THE coed military is a form of cultural warfare. It’s warfare against masculinity, which ironically constitutes the life force of the military — and against femininity too. The sexual harassment bureaucracy in the Armed Forces is ratcheting up its activities, threatening draconian punishment against men who especially annoy women. Perhaps this is all a way of deflecting the public’s attention from the fact that America has engaged in far too much war, but here is one example: An Air Force sergeant and a veteran photographer of the war in Iraq faces up to 15 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for allegedly making inappropriate advances toward women in his office. Whether Tech. Sgt. Aaron D. Allmon, who was married at the time, is convicted in felony court or not, the case sends the intended message of intimidation and raises a question that will never be publicly asked: How do women belong in the military environment if they cannot protect themselves against unwanted overtures? World Net Daily reports:

A Washington Times examination shows that, over a 14-month span, the women’s accusations, in total, amount to three kisses and six touches, plus a series of reported inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. If the married Sgt. Allmon did what the women said, he was tastelessly hitting on them.

Sgt. Allmon’s sister, Lisa A. Roper, does not believe the women. The business executive in San Antonio, Texas, is her brother’s fiercest defender. She estimates she will spend $200,000 on his legal defense, which includes a former sheriff’s deputy as investigator, a civilian lawyer and a former Army judge advocate who took the case pro bono. Sgt. Allmon is also represented by an Air Force judge advocate.

“I want you to understand how women can destroy a man,” said Ms. Roper. “It was out and out vindictiveness set up to destroy a man who didn’t do what they wanted. A group of young women who are brand new in the military and because they didn’t get their way they set out to destroy a man of 19 years in the Air Force.”

Maj. Jamie Humphries, a Minot public affairs officer, said the Air Force does not tolerate any form of sexual harassment.

— Comments —

Paul C. writes:

The military’s unstated policy is tautological.  Intimacy among men and women is intimate.  Sexual advances between intimate men and women are sexual advances.  Ironically the policy is the inevitable and incurable cause of some sexual harassment.

The fact sketch does not indicate sexual harassment: “Over a 14-month span, the women’s accusations, in total, amount to three kisses and six touches, plus a series of reported inappropriate comments of a sexual nature.”

From the broad language in President Johnson’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, comes the more specific but general definition of sexual harassment held by the EEOC: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.”  See the EEOC’s Website.  Yet even the EEOC is capable of rationality when it states at its Website:

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

Three kisses (where? to what extent? towards what ages?) and six touches (where? to what extent? towards what ages?) plus “a series of [exactly what] inappropriate comments of a sexual nature” over a long fourteen months?  Were the women vulgar in word and in action, as many women have become since the 50s and 60s?

Gosh there could be so many variables here that the case could be a farce.  Was he a handsome man who projected confidence as a Tech Sergeant (39) could do, and therefore draw flirtations from the women?  Was this the situation at the start but then when the up-and-coming sergeant needed to instill discipline based on vogue metrics, he was met with pouts and the cold shoulder?  Hopefully the accusers will be forced to set things straight under cross examination, a powerful weapon.

My rational, kind mother had to fire an entire office of about ten females who had turned against her.  The male sergeant would never have been allowed to do that in today’s military based on what we read.  This case unfortunately cannot be removed to federal district court where twelve jurors or a non-military judge could decide the case.

And people need to know that EEO investigations, just like police reports, are often filled with inaccuracies.  Just today I was going over photos and the police report with my client defendant-driver.  The officer did not even get her directions straight, something often found in police reports.  Therefore the officer’s entire report is useless as evidence against my client.  (I like the police and think they do a great job, but their reports are often questionable no doubt because of the pressure they are under.)  People can therefore conclude the prosecution is questionable.

The news article unintentionally reveals the fatuousness around many military sexual harassment allegations.  Major Jamie (oh so unisexually vogue) Humphries, the public affairs officer, said the following:

[T]he Air Force does not tolerate any form of sexual harassment . . . When parents/guardians send their loved ones off to Basic Military Training, they expect guys like me will care for them, guide them and mentor them to the best of my ability. That’s my No. 1 job, and the officers I know take that responsibility very seriously.

No toleration?  Really?  Why we had no idea the power of rear area public affairs persons was so ineffective in combating the continual proliferation of so-called sexual harassment.

Please follow and like us: