Presidential Appointee blasts West Point over sexual harassment

As of this entry's posting at 2:30 pm EST, the West Point Board of Visitors--a group composed only of Members of Congress and persons directly appointed by the President--are gathering in the Cannon House Building in Washington, D.C. to discuss the state of affairs at the Academy.

Unbeknownst to the rest of attendees--including three Senators and five Congresspersons--an open letter will be read to the small gathering by one of the folks appointed to the Board of the Visitors by the President: Sue Fulton, West Point Class of '80, one of the first women to graduate from the Academy and a prominent activist for LGBT rights in the military.

Judging by the letter, which I obtained from an anonymous source who asked me not to post it until the start of this meeting, Fulton is not pleased. In fact, she sounds incredibly pissed at the rampant sexism, assault, and harassment directed at women cadets currently attending.

The letter comes on the tail end of several scandals plaguing the Academy: a report released that shows sexual assaults have increased there, the revelation that a sergeant was filming female cadets in a barracks shower without their knowledge, and most recently, the atrocious response of the Academy in allowing more than a dozen senior cadets to graduate after it was revealed they engaged in rampant sexual harassment, including rape jokes and homophobic, racist, and otherwise sexist comments and, most startlingly, taking pictures of women cadets on campus without their permission and doctoring or captioning them to be sexually-suggestive and generally demeaning.

This was all done on the government e-mail system on the official e-mail distro for the team.

The Academy's response? Pretty lenient. Punishments were given that allowed the cadets to complete them in the remaining eight days before graduation while Academy officials lied in official statements to the Corps of Cadets and to the press about their response, stating the "full maximum punishment" had been given when, in fact, it had not. Not even close.

They also lied about no "inappropriate" pictures being taken and when called out on it, stated they meant no nude photos of women cadets had been taken.

This is all based on one e-mail, by the way, despite knowledge that these weekly messages to the entire team have been occurring for at least a year. West Point claims to have reviewed over 700 pages of e-mails (and supposedly, their threads) but oddly, only had enough evidence to "punish" these cadets on relatively light misconduct boards.

I'm not buying it, and apparently, neither is Sue Fulton, who, as part of that first class of women who started the Academy back in 1976, endured four years of ruthless sexism and sexual harassment, to say nothing of the assaults that went unreported for fear of retaliation.

Here's the letter:

An Open Letter to the Leadership of the United States Military Academy at West Point

It was hard to attend graduation this year. I knew that almost a dozen rugby players would be walking across the stage – rugby players who had participated in pornographic, misogynistic, sometimes racist weekly emails, targeting their own fellow cadets. Emails that included language like “the only thing <woman cadet’s name> can call out is her own name as she f--ks <her boyfriend> in the a-- with an 8" black strap-on” and “<woman cadet’s name> needs to be raped by like twenty big black dudes.” Emails that included photos taken of women cadets without their knowledge, captioned with sexually suggestive and/or violent comments. 

You could tell when the rugby players accepted their diplomas, because their sleeves were bare of rank – part of that “maximum punishment” West Point claimed they received: loss of cadet rank, 120 hours on the area (60 suspended), and 8 hours of “intensive Respect training.” I suppose I should be grateful that the underclass rugby players will be given the full six months of Respect mentorship, though they received fewer hours on the area. “Maximum” indeed.

So I watched these new 2^nd Lieutenants, walking across the same stage as one of the women they tormented. I was assured that they had a rough week. Well, so did that woman, who spent the last few months before her graduation being relentlessly harassed for turning over one of the emails to West Point leadership. I wondered what it would be like to be a woman soldier in a platoon led by one of those creeps.

I understand the punishment was solely the decision of the new Commandant, an officer who has managed to serve for 29 years and yet commanded women for a grand total of maybe ten months. 

He’s not the first general to be placed in a command for which he wasn’t qualified, but one would hope he would have gotten better advice. Instead – fully backed by the Superintendent – he was impressed by the fact that the men stood together, taking their punishment as a team, and decided that they would make fine officers, thank you very much.

That idea of “standing together as a team” is less impressive when you realize that it’s about a group of men standing together over their rejection of women as part of their team, as classmates, as equals. That was the message sent to the Corps, as replayed to me by a couple of male cadets: what matters is that the men closed ranks – and they “got over.”

I also heard how “remorseful” the boys were. Yes, so “remorseful” that, after graduation, one of them sent a photo of his friend “flipping the bird” to the woman who turned over the email.

A year ago, I attended a Sexual Assault Prevention workshop for the second class, in Thayer Hall’s South Auditorium. Prompted to come up with a typical “pick-up line,” one of the cows stood up and made a rape joke. The “trainers” joined the rest of the class in laughing, and made no comment about the appropriateness of his comment.

This fall, cadets will come back from summer training to a West Point leadership leaflet on their desks that tells them, “You are joining a brotherhood.” A brotherhood. Seriously??

I am deeply troubled. I have seen no evidence that West Point’s senior leadership has a clue about the current command climate and its utter contempt for women. Meanwhile, I have seen plenty of evidence that women cadets and officers remain second-class citizens at the Academy. 

I love the Army, and I love West Point. I believe in the values that are supposed to define the Academy, and I know dozens of officers at West Point who share those values, and hundreds of graduates  - male and female – who have upheld those values, on the battlefield and beyond. And because I love West Point, because I live these values, I am speaking out. Our cadets and officers deserve better leadership. 

Please give me some reassurance that the motto of West Point is still “Duty, Honor, Country,” and not – as it appears to be – “Bros before Hos.”

Respectfully,

Brenda Sue Fulton

West Point Class of 1980

Member, US Military Academy Board of Visitors

Twitter: @cmclymer

Fetus Penis = Abortion Schmortion

No, I'm not masturbating, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, last night.

We have reached a new level in the debate over reproductive rights. Of all the asinine reasons you've heard for restricting a woman's right to choose, Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX) really went above and beyond in stupidity, yesterday:

This is a subject I know something about... Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If they are a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe they could feel pain?

This is very meta for obvious reasons. Women are already restricted in so many ways by male sexuality: from the clothes they're allowed to wear to victim-blaming for sex crimes to even something as "duh" as campaigning for breast cancer research that features a campaign called "Save the Ta-Tas" because apparently, to be sold on the importance of the life of another human being, we need a good sexy hook to open our wallets.

And now, the argument is being pushed forward that masturbation speculation in male fetuses is reason enough to further restrict women's healthcare choices.

Burgess is a former OB/GYN but apparently not very good at "The Google", of which 30 seconds would uncover at least one bullshit-filter, evidence-based analysis by Jodi Jacobson at Reality Check: that fetuses do not feel pain before the third trimester.

But now that we have actual scientific evidence that Burgess and his colleagues are uninformed assholes, let's get back to the larger issue:

Why do women's rights ALWAYS take a backseat to male sexuality?

And why do we, the rational women and men who see this, allow it to happen?

Twitter: @cmclymer

We've been stealing from women for 50 years.

Today, 50 years go, Pres. Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act, essentially barring stated and intended discrimination of gender in earned wages, not expecting a difference in wages to be conducted behind closed doors.

Today, women still earn only 81 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. If you break it down by industry, women earn slightly more than men in just 4 of 111 occupations for which there is data.

Every single study done on the gender wage gap has found that, even taking into account education and experience, there is still a monumental gap that remains unexplained (re: sexism). Yale economics professor Joseph G. Altonji found that only 27% of the gap is explained by differences in education and experience.

A study led by economists Paul Courant, Mary Corcoran, and Robert Wood matched up a sample group of men and women on every characteristic: age, education, experience, average hours worked, grades in college, childcare, etc. - and the team STILL found that women with the *same* characteristics are only paid 81.5% of their identical male peers.

Complicating the matter is that a difference of wages forces most heterosexual couples (who don't use childcare) to decide that women will stay home to raise their children in order to take advantage of men's higher earnings, meaning less women climb the ladder of their industry, which means not only are women (and the sexist issues they face) underrepresented in leadership but girls and young women watching all this are less likely to pursue a career in that male-dominated field.

The myriad of studies done on the gender wage gap--mostly by men, ironically--are so overwhelming in evidence that sexism exists in the workforce that it's a wonder we're still haggling over the idea of women "sucking it up" and pushing through.

Not only has this not worked, but it's unethical. Women shouldn't have to "push through" to get to the top. Putting out the best work should be enough. Period.

People who claim sexism in the workforce doesn't exist are very much in denial. The longer it takes us to address this problem, the longer we'll only cultivate just half the potential talent in our country.

Twitter: @cmclymer

West Point's e-mail to cadets about the rugby team scandal.

Note: the following e-mail was sent by the Brigade Tactical Officer at West Point to the entire Corps of Cadets.

Questions? Send them here: cmclymer@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/charlesmclymer

Twitter: @cmclymer



From: Mauldin, Nick S LTC MIL USA USMA
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:05 AM
To: Class of 2016; Class of 2015; Class of 2014; Class of 2013
Cc: BTD
Subject: Great Summer

To the Corps:

First it is great to see that summer training is up and running and that SGR, SLE and CDLT are in full swing. All the teams are doing a great job and we are set to have the best summer training ever. To everyone who is traveling outside West Point, I expect you to set the standards, lead from the front and to take safety into account in all your actions.

I would also like to take this time and explain to you the results of the recent Rugby allegations.  I know many of you have questions and I want you to understand that we did take a proactive stance and looked at multiple courses of action.  At the end of the day, and with recommendations from

legal, staff and faculty who volunteered to be mentors and the Chain of Command, we came to a unanimous decision to punish the entire team, but to allow the First Class Cadets to graduate with their Class.  I also want to be clear that the First Class Cadets were not placed in a Respect Mentorship Program, but a respect rehabilitation program that consisted of 36 hours of intense training meant to work on self-assessment, reflective journals and interviews.  Below are the actions that we took to investigate and adjudicate the offenses committed by these Cadets:

In April 2013, United States Military Academy (USMA) Leadership was made aware of an inappropriate email chain internally circulated within the Cadet Rugby Team. USMA Leadership immediately appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) with orders to investigate pursuant to Army Regulation 15-6 an email chain, the culture of the Men's Cadet Rugby Team, any actions or behaviors

that would suggest a hostile team environment or culture of disrespect towards women, or any other potentially inappropriate conduct/culture.

The IO completed the investigation in May 2013.  Cadets on the team were found to have violated the Cadet Disciplinary Code for Unsatisfactory Behavior, Error in Judgment, Failure to Perform a Duty, and a violation of the General Article for actions which tend to reflect discredit on the Corps of Cadets and the United States Army.  Maximum allowable punishment under the Cadet Disciplinary Code was administered.  Further actions taken included temporary disbandment of the Men's Cadet Rugby Team.  The investigation did not find any evidence of sexual assault and there was no

evidence or indication of inappropriate pictures of female cadets. All Cadets were required to complete an intense respect rehabilitation program, involving self-assessments, reflective journals, and role-model interviews, supervised by a mentor.  Having completed the prescribed punishment Class of 2013, Cadets graduated.   I would highlight that 2013 Cadets, and their families, did not get to participate in any graduation activities; banquets, receptions, parades, etc. They marched area tours until 2200 hours the night before graduation.  Additionally, some Class of 2014 Cadets were pulled out of key leadership positions.

An extensive legal review was conducted and found no legal objection to the investigation. The intent of this program was not only to punish the offenders, but to address the cultural issues with their actions and the incompatibility of these actions to the Army Values.

As always I am extremely proud to be the Brigade Tactical Officer serving with each and every one of you.  As you are out this summer always remember

"TO LEAD IS TO SERVE"



V/R

COL NICK S. MAULDIN

Brigade Tactical Officer

US Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996

Phone: 845-938-6005(688 DSN) BB: 845-476-1417

e-mail:nick.mauldin@us.army.mil

"Go Army, Beat Navy"

You can't worry about "having it all" when you already have it.

 

Kurt Soller, Senior Editor of Fashion Features at “The Cut”, an online blog for New York Magazine, wrote a recent piece lamenting that the discussion on obstacles faced by women in the workplace—in the wake of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s book “Lean In”—has left behind young male professionals.

“Yet, as the having-it-all, lean-in debate has given a forum and vocabulary for women to articulate both their problems and aspirations,” Mr. Soller posits, “I’d argue it has pushed guys to the margins. That’s exactly the point, I imagine women thinking to themselves as they’re reading that sentence, but it doesn’t make me any less jealous that women collectively seem to be a lot better at mentoring, giving each other advice, and helping each other succeed in both the workplace and family space.”

Soller continues: “There aren’t exactly Lean In groups for late-twenties dudes with solid careers who want to figure out how adoption or child care works over a few beers. Let alone whether paternity leave feels emasculating or unfulfilling.”

To be fair, I think Soller is well-intentioned. As a fellow twenty-something male, I share a few of his concerns but only in the sense that most folks our age worry about these things, regardless of gender.

What seems to be lost on Soller is that on top of all the worries with which all in our generation must grapple, women get the additional burden of societal, cultural, and institutional pressures that men in the workplace do not face.

To say nothing of obvious issues (maternal leave and gender wage gap), there are a myriad of other problems that, when brought up, are dismissed as “petulant, feminist concerns”.

Actually, maternal leave, alone, is enough to make any woman (and their partner) crazy: if a woman takes more than a few weeks, let alone a few months, she risks being hated for “playing the gender card,” but if she takes less than a few weeks, they’ll accuse her of not being a good mother and/or being too ambitious.

It’s nearly enough to encourage some women to avoid having children until they’re well-established in their career (and some do), except by age 30, the average woman (with healthy reproductive function) has a fertility rate of 63%. By age 35, it’s fallen to 52%. By 40, it’s dropped to a dismal 36%. This is before we consider the fertility of their partner or for same-sex partners, the stress of finding an ideal sperm donor.

Time is not on the side of women with professional dreams who also want to have a family.

But what if women don’t want to have kids? Then, there’s the social backlash and office murmuring of her being a lesbian (a crime in some environments, apparently), hating men (an absence of kids must mean an absence of sex, which must mean she hates men), and, of course, the time-honored tradition of knocking down ambitious women for being a woman and ambitious at the same time.

What about clothes and demeanor? Women must wear makeup but not too much, wear feminine clothing but not sexy (or too sexy), be kind but not flirtatious, smile on demand (as is requested often of them by male colleagues) but don’t do so in a saucy way. Basically, women in the workplace should be an unusual, impossible (and rather creepy) combination of mother and wife, nun and supermodel, consoler and lover, and do all of it without saying or doing anything that might harm some fragile male egos.

Then, it gets darker. Women are expected to put up with “guy humor” and inappropriate remarks, jokes, and touching. Speaking out for, you know, that thing we call a “healthy boundary” is ripe for claims among men in the office that she’s a “frigid, humorless bitch”.

Part of our culture, especially in professional environments, is that men who hear anecdotal evidence that’s offered say, “Well, I would never do that, and I resent being lumped together with men who do.”

And that’s true. Not all men do these things, but the vast majority of men allow it to happen. They are complicit in a sexist culture by not speaking up or by dismissing claims by aggrieved women as frivolous, shrill, or any other adjective of your choosing typically used to describe women with “feminist” concerns.

Women’s careers aren’t normally stalled or killed based on their performance reviews. Their careers shrivel or thrive based on conversations among men at the water cooler, pick-up basketball game, beers after work, and any other “male bonding” activity that comes to mind.

It’s how you wind up with only 4.2% of Fortune 500 CEOs being women and a whopping 107 of 111 occupations and career fields paying men more than women, on average, for the same jobs, by a lot.

Soller isn’t wrong about men facing a challenge in work vs. family. We can’t have a society that discourages men from exercising paternal leave, for example. Or that teaches men they lack the “natural empathy” to be good caregivers, especially when so many single fathers are proving that wrong by raising children on their own and doing a fantastic job of it.

Where Soller goes wrong is in failing to see that while women and men do face similar obstacles in balancing family life with professional obligations/ambitions, it’s only men that have a cultural system in place that favors their upward mobility. 

Further, Soller confesses: “Because I work at the Cut (nearly 100 percent women, many covering these topics), I usually internalize these problems and this debate as ladies-only.”

And that’s part of the problem! The vast majority of women want men to be part of this conversation. They want men to engage in an open dialogue on gender equality. They want men to express concerns and ask questions.

A final piece of advice: no one is stopping you from asking a woman who is further along in your career field to mentor you and ask for advice on balancing work and family. In fact, I’m willing to bet most women with more experience would be delighted to give you advice.

As Gloria Steinem famously said on her encounters with college students: “I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.”

Lean in, Mr. Soller. Lean in.

Twitter: @cmclymer

A culture of rape and sexual harassment at West Point.

Tomorrow, the Class of 2013 at the United States Military Academy at West Point graduates after a grueling 47 months of undergraduate education combined with the most intense leadership program on the planet.

I know these people. They are my sisters and brothers. I was a member of the Class of 2013 (I left for health issues, two years ago), and I can attest to the fact that many of these soon-to-be officers are some of the best our country has to offer, in terms of character, intellect, and talent.

But for all the amazing leaders that come out of the Academy, the undeniable truth is that the cultural atmosphere at West Point is completely broken, and the leadership is either unwilling or unable to adequately address it.

Yesterday, The New York Times published an article on a former sergeant at the Academy, SFC Michael McClendon, who was "accused" of secretly filming female cadets in the shower. The perception of the reporter is that this is currently an ongoing investigation, and the Army is in the process of contacting the women involved.

Actually, all the women involved were notified, but the Academy has failed to initiate measures to prevent this from happening again, despite it being uncovered back in May of last year.

Let me emphasize that: a sergeant with authority over cadets was caught filming female cadets in the shower back in May. CID (the Army's investigative branch) didn't tell the specific women until March, ten months after it was discovered. Academy officials only told the Corps of Cadets in an official capacity, this morning via statement from the Commandant.

Until yesterday, the vast majority of the Corps didn't know about it, and what was the response? Here is one male cadet's reaction that seemed to sum up the attitude of much of the Corps:

"I didn't like him, but I really respected him. He was framed because that one girl wanted to switch companies, anyway. It wasn't his fault."

This reflects a prevailing line-of-thought among cadets at the Academy and service members in the wider military: women who bring forward allegations of rape, sexual assault, or harassment must be lying, particularly to cover their tracks.

During my time at West Point, hearing about rape in a conversation with any male cadet was always (and I mean always) coupled with the assertion that the woman involved was only saying it to avoid trouble since cadets aren't permitted to engage in sexual activity on campus (or between plebes (freshmen) and the upper three classes, on or off campus).

She was simply "crying rape" to escape the considerable punishment that comes with this. Accused rapists were given the benefit of the doubt among a vast majority of men in the Corps.

But why would this happen? Female cadets are already put under a microscope to the point that many go out of their way to fit in with their classmates. The stereotype of "crying rape" is so pervasive in the Corps that it's a wonder any woman at the Academy would even take the risk of making a false accusation, or in other words, the misconduct board that results from being caught having sex would be easier to deal with than having a reputation among her class as someone who falsely accuses of rape.

The vast majority of women at West Point dedicate an enormous amount of time trying to avoid the negative spotlight and more on building goodwill with their classmates in a male-dominated environment, and a few of them do this by actively being the first to criticize other women and "be one of the guys."

An environment has been created in which women are not respected in the same way as their male counterparts. Sexist remarks, including rape humor, is open among male cadets, even in the most public of settings at the Academy.

The case has been made to me by several cadets that it's not the Academy at fault but the cadets, themselves, and although I can personally vouch that the vast majority of officers at West Point care about this issue and do what they can, certain instances stand out to me that many, including those with the most power, seem to not care all that much or at least, their actions indicate that.

Last year, a football player at the Academy was out-processing and e-mailed a naked picture of a woman he was dating to a ton of his friends, who e-mailed it to their friends, etc. Reportedly, there were grounds for doling out punishment for sexual harassment on a great number of cadets, so many that the the Commandant at the time, BG Ted Martin, "swept it under the rug".

More recently, the entire Army Men's Rugby team was brought up on a misconduct board for innumerable instances of sexual harassment. Each week, an e-mail was sent out on the team distro with the "highs and lows" for the previous week and were regularly laced with overtly sexual remarks about team member's girlfriends or just women at the Academy.

Pictures were taken of women on campus for this purpose and often doctored to be sexually suggestive. Other pictures were of naked women, unknowing that their boyfriend was circulating photos of them among the team. E-mail threads full of sex jokes about these women, including rape comments, were a weekly thing. Racist remarks were also an occasional theme.

Do I think every member of the team vocally participated in these threads? No because I know some of these guys, and they're great people, but they also did nothing to stop this. Something like this occurring at a typical college wouldn't be right, but this is different. This is West Point. These are future officers who are going to have to make tough ethical decisions and go against the grain at times.

And that's why it troubles me that it took someone outside the team to report their actions.

But what troubles me more is the response of the cadets (and the Academy). The misconduct board took place, last week, and instead of postponing graduation for all involved to the end of the fall semester, which would have been the appropriate action (if not expulsion), senior cadets are being allowed to graduate on time.

Their punishment? For the firsties (seniors): 60 hours (marching, back and forth, with a rifle on "the area"), loss of cadet rank and TEE leave (a few days off following finals), and a mandatory "respect mentorship" program. However, that program, normally taking between 6 and 18 months (it varies), has been shortened to 8 days to allow them to graduate on time.

None of this stays on their record following graduation. These are the kinds of actions that would get an officer easily court-martialed under UCMJ, but they're getting away with it, scot-free.

These are troubling enough, but it's when rapes and sexual assaults get covered up or go unreported that the failure of the Academy is most present.

During my plebe year, a classmate was raped. She told a civilian professor, who attempted to report it with her, but the case went nowhere. Why? Because the rapist is the son of an officer with ties to the Academy. Further, the professor's contract was not renewed, although it's unclear if that was related to the case. However, it was strongly suggested to me there was a direct relationship.

There are several stories of rape being covered-up that are unclear, and so, I'm choosing not to write about them here.

However, one theme that continually comes up with those at the Academy is the concern over alcohol playing a relationship with reporting rape. Because the consumption of alcohol is explicitly forbidden for the under two classes and for everyone on the main campus (away from the Cow Club and Firstie Club) and outside of designated special events, victims of rape face a tough choice: report the rape and take the punishment for alcohol consumption (which is severe) or simply let the rape go and avoid the trouble that comes with it, altogether.

So, decline to report the rape or suffer immensely from the punishment of drinking alcohol. Thus, for any predatory male cadet, it's a great protective action: get the victim to drink before forcing yourself on her, and then, not only will she get the inevitable backlash for "crying rape" but also punishment for consuming alcohol. Who would put themselves through that?

Listening to such stories isn't easy. A former cadet related to me the downward spiral she took after her own rape where alcohol was involved: intense guilt and shame, anger and hatred at herself for "being so stupid" and not seeing the warning signs the night she was raped and not fighting back and not being able to talk about it to anyone, lest she bring regulatory punishment on herself.

So, this 19 year-old who had barely drank a drop of alcohol before coming to the Academy starting drinking regularly to take away the pain. She would be separated for problems extending from this, and it was only after separation that she made her rape known, finally free of fear from punishment.

But what do the numbers say? Statistically, how widespread is rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment at West Point?

Last year, there were 15 reports (either restricted or unrestricted) of sexual assault at West Point, an increase of 33% from the previous year. According to a survey of the Service Academies, 11% of cadets/midshipmen who "experienced unwanted sexual contact" reported their assault, which likely means that an estimated 135 cadets experienced sexual assault during the 2011-2012 academic year.

According to the 2012 Service Academy Gender-Relations Survey, 49% of women and 8% of men at West Point said they experienced sexual harassment. 52% of women and 12% of men said they experienced unwanted sexual attention. 82% of women and 43% of men said they experienced "crude/offensive" behavior.

The most frustrating thing I hear when this is brought up is: "We're trying our best. There's no way we can get these numbers to zero."

It's as if calling attention to what is clearly a cultural problem, and West Point's top leaders' inability or unwillingness to address it, is grounds for accusations of "striving for perfection."

I don't want or expect perfection. The DoD's leaders have become infamous among activists for using the phrase "one sexual assault is one too many" when they appear before Congress or otherwise publicly address the latest sexual assault incident in the media.

But where is the action behind this? One thing that struck me as I was reading this year's report on sexual assault at the Service Academies was West Point's insistence that cadets are "taking ownership" of the effort to address sexual assault and harassment.

I don't want cadets taking ownership of this. The myriad of social alliances and cliques at West Point is infamous and frankly, makes it nearly impossible for cadets to adequately address this problem. It's how you end up with an entire sports team getting away with blatant sexual harassment just days before graduation. It's how you end up with this vicious cycle of unabashed sexism and sexual harassment in the open, cadets thinking allegations are overblown, and the disciplinary results against those cadets being clearly dismissive in tone against victims.

It's how you end up with rapists knowing if they can just get that woman drunk, the chances are almost nonexistent that she'll report her attacker.

I want the entire system to move outside the military, replaced by impartial civilians free of the subjective social restraint in the military that affects even some officers.

I want punishments for sexual rape, sexual assault, and harassment to be severe, as in: if you're found guilty of these, you're kicked out of the Academy and face criminal charges. No exceptions.

I want women and men who are victims, but drinking at the time of their assault, to be able to come forward without fear of reprisal.

It comes down to this: I love the Academy. I love its history, its priority of honor, and its constant focus on doing the right thing. How did sexual assault and harassment manage to get lost in that?

West Point is not only the greatest military academy in the world (and I would argue one of the best colleges), but it's supposed to be a bedrock of this country's honorable values.

"Duty. Honor. Country."

Statistically, alongside the honorable men and women graduating tomorrow will be many cadets who have raped others during their time at the Academy and many more who have sexually harassed others.

Why aren't we doing more to stop that?

CORRECTION (6/5/13): NO nude photos, reportedly, were in these threads. However, exploitative (and often doctored) photos of women on campus with overtly sexual captions *were* in the e-mails. On the other hand, Firsties (seniors) on the team regularly texted each other nude photos of women they were with.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/charlesmclymer

Twitter: https://twitter.com/cmclymer

"Woman" shouldn't be another word for sex.

Debbie Harry (via anonymousaesthetes.blogspot.com)

Linguistically, "woman" is not another word for sex, of course. But culturally, the two couldn't be more intertwined.

Breast cancer awareness? We have a "Save the Ta-Tas" campaign for that.

Clothing? Women should wear just enough to fit society's standard of sexual attraction and appearance but not so much to "attract" rapists (according to very uninformed "authorities" on rape and sexual assault).

Food? Diets. More diets. And more diets. Television. Radio. Print ads. Facebook. Everywhere: how to get or keep that sexy body for any number of reasons related to a woman's personal and professional life.

Actress/Singer/Reporter/Entertainer? Be as beautiful as possible, and please--oh, please--don't be overweight or over a certain age.

Military? One of the primary arguments of the last few years was that women can't be in combat roles because they will "distract" men.

Nudity? Breasts are very, very bad, and women should feel bad for having them. Please cover up when you're in public, regardless if you're breastfeeding or simply trying to enjoy the beach in the way your male counterparts do.

Were you raped or sexually-assaulted or harassed? If you're a woman, you must have done something wrong: drank too much, flirted too much, wore too little, breathed the same air as your rapist, etc. The credibility of your claim is based on your rapist's can't-help-himself-sexual-animal actions.

And the list goes on and on and on...

These are only based on what's been pointed out to me. As a man, I run in a world (mostly) free of sexual restraint.

My successes are my own, not because I supposedly slept with someone.

My medical issues aren't tied to their sexual importance.

The credibility of my opinion isn't based on the sexual identity of those listening.

My concerns are supposedly based on logical reasoning, not hormone-induced emotion.

The world is my sex-assumption-free oyster, unless I choose otherwise.

Last week, Angelina Jolie announced that she had made the incredibly difficult decision to undergo a double mastectomy (removal of the breasts) to avoid an 87% chance she would get breast cancer. Here were a few of the reactions, courtesy of HuffPostWomen:

"In other news, Angelina Jolie killed her breasts and the boners of millions of men today." - @TheIggies

"Rest in Peace Angelina Jolie's boobs. You were wonderful while you were with us. #gonnamissya" - @imreallypopular

"Angelina Jolie had something to get off her chest, Her boobs" - @kmoney8

These aren't isolated responses. This was a theme across social media when the announcement was made: too bad about Angelina Jolie's breasts a.k.a. my diminished sexual attraction to her.

Observing all this, I commented on the tragedy that the importance of women's healthcare (from reproductive rights to breast cancer) is always framed in the context of how men are sexually-attracted to women.

But I was wrong. Every hurdle faced by women, not just healthcare, somehow links back to male sexual attraction.

And look, I'm sexually attracted to women, and I love sex. But when the entirety of any woman's life experience is based on how men find (or don't find) them attractive, we've got a major problem.

Want other examples?

In the military, women's uniforms and appearance follow strict guidelines based on the need to "preserve femininity" while serving, or in other words, while women are serving honorably, we still want them to maintain some of that "sexual object" flair we expect of any other woman in the country.

Yet, in schools across the country, dress codes are enforced to prevent girls from distracting and tempting boys because, as with every other aspect of social interaction in the world, it is the responsibility of women to positively dictate the actions of men, right?

In the professional world (civilian or military), sex seems to dominate every woman's career track: successes are often falsely linked to sleeping around, failures can be the result of not being "Barbie" enough: a lack of smiles, laughing, arm-touching, and other general "feminine warmth" because a dearth of this must mean said woman is a "frigid bitch" and doesn't work well with others. 

Be somewhat sexy, but don't be too sexy. Be attractive enough to the eye but not so attractive to pull its gaze. Be "friendly flirty" like a good non-sexual, sexual object, but don't be "sexy flirty" like a bad sexual, sexual object a.k.a. "slut".

Even then, there seems to be a very tight line women walk to success but it's supposedly doable... unless the line is moved, which happens often.

And this is all without mention of the personal factors: women of a certain age without children or marriage *must* be lesbians, which *surely* means they hate men. Shun them. Demote them. "Convert" them to liking penis through sexual harassment at work.

Our social dictionary has defined women as primarily sexual beings and hinged their wants, needs, dreams and disappointments, triumphs and tragedies on their attraction to men.

When does it end?

Twitter: @cmclymer

Facebook: www.facebook.com/charlesmclymer