring concerns to their MCpls, who should be competent enough as more experienced Jnr NCOs to address things to their Snr NCOs, and higher if required (WOs, Jnr Officers).

Just remember your time as a Pte or OCdt and think back to how 'comfortable' you would have been to challenge someone several ranks higher than you...their is a CofC for a reason.  We fail when we do not exercise it and expect our lowest rank personnel to be 'part of the solution' in sorting out their senior officers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do you really believe that a brand new reserve private would have been able to change the subject a group of intoxicated people were having when the group was being spoken to by a (intoxicated) Snr NCO? There are a lot of aspects at play here, one of them being that the boyfriend most likely just wanted to fit in with the group and not ostracize himself.

I think you and EITS are 100% accurate with this.  We already know and accept that a private who is being harassed by a senior member of  leadership, or even a senior member, isn't always in a position to effectively stand up for themselves or speak out about it. Why then would we expect a youngcivilian woman in a crowd of intoxicated soldiers shit talking women (and probably also how bad ass they are and all the terrorists they're going to kill) to say anything to them?

 

[Good2Golf]

What was the Sgt doing in the JRs?

 

[Gunner98]

I think you and EITS are 100% accurate with this.  We already know and accept that a private who is being harassed by a senior member of  leadership, or even a senior member, isn't always in a position to effectively stand up for themselves or speak out about it. Why then would we expect a youngcivilian woman in a crowd of intoxicated soldiers shit talking women (and probably also how bad ass they are and all the terrorists they're going to kill) to say anything to them?

Comparing the soldiers and OCdts of today to when I was one 30 years ago is not going to fly.  The CF/CAF has changed since then and so have the young people we recruit.  The Sgts and Sr Offrs of today are not the same bad asses they were 30 years ago either.

 

[ballz]

What was the Sgt doing in the JRs?

I thought the same thing but am guessing since it was Remembrance Day they probably had an all-ranks event at one location, or perhaps the unit is small enough that they only have one mess. This offers a tangent argument about whether we can all co-exist in the same mess and whatnot, a tangent that belongs in another thread (that already exists I believe).

 

[PuckChaser]

I thought the same thing but am guessing since it was Remembrance Day they probably had an all-ranks event at one location, or perhaps the unit is small enough that they only have one mess. This offers a tangent argument about whether we can all co-exist in the same mess and whatnot, a tangent that belongs in another thread (that already exists I believe).

Same thing could have happened in the Legion, I think the location is a bit of a red herring.

 

[OldSolduer]

I thought the same thing but am guessing since it was Remembrance Day they probably had an all-ranks event at one location, or perhaps the unit is small enough that they only have one mess. This offers a tangent argument about whether we can all co-exist in the same mess and whatnot, a tangent that belongs in another thread (that already exists I believe).

We in Minto are invited to the JRs Mess. Nothing wrong with that.

As for "controlling" my Niner Domestic or ask anyone to control their spouse is way out of line....of course there are exceptions.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Comparing the soldiers and OCdts of today to when I was one 30 years ago is not going to fly.  The CF/CAF has changed since then and so have the young people we recruit.  The Sgts and Sr Offrs of today are not the same bad asses they were 30 years ago either.

Sorry but I don't think the 'realities of being a Pte' have changed as much as you think.

One thing that hasn't changed is the function of leadership.