Controversy surrounds firing of Marines' female recruit battalion CO

[The Human Q-Tip]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...corps-female-recruit-unit-commander/29763371/

A Marine officer who led the service's only all-female recruit battalion was fired amid complaints of a toxic leadership environment — but her supporters say she was only trying to make the unit better by holding women to tougher standards.

Lt. Col. Kate Germano, the former commanding officer of 4th Recruit Training Battalion at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, was found to be "hostile, unprofessional and abusive," according to a command investigation obtained by Marine Corps Times. She was relieved for cause on June 30 by Brig. Gen. Terry Williams, Parris Island's commanding general.

But officers who served with her say she was a blunt reformer who spearheaded efforts to improve recruit training regardless of gender, and that a vocal minority in the battalion undercut her achievements. Germano's tactics, for example, dramatically improved range qualification rates for female recruits.....

This is a pretty interesting article, and it's tough to know whether she was treated fairly or not. It's entirely possible that she was right to try to do what she did, but went about it in the wrong way.

Still, there is some stuff in here that is concerning, and sounds like the PC police have infected at least part of PI:

....On one occasion, the investigation found, she made comments during a sexual assault prevention brief that female Marines interpreted as victim-blaming, leading some to testify that it would make them feel less comfortable reporting a sexual assault within the command.

Germano also "reinforced gender bias and stereotypes" in the minds of her Marines by telling them on several occasions that male Marines would not take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they could not meet men's physical standards, the investigation found....

That latter part certainly is controversial, because Women Marines have never had to meet the same physical standards as men. But damn, in terms of training in boot camp, I don't see anything wrong with her trying to be a hard-ass, even if it does reinforce so-called "gender biases and stereotypes".

And there's more along the same lines:

The Parris Island command investigation and witness statements paint a portrait of Germano as a driven officer who could be abrasive and aggressive, and doggedly pursued the goal of unit improvement to the apparent alienation of at least some Marines in the command.

The document describes a May 9 Crucible hump conducted by the battalion's Papa Company, which finished about a half mile behind a male recruit company. Witnesses alleged Germano took the company to task in a meeting two days after the hike, saying it was the worst she'd ever seen and the Marines in the company should be as embarrassed as she was about it. She also told the Papa Company Marines company that they were responsible for the negative comments in the command climate survey and that she was tired of being blamed, the investigation states.

If the unit's members "focused on doing the right thing instead of running outside of [the battalion] talking about how mean she was and how horrible the command is, our command climate would be just fine," she told the unit, according to one member who was interviewed.

Another event that illustrates the tension between Germano's attempt at reform and the pushback from her unit came the same month, when she showed the short film "Throw Like a Girl," to a group of new Marines. Created for a Procter & Gamble advertisement that was screened during the Super Bowl, the video illustrates how many take the descriptor "like a girl" to mean weak or ineffective. The class then took a hard-edged turn, according to multiple witness statements, when Germano singled out Marines who couldn't perform three pullups or complete a physical fitness test's 3-mile run in less than 23 minutes.

Making these Marines stand, she told them they wouldn't be able to lead their male counterparts in the fleet, witnesses said.

It's a pretty tough issue, because a lot of the stuff she is saying is correct, but it cuts against the reality of choices made at the policy-making level. Yeah, male Marines are going to tend to look down on those who don't meet the same physical standards, just as they'll look down on other males who don't perform as well physically.

But actually coming out and saying that is going to ruffle some feathers.

 

[The Oi]

What a bunch of pussies.

 

[gourimoko]

What a bunch of pussies.

Lol..

Seriously though.. who gives a shit. Why is this a controversy? Oh wait, let me guess, this will somehow pivot into an anti-feminist rant?

Nvm...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What a bunch of pussies.

Heh. I've got a lot of sympathy for her simply because a fair number of women don't seem as willing to push themselves as hard as most of the men. Just a fact of training.

By January 2016, all branches of the military are required to fully gender-integrate their forces, or provide clear evidence saying why that cannot/should not. That means women in infantry units, etc..

That directive came down in January 2013, and the fact that it came down after the election is probably not coincidental because it has the potential to be controversial when it is actually enacted.
It may be pretty interesting when/if the arguments to keep women out of certain military specialties start being made. The most commonly stated public viewpoint is "well, if they can do the job, they should be able to", but that really begs the question of what the standards are/should be, who sets them, etc.. There are already complaints from some advocates for women that requiring the women to pass the existing tests is unfairly biased because the tests were designed for men in the first place.

I personally think it'd be fucked to let them in the infantry, but I'm kind of looking forward to the potential political shitstorm that might kickup between advocates for women, and any brass who are willing to state publicly that it's a bad idea.

 

[The Oi]

Lol..

Seriously though.. who gives a shit. Why is this a controversy? Oh wait, let me guess, this will somehow pivot into an anti-feminist rant?

Nvm...

How do you mean who gives a shit?

As in "why are these pussy chicks bitching about this?" Or "why is Tip posting this?"

 

[pr26]

Heh. I've got a lot of sympathy for her simply because a fair number of women don't seem as willing to push themselves as hard as most of the men. Just a fact of training.

By January 2016, all branches of the military are required to fully gender-integrate their forces, or provide clear evidence saying why that cannot/should not. That means women in infantry units, etc..

That directive came down in January 2013, and the fact that it came down after the election is probably not coincidental because it has the potential to be controversial when it is actually enacted.
It may be pretty interesting when/if the arguments to keep women out of certain military specialties start being made. The most commonly stated public viewpoint is "well, if they can do the job, they should be able to", but that really begs the question of what the standards are/should be, who sets them, etc.. There are already complaints from some advocates for women that requiring the women to pass the existing tests is unfairly biased because the tests were designed for men in the first place.

I personally think it'd be fucked to let them in the infantry, but I'm kind of looking forward to the potential political shitstorm that might kickup between advocates for women, and any brass who are willing to state publicly that it's a bad idea.

Yup, another gender-bait post I refuse to engage myself in. I just don't have the patience anymore at this point in my life.

I'll just say my Mom could beat up your Dad and preemptively "like" or "winner" anything Gouri says from here on out.

 

[gourimoko]

How do you mean who gives a shit?

As in "why are these pussy chicks bitching about this?" Or "why is Tip posting this?"

As in, it's not really news worthy..

Honestly, do you care? I don't.

It's just an non-news story designed to be used as a platform against feminism and women's rights.

EDIT: pr26 also quoted something I thought funny..

"Heh. I've got a lot of sympathy for her simply because a fair number of women don't seem as willing to push themselves as hard as most of the men."

Lol.

So yeah, this thread is a joke.

 

[gourimoko]

Yup, another gender-bait post I refuse to engage myself in. I just don't have the patience anymore at this point in my life.

I'll just say my Mom could beat up your Dad and preemptively "like" or "winner" anything Gouri says from here on out.

Agreed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yup, another gender-bait post I refuse to engage myself in. I just don't have the patience anymore at this point in my life.

I'll just say my Mom could beat up your Dad and preemptively "like" or "winner" anything Gouri says from here on out.

My point was that Lt. Col. is right about the effect of lower expectations on women. There is an expectation that the male Marines will bust ass and go until they drop. Therefore, they are more likely to do that, and their performance is higher. I am not in the least surprised that her being a hard-ass -- which essentially means holding the women to higher expectations than in the past -- results in higher female performance.

I'm not a proponent of gender-integration of the combat arms, but that point actually cuts against my argument. I think at least part of the lower level of female performance is due to bias. I saw it myself.

 

[Tornicade]

Either the physical demands and training of the military is a litmus of what is needed in times of war to ensure a soldiers safety or protect their fellow soldiers or its an arbitrary guideline set to give enlisted goals to achieve and progress in.

Thats the question that needs to be answered first.

What is it like1500 to 2500 soldiers a year are being discharged for not being deployable.

When the Military began scaling down recently the first thing hey targeted was overweight military personnel and those not considered in the physical shape to be deployed at anytime.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminis...delayed-again-for-female-us-military-members/

So much for equality. How are they going to perform under stressful combat conditions wearing 20-30 pounds of body armor, 50-60 pounds of gear, helmet, weapon and ammo, while bullets and RPG’s are flying?
Author Walter Williams in a 1999 article entitled “Feminization of the Military” reported on a study conducted at the women’s boot camp at Parris Island South Carolina which found that nearly half of all female recruits didn’t have sufficient strength to throw a hand grenade with enough distance to keep from injuring themselves.

Good god half of them cant even throw a grenade more than 50 feet.

These women are not deployable and the Military shouldn't even pretend that they are.

I have no problems with women in combat but if they are not military fit for combat .. they are just arent fit for combat.

Weed out those women who want to play soldiers and keep the ones who are soldiers

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Either the physical demands and training of the military is a litmus of what is needed in times of war to ensure a soldiers safety or protect their fellow soldiers or its an arbitrary guideline set to give enlisted goals to achieve and progress in.

Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.

Almost the very first thing that happens when physical standards are challenged in the civilian world (such as for cops and firefighters) is "do these standards actually measure what the person in that job is supposed to do"? So, you have to come up with a list of all the physical tasks they're suppose to perform (carry a 150lb dummy 100 yards, then down three flights of stairs, etc), and then set a standard. Often, the standard is set by coming up with that list of discrete tasks, then asking current cops/firefighters to do it, and set "passing" based on their scores.

The first problem the military has is that the number of tasks is virtually endless. Yes, technically a cannonneer with need to be able to lift a 130# round, etc.. But there is always more stuff that is unanticipated that crops up, where different kinds of physical strength really matter. And sometimes, things like pull-ups are just an approximation for that, though there's usually the standard obstacle course type of thing as well.

And the second thing is that where the standard is set can be at least partially based on a past practice of just trying to get the most fit people possible. For example, the Induction Course for Infantry Officers is just an incredible ball-buster. Deliberately. It's followed by high-intensity conditioning hikes, etc., that result in about a 20% washout rate among male Marine officers. Not one female has yet passed it.

But, is it really necessary to be able to march that fast, and carry that big a load? Can you prove the job "requires" that? I don't even know how you'd begin to answer that. My answer would be "well, we want them to go as fast, and carry as much, as possible" But I'm not at all sure that kind of answer will fit in with what the Pentagon is asking.

This female LtCol is doing something that pisses off both sides, which is normally tough to do. And she may even be right about what she's doing. She's trying to train her Marines to be as capable as possible, but it's pissing off some people.

And to top it off, her MOS is lawyer. How funny is that?

 

[Tornicade]

Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that.

Almost the very first thing that happens when physical standards are challenged in the civilian world (such as for cops and firefighters) is "do these standards actually measure what the person in that job is supposed to do"? So, you have to come up with a list of all the physical tasks they're suppose to perform (carry a 150lb dummy 100 yards, then down three flights of stairs, etc), and then set a standard. Often, the standard is set by coming up with that list of discrete tasks, then asking current cops/firefighters to do it, and set "passing" based on their scores.

The first problem the military has is that the number of tasks is virtually endless. Yes, technically a cannonneer with need to be able to lift a 130# round, etc.. But there is always more stuff that is unanticipated that crops up, where different kinds of physical strength really matter. And sometimes, things like pull-ups are just an approximation for that, though there's usually the standard obstacle course type of thing as well.

And the second thing is that where the standard is set can be at least partially based on a past practice of just trying to get the most fit people possible. For example, the Induction Course for Infantry Officers is just an incredible ball-buster. Deliberately. It's followed by high-intensity conditioning hikes, etc., that result in about a 20% washout rate among male Marine officers. Not one female has yet passed it.

But, is it really necessary to be able to march that fast, and carry that big a load? Can you prove the job "requires" that? I don't even know how you'd begin to answer that. My answer would be "well, we want them to go as fast, and carry as much, as possible" But I'm not at all sure that kind of answer will fit in with what the Pentagon is asking.

This female LtCol is doing something that pisses off both sides, which is normally tough to do. And she may even be right about what she's doing. She's trying to train her Marines to be as capable as possible, but it's pissing off some people.

And to top it off, her MOS is lawyer. How funny is that?

The examples i cited are basic military combat duties

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The examples i cited are basic military combat duties

Well, I hear you on the grenades. Had a couple of nasty experiences with them, both involving females.
And nobody disputes that you shouldn't be in the infantry if you can't throw a grenade. That's the easy call.

BUT, should all women automatically disqualified just because some can't throw a grenade? That's where the debate really is going to happen, including arguments about standards, tasks, etc..

And just on the bigger issue, what the hell is going to happen if one service makes one recommendation, and another makes a different one? Suppose the Army doesn't think it's warranted to integrate women in the infantry, but the Marines do? Or vice-versa?

 

[The Oi]

As in, it's not really news worthy..

Honestly, do you care? I don't.

It's just an non-news story designed to be used as a platform against feminism and women's rights.

EDIT: pr26 also quoted something I thought funny..

"Heh. I've got a lot of sympathy for her simply because a fair number of women don't seem as willing to push themselves as hard as most of the men."

Lol.

So yeah, this thread is a joke.

I don't care in that it doesn't affect
me and I'll forget we discussed this in a week or two.

But it's interesting to me. Based on the information presented in that article, I'd say that firing her seems unjustified. I'd even say it suggests that the women in this unit were thin-skinned in a culture where that isn't and can't be acceptable.

Victim blaming is totally unacceptable, but if these women had a problem with being told that the male troops wouldn't respect them if they couldn't complete physical activities to the same level as the men that the men wouldn't respect them...she's right.

A big part of coaching is hyperbole and mental games for those that need external motivation to get them to the next level in practice and to make the real thing seem easier than practice...minus the nerves and plus greater stakes.

Women in the armed forces need to be extra tough, just like (sorry but you know it's true), blacks and other minorities had to be even better than whites at anything they did as recently as one generation ago in order to be respected.

It's not great, but it's reality. Based on what I read, she was doing these broads a favor.

 

[Tornicade]

Well, I hear you on the grenades. Had a couple of nasty experiences with them, both involving females.
And nobody disputes that you shouldn't be in the infantry if you can't throw a grenade. That's the easy call.

BUT, should all women automatically disqualified just because some can't throw a grenade? That's where the debate really is going to happen, including arguments about standards, tasks, etc..

And just on the bigger issue, what the hell is going to happen if one service makes one recommendation, and another makes a different one? Suppose the Army doesn't think it's warranted to integrate women in the infantry, but the Marines do? Or vice-versa?

Amry , Navy , Marines, and air force all should have different standards . they serve different functions

There is men being dismissed from the army because they arent able to do these things or they can do these things but are to overweight to do so effectively.

This papa company for instance should be investigated. THe CO made a serious charge when she cited their interference on her command. if this doesnt happen between male divisions then it shouldnt happen between male and female decisions
perhaps the CO should of taken the stance if you dont meet these standards the women who do wont respect you on the field.