three star general files sexual harassment claim

[Anonymous]

This story has been in the papers for about a week now and I am beginning to wonder if anyone else is as tired of these stories as I am. I mean c'mon enough already. Sexual harassment happens in every large Corporation despite policies to prevent the same. Why then is it a major news event when the same thing happens in the military. Listen to the average press releases and one would think the military was the only place this occurs. I wonder what would happen if the military public affairs office was to start running sexual harassment stories that occured in the mainstream Press and media (radio, tv, movie industry etc) who do you think would come out with more cases. My only concern now is how the military will over react in it's "studies, survey, and policymaking department" to combat this one. America being the society where over reacting seems to be the norm today (ie too many shootings, let's ban guns guess we should be thankful not too many stabbings our else wouldn't be able to cut into my damn steak. Gas prices going up hey let's have a war etc). Let's just for fun look at the future Army say 2005. Due to sexual harassment occuring everywhere still (considering most men are still attracted to most women and visa versa) but the press concentrating solely on the military new policies have been implemented. Females entering the Army are required to take testosterone shots. This makes them more masculine and therefore able to pass the men's pt test and thus are now allowed in combat. In addition, such shots make hair grow on the chest, voice deepen, necks bulge, breasts become smaller thus rendering the military female completely unattractive to the military male. Males joining the military on the other hand are required to take shots destroying any attempt to achieve an erection and destroying sperm making capability thereby chemically castrating them. These shots are required every 6 months at which time a semen sample is obtained. This action must be monitored by a proctor to make sure that men are not dropping something in the sample to kill whatever sperm may be viable. In addition, the shots for both females and males have been tested on laboratory rats and deemed effective thus being approved by the FDA for use on America's military forces. However the Don't ask don't tell policy is still in effect allowing those who are Homosexual to continue to serve in the military and one another as long as they don't tell or ask. However heterosexual relationships are punishable by firing squad under UCMJ. Sound ludicrous you betcha but hell why not considering ludicrous seems to be the norm in today's military. Why else would a 3-star with 31 years of service need to file a sexual harrasment claim against a supposed subordinate instead of relying on 31 years of military experience to deal with the situation? Funny but c'mon ladies you cannot have it both ways unfortunately. You cannot claim to be able to fight in combat but yet have to rely on 40 flipping lawyers to fend off a male who happens to lear at you or slap your behind in some manner. It is crazy can we go back to the good ole days where sexual harrasment was handled by the ladies drop kicking the guys right where it hurts to deal with such instead of making a federal case out of such drivel? I mean maybe I am wrong here, but stop and think how many of you married could have made a case of sexual harassment against your now husbands when he first started making advances your direction? In short can we go back to fighting the nations battles instead of acting like a bunch of high school children in the back of the bus playing the "he/she is touching me" nonsense that come to think of my parents handled by smacking us and it put a stop to it, not my mom and dad hiring a lawyer because of it.

pritro454@yahoo.com

[Anonymous]

Agree 100% of your assessment of the American journalists approach to what's important in the military as opposed to the civilian sector. Goes hand in hand with the sensational style of reporting that goes on nowadays. Rather than report news they try to stir up the pot, many times representing only their slant on the occurances.

But to get back to LTG Kennedy, I think there's a bigger agenda here than sexual harrassment. I think there is an alternative motive to these filings of charges based more on political motivation than the actual charge. The reason I state this is a) it's four years after the fact and b) on statements made by LTG Kennedy in the past. There's more here that reeks of the new tactics of the military of destroy rather than correct. I'll lay money this officer being charged is in a position to be moved up, so destroy his career and block the move. He probably falls into one of two categories, he doesn't fall in line with the "new" attitudes of the military or he truly is a case of screw up move up and here's an opportunity to be rid of him.

Around four or five years ago LTG Kennedy was the subject of an interview by one of the newscast people (I just don't remember who) and the subject of sexual harrassment was addressed. In this interview she was very specific in stating exactly what you said. She said that during her career she had encountered situations, but never anything that she could not handle on a personnel level rather than destroying someones career over incidents that are "perceived" as sexual harrrassment. Not that there weren't incidents that couldn't be handled on a personnel level, just that nothing she had ever encountered and should she ever find herself in that type of situation she would take immediate action. I applauded her for her common sense remarks. This interview happened around the same time as the supposed incident. I can't help but wonder now because of the time involved if this is not a situation of where MAYBE she spoke in casual conversation of the incident and someone else picked up the ball and ran with it to meet their own political motives. You know how things that mean nothing to one person in the military can be construed by another and brought to the point of charges whether you want to or not. Something about the whole situation smells fishy to me in my own opinion.

As for your scenario of desexualizing the military, that's not so far fetched. There was a time when salt peter was considered a sexual suppressant and not only was it employed by the medical field in institutions, but was also given to military men without their knowledge (WWI and prior and in some cases during WWII and Viet Nam) to suppress men's carnal desires so they would concentrate on the job at hand. Being in the military you never really sure what you are receiving. It may already be happening in some form of an experiment now.

[Anonymous]

Agree 100% of your assessment of the American journalists approach to what's important in the military as opposed to the civilian sector. Goes hand in hand with the sensational style of reporting that goes on nowadays. Rather than report news they try to stir up the pot, many times representing only their slant on the occurances.

But to get back to LTG Kennedy, I think there's a bigger agenda here than sexual harrassment. I think there is an alternative motive to these filings of charges based more on political motivation than the actual charge. The reason I state this is a) it's four years after the fact and b) on statements made by LTG Kennedy in the past. There's more here that reeks of the new tactics of the military of destroy rather than correct. I'll lay money this officer being charged is in a position to be moved up, so destroy his career and block the move. He probably falls into one of two categories, he doesn't fall in line with the "new" attitudes of the military or he truly is a case of screw up move up and here's an opportunity to be rid of him.

Around four or five years ago LTG Kennedy was the subject of an interview by one of the newscast people (I just don't remember who) and the subject of sexual harrassment was addressed. In this interview she was very specific in stating exactly what you said. She said that during her career she had encountered situations, but never anything that she could not handle on a personnel level rather than destroying someones career over incidents that are "perceived" as sexual harrrassment. Not that there weren't incidents that couldn't be handled on a personnel level, just that nothing she had ever encountered and should she ever find herself in that type of situation she would take immediate action. I applauded her for her common sense remarks. This interview happened around the same time as the supposed incident. I can't help but wonder now because of the time involved if this is not a situation of where MAYBE she spoke in casual conversation of the incident and someone else picked up the ball and ran with it to meet their own political motives. You know how things that mean nothing to one person in the military can be construed by another and brought to the point of charges whether you want to or not. Something about the whole situation smells fishy to me in my own opinion.

As for your scenario of desexualizing the military, that's not so far fetched. There was a time when salt peter was considered a sexual suppressant and not only was it employed by the medical field in institutions, but was also given to military men without their knowledge (WWI and prior and in some cases during WWII and Viet Nam) to suppress men's carnal desires so they would concentrate on the job at hand. Being in the military you never really sure what you are receiving. It may already be happening in some form of an experiment now.

[Anonymous]

: Is this a womens military message center, or a mans military message center just checking, if you a woman ron I am very sorry for asking that. I was just wondering what the heck a mans message keeps popping up on this message center, are their no military men links you can go to. lisa

[Anonymous]

Actually Lisa there are no men's military centers why don't know could it be because if there where it would be deemed sexist, discriminatory and unfair to women in today's p.c. military. I mean there used to be a males military academy in Virgina but women complained until they got into that (never mind there are plenty of all female colleges men still are barred from entering) but back to the subject at hand. Funny isn't it women want to enter a predominately man's world of combat and military but men are not allowed to Post on a woman's site. Look around you will find many men posting here, and I hope they continue to do so. It is very easy to present an arguement per se when everyone agrees with you so kinda actually nice to see men and womens viewpoints on here I think. Also check around as I have helped many women by answering their questions on this site and as long as the webmasters do not kick me off I will probably continue to do so.

ronald45@yahoo.com

[Anonymous]

Actually Lisa there are no men's military centers why don't know could it be because if there where it would be deemed sexist, discriminatory and unfair to women in today's p.c. military. I mean there used to be a males military academy in Virgina but women complained until they got into that (never mind there are plenty of all female colleges men still are barred from entering) but back to the subject at hand. Funny isn't it women want to enter a predominately man's world of combat and military but men are not allowed to Post on a woman's site. Look around you will find many men posting here, and I hope they continue to do so. It is very easy to present an arguement per se when everyone agrees with you so kinda actually nice to see men and womens viewpoints on here I think. Also check around as I have helped many women by answering their questions on this site and as long as the webmasters do not kick me off I will probably continue to do so until they say I can't

ronald45@yahoo.com

[Anonymous]

Ron45, not to nitpick, but there are men exclusive military sites. But I will go one further with that, they're restricted by who you served with.

I for one welcome men because you are the predominant numbers of the forces and we all have to work together. The more we interact and communicate, the better we begin to understand each other.

I doubt if this site was designed for women only. I assumed it was designed to cover areas that may otherwise be ignored. Issues that address women and putting women in contact with other support. Other support doesn't necessarily mean female exclusive.

Don't know about the rest of you, but for some reason this thread seems to be duplicating itsself. Makes it confusing (!?!?!?!?!?!?!)

[Anonymous]

Paula, you stated that you believed there was something fishy about LTG Kennedy bringing this suit up four years after the fact. It seems that the gentleman in question was to be appointed to the top spot of that arm of the military that investigates and processes sexual harrassment problems. LTG Kennedy felt he would be the wrong man for the job.

kittyone@cdsnet.net