• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ship Commander Fired After Harassment Claims

Everyone just wants to go off on a tangent and disregard what navy pride has been trying to say....I didnt read where hes condoning sexual harrassment and/or making this into a gay thing...all of YOU are doing that not him.
Hes trying to say that if you "FORCE" young men and women into very close quarters for long periods of time...human nature dictates ****s gonna happen...and If you dont think any of the WOMEN are being promiscuous and making matters worse at times...then your just being disengenuous.
 
Everyone just wants to go off on a tangent and disregard what navy pride has been trying to say....I didnt read where hes condoning sexual harrassment and/or making this into a gay thing...all of YOU are doing that not him.
Hes trying to say that if you "FORCE" young men and women into very close quarters for long periods of time...human nature dictates ****s gonna happen...and If you dont think any of the WOMEN are being promiscuous and making matters worse at times...then your just being disengenuous.

no
exercise self restraint and responsibility
follow the rules
and there should be little problem with men and women serving together
 
This is the kind of thing that happens when you allow women to serve aboard a Navy combatant.........The Navy should not be used for social experimentation.....It is there to fight our wars..........We have enough problems already without mixing the sexes......If they have to serve at sea then put them on all female ships.........

so you're blaming females and not the person harrassing the females. Do you blame the rape victims too because they wore a skirt and were "asking for it"?
 
Everyone just wants to go off on a tangent and disregard what navy pride has been trying to say....I didnt read where hes condoning sexual harrassment and/or making this into a gay thing...all of YOU are doing that not him.
Hes trying to say that if you "FORCE" young men and women into very close quarters for long periods of time...human nature dictates ****s gonna happen...and If you dont think any of the WOMEN are being promiscuous and making matters worse at times...then your just being disengenuous.

So now it's just "human nature" for men to harrass women? Wow, you're digging a hole for yourself there.
 
Everyone just wants to go off on a tangent and disregard what navy pride has been trying to say....I didnt read where hes condoning sexual harrassment and/or making this into a gay thing...all of YOU are doing that not him.
Hes trying to say that if you "FORCE" young men and women into very close quarters for long periods of time...human nature dictates ****s gonna happen

"Close quarters" has nothing to do with it. One's sex drive can be controlled by mature adults.

This crap happens in the military because the military has a shortage of mature adults (i. e. men). The military is full of losers/criminals with no education or life skills, since the only place that's willing to pay such losers a salary is the military, because in wars it's always too desperate for recruits.

True, COs need to graduate w/a degree (i. e. from a military academy), but not surprisingly, the armed forces has a severe shortage of officers; most people w/sufficient noodle to do that would enter the civilian workforce.

The US military therefore comprises mostly of enlisted men/women (mostly men) that are plucked off the streets, or COs that barely squeaked by.

The evidence is all there: there are way too many stories about serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc. being accepted into the military. And whenever a woman finds herself among serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc., she'll be raped.

And it's utterly silly to exect the government to enforce the zero-tolerance policy; the US government doesn't care how many rapes occur in the ranks. What incentive is there to care when it knows the people it recruits are too desperate to be picky?

That policy is merely a PR stunt.

It only cares about how its objective: subjugating enough people in foreign nations to make room for Exxon.
 
Last edited:
"Close quarters" has nothing to do with it. One's sex drive can be controlled by mature adults.

This crap happens in the military because the military has a shortage of mature adults (i. e. men). The military is full of losers/criminals with no education or life skills, since the only place that's willing to pay such losers a salary is the military, because in wars it's always too desperate for recruits.

True, COs need to graduate w/a degree (from a military academy), but not surprisingly, the armed forces has a severe shortage of officers; most people w/sufficient noodle to do that would enter the civilian workforce. The US military therefore comprises mostly of enlisted men/women (mostly men) that are plucked off the streets.

The evidence is all there: there are way too many stories about serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc. being accepted into the military. And whenever a woman finds herself among serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc., she'll be raped.

And it's utterly silly to exect the government to enforce the zero-tolerance policy; the US government doesn't care how many rapes occur in the ranks; that policy is merely a PR stunt.

It only cares about how its objective: subjugating enough people in foreign nations to make room for Exxon.

Obvious troll is obvious. :roll:
 
This crap happens in the military because the military has a shortage of mature adults (i. e. men). The military is full of losers/criminals with no education or life skills, since the only place that's willing to pay such losers a salary is the military, because in wars it's always too desperate for recruits.

You make these statements and it is obvious that you know NOTHING about recruiting standards. Google is our friend.

True, COs need to graduate w/a degree (i. e. from a military academy), but not surprisingly, the armed forces has a severe shortage of officers; most people w/sufficient noodle to do that would enter the civilian workforce.

Not all officers are service academy grads. The subject of this thread was. However, you again demonstrate a lack of recruiting standards. Do you know how one gets into a service academy? The people at the recruiting offices are also our friend.

The US military therefore comprises mostly of enlisted men/women (mostly men) that are plucked off the streets, or COs that barely squeaked by.

This was a common occurance in Europe in the past, but I have NEVER heard of that happening here. Maybe you could smarten me up about this.

The evidence is all there: there are way too many stories about serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc. being accepted into the military. And whenever a woman finds herself among serial drug addicts, ex-felons, Neo-Nazis, drunks, etc., she'll be raped.

Operative word here is "stories". Maybe you could enlighten me with some of your FACTS.

And it's utterly silly to exect the government to enforce the zero-tolerance policy; the US government doesn't care how many rapes occur in the ranks. What incentive is there to care when it knows the people it recruits are too desperate to be picky?

Apparently this is your opinion. I "exect" you will continue to state opinions ... hopefully you will not confuse those opinions with facts. Facts are our friend.

That policy is merely a PR stunt.

<sigh> (actually I should have typed yawn) Another opinion.

It only cares about how its objective: subjugating enough people in foreign nations to make room for Exxon.

I would have thought that you might have mentioned GM or Chysler instead of Exxon.

A L
 
no
exercise self restraint and responsibility
follow the rules
and there should be little problem with men and women serving together

Human nature and instinct follow their own rules sorry
 
So now it's just "human nature" for men to harrass women? Wow, you're digging a hole for yourself there.


Dont put words in my mouth..
 
Being a straight man I can tell you that straight men have no interest in sexually harrassing gay men.....My experience it is the other way around.

So you think sexual harassment is limited to flirting or trying to provoke a sexual act? Do you not think teasing someone about their sexuality would also be considered sexual harassment?
 
Your words suggested that men just can't control themselves.


That was not the intention...but human nature and instinct however similar are not the same
 
here are your own words:

one can only conclude from your statements that you believe sexual harassment is natural and instinctive

Nope thats your interpretation of my words...human nature and instinct are the drivers of the sexual urge...just like im sure your one of those that believe kids will have sex no matter what you tell them thats why abstinence teachings are worthless right ?
 
Nope thats your interpretation of my words...human nature and instinct are the drivers of the sexual urge...just like im sure your one of those that believe kids will have sex no matter what you tell them thats why abstinence teachings are worthless right ?

Then explain what you are saying, clearly. Are you saying that because the drivers of behavior are "human nature" and instinct (the same thing, but hey...) that abuse and harrassment is to be expected, should be ignored? Or something different? Please explain.
 
Nope thats your interpretation of my words...human nature and instinct are the drivers of the sexual urge...just like im sure your one of those that believe kids will have sex no matter what you tell them thats why abstinence teachings are worthless right ?

wrong
i was a virgin when i first married at the age of 23
why would i believe others were unable to exercise similar sexual restraint

but the point remains you should own up to what you said or recant
do you stand behind your statement or do you regret posting as you did
make a choice
 
Then explain what you are saying, clearly. Are you saying that because the drivers of behavior are "human nature" and instinct (the same thing, but hey...) that abuse and harrassment is to be expected, should be ignored? Or something different? Please explain.
Depends.

In this case, girls claimed he was checking them out. And he made dating remarks, obvious ones. These normal male/female behaviors, especially in closer quarters, especially when you're "in charge", etc., are normal. What makes them NOT normal, is training, and awareness, and training follow-up typically.

Picking your nose is normal behavior, most of us do this, after receiving cultural feedback (strong ones I might add) in private or with a tissue, etc. It is entirely normal for that to occur if he has not had sufficient training (he probably did though), and sufficient management follow-up and feedback (which he may have had very little, or none).

What he did, according to the link, was not over the top. It was a behavior that the females, quite a few of them, are supposed to give as feedback, so that the behavior stops, and their work environment in their opinion feels more neutral and professional. He was fired?

I have no idea if this guy was consistently ignoring the very specific advice and training his superiors gave him, after hearing second hand evidence of how his behavior was distrupting his crew. Doesn't seem like that's the case, it seems like a bunch of the girls got together and said yeah, he makes us uncomfortable. That's fine. It's how HE is dealt with, that's the issue here. At least IMO.

No one here should ever manage people if they really believe people simply behave appropriately in all cases, naturally. It defies reality, reason, everyones personal experience, and so forth. most people are so use to a specific cultural role, they have no idea how they might react in a situation different from the routine they are so use to and numb to. Whether the harassment occurs, or if it's harassment, is largely irrelevant. Usually people receive feedback on their performance and if it seems to be something that can be easiliy corrected, they are given the opportunity to correct it.
 
Depends.

In this case, girls claimed he was checking them out. And he made dating remarks, obvious ones. These normal male/female behaviors, especially in closer quarters, especially when you're "in charge", etc., are normal. What makes them NOT normal, is training, and awareness, and training follow-up typically.

Picking your nose is normal behavior, most of us do this, after receiving cultural feedback (strong ones I might add) in private or with a tissue, etc. It is entirely normal for that to occur if he has not had sufficient training (he probably did though), and sufficient management follow-up and feedback (which he may have had very little, or none).

What he did, according to the link, was not over the top. It was a behavior that the females, quite a few of them, are supposed to give as feedback, so that the behavior stops, and their work environment in their opinion feels more neutral and professional. He was fired?

I have no idea if this guy was consistently ignoring the very specific advice and training his superiors gave him, after hearing second hand evidence of how his behavior was distrupting his crew. Doesn't seem like that's the case, it seems like a bunch of the girls got together and said yeah, he makes us uncomfortable. That's fine. It's how HE is dealt with, that's the issue here. At least IMO.

No one here should ever manage people if they really believe people simply behave appropriately in all cases, naturally. It defies reality, reason, everyones personal experience, and so forth. most people are so use to a specific cultural role, they have no idea how they might react in a situation different from the routine they are so use to and numb to. Whether the harassment occurs, or if it's harassment, is largely irrelevant. Usually people receive feedback on their performance and if it seems to be something that can be easiliy corrected, they are given the opportunity to correct it.

Good explanation and fits with most cultures, but not in this one. To get to his current rank he had the training, he knew the line and he knew precisely which behaviors were over it. Commanders receive quite a bit of training, and some of it training by fire, before they are given postings. We're not privy to his file, but dollars to donuts this is just the final straw. The only other explanation is that he pissed off enough folks above him that now they're using this excuse to find him a nice posting in Greenland.
 
What is the big deal? He violated standards and should be held accountable. The real question I has is why as a Commander he only gets relieved of command but moved to different position when a lot of enlisted personnel get Non-Judicial Punishment under Article15, reduced in rank and pay, forfiet pay, have extra duties assigned and then are kicked out under a General Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for the same thing. This is very common for many violations, Officers get a verbal reprimand while enlisted get their ass kicked and their benefits taken away (for a GD UOTHC, you loose VA benefits, GI bill). And that doesn't even take into account the different standards of discipline between white males and minorities (go ahead, yell about the race card thing, but in over 22 years of service, I have seen it had to deal with it constantly, heck we had one guy who so deserved to be kicked out it was crazy, but he was black and his family was friends with Senator Fienstein of California, guess what, he never was kicked out). I served under a Squadron Commander who was relieved for basically the same thing. I am guessing that if you had a true account of the Commander mentioned, that there were many factors, such as different discipline standard for minorities and officer that allowed him to rise to that position when he should not of. How many "breaches of discipline" did this guy have on his way up? I sincerely doubt this is the first time he crossed the line.

No, the problem is not that the Government and the Military don't care, it is a problem with decreasing discipline and double standards. Also there is a patronage system, especially among officers (it's part of their promotion process even), but it exist even among elisted members. Have the right partron and you don't get a boot in the ass when you should of. Are you classified as a minority, you get 3 or more times committing an offence per level of discpline as your white male counterparts unless it is stepping over a major line. Senior Officer are not court martialed unless it is a major offence, they are reassigned or asked to retire, but they get to keep their pay and benefits.

For women in the military, don't put up with bull****. If it is wrong, it is wrong, report it. However, I will note that certain things are just going to happen, a large number of males isolated for long periods from other females are going to "check" you out. This shouldn't be a problem unless they step over the line and actually do or say something. Because the military is full of aggressive type A personalities, they will check you out openly much more often than in civilian life.

The military really needs to start adhering to it's standards and enforcing them equally. Discipline is the key to every Professional Military throughout history, lose or relax that discipline, you will quickly become a bunch of rabble instead of a Profesional Military.
 
Good explanation and fits with most cultures, but not in this one. To get to his current rank he had the training, he knew the line and he knew precisely which behaviors were over it. Commanders receive quite a bit of training, and some of it training by fire, before they are given postings. We're not privy to his file, but dollars to donuts this is just the final straw. The only other explanation is that he pissed off enough folks above him that now they're using this excuse to find him a nice posting in Greenland.

Training is only 50% of what's needed for any corrective action, if it's important to correct that is. If you just want to cover your own ass as a manager, sure, check boxes might work.
Well, he got training! I have the check box showing it right here! We did OUR job! see? Bull****.
Feedback/follow-up is also necessary in addition to training. Training is just step 1.
You get what you measure, not just what you train to. Management 101.

You can of course fire anyone who needed feedback and didn't get it, I'm sure there are people who either naturally don't need follow-up (some percentage of the population in all careers to be sure), and some who are fortunate enough to have people both aware and friendly enough to give them the feedback unofficially.

All I'm pointing out is that if a manger has training sessions, AND feedback is widely available for the need to correct, and they are not correct even once, they failed him*. That's their call, their business. I'm just saying it's usually bad practice. Being the command of such an expensive, dangerous piece of hardware and responsible for the lives of the crew, maybe they intentionally leave that bar really high because they can only afford to have the best of the best. I can understand that. If that's the way they do it, no warning, zero tolerance, sink/swim, OK. I suspect that wasn't it however, they just run loose with management, and then a hot-button issue bubbles up and they scapegoat, make the issue go away, whatever. Lazy.

That's all opinion, I haven't studied the situation, but I see similar things happen all the time in management (non-military).

However, I will note that certain things are just going to happen, a large number of males isolated for long periods from other females are going to "check" you out. This shouldn't be a problem unless they step over the line and actually do or say something. Because the military is full of aggressive type A personalities, they will check you out openly much more often than in civilian life.
By in large, that's what they reported though. Checking them out. You want to string him up, but then you say it's normal in the military and isn't that big of a deal.

because it's employee/employer, normal feedback like "stop leering at me, it's creeping me out", is ALSO not appropriate. You can't talk to management that way, and you also put yourself in some professional risk if you do. That's why it's OK for them to go behind his back and "report him", and it's not being a tattle tale or a nuisance. It's the appropriate feedback loop. Don't you think if his boss sat him down, with another professional on the issue, and they embarassed him with all the comments, and said it stops, zero tolerance, and here's how you stop it...that he'd keep doing it? I don't. Some would, sure, just seems really ****ing unlikely.
 
So you think sexual harassment is limited to flirting or trying to provoke a sexual act? Do you not think teasing someone about their sexuality would also be considered sexual harassment?

1. Of course not.

2. I have never seen that happen.
 
Human nature and instinct follow their own rules sorry

It's not human nature to continue to press a female that has declined sexual advances. The Navy sexual harassment policy does not disallow consensual sex (though Fraternization Policies can). What it prohibits is unwanted sexual advances...things that are NOT human nature.
 
Last edited:
Training is only 50% of what's needed for any corrective action, if it's important to correct that is. If you just want to cover your own ass as a manager, sure, check boxes might work.
Well, he got training! I have the check box showing it right here! We did OUR job! see? Bull****.
Feedback/follow-up is also necessary in addition to training. Training is just step 1.
You get what you measure, not just what you train to. Management 101.

Your mistake here is conflating civilian training and culture with military training and culture. Language is much more precise, definitions are fixed, in the military. Military competence is not a checkbox item. Trainers don't look for the ability to parrot but to do. Knowing the correct test answer is useless in combat, one must be able to take correct action.

Also, in the military there is constant review and feedback at every level of rank.
 
Back
Top Bottom