The battle against Stolen Valor rages
JP Lawrence, a National Guard Sergeant, Iraq veteran and a grad student at Columbia University, has been emailing with us for few months. The result is this article in Westword about Stolen Valor, some of our triumphs and one of our failures. He quotes from some of our posts as well as the questions he asked us. Not only did he interview us, but he talked to Doug Sterner and Mary Schantag about the roots of the stolen valor investigators and our battle against valor thieves. I could quote from the article, but that would only take away from JP’s hard work, so you should click over and read the long article for yourself
Category: Stolen Valor Act
Awesome article. Well worth the read.
Also some interesting links within.
Keep up the good work JP
Well done article. One of the primary draws of this site is posers are not thrown up as meat until all of the research and claims are vetted. When the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps was selected, it was hard for me to keep my mouth shut about no combat action ribbon. But I didn’t know him or his history. Unfortunately, it seems that the new climate in the 9999 community is joint experience and college degrees (he has a Master’s Degree) and gentle derision of one “one trick ponies” (Sergeants Major with multiple deployments to Iraq and the Stan doing what Marines do; at least those Marines not pursuing master’s degrees).
The primary thing drawing me to this site are the people. For the most part, like me, veterans with a short fuse for valor thieves. I have also stolen some fantastic lines from some of you that I have added to my repertoire.
There was an article?? Words and stuff? I’m stuck on the photo of Ms Lowery.
Who isn’t? But, yeah, there is a full article with words and all.
Didn’t see any article ….
Yes, the lady is quite attractive. However, I’d have liked the first photo of Ms. Lowery better had Ms. Lowery either (1) worn the uniform properly, or (2) worn something else in its place.
If you’re going to be photographed wearing the Army’s uniform for use in a publication or article, IMO you should wear it properly. Or you shouldn’t wear it for the photo.
Not sure how I feel about that. I tend to agree, but I also see a lot of people wearing their old flight jacket, field jacket or what a Navy guy told me was a SWO jacket.
I don’t do that myself, but somehow it seems ok to me to wear a uniform item that you were authorized to wear. You are correct that it violates AR 670-1.
That said, she is doing this out of respect and pride, and she isn’t wearing anything that she didn’t earn. Technically, she is only authorized to wear service and dress uniforms to formal events, but that is sort of a vestige of another era when people dressed up more and more often.
The furthest I will go is to wear my wings on my lapel, especially if I know I will be around a bunch of legs. I have even worn an old 504th PT shirt to the gym (my joke is that I can still fit into this shirt after 20 years- I was fat back then too).
I want to agree but then I remember it’s the U.S. Army and on a daily basis you see Army derps in airports laying on the ground like bums in uniform and it hits me. The picture isn’t as disrespectful than what is common place.
Also bewbs.
😀
i wouldn’t want to be,
another fancy-pants marine,
I’d rather be a dogface Soldier like I am…
We have a winnah and new champion of the “Hot-Lips Houlihan Look-Alike Contest 2015”.
Excellent article, and nice photos.
Very good article. One thing left out that I wish had been addressed is the fact that very often, as we here know, stolen valor is just the tip of the iceberg.
A good article… right up to the point where the young Captain whines about sexism. Then her credibility crashes. The reaction to her claims was entirely predictable. She is after all, one of the handfull of female officers in the history of the United States who has the distiction of leading a infantry unit. So why the sexism claim? I’m glad she was able to clear her name, and good on her for her achievements, but she lost me when she waved the victem card.
Sexism did play a part in the responses she received because a bunch of internet retards automatically assumed she was a liar without any way of knowing what the truth was because no woman could lead an infantry platoon, except when they do under circumstances like this.
She was singled out as a woman making a claim by people who had no fucking idea what the truth was.
When Lowery woke up the next morning, she found hundreds of vile comments on her Facebook page, calling her a liar, a whore, a cunt.
That is not the language of a male who believe that the woman is his equal but is a poser, it’s the language of someone who needs to use terms of denigration unique to women in order to express their viewpoint which was completely wrong as it turns out.
She was a victim of assholes who didn’t know what the fuck they were talking about.
I’ve no problem with her using the word victim because she was in fact victimized by a low intellect group of jerkoffs acting in haste which is never the appropriate response.
Liars are liars, if you don’t call male liars testosterone fueled prick bastards calling a woman a lying cunt means you have some issues whether you realize it or not.
I believe her assessment to be spot on, I of course understand your mileage will most certainly vary as well it should. But I thought I would offer a reason that makes sense to me as to why the word sexism and victim are appropriate in this scenario.
No offense intended, my apologies if this seems to be an offense directed to you. That was not my intent.
I disagree. She received the exact same response a male would have received for making a claim the seemed ludicrous. Look at the comments on this blog in regards to male stolen valor suspects. The same insults are launched here constantly, but they are launched at males. So, as I indicated above, she was 100% vindicated, but the reaction was consistent with the abuse that would have been heaped upon a male in a similar situation. So yes, she lost a huge amount of credibility a soldier and an officer, in my eyes for trying to fly the victim flag. If you expect to be treated differently than your fellow soldiers, simply because you’re a woman, than perhaps there is a problem with your perception of the world.
Fair enough, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Actually, we’ve had a smallish number of female posers featured here for making rather outlandish claims. They didn’t get “handled with kid gloves”.
Monica Lewinsky recently gave a talk in Norway in which she stated, “How does it feel to be torn to pieces digitally?” True story.
Why did her credibility crash? She never lied- and the reaction to her TRUE claims was completely wrong.
You are essentially saying that while her accusers were wrong, their insults were justified because they thought they were right.
The fact that people on this blog do the same thing to males all the time to actual posers doesn’t make it right.
In fact, look at the comments of those that acknowledge that she was unjustly accused. Quite a bit of it is sexist.
Negative ghost rider. I’m saying that she suffered the exact same abuse a male would have suffered. To claim it was sexism is a cop out and typical. But I’m just a fancy pants Marine, so I guess I’m just not up on pandering to females. Go ahead, call me s dinosaur, cause it would be true.
Reddevil makes a good point. Typically, when a poser is revealed, it is after quite a long list of checks to prove the person is a poser. If they are posted here as a poser, but then are able to prove their claims true, there is typically a redaction and apology.
She posted proof upon proof, but was still called vile things because the vigilantes (in this case the term is probably used correctly) knew in their little hearts that women could never ever lead real Infantry soldiers. So, they continued with their vitriol.
That’s the difference. Here, when someone is exonerated, we don’t continually throw stones at them. Heck, we usually stop throwing stones if someone just goes away.
As I recall, Flag – the issue died fairly quickly after GOV posted their update backing the lady. Only a few fools and tools continued after that point.
You’ll never rid the world of fools and tools.
I think sexism is worse now than it was when I was in the Navy. Some of it is generated by fear of competition. You know, jealously guarding that place in line.
At the same time, Ms. Lowery should have learned to grow a very thick skin and should have expected that kind of reaction, not because she’s a female officer who did something unusual, but because social media and the internet provide a space for it.
I say this based on my own experience with sailors who were posted to a shore duty station after spending extended periods of time on sea duty, and whose working relationships with women consisted of finding the nearest bar in Olongapo or Yokosuka. The Marines I knew were a whole lot nicer to me than sailors were.
I don’t think Lowery deserved what she got, but neither do I think she should have hollered ‘victim’. It was bullying by a bunch of presumptuous jackasses based on what they thought they knew. And so what?
If you intend to put your life on the internet, you’d better have a thick hide AND a sense of humor AND some quick repartee.
That is all.
The picture speaks volumes to how she uses her platform.
No argument with that, Green Thumb, but it was what happened prior to the news photo that I was addressing.
No worries.
Excellent piece–and the article is very good, too.
+100 😀
I am totally confused to what the point was for that alluring photo in this article. Maybe I’m just getting too damn old, but using the uniform that way is really inappropriate from someone complaining of sexism in the military. Besides, now you can’t show the article to anyone because you will be charged with a SHARP violation. Seems more self promotion (and NOT to CPO)than really caring about the issue. Don’t throw too many pointy objects at me. Just sayin’…
You got it right. Wear a uniform like that and your argument about sexism falls on deaf ears. I don’t think it was her looks that got her to where she is, but hard work. And yes, she’s bragging now, just not sure if its her looks or record she’s bragging about.
My guess would be both, JimW. And I’m OK with her being proud of both. But as I said above: I’m not OK with her wearing uniform items like they were lingerie, or using them as a photographic prop.
She’s attractive enough that that fact would have come through had she worn the uniform properly; she didn’t need to wear the jacket unzipped and disheveled to attract attention. I’d have also frankly have expected a former officer to show a bit more respect for the uniform, too.
Bottom line: if you’re gonna wear the uniform – even as a vet after you’ve gotten out – IMO you should wear it correctly. If you’re not going to wear it properly, wear something else instead.
The uniform issue aside, she complains about sexism and to an extent, negative personas and views on/of women.
But her outfit objectifies women on so many levels. And before I get crushed on this, I have checked with a few “liberal feminists” and they agree.
Agreed. I felt she was unfairly treated on the internet, but when you use your uniform as a prop for the equivalent of a sexy glamor shots portrait, you lose the right to call others out for sexism.
I agree but I’m all in for the photo’s. I’d have to see more of her in different poses to make an informed and final decision
I’m not confused by any of it.
I’ve seen the door swing in both directions. It started with the ‘dress for success’ super-conservative look if you wanted to be taken seriously in the 1970s, where some clothing made even attractive women look mannish, followed by a slow return to more feminine clothing in 1990s and early 2000s, to what seems now a concerted effort to objectify women in every possible way, including clothing.
There was no reason for the photographer for that article to ask Lowery to dress like a trollop, if it was his idea. She was heavily made up in the photograph with the zippered jacket and she’s wearing a scoop-neck leotard that emphasizes the first thing you guys all look at. In the second photo, she’s wearing the same top and skintight jeans. What does that say? It say ‘look at me’.
In her view, she may think she looks cool, but in my view, she’s presented herself as an object. Am I supposed to take this seriously? I can’t.
If the only photo available of her online was that of her next to the Humvee, then I’d agree that there was ‘sexism’ involved in those complaints thrown at her. That apparently was not enough, hence the other two photographs. And I agree that she should not have used her camo jacket the way she did. There is no way of knowing if it was her idea or the photographer’s. Nor do I know what else she posted on her FB page.
But don’t whine to ME about sexism and male chauvinist piggery when you present yourself this way.
And if you are going to put your stuff on the internet, as I said earlier, you’d better grow a thick skin, and quickly, too.
“…and she’s wearing a scoop-neck leotard that emphasizes the first thing you guys all look at.”
You’re right, that color really does bring out her eyes. 🙂
For some reason, I get nothing when I try to open the link…
I don’t know.
That was a great article and well worth reading. The problem I had and have with Mrs. Lowery is that she claimed that “she led and infantry platoon in Iraq” without saying it was guarding a prison. That left the impression she led door kickers down the streets. There is nothing wrong with what she did and she should know as a journalist the power of words and the impressions they leave on people.
To complain about sexism while all dolled up with cleavage hanging out is absurd.