• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
Strange, I've been unwantingly touched far more by women then by men....

The chip isn't helping what you're trying to say.
Then report it. Because at this point, men are still 90% of time responsible for these incidents. 1 in 6 women have experienced unwanted sexual advances/rape, for men that is 1 in 66. So if you have been an issue for you, report it, not right when it happens to anyone, regardless of sex/gender.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
Do people really think an ultra-feminist scorched-earth all-men-are-scum approach is helpful? My intro to sexual harassment of any kind in the CAF happened during basic training, where a female captain took great delight in insulting every woman in the platoon with the c-word, and occasionally frontally groped male candidates during morning inspections. Complaints fell on deaf ears. That in no way makes any of the confirmed sexualized conduct of males against women (or other males or TG pers) acceptable, but the solution is a concert whole-of-CAF effort moving forward, that ensures comprehensive cultural change across the board, making no exceptions for anyone in a position of responsibility, no matter their gender.
No one is making that claim. ;) Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,016
Points
910
The point wasn't to generalise. Just my experience. That should count for something, right? Someone made a comment about being worried about 15-20 years down the road that "behviour" might be wrong. Well my point was this sort of behvaiour was always wrong, it just was accepted and not questioned. That was my only point.
The problem was your quote. Times change - you cannot apply the lens of the present to the actions of the past.

No I am not defending Sexual Assault or Harassment in that, but lets go back and look at things done in WW2 - and now taking a weapon from someone you killed is a crime, and imagine if you made an ashtray out of an enemies head these days...

Sexual Assault was never acceptable - I think many folks can related to issues they either experienced, or witnessed in their careers.
The CF did a pretty poor job of policing the 'minor' incidents when it was just a 'touching/grope", and as a male soldier - some of the female soldiers where fairly aggressive -- like GTG I have been groped by Female officers - one instance I was smothered/groped/tickeled by a Female Maj (non Cbt Arms) was witnessed by a Maj and MWO (my OC and CSM) - who they then gave me the inspired guidance of "clearly she like you you should go hit that"...

Sexual Harassment - that has come a long way - and I am sure that my behaviors in the past in some circumstances would be extremely offensive now -- but at the time, a lot of females in the CF either gave as good as they got, or in some smaller groups used it as playful banter.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
865
Points
1,040
No one is making that claim. ;) Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.
The stats actually lie a lot,....most men [especially back then] wouldn't even THINK about reporting lest, as Kevin alluded too, their mancard gets taken away. I'll bet if everything was reported we're looking at 60/40......and I'll bet assault, without the sexual connotation , is towards the female side.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
The stats actually lie a lot,....most men [especially back then] wouldn't even THINK about reporting lest, as Kevin alluded too, their mancard gets taken away. I'll bet if everything was reported we're looking at 60/40......and I'll bet assault, without the sexual connotation , is towards the female side.
Then start reporting and we will see. ;)
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
238
Points
560
Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.
You never know how heated the Loblaws-Walmart competition might get. Wal-Mart probably counts as a foreign adversary, at least to Loblaws.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
The problem was your quote. Times change - you cannot apply the lens of the present to the actions of the past.

No I am not defending Sexual Assault or Harassment in that, but lets go back and look at things done in WW2 - and now taking a weapon from someone you killed is a crime, and imagine if you made an ashtray out of an enemies head these days...

Sexual Assault was never acceptable - I think many folks can related to issues they either experienced, or witnessed in their careers.
The CF did a pretty poor job of policing the 'minor' incidents when it was just a 'touching/grope", and as a male soldier - some of the female soldiers where fairly aggressive -- like GTG I have been groped by Female officers - one instance I was smothered/groped/tickeled by a Female Maj (non Cbt Arms) was witnessed by a Maj and MWO (my OC and CSM) - who they then gave me the inspired guidance of "clearly she like you you should go hit that"...

Sexual Harassment - that has come a long way - and I am sure that my behaviors in the past in some circumstances would be extremely offensive now -- but at the time, a lot of females in the CF either gave as good as they got, or in some smaller groups used it as playful banter.
Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then. Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut. Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career. Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,016
Points
910
Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then. Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut. Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career. Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.
You missed my point.
You need to learn from the past - but you can't ALWAYS judge the actions of the past with the Moral conviction of the current.

Now yes I am a man, and I also served in Cbt Arms units - and thus had a relatively low number of female military personnel I worked with. The CF for years was really clear on Harassment, at least the definition of it, and how it applied (actually doing anything - well the CF was good at talking about solutions...).

Do I think Sexual Assaults from the past can be viewed from the current lens - absolutely - but I don't think you can view harassment in the same way -- (and frankly I tend to put any sort of unwanted touching into Assault - as that is exactly what it is, it has gone past harassment at that point).
But people grow up and society changes - maybe a comment or rude wink wasn't appropriate then, but my point is how far does one want to go back to avenge certain transgressions?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,633
Points
910
The point wasn't to generalise. Just my experience. That should count for something, right? Someone made a comment about being worried about 15-20 years down the road that "behviour" might be wrong. Well my point was this sort of behvaiour was always wrong, it just was accepted and not questioned. That was my only point.
You are correct and my apologies, that sort of behavior is never excusable.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
You missed my point.
You need to learn from the past - but you can't ALWAYS judge the actions of the past with the Moral conviction of the current.

Now yes I am a man, and I also served in Cbt Arms units - and thus had a relatively low number of female military personnel I worked with. The CF for years was really clear on Harassment, at least the definition of it, and how it applied (actually doing anything - well the CF was good at talking about solutions...).

Do I think Sexual Assaults from the past can be viewed from the current lens - absolutely - but I don't think you can view harassment in the same way -- (and frankly I tend to put any sort of unwanted touching into Assault - as that is exactly what it is, it has gone past harassment at that point).
But people grow up and society changes - maybe a comment or rude wink wasn't appropriate then, but my point is how far does one want to go back to avenge certain transgressions?
So really, what you are wanting is a statute of limitations. No, I am not missing the point. Yes, harassment can be viewed in the same way. Moral convictions? Huh. I guarantee most of these victims coming out of the wood work now, didn't view the assault as any less offensive back then, than today. Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career. I think you are missing what I am saying. How it affects the victims hasn't changed, just now victims have a way to get justice and start healing. And perpetrators can be held accountable. If the effects on the victims are no different, then why would we judge the crime/action to be any less repugnant just because it happened x number of years ago?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,103
Points
990
So, if we’re talking about lenses of the past here, how far back are we going?

Assuming not many CAF members stay longer than 35 years (pension math), that would take us back to 1986. What were the stated rules and expectations back then? What had CAF institutionally decided would be tolerated, and what wouldn’t be?

What about 25 years- 1996. What was officially OK then?

I get that the ship takes time to steer, but had the wheel been turned to shift course on the whole sexual harassment thing by that point? Were the expectations and standards that we’re applying now unknown to individuals then? Or was it just ignored because impunity still ruled?

I’ll also note that most of the really historical stuff that’s coming up either has allegations of a criminal nature, and/or pretty flagrant abuses of power/authority. I don’t see the media dragging generals because they told someone they had a nice ass in 1997.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,016
Points
910
So really, what you are wanting is a statute of limitations. No, I am not missing the point. Yes, harassment can be viewed in the same way. Moral convictions? Huh. I guarantee most of these victims coming out of the wood work now, didn't view the assault as any less offensive back then, than today. Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career. I think you are missing what I am saying. How it affects the victims hasn't changed, just now victims have a way to get justice and start healing. And perpetrators can be held accountable. If the effects on the victims are no different, then why would we judge the crime/action to be any less repugnant just because it happened x number of years ago?
Can you read?

It is a legitimate question given twice you have absolutely ignored what I wrote, and decided on your own narrative from my comments.

Go back and read what I wrote.


I made no excuses for any sexual assault - or touching of any kind - and I supported going after that regardless of age of the complaint.

What I did say, was how long do you think a snide sexist comment, or leer should be culpable for?
I don't know the answer -- I don't think it should be 20 years, but I do not honestly have a good answer on a time frame, and as well did it continue if the offending party was confronted about it?
Clearly a persistent issue should be addressed for longer than one individual comment or look -- but my question stands, on the fact if you go back long enough, some comments would have been acceptable then, though they are not now.
 

Takeniteasy

Sr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
180
Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then. Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut. Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career. Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.
Its the white heteronormative centre that has always held the power especially in the military (that centre comprises of a few attitudes that has the CAF where it is today). In discussions I have I often hear "well that was how we thought back then" and I respond by asking who is the "we" you are talking about, changes the narrative and hints at well yes "we" the centre thought like that and everyone else needs to fall in line. They had/have the power and we need to comply or like you have stated face reprisals for standing up for yourself. Its interesting to note that you are still having to defend your words and experiences against those who use their own experiences like it is some kind of he said she said game... I hope you are an active member because at least your thinking goes beyond comparing it to just yourself and you bring in context and empathy.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,283
Points
1,060
Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career.
We're very far from being there.
Some
women can. Ones who are lucky or more likely in privileged positions of rank(though that's not always the case).
Others are still at the mercy of various mafias in uniform.

"Just report it" can be a double edged sword. Context with a historical lens is important. Someone assaulted 20 years ago? Great candidate to go after them now.
Is it a good use of our limited resources to go after someone who ran down a hallway naked 25 years ago? Probably not as much.

As for telling Bruce to just report it, I have a feeling if the roles were reversed and Bruce was telling you to just report an incident from your past you might point out it's not his place to tell you what to do about your experience. We need to avoid white knights while we're trying to fix the CAF.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
Its the white heteronormative centre that has always held the power especially in the military (that centre comprises of a few attitudes that has the CAF where it is today). In discussions I have I often hear "well that was how we thought back then" and I respond by asking who is the "we" you are talking about, changes the narrative and hints at well yes "we" the centre thought like that and everyone else needs to fall in line. They had/have the power and we need to comply or like you have stated face reprisals for standing up for yourself. Its interesting to note that you are still having to defend your words and experiences against those who use their own experiences like it is some kind of he said she said game... I hope you are an active member because at least your thinking goes beyond comparing it to just yourself and you bring in context and empathy.
Soon to be a member. Thanks for your words. Very well said.
 

cyber_lass

New Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
Can you read?

It is a legitimate question given twice you have absolutely ignored what I wrote, and decided on your own narrative from my comments.

Go back and read what I wrote.


I made no excuses for any sexual assault - or touching of any kind - and I supported going after that regardless of age of the complaint.

What I did say, was how long do you think a snide sexist comment, or leer should be culpable for?
I don't know the answer -- I don't think it should be 20 years, but I do not honestly have a good answer on a time frame, and as well did it continue if the offending party was confronted about it?
Clearly a persistent issue should be addressed for longer than one individual comment or look -- but my question stands, on the fact if you go back long enough, some comments would have been acceptable then, though they are not now.
Wow. "Can I read". Nicely done. How long should any sexist comment or or look be valid. Well I don't see anyone complaining or filling charges based on "leering" or for that matter a sexist comment. But a sexist comment is never right. So, how long? It wasn't okay then, and it isn't okay now. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. What are you so afraid of? That you may have said something or done something wrong and now there is chance you might be held accountable? Since you have trouble reading too apparently... let me try this again, even to this day, women will not come forward for basic "leering" or "sexist" comment, unless it constant and they are safe in doing so. We still have to worry about our careers and lives. For a woman to come forward takes a lot of fortitude. It is not something you do willy nilly. There are still repercussions for reporting, let's not kid ourselves.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Wow. "Can I read". Nicely done. How long should any sexist comment or or look be valid. Well I don't see anyone complaining or filling charges based on "leering" or for that matter a sexist comment. But a sexist comment is never right. So, how long? It wasn't okay then, and it isn't okay now. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. What are you so afraid of? That you may have said something or done something wrong and now there is chance you might be held accountable? Since you have trouble reading too apparently... let me try this again, even to this day, women will not come forward for basic "leering" or "sexist" comment, unless it constant and they are safe in doing so. We still have to worry about our careers and lives. For a woman to come forward takes a lot of fortitude. It is not something you do willy nilly. There are still repercussions for reporting, let's not kid ourselves.
You will learn shortly how this culture has existed for so long just by reading some of the responses here.

Don't worry, the Canadian public and in large part politicians are moving on this a lot faster than the military is. I'm not sure to what degree they will be successful but after reading comments here for some time it's clear why the military cannot fix itself.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,585
Points
1,160
No one is making that claim. ;) Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.
And possibly even higher than 90%, CL, I actually wouldn’t doubt. My concern is when the focus by some/many becomes narrowed, to the point where a pan-organization approach isn’t pursued. The overall approach needs to not deliberately leave gaps in the goals that are necessary to better the organization completely.
 
Top