Skip to main content

I think we have far too many people around already who've found an excuse to think of themselves as different and better.  I'm not ready to let self-righteous, scolding prudes pose as different and better and go unchallenged.

Two recent events have made me realize that in many ways the mainstream in this country has ceded the right to make some rules to the most prudish among us.  One event was a more or less compulsory teaching session on workplace harassment I attended two days ago.  The other is the widening fuss over the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus.

As of today I doubt that we know all the details about General Petraeus.  But taking what we know at face value, Mr. Petraeus has resigned as CIA director because he had an extramarital affair.  Why this should disqualify him is puzzling to me.  The reasoning I have heard is that he could be subject to blackmail.  This is the same excuse that "justified" kicking homosexuals out of the military and many other high security positions for decades.  Somehow that excuse even seemed to hold water for years after people began to "out" themselves.  (Or at least, that excuse kept being offered up because homophobes couldn't come up with anything better.)

Mr. Petraeus promptly made public the affair himself when it was likely to be revealed.  To me, this shows that he couldn't have been blackmailed --  I think he would have gone public with the information promptly if it were a blackmailer threatening him, just as he did when it became clear the FBI needed to reveal it.  And now that the news is 'out there', he certainly can't be blackmailed.  

So why should people at the CIA or members of the military be subject to rules considerably stricter than the general public follows?  As an article in today's New York Times points out, this is a bad idea:

Other national security experts warn that a decade of conflict shouldered by an all-volunteer force has separated those in uniform - about 1 percent of society - from the rest of the citizenry. Such a "military apart" is not healthy for the nation because the fighting force may begin to believe it operates under rules that are different from those the rest of civilian society follows, and perhaps with a separate set of benefits, as well.  

"Our military is holding itself to a higher standard than the rest of American society," said Kori N. Schake, an associate professor at West Point who has held senior policy positions at the Departments of State and Defense.  "That is beautiful and noble," she added. "But it's also disconcerting.  Sometimes military people talk about being a Praetorian Guard at our national bacchanal. That's actually quite dangerous for them to consider themselves different and better."

In extreme cases, say some military officers and Pentagon officials, the result of this "military apart" is that commanders may come to view their sacrifice as earning them the right to disregard rules of conduct.

I think we have far too many people around already who've found an excuse to think of themselves as different and better.  I'm not ready to let self-righteous, scolding prudes pose as different and better and go unchallenged.

The same goes for what I consider overwrought rules about harassment in the workplace.  That session I sat through the day before yesterday was given by ADP, the company that provides payroll and 'human resource management' services where I work and to a sizeable fraction of the workforce of the United States.  There was a video with well acted examples of various kinds of harassing behavior.  That part was educational, and I thought good.  But the lady giving the session also said that if an employee complains to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the process is very strongly stacked against the object of the complaint.  According to her, the EEOC investigators consider the alleged harasser guilty until proven innocent, and the fines/settlements/penalties they ask for are big money.  She also said fighting a complaint is an expensive uphill battle.  The bottom line was "Don't say anything at work that you wouldn't say in church."  I said I really don't want to spend forty hours a week at church, but that didn't get me any moderating response from the presenter.  One irritating conclusion was that if we all act like we're in church, it'll improve morale in the workplace.  Not mine.  I'll have a very sore tongue from all the times I'd have to bite it, and I'll feel oppressed.  Come to think of it, I'm not that religious.  If I become a confirmed atheist, would I be harassed by having to act like I'm in church?  

After the session I made a point of asking some employees if they felt harassed by me.  I particularly asked the lady who seems the shyest about off-color jokes.  She said definitely not.  I'm happy to try to make it as easy as possible for any co-worker to tell me if something I do or say makes them uncomfortable.  There ought to be a "safe harbor" of inviting anyone who feels harassed to tell me or one of my partners, and if necessary find a mediator to see who's being unreasonable, without draconian penalties.  I fully intend to try very hard not to make anyone feel uncomfortable again once they've told me.  But I don't intend to try to give myself a personality transplant, and if someone or something in effect tells me I need one, I think I'm the one being harassed.

Apparently Federal law defines several "Protected Classes" that it intends to protect from harassment.  These are:
"Race, Color, Religion, Sex, National origin, Disability, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Uniformed services, and Age 40 and over."  Many of these are minority groups.  We need to add a group to that list: "People with dirty minds."  But I'm pretty sure that's a majority group.  After all, anyone who gets the suggestive meaning of a double entendre has one.


Would you consider it a burden to have to keep to 'church behavior' 40 hours a week

22%4 votes
11%2 votes
5%1 votes
11%2 votes
50%9 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MasterKey, kurt, Renee, debedb

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:02:09 PM PST

  •  Perverts should not be setting the agenda (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209, kevinpdx, debedb

    Suppressing one's sexuality is totally against natural sexuality. And is thus a perversion. Next time you meet a fundie, inform them of this.

  •  Whatever happened to working at your job? (0+ / 0-)

    There are people who put 40 hours a week in hot shops feeding giant machines that can snip off your hand without even slowing down.   They do not play around at work.

    What makes the rest of us special?   I worked in the tech industry and while at first I liked the college atmosphere of one job, it got pretty damn distracting over time.    As a manager it is hard enough dealing with schedules without also having to deal with people's romantic attachments at work.   Do you want a plan approved by your upper management because the person proposing it is sleeping with a manager, or would you prefer it to be based on some semblance of rationality?    I have worked in both kinds of places and I find the latter more satisfying.

    As far as the CIA and military is concerned, they deal with issues that other countries care about deeply.   Countries have always spent the effort to undermine other countrie's intelligence and military efforts through espionage, and one of the time proven methods is to take advantage of careless romantic attachments.   This is especially true for diplomatic field offices -- but the folks back home shouldn't enjoy benefits that the folks on the firing line (literally) can't.

  •  cheating is NON-consensual. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Renee, VClib, Neuroptimalian, bunsk

    The cheated spouse does not consent to being exposed to potentially dangerous sexually-transmitted diseases without their knowledge.

    The children do not consent to having their family explode and their lives turned upside-down.

    And violating a commitment that was originally made from love, is a sign of very poor character when it comes to keeping other commitments, such as those that were originally made from patriotism.

    I'm all in favor of open marriages by mutual consent, agreed to at the beginning or at least when it's not sprung on someone as a surprise after they've given the majority of their adult lives to the relationship.

    But cheating and imposing non-consensual risks, pain, and abandonment on others, is disgraceful, disreputable, and disgusting.  That's not about prudery, it's about loyalty and living up to one's word.

    We got the future back.

    by G2geek on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:33:41 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site