Hagel: Troops' workplaces will be checked

[Geaux4it]

“materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment.”

Hagel: Troops' workplaces will be checked for 'degrading' images of women | Army Times | armytimes.com

Let me tell you folks, this is a slippery slope. You can take my comments as to being credible, but I will leave that for each of you to decide.

The inspections are being carried out this week 17 June by 1st Level Supervisors in the Civilian workforce. The guidance is subjective at best as it leads each Supervisor to 'interpret' the meaning of inappropriate. This is going beyond 'sexual' depictions. Although pornography can't be defined, everyone know's what it is when they see it. Moreover, the military and civilian workforce has been down this path before sans 'Tailhook'. Pin-up girl calendars in the workplace have been removed years ago. Everyone knows its a career sinker if caught displaying such.

Is this a witch hunt? IDK

So now we have management implementing an agenda looking beyond sexual material. Could the bible on a desk be considered offensive? How about a 'Field & Stream' magazine with a 12ga shotgun review? Then the next supervisor across the hall feels differently and allows aforementioned material to remain.

'Houston, we have a Problem'

-Geaux

 

[WillowTree]

Being a "troop" is strictly voluntary. All men with objections to these tactics should avoid volunteering to serve.

 

[Avatar4321]

All men need to stop degrading women. That doesn't mean the government needs to be snooping in anyone's life to do it.

Flee pornography, but do it because it's right to do it. George Washington always encouraged the troops to live clean lives so they could invoke the protection of Divine Providence in their battles.

 

[WillowTree]

likewise will the women "troops" be sujected to the same searches and all images of the male body be removed? It's only fair. It smacks of the notion that it NOT okay for a woman to have breasts with actual nipples exposed that's pronogrophy but it's perfectly acceptable to have a man bare his breasts nipples and all. that's not pornogrophy. What the hell is the difference except for size? People are nuts now a days.

 

[WillowTree]

All men need to stop degrading women. That doesn't mean the government needs to be snooping in anyone's life to do it.

Flee pornography, but do it because it's right to do it. George Washington always encouraged the troops to live clean lives so they could invoke the protection of Divine Providence in their battles.

didn't the women degrade themselves when they posed for those pictures?

 

[dilloduck]

All men need to stop degrading women. That doesn't mean the government needs to be snooping in anyone's life to do it.

Flee pornography, but do it because it's right to do it. George Washington always encouraged the troops to live clean lives so they could invoke the protection of Divine Providence in their battles.

God doesn't want them to have porn around while they do their killing ? That's really weird

 

[Geaux4it]

likewise will the women "troops" be sujected to the same searches and all images of the male body be removed? It's only fair. It smacks of the notion that it NOT okay for a woman to have breasts with actual nipples exposed that's pronogrophy but it's perfectly acceptable to have a man bare his breasts nipples and all. that's not pornogrophy. What the hell is the difference except for size? People are nuts now a days.

The sexual content, regardless of gender, is inappropriate. The issue is the broad brush painting of the word 'inappropriate'

Pandoras box has been opened.

-Geaux

 

[noose4]

When I was in service any type of workplace or barracks decoration had to meet a certain military standard.

 

[dilloduck]

likewise will the women "troops" be sujected to the same searches and all images of the male body be removed? It's only fair. It smacks of the notion that it NOT okay for a woman to have breasts with actual nipples exposed that's pronogrophy but it's perfectly acceptable to have a man bare his breasts nipples and all. that's not pornogrophy. What the hell is the difference except for size? People are nuts now a days.

The sexual content, regardless of gender, is inappropriate. The issue is the broad brush painting of the word 'inappropriate'

Pandoras box has been opened.

-Geaux

You can't say "Pandora's box" without receiving a reprimand and/or a fine. Michelangelo's David is strictly verboten too. Hopefully we have armored burkas for our female troops to fight in.

 

[WillowTree]

likewise will the women "troops" be sujected to the same searches and all images of the male body be removed? It's only fair. It smacks of the notion that it NOT okay for a woman to have breasts with actual nipples exposed that's pronogrophy but it's perfectly acceptable to have a man bare his breasts nipples and all. that's not pornogrophy. What the hell is the difference except for size? People are nuts now a days.

The sexual content, regardless of gender, is inappropriate. The issue is the broad brush painting of the word 'inappropriate'

Pandoras box has been opened.

-Geaux

You can't say "Pandora's box" without receiving a reprimand and/or a fine. Michelangelo's David is strictly verboten too. Hopefully we have armored burkas for our female troops to fight in.

yep just six months ago libtards had women in the trenches changing their tampons right alongside the men., now they want to beat the men up cause the sandra flukes of the world are pissed off.

 

[Wildman]

inappropriate, degrading or what ever word ya want to use is pure bullshit.., as stated previously..,the women degraded themselves when they posed for those pictures so why the flap now ??

ooooh yes !! there will be a double standard when it comes to what is decided as what is INAPPROPRIATE between men and women !!

 

[noose4]

inappropriate, degrading or what ever word ya want to use is pure bullshit.., as stated previously..,the women degraded themselves when they posed for those pictures so why the flap now ??

ooooh yes !! there will be a double standard when it comes to what is decided as what is INAPPROPRIATE between men and women !!

Pornography on open display is hardly military standard and should not be displayed in a military workplace or barracks and the women who posed for such pictures are not the ones seeing the pictures on display in these workplaces.

 

[NLT]

Total pussification of the US Military, even France is laughing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment.”

Hagel: Troops' workplaces will be checked for 'degrading' images of women | Army Times | armytimes.com

Let me tell you folks, this is a slippery slope. You can take my comments as to being credible, but I will leave that for each of you to decide.

The inspections are being carried out this week 17 June by 1st Level Supervisors in the Civilian workforce. The guidance is subjective at best as it leads each Supervisor to 'interpret' the meaning of inappropriate. This is going beyond 'sexual' depictions. Although pornography can't be defined, everyone know's what it is when they see it. Moreover, the military and civilian workforce has been down this path before sans 'Tailhook'. Pin-up girl calendars in the workplace have been removed years ago. Everyone knows its a career sinker if caught displaying such.

Is this a witch hunt? IDK

So now we have management implementing an agenda looking beyond sexual material. Could the bible on a desk be considered offensive? How about a 'Field & Stream' magazine with a 12ga shotgun review? Then the next supervisor across the hall feels differently and allows aforementioned material to remain.

'Houston, we have a Problem'

-Geaux

So let me get this straight.

You are pro-degrading or offensive work environment?

lol, jeezus, the newbies around here are crazier than the old inmates.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I was in service any type of workplace or barracks decoration had to meet a certain military standard.

Conservatives now think they own the military.

 

[Warrior102]

When I was in service any type of workplace or barracks decoration had to meet a certain military standard.

Conservatives now think they own the military.

When/where did you serve, fudge pack?

 

[Katzndogz]

Inappropriate or degrading is in the mind of the beholder. I'm sure some gay guy will be offended if some marine has a picture of his girlfriend above his bunk. The standard is subjective, not objective, it's inappropriate if someone says it's inappropriate.

The appropriate action would be for anyone who does not want to be under this kind of scrutiny to just not join the military. It's voluntary. Don't join. That way your wedding photos won't offend anyone.

 

[noose4]

When I was in service any type of workplace or barracks decoration had to meet a certain military standard.

Conservatives now think they own the military.

I am amazed that such things were allowed to be openly displayed, we had to have a military standard workplace, no contraband, and in the barracks any pictures hung up had to meet a certain standard and had to be in a frame.

 

[FA_Q2]

“materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment.”

Hagel: Troops' workplaces will be checked for 'degrading' images of women | Army Times | armytimes.com

Let me tell you folks, this is a slippery slope. You can take my comments as to being credible, but I will leave that for each of you to decide.

The inspections are being carried out this week 17 June by 1st Level Supervisors in the Civilian workforce. The guidance is subjective at best as it leads each Supervisor to 'interpret' the meaning of inappropriate. This is going beyond 'sexual' depictions. Although pornography can't be defined, everyone know's what it is when they see it. Moreover, the military and civilian workforce has been down this path before sans 'Tailhook'. Pin-up girl calendars in the workplace have been removed years ago. Everyone knows its a career sinker if caught displaying such.

Is this a witch hunt? IDK

So now we have management implementing an agenda looking beyond sexual material. Could the bible on a desk be considered offensive? How about a 'Field & Stream' magazine with a 12ga shotgun review? Then the next supervisor across the hall feels differently and allows aforementioned material to remain.

'Houston, we have a Problem'

-Geaux

Absolutely a complete witch hunt. Workplaces are already EXTREMELY scrubbed of anything that is close to ‘offensive.’ One of the commanders at our base ended up in deep trouble because he had a picture of a Texas cheerleader in his office. Never mind that she was HIS DAUGHTER and the picture was in no way suggestive. Anything that is offensive to someone for any reason is suddenly a travesty. Even basic terminology has been changed. The term cockpit is now not allowed on most flight lines and red ball has been renamed to red streak. Such changes are destructive rather than constructive. I understand the need to have a workplace that is free of harassment but when you extend that to such extremes that you have to be cognizant of every damn word that might be taken as an offence even when it simply is not offensive in any way shape or form you have gone insane.

Let’s be quite frank, your job in the military is to either directly kill people or support killing people, period. If you are not capable of hearing the word cockpit without being offended then you are simply not the type of material that we need to get that job done. Simple as that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Under a subjective standard, a photo of your mother baking cookies could be offensive to someone. Such a photo surely would be offensive because it stereotypes women as belonging in the kitchen baking cookies.