The Wash Rag September, 1997 Issue 5.3 Military Affairs No End In Sight The facts of sexual harassment in the armed forces have been constantly in the news over the past months. No more had the scandal of the sexual harassment of the students by drill instructors at the Aberdeen base been "sort of" settled, then the scandal over Kelly Flinn came to the forefront, and after that, General Ralston's previous affair was in the news. To tell you the truth, I am a little bit tired of hearing all about these individual's sex lives. I suppose that might be why it is hard to get them addressed by some administrators. I know that if I were in such a position, I would wish that my subordinates would not bore me with such personal details. But fortunately, the media seems to have found that information about people's sex lives makes good copy, so sexual harassment continues to be addressed by the media. In the matter of Kelly Flinn, no less than two issues of NEWSWEEK have had major articles about her affair with the husband of an enlisted woman at the Minot, North Dakota Air Force Base where she was stationed. As I mentioned in a previous WASHRAG, adultery and even fraternization were common in the Navy when I was in the Waves. South Dakota Senator and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was quoted in the Sioux Falls ARGUS LEADER as saying that her situation deserved more sensitive treatment. In the final analysis, my own feeling is that the real tragedy is that girls and young women have been robbed of an exemplary role model, and the whole affair may have been more about that than about fraternization in any case. I'm sure that in the heat of her romance with Zigo, who turned out to be a world class jerk, she never once thought about how it would effect a generation of girls and young women. But in the process of making lemonade out of the incident, it is good to note that more attention is being paid to the sexual escapades of the men in the military as a result. General Ralston, who had an adulterous affair with a woman while still married, lost a very prestigious promotion to the Army Chief of Staff position because of the outcry about that after Kelly Flinn was booted from the Air Force. Some felt that Kelly Flinn's treatment was more deserved because she was warned not to see Zigo again and because he was married to an enlisted woman, the matter effected discipline. The question is not why Flinn was warned but why Ralston was not. Apparently for a male Army officer to have an affair while married is less of an offence than a female officer having one with a married man. Not only that, but the woman married to Zigo was not a subordinate to Flinn, was not even in the same Air Force section or division as Flinn, so the discipline argument doesn't hold much water, either. I have too often experienced and seen other women taken out for a misdemeanor a man would never have been called on while men were committing felonious acts without any punishment, and the only obvious reason was to get rid of a woman that was excelling not only on a level with men but often above them. I think that Kelly Flinn was simply too good for Air Force officials to leave her in place. They finally found a loop hole to use to get rid of her, and they did so. It seems that the various military sex scandals have forced the Army to take a closer look at the problem, and a report cited in a September 11 PBS news item found that sexual harassment is regarded as acceptable behavior throughout the Army. A September 18 Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE editorial found that sexual harassment is a shameful mess in the Army, and stated that ethics training for recruits and psychopathic testing of drill sergeants is not sufficient. Putting the responsibility where it belongs, they stated that nothing will work to eliminate this problem unless the Army's leaders "really believe that a woman is every bit as capable of serving as a drill sergeant -- or a general -- as a man," and calls on the Army to practice what it preaches. Carolyn Maloney, a Representative from New York and member of STAMP was featured on a FIRING LINE on August 2 on Public Television. STAMP is an organization of military women against sexual harassment. She authored a report that showed that in respect to all other crimes, the military has a lower rate except in the area of sexual crimes. She found that women just want equal treatment and says that after her report came out, many women called her about cases of fraternization where the matter of military discipline was much worse than Kelly Flinn's, where the offender was a male officer and it was totally ignored by the Commanding Officer. Representative Maloney says that she thinks it is insulting to say that military men and women can't work together and not rape or be raped. In general, on this program, on TO THE CONTRARY, and throughout the media on the matter of sexual harassment in the military, the common theme is that women just want equal treatment, to be able to compete using their innate skills and talents, without being exposed to treatment that makes it difficult if not impossible for them to compete or even to stay in their positions. Hopefully that will be the outcome of the fracas. Because the military has been so crucial to the improvement in treatment of men of color, it can only be hoped that by improving the treatment of women there, it will effect it overall in society. Since repeated studies have shown that sexual harassment is just as bad in the civilian sector as in the military, that would be a much-needed reaction. But the fact that those who are in the military are in a more stressful situation than those in civilian jobs should not be underestimated, since military women cannot leave billets without permission, and civilian women can, even though the consequences are often devastating to their careers. WHO DESERVES THE CREDIT Recently, I was astounded by the public response to the deaths of Princes Diana and Mother Theresa. Surely, they were both admirable in many ways and deserved glowing obituaries, but in my opinion, not much more. Mother Theresa did indeed show compassion for the poor and sick, but her attitude towards birth control and abortion left me with the impression that she was exploiting those in poverty in order to get glory for herself. If those miserable individuals she received a Nobel Prize for picking up from the gutters of Calcutta to let them die in dignity had never been born, she would have been without any means of proving what a terribly good person she was and could never have gotten the canonization she is sure to get. Ditto for Diana. She had her picture taken with many a horribly sick person. Yet she never did anything to prevent illness. Her affair with her riding instructor while married to Charles has been totally forgotten, and the fact that the Queen and the rest of the Royal family were her EX relatives as well. I cannot imagine anyone expecting me to eulogize my ex-husband. How could the public be so outrageously demanding? People don't divorce because they like each other. They do so because life together was intolerable. Diana was certainly a very human person with faults like the rest of us though she did show kindness to the ill -- I suspect it was only as long as the cameras were rolling. But what bothers me the most is that had either of these women set out to change the situations they confronted, they would have met nothing but barriers -- Sister Theresa by Right-To-Life thugs, Diana by jealous, self-serving medical and drug company establishments. They are being praised more because they never did anything to change the status quo than because they made any real contribution to society. I think of the hundreds and thousands of women who have made significant contributions to the societies they live in, and I am very sad to know that their contributions will be denigrated by those who benefit from the misery of the human race. THE PRESIDENT PAULA JONES CAN SUE! Paula Jones, who has accused President Clinton of sexual harassment, has won a ruling from the Supreme Court to allow her to sue the President for sexual harassment. Since she has refused to accept a settlement which was so liberal that her lawyers resigned because they felt that she would not get a better settlement in court and she had to find new legal counsel, we must assume that she is sincere in her quest for an apology from the president. I am somewhat troubled by the fact that no other woman has come forward to support her allegations of improper behavior on the part of President Clinton. It seems to me that sexual harassers always repeat their behavior over a long period of time, and the acts that they commit are similar to acts that they have committed previously. There was a Jennifer Flowers during his first campaign, but there were no claims of inappropriate behavior by her, and it seems that he called her a few times to talk, but there were no substantiating witnesses in that case at all, and she seems to have just gone away. I suppose that any person may in extreme situations do strange things that they never do again, perhaps on a whim, perhaps on a dare, perhaps to see what it feels like -- I think that any of us, if being truthful, would admit to doing things we wished we hadn't done. But unless that act is terribly punitive, like murder or results in personal injury, it seems that the best path for a victim to take is to get on with their lives and forget about it. Not that sexual harassment is not a burden to the victim, it is a burden. But there is no proof that the President ever tried to get Paula Jones fired or kept her from getting another job, although he was certainly in a position to do that, there are no records of him vandalizing her property or following her or leaving threats on her telephone answering device. I am troubled by the possibility that this is some kind of a political vendetta by conservatives to punish the President for having a very intelligent wife and for being supportive of women's rights to a legal abortion and being willing to be linked to other issues favorable to women. I could not in good conscience simply condemn him for sexual harassment on a single woman's claims when his reputation seems so squeaky clean otherwise. Although comedians like Jay Leno and Dave Letterman never miss a chance to ridicule the President in this regard, I'm afraid that I've had too many false charges made against me because of my politics to be willing to take a single charge against him, even if it is in an area where I am extremely sensitive, as fact. There are too many extremists who are willing to commit heinous crimes against individuals who support women's causes, especially abortion, for me to buy into Paula Jones' story without corroboration, and I have not heard any. But I must say that the whole matter has left me with a shattering conclusion: There are differences between men and women. I know that people have been telling me that for years, mostly in the area of men being superior to women in this or that. I still deny that in most instances categorically, but they are definitely different. This conclusion came to me in a bolt of lightning watching a Mark Russell Comedy Special on Public Television. Because of Bill Clinton's problems with Paula Jones, Mark was in his element and raised the specter of the President of the United States being identified buck naked in a frontal lineup by identifying marks on his genitals, and followed that with the observation that the President might have to have plastic surgery on his private parts to avoid being identified. I know that whether or not I was guilty of what the President is charged with, being discussed publicly in this manner would be so humiliating that I would be rendered ineffective. But the next day, the news was full of the president's activities. He was apparently otherwise occupied. Yes, men are different from women. That I can't deny, but you can't convince me that being different makes them even slightly better. In fact, it might make them inferior to women, but I'm just as certain they will never be convinced of that. A LETTER TO THE EDITOR THAT DIDN'T GET PUBLISHED UNTIL NOW! Back in June, Newsweek magazine published an obituary of Pamela Harrington, whose marriage to Averell Harrington, a prominent diplomat, caused a furor back in the '70's. From the article, Averell never reconciled with his family by former wives, and her estate was being challenged by them at the writing of this article. I have too often seen women of questionable morals end up with all the marbles, so I wrote this letter to the editor of NEWSWEEK magazine. Needless to say, it was never printed by them. Dear Sir: In reading the June 2 edition, I was first of all interested in the article about Kelly Flinn and her problems which resulted in her receiving a General Discharge from the Air Force. Since I am a former member of the military having been in the Navy back in the '50's, and also a former dependent having been married to a military man during the '50's and '60's, I am all too well aware of the subject of adultery in the military. At least during that time it was common. I am also familiar with the difference between how regulations were enforced for men vis a vis against women. I have over and over found that as a programmer and consultant in computers I was treated much differently than men were, so I sympathize with Kelly. But the fact that you reported the death of Pamela Harriman, wife of former Secretary of State, Averell Harriman, on page 77 of the same issue, detailing all of her former husbands and lovers including Winston Churchill's son Randolph, Broadway producer Leland Hayward, Fiat heir Gianni Agnelli, French banker Elie de Rothschild and finally Averell Harriman, I must say that it looks like the main mistake that Kelly made was that she didn't have sex with anyone wealthy or prominent. It seems to me that Pamela Harriman was frankly a high-class hooker, and she ended up as Ambassador to France! I find Kelly's situation to be trivial, and I feel that the military just wanted to get rid of a high profile capable woman, probably because she wasn't sleeping with the right men. The fact that this might temporarily tighten up the military's enforcement of its own adultery regulations is not much consolation for Kelly. And now we are treated to the fact that the Joint Chief of Staff, a male, has had an adulterous affair and has suffered no ill consequences from it [yet, at the time]. For shame! Sincerely, Helen Forelle I suppose that we are cautioned to "speak no ill of the dead," but I am less critical of Pamela Harriman than I am of the society which gave her privileges in exchange for sex. What kind of an example is this for young girls graduating from high school and giving a report on current affairs for their high school class? I guess we should be grateful to Ambassador Harrington for having been gracious enough to wait for school to be out to die. MEDIA POTPOURRI AROUND THE NATION An earlier WASHRAG noted the federal law which makes it a federal offence to cross a state line to harass anyone. The June issue of the newsletter of the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition reported on a case where the U. S. District Judge Thomas Shanahan ruled that the Interstate Protection Order Law was unconstitutional. It isn't clear to me whether this is a part of the same law or a separate one. The September 28th issue of the Sioux Falls ARGUS LEADER reported that the expanded federal domestic-violence law was used against an Okreek man who kidnapped and tried to kill a woman from the Rosebud Reservation. The article quoted Verlaine Gullickson of the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Pierre as feeling that the law will be a great help in stemming domestic violence in the state. I am again troubled. Why are state officials waiting for federal officials to solve their problems? They complain about federal intervention, then they refuse to act on obvious cases of domestic abuse and sexual harassment. It is obvious to me that if a woman is kidnapped and threatened, then someone should be held responsible, yet it was not local officials who responded but a federal appointee, Karen Schreier. More than anything else, this action points out how poor local law enforcement is in cases involving women's safety. We need to do something to force local law en forcement to give women the same rights (which they should have according to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution) as men have. If a man had been kidnapped and threatened with death, local authorities would have acted swiftly and surely to see that the perpetrator was punished. PRIMETIME of June 18 focused on the woman who was stalked by a co-worker in San Jose. He shot and killed several others at her job site, but she survived. The experts have determined that being short and unfriendly with a potential stalker discourages them. Women are often polite and kind to them which only encourages them. [Since women are brought up to be that way, this makes it very hard for them to effectively discourage potential stalkers. Also, it would be hard to keep a job if a woman treated all the men she has contact with of the job that way -- how does she know which ONE is potentially a stalker?] They did say that they stalker shows an unusual amount of interest in and knowledge of his target, but it seems to me that by the time you know that, it might be too late. PRIMETIME on August 3 reported on some female employees at the Raddison hotel in Rochester, Minnesota complaining of their sexual harassment and even rape by individuals from the United Arab Emerits on the VIP floor. Various complaints were reported over several years. Hotel management tried to cover up the complaints or ignored them because of the large amount of money they bring to the Mayo Clinic and businesses in Rochester. The women often could not leave their jobs because they needed them. They were already living hand to mouth. One of those men, a Dr. Al Zahari, raped a woman. The women's complaints were ignored until they quit their jobs and went public. One lost her home because she could not find another job that paid as well. A former female cadet at the Citadel is suing six Citadel male cadets claiming that they assaulted her, sexually harassed her, and denied her food and sleep according to an item in the ARGUS LEADER on September 19. The woman, Kim Messer, left the Citadel in January along with another female cadet, Jeanie Mentavlos, who charged that the male cadets made her the object of pornography and sexually harassed her. Messer claims she suffered injuries including stress fractures to her pelvis, bruises, abrasions, first degree burns in addition to deprivation from food, deprivation from sleep, nervousness and humiliation. The Douglas County Minnesota Health Department Director, Mark Anton Lundin, has been charged with sexual assault. INTRODUCTION THE NATURE OF HARASSMENT Continuing my series on the nature of harassment to be the introduction to a manual for victims of sexual harassment: One irrefutable fact which every victim of harassment must accept before they can begin to crawl out of the abyss which it creates in their life is that it is much easier to destroy something than it is to create it. It took Timothy McVeih seconds to destroy the Murrow Office building, while it took the government years to plan, build, fit and take possession of it, and that doesn't begin to address the effect the bombing had on the victims and their friends and families nor the cost to either one. It takes a harasser seconds and costs almost nothing to bash in a windshield or slash tires. The victim spends hours and lots of money to get the damage repaired. The death or mutilation of a pet is trivial to the harasser. To the pet's owner, the consequences are devastating. Embarrassing or frightening the target's friends or family takes only a few free phone calls or first class letters, but some may never get over the consequences, and the target's relationships (vis a vis support network) are forever altered. Understanding this at the outset, the victim must adapt to a life style which will make it harder and harder for the harasser to function. Of course, the harasser sometimes crosses the line to illegal actions and it is even sometimes possible to take legal actions against the harasser. But I address here those cases, and I believe they are the majority, where the harasser is unknown or so devious that it is impossible to catch him. As the victim, you still need a place to live, you need income to live on, you need transportation, clothing, friendship and sustenance, and the harasser intends to take them all away from you. His intention is to make you so helpless that you must get everything from him. Some have advocated the "don't get mad, get even" line of defense. I believe that might work for some people, but I'm afraid that without sufficient proof of the harasser's identity, more innocent people will be victimized instead of the culprit being punished. I have personally felt that harassers are very clever at making it appear that someone other than themselves are the harasser. So I have never felt comfortable in taking these kinds of actions. I feel that their most significant consequence is the spreading of retaliation. Think of how the person you harass feels when they are wrongly victimized. Perhaps the reason you are being terrorized is because someone thinks you are harassing them. I have instead taken the position that I will do everything I can to make it difficult for the harasser to make me into a victim. Nothing will stop me from taking action to prevent them from doing what they are doing. I know that when I take steps to protect myself and my property, that it will take them more time, cost them more money, and frustrate their successes. They also have limited resources, and if they have to spend ten times as much time and money to terrorize me, that means that there are nine others (assuming he has more than one target) that he will leave alone. Because I have daughters and granddaughters that I feel may be harassed for the same reasons I have been, that is important to me. It will also result in your having fewer problems with your vehicle, your home, and sometimes even with personal relationships. Keeping in mind that you can't keep friendships or relationships in which the other party is being controlled by the harasser, you may also weed some of the trash out of your circle of friends. And even more important, by making it harder and harder for the harasser to attack you, you force him to take chances and make him more vulnerable. Thus it will become more likely that he will expose himself and become susceptible to legal action. "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" has become my battlecry, and I pass it on to you. Turn the tables on your harasser. Make him take chances and spend lots of time and money to victimize you. Some things you can do cost you absolutely nothing, and with some of my suggestions, you may think of more that are appropriate in your situation. Harassers are by and large ignorant and mindless. If they were intelligent and creative, they would not be afraid of meeting you on a level playing field. What they are trying to do is tip the playing field in their favor. If they weren't at least a little bit envious and afraid of you, they would never use the methods they use. Knowing you are smarter than they are should give you the courage to defy them and take actions to regain control of your life. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Rachael Welsch, presenting at the Tonys, talking about her role in VICTOR-VICTORIA, said that it was sort of confusing to be a woman one minute and a man the next, but one of the perks was that when she was playing a man she got paid more. The WASHRAG is published by Women Against Sexual Harassment, P. O. Box 164, Canton, SD 57013-0164, Phone (605) 987-5070 ISSN 1068-2449. Subscription price is $10.00 a year Copyright 1997 Tesseract Publications. http://members.tripod.com/~WASHRAG/ ta_shi@dtgnet.com