Saturday, January 14, 2006

A Load Of Sexist, Sanctimonious Crap

A bunch of us Navy guys are discussing the unfortunate misadventures of LT Bryan Black at the U.S. Naval Academy. As I said in my previous post, I think these women are practicing victimologists (maybe not in so many words).

Over on Sailor Bob, I said:
These women have no self-respect at all if they have to destroy a man, let alone a fellow officer, to make themselves feel better. They're also adversely affecting the impression of what is acceptable behavior for women in the Navy. How long are men going to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around the fairer sex before these people realize they need to lighten up?

To which another participant responded:
You get all of this out of two small stories in the paper and an opinion piece? What a load of sexist sanctimonious crap!

Gosh! Well, granted my opinion that misandry is institutionalized thanks to the increasingly irrelevant women's rights movement (they brought irrelevance upon themselves, by winning) does have a tendency to ruffle some feathers. I think that the attitudes presented here foster sexism toward males. According to my brother in arms:
Unless you have additional FACTS on this case, then you have no idea of what happened, who recommended what and when - then you are making reckless and unprofessional charges - semeingly "tearing down" those women in order to make yourself feel better and seem more masculine. As well, your apparent defense of LT Black makes it seem as if you approve of his you?
Well, no, not really. That doesn't mean I think he should be court-martialed.

My response:

Hmmm... could be a bit sactimonious, I suppose - that wasn't my intent. It's my opinion based on what I've read about the case. I think what's sexist is the frame of mind that women are victims and men are victimizers. I think misandry has been institutionalized. Because Black's supervisor didn't think the punishment was stiff enough, he's now going to SCM for using foul language. This is the part of the column that really spun me up:
... He apologized. At that point, Black thought the matter had been put to rest, as did the first investigating officer, who recommended that Black receive a letter of reprimand and counseling.

That sounds reasonable, but these are not reasonable times. Once Foxton's female superior, Lieutenant Commander Michelle Whisenhunt, caught wind of Black's rich commentary on the seductive powers of seafaring vessels, the freefall began. Whisenhunt conducted her own investigation, interviewing only women, and now Black is charged with (1) failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation; (2) conduct unbecoming an officer; and (3) indecent language.


So, sure, it's a column, one should take it with the skepticism with which one reads anything. The whole OVA thing at the end was patently ridiculous.

Tearing those women down doesn't make me feel good or bad, and maybe I've been a bit harsh in previous posts. If what I've read so far is the extent of LT Black's crimes, I'm embarrassed to wear the same uniform as these sanctimonious, sexist women. I think their conduct in response to Black's conduct is unprofessional, and my opinion is that their zero-tolerance is unreasonable. I think this is like expelling the kid who brings a butter knife to school to make sandwiches, but with swearing. Black was dealt with swiftly and fairly and the matter should've ended there. Instead, they feel the need to drag this guy through the mud for running his mouth a bit.

So, to answer your question, I think Black could've behaved more professionally and this whole thing has gotten way out of control. No one has right not to be offended. Black doesn't need me to defend him, and I don't think I've tried. Mostly, my reaction to anything he may have said (since we don't know, except for the "c" word, I guess) is "so what?" If new information is released, I'd be willing to reconsider that opinion. Given what's out there so far, that's what I think.
Those of you who have read PCIF for a while know that I usually reserve an opinion until I think I know enough about a situation. This one triggered my anti-misandry warning RADAR right off the bat.

EDIT: To be fair, perhaps I should include some of the other info from "hard news" sources -
07 JAN - Washington Times: Navy prosecutes officer for a 'crude' remark
07 JAN - Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Naval Academy professor accused of remarks (Now there's a headline.)
09 JAN - Navy Times: Naval Academy professor charged with inappropriate conduct

UPDATE: More at Dr. Helen, the InstaWife.

An update on the court martial proceedings here, thanks Anonymous (whoever you are, shipmate!)

A Thing You Nail People To


Blogger shoprat bloody well said...

I rarely use coarse language and believe that treating women as sex objects is an obscenity. That having been said, there is such thing as proportion. A senior officer who has no sense of proportion, and this O-4 clearly does not, should be drummed out of the service and be put to work digging ditches. She is disgrace to her nation, the Navy, and her gender. People like that should never have subordinates.

14 January, 2006 14:41  
Blogger Patrick Joubert Conlon bloody well said...

I don't know much about the legal ins and outs. Can these women sue in civil court if their complaints are upheld? Is there money involved?

I think many of the civilian sex harassment cases are based on greed.

14 January, 2006 18:29  
Anonymous Anonymous bloody well said...

TRy this article for info!

14 January, 2006 21:34  
Blogger Rebekah bloody well said...

So, as I understand it, the remark wasn't even about her?
Sure, it was inappropriate, especially for an officer, but does this woman think she'll never run into stuff like this in life? Maybe just telling him she was uncomfortable with the language would have solved the problem.
For the guy to be prosecuted is ridiculous.

14 January, 2006 22:28  
Blogger Crazy Politico bloody well said...

Robo-I agree the whole thing got way out of hand, and really unnecessarily.

A punitive letter would have destroyed his career the same as the trial will. Though in fairness, if he beats it at the trial, he'll be clean. (Or as clean as you can get in "the system").

Patrick, no there is no civil case, simply UCMJ.

15 January, 2006 11:18  
Blogger Helen bloody well said...


This commenter who told you your opinion is "sanctomonious sexist crap" is just another example of how some on the left try to intimidate men into silence and keep men walking on eggshells--Do I have this correct that this commenter was a guy? If so, it is no wonder men are losing ground with gems like this on your side.

16 January, 2006 08:15  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home