User talk:2600:1700:56A0:C660:5948:C249:FBF6:B642

When the infamous "tailhook" happened, the events as reported in the news did not make any sense. There were women involved who were service members attending tailhook and it defied logic for them to be sexually harassed as they claimed. First of all, let it be known that I am in no way condoning the actions that occurred at the convention in question or any of the previous events where similar activities occurred. I have never attended a tailhook convention nor do I participate in anything similar. As an outsider, I could not logically understand how or why the sexually harassment claims ensued. For this group of women to have unwanted contact or verbal harassment to happen, they would have needed to be either totally naive as to the what went on at the conventions or just plain dumber than dirt. Neither could be true because these women were naval officers. About 3 months later, I happened to see a copy of Good Housekeeping magazine. On the front page was the caption, "My story on tailhook" written by one of the women involved. For the first time, this article spelled out exactly what happened. On the morning of the day in question when the harassment occurred, a briefing was given by a senior officer followed by a question and answer session. One of the women officers involved asked when were women going to be allowed in combat. A loud voice from the back of the room shouted, "We don't want you in combat". A huge cheering ensued. That was the catalyst for the events of that evening. Obviously, a group of women naval officers decided to go in mass to the floor of the hotel and intentionally get harassed so they could make sexual harassment claims via the chain of command. The tactic certainly worked. Eventually all hell broke loose and tail hook bit the dust along with a large number of officers attending the convention. So, it was not really about sexual harassment but more about sexual discrimination than anything else. The harassment was merely a tool they used. Was it effective? It certainly proved to be. Within a few months, an air force general stated that 10 women would be selected to train in combat aircraft. I cringed upon reading that comment. Immediately, an incompetent air force general established a "quota" of 10. Were there 10 women pilots in the air force qualified or were there a lot more than 10? What he should have said would have been "Qualified women pilots will now be selected for combat training."

Good leadership was obviously lacking in all of the above events.