old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:52 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 5:05 pm
So, do you accept that the abuse was real and rampant at Tailhook, involving a very large number of officers ("miscreants"), and according to many, many women?
Apparently, 40 naval and marine officers were disciplined, but none went to jail...and as you say the investigation was "bungled" and "failed to identify
most of the miscreants".
So, a very large group of officers were involved in what is a pretty darn disgusting behavior, including assault, and yet none go to jail. And the "investigation" is bungled, read cover-up...
And your issue is that the person who broke the silence, initially within chain of command, was essentially 'asking for it'? should not have put herself in a position to be abused, nor evidently should have the other women? They didn't belong there?
Or do you accept that was a reprehensible disgusting situation in which a culture was actually exposed as reality?
I get it that you deeply respected the Admiral who you say gave 'sound advice' and you say was "one of finest officers I ever worked for". And that he and other "fine officers" had damaged careers as a result of their roles, large or small, in this culture, the "bungled" investigation...etc. You experienced these men as a fellow male officer and in respect to their performance relative to you and men like you, so I understand that your lens was limited to that arena...assuming you didn't observe or participate in other abuse of women contemporaneously to Tailhook or before.
I get that you respected these guys....but did you respect that culture that gave rise to rampant misogynistic and sexist and sexual abuse?
Can you understand that the discussion we were having about the bureaucratic, hierarchical, chain of command culture we were having re Walz, with its advantages at times in organizing around warfare, also implicates a responsibility of the leaders for the actions of their subordinates?
Good grief.I'm trying to tell you what happened & how & why it played out as it did. Of course it was sexual abuse/assault & unacceptable/deplorable behavior by the miscreants & inadequate supervision by some of the immediate superiors of the miscreants.
The other women/victims did not know what they were walking into at the Hilton. Paula did, but she thought that because she was a fellow Naval Aviator that she would not be at risk. She thought she was one of the guys. She had partied with many of them. That's not asking for it or blaming the victim. That"s a lack of situational awareness. It's risk assessment. Right or wrong is not at issue. What happened to her was wrong. It was like flying into a thunderstorm. I'm not excusing the frat boy behavior of a bunch of victorious warriors just home from extended combat deployments. She could have avoided exposing herself to a dangerous situation. She could have had a promising career. Professionally, career wise, she was in the right place at the right time. By jumping the chain of command & going public, she destroyed any chance of ever being trusted by her peers or being accepted in a ready room or wardroom. The publicity caused all the guys to clam up & stonewall, even the innocent ones who feared being punished for just attending the convention. It reduced the chances of identifying the miscreants. It generated so much heat, it made NIS's job impossible. It brought the Wash Post to Pax River. Gumshoe reporter George Wilson camped out in the BOQ bar. It generated a side show that distracted from the investigation. Meanwhile, the miscreants were back in CA, FL & VA, dodging NIS. She should have stayed in Pax River, maintained her anonymity as a sexual abuse victim while cooperating with NIS, & trusted her command to protect her from the blowback. She had options in Pax River that would have kept her flying & prepped her for going back to a fleet squadron, but she chose to go to DC , go public & try to swim in that maelstrom. Her decision, ignoring the advice of officers trying to protect her, ruined her life & future, enabled the miscreants to skate, produced a purge that ruined the careers of officers who had nothing to do with what went on in Vegas & drove even more of them out of the Navy. Jim Webb was right about the adverse impact. Tom Wolfe should have come back to Pax River & told this story too. The title would have been
The Wrong Stuff.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
But you clearly don't get it that this was a culture that preexisted Tailhook, both the "miscreant behavior" and the cover-up, the closing of ranks. It was rampant, not isolated. It was misogynistic and sexist, and with alcohol and scale it devolved to a huge amount of concentrated sexual abuse and assault. And then the public learned about it.
And yes, you are indeed "blaming the victim".
"She thought she was one of the guys. She had partied with many of them. That's not asking for it or blaming the victim. That"s a lack of situational awareness. It's risk assessment." And then you blame her blowing the whistle (which was and would have been ignored) for why the "miscreants skated". Uh huh, it wasn't really the Navy's fault, it wasn't really the misogynistic and sexist culture's fault, it wasn't really the fault of the chain of command...it was just the miscreants and a few immediate supervisors...
But you do understand that
"By jumping the chain of command & going public, she destroyed any chance of ever being trusted by her peers or being accepted in a ready room or wardroom." You left out "by men", or really, "by misogynistic, sexist men".
But yeah, the issue was so large she "sacrificed her career" to address it when she lost confidence that the "chain of command" would do it. Instead, you blame the fact of the "stonewall" on the publicity her choice generated. Not on the culture to do so.
This is the cultural problem of "chain of command" I was referring to, this hyper attention to the bureaucratic progression of career and rules of command conformity. It has its positives, but it also has its negatives.