# Respect for Women



## infanteerGF (12 Nov 2015)

Sorry, this is going to be a bit of a rant but I want to know if any other women have had this problem.

Yesterday (Remembrance Day) I was the sober driver for my boyfriend. None of the other girlfriends/fiances/wives of his friend group showed up at the mess but I didn't mind because his friends are nice to me and I felt somewhat included. That is until some higher ranked guys came over to give their drunken "life advice" to the privates (my bf being one of them). Most of their talks were random military things I personally don't care much for, but there was also the odd rant about significant others. One sergeant basically went on about how women are replaceable, breakups/divorce are inevitable, etc. and to not let them be the reason for not going on tour if the opportunity arises. He didn't acknowledge my presence and basically made me feel dehumanized. Meanwhile, the boys were just eating this up and laughing. Another guy (forget his rank) was complaining about how his wife would ruin his trip to Amsterdam if he brought her because he wants to go see the Red Light District (which he mentioned he'd already seen).

I guess what I'm asking is have any other women been treated this way? Like an expendable accessory for these men to have next to them and that's it.

I've sort of talked with my bf, and he assures me he doesn't feel this way, but he didn't defend me last night either. I'm worried that the opinions and "advice" of the higher ranks will get to him. We've talked about the possibly of getting married, but I'm kind of worried about our future now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Nov 2015)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> We've talked about the possibly of getting married, but I'm kind of worried about our future now.



As you should be,.....because if I were him and my GF was that thin-skinned, and had so little belief in me, that the idle chat of some drinkers caused this kind of turmoil, I'd be ditching her.


----------



## Remius (12 Nov 2015)

The fact that he is willing to include you on some of his social event should be a good indication of his character.  If your worried about your future because of what some other guys are saying then maybe some introspection is in order.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Nov 2015)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> I've sort of talked with my bf, and he assures me he doesn't feel this way, but he didn't defend me last night either.



If he didn't defend you with you present just imagine what he says about you when you're not present.

Make a public facebook post talking about how wimpy he looked compared to the other soldiers at remembrance day and see how he feel's about it.


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2015)

It sounds like the leadershipin that group failed to meet the CDS's expectations toward Operation Honour.


----------



## Gunner98 (13 Nov 2015)

I have to ask, if he did not acknowledge your presence - you could made your presence known and taken the opportunity to speak up and "humanize" yourself?  You came on hear to "rant", why didn't you speak up there when you had the chance?


----------



## Vimy01 (13 Nov 2015)

Your boyfriend's leadership must have forgot that they are leaders of both men and women. When they choose to speak indirectly in a condescending way towards women in general - they forge negative images among female troops. That is not good leadership nor is it gentlemen like. I have seen many variations of your story play out in front of my own eyes in front of female troops/spouses. 
Unfortunately, the banter you witness in the CF is very prevalent. Some truly subscribe to it, most (i think) do not. Everyone is trying to correct it. 

I do understand your concerns. If your boyfriend is a strong man he will stick to his principles even if he is surrounded by duds. Only you can make that evaluation. 

My best subordinates and superiors are all individuals who treasure and treat there families and wives well. From my experience, I can really tell a lot about a soldier by the way his kids and wife look at him and act around him. 

At the end of the day - there will always be some members who need a good kick in the ass and a reminder to act like gentlemen.


----------



## DAA (13 Nov 2015)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> I guess what I'm asking is have any other women been treated this way? Like an expendable accessory for these men to have next to them and that's it.



My first thoughts on this were "Why didn't someone of equal or higher rank shut them up?   I sure would have!!!  Then sort of chalked this up to "bravado" and idle mess chit chat during a social occasion which doesn't happen too often.

But after checking the Ops "profile" and seeing "Proud girlfriend of a reserve infantry private " it made total sense why her BF didn't do or say anything.  Hell, if I was in his position, I'd probably just clam up as well then sort it out later on!

Which leads me to believe that the BF was just trying to "fit in" and be "accepted" by the group.  Mind you, this sort of behaviour, whether Reserve or Regular Force is definitely not acceptable, no matter the occasion and infanteerGF should have been treated as a member of the Team and with respect.

That's a mighty fine way to lose personnel from your Unit!!!!!


----------



## Scoobs (13 Nov 2015)

So, as a Senior Officer, I'll make some things clear here:

1. It is not the responsibility of the spouse/girlfriend/etc. to "make her presence" known.  It is not the responsibility of a spouse, etc. to "have a thick skin" when she/he is subjected to inappropriate comments.  Times have changed.  That is reality.  Deal with it.

2. It is the responsibility of EVERY Canadian Armed Forces member to behave IAW the direction of the CDS, i.e. Operation Honour.  I might add, that as a gentleman or lady and especially as a Canadian Armed Forces member, every one of you is held to a higher standard (as it should be) and this type of behaviour is unacceptable.  Period.

3. Time and place.  This behaviour is unacceptable, but even more so in the presence of the public.


----------



## holieee (13 Nov 2015)

The sad thing this is a common occurrence with any female standing idly by.
Take it from someone who was in the military AND female, amongst a male dominated organization, this happens a lot. 
It brings up the "boys will be boys" debacle, on many occurrences during basic, it seems there would be 'blinders' on and certain conversations would ensue, even with a female present. I was that female on many occasions and I would overhear things and say, "REALLY!?". Maybe your boyfriend felt it wasn't his place to say anything, there is a hierarchy in place and speaking one's mind might not be the best idea amongst higher ranks (and they should know better, regardless). 
I digress, while it may not be up to code with the CDS's orders and intentions with OP HONOUR, I know that, despite how they came off about how they seemed to view women, they still cared a great deal for and respected me as a female and their sister-in-arms, as well as the other 16 girls on my platoon.

It's common within the military, is what I'm saying, and no way reflects how they feel about the woman standing there. In fact, some men just sound bitter that they were left while they were on deployment or generally have no sense of decorum or respect.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It sounds like the leadershipin that group failed to meet the CDS's expectations toward Operation Honour.



Bullshit!  From a man who treats women like queens, what she described was not any form of harassment.  If buddy doesn't want to take his wife with him to see a hooker then that's what it is......she probably doesn't invite him when she's getting picked up at Sassy's. 
If someone thinks losing a spouse is all part of the career then that's all that is also......OP Honour didn't include "witch hunt" in it I'm sure.


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit!


I sorry you think that way.  If a Sgt decides to sit down with his guys, without so much as an acknowledgement to wives and girl friends present, and he council those troops that women in their lives are disposable to be tossed aside for career opportunity, then that Sgt is failing as a leader.  If the conversation continues to discuss girlfriends as a drag because they disrupt sex tourism, then the Op Honour line has most certainly been crossed.

From an other perspective, picture yourself as a father whose daughter's new boyfriend is talking this way.  Do you consider him a good chap; someone you hope to hand your daughter to at the alter?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> council



Hardly.....calling his life the way he see's it.  Nothing more nothing less.......



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> From an other perspective, picture yourself as a father whose daughter's new boyfriend is talking this way.  Do you consider him a good chap; someone you hope to hand your daughter to at the alter?



Nope.......but I sure wouldn't go so far to say he is failing in his job either.


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if that shit he did is not good enough for yours, why apologize for it when it is being thrown at any other woman?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Nope.......
> So if that shit he did is not good enough for yours, why apologize for it when it is being thrown at any other woman?


You don't always get what you want.........


----------



## Vimy01 (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit!  From a man who treats women like queens, what she described was not any form of harassment.  If buddy doesn't want to take his wife with him to see a hooker then that's what it is......she probably doesn't invite him when she's getting picked up at Sassy's.
> If someone thinks losing a spouse is all part of the career then that's all that is also......OP Honour didn't include "witch hunt" in it I'm sure.



Perhaps an objective view of your queen like treatment of women might reveal some underlying discrepancies based on your comments. A mess reception after Remembrance Day is hardly akin to going to a strip club. All members conduct should be so far above reproach. However, one would only know that if they had good discretion. Clearly, you and all the parties involved in this situation have poor conversational discretion in front of women - and I'm sure this transfers into many other areas of your lives.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> One sergeant basically went on about how men are replaceable, breakups/divorce are inevitable, etc. and to not let them be the reason for not going on tour if the opportunity arises.





			
				infanteerGF said:
			
		

> Another girl (forget her rank) was complaining about how he would ruin her trip to Amsterdam if she brought him because she wants to go see the Red Light District (which she mentioned she'd already seen).



OMG!!   I'm so offended by the above statements............seriously, THIS is "dehumanizing"?  Jesus wept......


----------



## Vimy01 (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OMG!!   I'm so offended by the above statements............seriously, THIS is "dehumanizing"?  Jesus wept......



It's amazing how the story changes when you take it out of  context. Bravo zulu!


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It sounds like the leadershipin that group failed to meet the CDS's expectations toward Operation Honour.



I'd agree with that.

As a leader giving drunken stupid advice is detrimental....especially relationship advice  :facepalm:


----------



## Scoobs (14 Nov 2015)

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.


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Nov 2015)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

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 (15 Nov 2015)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

What was the Sgt doing in the JRs?


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Nov 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> 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 (15 Nov 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 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.


Totally agree. We constantly tell all ranks that we need to speak up when something is wrong but then nail them to the floor if they question a higher rank. The only difference now is that 20 years ago the punishment would have hurt more but would have been informal. Now it ends up being formal in the manner of 5bs or bad PERs. 

As a former reservist and having served as Reg force support at a reserve unit in the CBI arms, a reserve pte is less likely to speak up than a regular force private.  For one, he has less than 2 years in. He also spends very little time around these people, and the military in general, so is less likely to feel comfortable in the presence of Snr NCOs . Snr NCOs at a reserve regiment are often very in trenched in the unit with friendships with all the key players. 

The reg force person has is likely to have more time in (physically in the environment if not from enrolment),  and  knows that he will still get paid even if he says something to or about said NCO. That is often not the case in the MO.


Edit: I forgot to add why I feel EITS is correct and went off on a tangent. Basically, rank is right 99% of the time in the CF. If have lost arguments with multiple references because I was out ranked.  I have been ordered to do things contrary to policy because I was out ranked. I have fought that mentality and it has hurt my career. I still tell people higher up than me when they are wrong but now I just CYA and let it go because rank is right and Ottawa can't help me if my CoC gives me a bad PER or loads another person on a course I want. Ptes aren't stupid, they see the guys who keep their mouth shut and never disagree get ahead.


----------



## Scoobs (16 Nov 2015)

So I was told that this is a discussion by a poster.  So let's discuss:

1. It is not the responsibility of the spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/etc of a CAF member to speak up at a gathering that involves CAF members, family, public, etc.  You can discuss this all you want, but I invite you to see point 3 below.

2. It is not the responsibility of a Private (I'll add that I was one at a Reserve unit in a previous lifetime, so I've been on both sides of the coin and the reality is that Privates do not feel even remotely comfortable questioning a Snr NCO) to tell a Snr NCO that he is crossing the line of respect, harassment, etc.  It does not matter to me what you call it, I don't care.  Also, Op HONOUR doesn't create anything new in terms of laws, but it does clarify things for those people that frankly have had their head in their asses in regards to how to show respect (up and down the chain of command and overall in general).  As per 1 above, you can discuss this all you want, but I invite you to see point 3 below.

3. It was the responsibility of the senior person in this whole episode to hold himself to a higher standard.  If this issue was brought to my attention, do you think that I'm going to call the spouse/girlfriend and ask her "why didn't you speak up"?  Do you think that I'm going to ask the Pte why he didn't speak up?  Not a snowball's chance in hell.  Does that even matter as the person that started this whole episode was *a drunk Snr NCO making inappropriate comments*?

4. What I would do is hold the Sgt, i.e. the Senior Non-commissioned Officer *accountable*, as he/she is supposed to be providing an example to the junior personnel (to start not being piss drunk in public), he/she is the person that I would expect to be enforcing the CDS' intent, and he/she damn well knows what is right and what is wrong.  If he/she doesn't, then I don't need that Snr NCO in my unit and the CAF does not need that member as well.

5. What's amazing is that Op Honour is nothing new people.  Did you not already know that you respect women?  Did you know not already know that you respect men?  Did you not already know that you don't sexually assault someone?  Come on, this is nothing new.  We all know what is right and wrong.


----------



## Gunner98 (16 Nov 2015)

So Scoobs,

What you are failing to acknowledge in your point 3, is it did happen, even though it should not?

Some options to deal with it:

a) A soldier tells another superior that the Sgt is/was being a drunken ass;
b) A soldier tells the Sgt he is/was being an ass;
c) Young lady present tells boyfriend that his Sgt is being an ass and ask if they could step away;
d) Young lady or boyfriend introduces her/self to the Sgt;
e) Young lady steps aside hoping her boyfriend will follow her lead;
f) Young lady tells Sgt she takes offense to his statements; or
g) No one does anything and the episode repeats itself.

IMHO through Op Honour directives, the CDS
- directs/hopes that one day these incidents will no longer happen, 
-encourages those who are subjected to them today to do something, 
- directs that the chain of command should do everything to prevent them from happening including informing and discussing the topic,
- reminds the chain of command to investigate complaints, and 
- states that a complainant should not face repercussions when informing someone that it is or did happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Nov 2015)

So, somebody cannot resist the temtation to get shitfaced in a social setting with guests around? Not only that, but when he gets shitfaced he becomes innapropriate?  Sounds like he has a drinking problem.  There are times and places to blow steam off and drink your face off if you feel like it. In a social gathering like the one from Rememberance Day?  I don't think so.  It discredits himself, his unit and the CAF as a whole.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 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?



I think at this point, before we do the 'guilty until proven innocent' road trip, I think it is important to re-emphasize on of the most important points made so far that got lost along the way.

We have one side of the story, and at this point it seems 'we' are proceeding as IF it is accurate.  I am not saying it isn't, I am saying we can't say if it is/is not.

As long as we proceed with the "this happened as written" road as more of a 'hypothetical' than 'factual';  we give people in this country who kill people and the like the "guilty until proven innocent' benefit of the doubt so it shouldn't be a far stretch in this case (IMO).

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2015)

I suspect the Snr NCO was doing one or both of two things. Showing off his worldly view of things to the new plugs and/or unintentional venting about how much he has effed up his own life and needs to blame others.

My advice to the young Pte and GF is to carefully think about everything that the Snr NCO said and do the opposite. He has given them valuable advice in a back handed way. Life offers you lessons in many forms, this was one of them. Now for good relationship advice. Treat each other with respect and don’t take each other for granted, never win an argument if the price of winning is to hurt your loved one. Talk to people who have long term relationships (20-50 years) and learn from them.


----------



## Scoobs (16 Nov 2015)

So, let me get this straight?  We're apparently "discussing" this and when I discuss it, the main focus of some people here is to state, "let's not forget that we need to determine IF this actually happened"?  Really, I thought that we were discussing this, I didn't realize that this was a summary trial or court martial.  If it was, obviously the Sgt would be spoken to, along with witnesses of the events.  Then the weight of the evidence would be considered by the Presiding Officer and a finding of guilt or innocence would be made.  Then mitigating circumstances would be discussed by the Assisting Officer prior to sentencing.  So why don't we all get past the question of IF and discuss what you think is appropriate for how a Snr NCO should behave.

Simian, you're still not getting it as judged by your insistence that you think that a young Reserve Pte will actually do most of what you suggest.  As well, you seem to focus only on what the Pte or his girlfriend could do.  Why don't you comment on the "alleged" behaviour of the Sgt, i.e. the Snr NCO who should have known better that his behaviour was unacceptable?  Why don't you comment on the Sgt's friends, who are also Snr NCOs, not pulling the Sgt away and sending him home before his stepped on his _ _ _ _ ?  My point is that your sole focus is on what the young Pte or his girlfriend could have done vice the real issue here, that the Snr NCO failed that day.

For those who still insist on, "we should remember that it is only one side of the story here", place the word "IF" in front of my words in my previous comments and they still all apply.

One final point, I've said what I believe has been needed to be said, so please note that this will be my last point on this subject.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2015)

That was directed at me; my post wasn't directed at you but in general, else I would have quoted something from you.   I was just trying to remind everyone we are basing stuff on a 1 sided story...and if the discussion is based on a "if we accept the story as factual".  No harm intended.  Sometimes threads take on a life of their own and we lose sight of a few things.   ;D


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Nov 2015)

Scoobs et al,

You and others seem to want to focus on what the Sgt and his peers should have/not done.  If they had acted appropriately we would not be having this discussion. Since the Sgt and his peers did not post on here, I can't really offer them advice.  You and I both know what the Sgt did is/was wrong.  What his peers did/did not do - is also wrong!  

Let's all learn from the situation - the OP described her view of the events and she has received advice and a wealth of discussion.  Perhaps she received some PMs from others who have discretely provided her additional advice from a "woman's perspective".

I, too, will step away!


----------



## victoria9095 (28 Jan 2016)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> Sorry, this is going to be a bit of a rant but I want to know if any other women have had this problem.
> 
> Yesterday (Remembrance Day) I was the sober driver for my boyfriend. None of the other girlfriends/fiances/wives of his friend group showed up at the mess but I didn't mind because his friends are nice to me and I felt somewhat included. That is until some higher ranked guys came over to give their drunken "life advice" to the privates (my bf being one of them). Most of their talks were random military things I personally don't care much for, but there was also the odd rant about significant others. One sergeant basically went on about how women are replaceable, breakups/divorce are inevitable, etc. and to not let them be the reason for not going on tour if the opportunity arises. He didn't acknowledge my presence and basically made me feel dehumanized. Meanwhile, the boys were just eating this up and laughing. Another guy (forget his rank) was complaining about how his wife would ruin his trip to Amsterdam if he brought her because he wants to go see the Red Light District (which he mentioned he'd already seen).
> 
> ...



GAHH.... im sorry that happened love.. I've heard that us girlfriends are basically non existent in the eyes of the military but to hear that even wives are being disrespected is crazy.

Thats just one miserable mans opinion. Your man loves you and if he's a good one he'll just shrug it off..

Stay Strong!

-Sab


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Make a public facebook post talking about how wimpy he looked compared to the other soldiers at remembrance day and see how he feel's about it.



This is an extremely immature thing to do. I am not looking to humiliate by BF in any way. I was simply wondering if the Sgt's behaviour was normal as this was the first military event I attended alongside my BF.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I have to ask, if he did not acknowledge your presence - you could made your presence known and taken the opportunity to speak up and "humanize" yourself?  You came on hear to "rant", why didn't you speak up there when you had the chance?



Being that it was my first time attending a military event alongside my BF, surrounded by his peers and superiors, I did not feel like it was my place to say anything because I don't know all of the rules yet and didn't want to embarrass my BF or get him in trouble.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OMG!!   I'm so offended by the above statements............seriously, THIS is "dehumanizing"?  Jesus wept......



Just because you switched the gender in my statements does not make me feel any different. Had a female officer been saying these things I still wouldn't have thought highly of them.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> 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.



He already fit into the group at the table (except maybe the Sgt that walked over) because they were all privates he'd become quite close with. Had I asked him to leave, it would've just made things more awkward for me because then I'd be the reason he left all of his friends for seemingly no reason.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 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?



The Sgt said "Unless she's a lingerie model, she's replaceable. And if you're the kind of guy who can get a lingerie model, you can probably get another one anyways." So I'm pretty sure he was saying that SOs are replaceable.

Had it been a female Sgt, I wouldn't have been personally offended as much, but I still wouldn't agree with her.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What was the Sgt doing in the JRs?



A few of them would filter in and out to talk and tell stories or buy other guys some drinks in celebration.


----------



## infanteerGF (16 Feb 2016)

Sorry for all of the late replies, I'm new here and didn't know I had to manually turn on notifications for posts.


----------



## Flavus101 (17 Feb 2016)

infanteerGF said:
			
		

> Had it been a female Sgt, I wouldn't have been personally offended as much, but I still wouldn't agree with her.



Simple question for you, why?


----------



## infanteerGF (17 Feb 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Simple question for you, why?



Well I wouldn't classify myself as a boyfriend or husband and so that's why it wouldn't be as personal, but I still don't agree that significant others are easily replaceable.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2016)

Wow, three pages and still going strong.   :facepalm:

The Sgt was a dick, plain and simple -- being a male or female dick is irrelevant.  Made worse by being a dick in someone else's Mess.

Your boyfriend, and everyone within earshot, needs to learn to stand up and speak out when necessary.  Some will say 'easier said than done.'  Possibly true.  However, I've periodically ruffled feathers throughout my career (yes, it's true!), yet my world still turns.  This may garner respect from various individuals, but at the very least people will give a second thought to being stupid around you.

Please move on with your lives.... knowing that this Sgt isn't a one-off; there are actually more stupid people out there and you will cross paths.  Try not to waste too much time on hand-wringing after the fact, especially if you're going to say/do nothing at the time.


----------

