Controversy surrounds firing of Marines' female recruit battalion CO

[Tornicade]

The "blaming the victim" claim was in reference to her telling the women not to get drunk at a guy's place. To me, that's just sound advice, but some didn't see it that way.

And this was at Parris Island, so it was her toughening it up for all women regardless of MOS. But it obviously has some relevance to the issue of putting women in the infantry.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect she thinks that male and female recruits should be held to the same standards across the board.

While it's certainly possible to debate the merits of that, it's pretty clear that is not the direction that civilian leadership has gone. Because if the President or SecDef had ordered the same standards regardless of gender, the standards would already be the same.

Again the Armed forces were ordered to put women in place for combat units by 2016 or give them a reason why they shouldnt. each military service has handled this in their own way. this is evidenced by the training camps themselves.

The Marin base at Parris island is the only one that segregates the women. understaffed them and resisted attempts to improve the training.

after all in Haas mind its merely a trial.

The marines have been by far the most resistant. We will see the Civilian politician outlook when this case goes before congress.


BTW @Marcus Saying Women have no control over sexual assault or do have is not the same as saying its okay or excusing the assaulters Actions.
Women can certainly take steps to reduce the chance of being sexually assaulted by not placing themselves in situations where sexual assaults commonly happened. just like if one is compton theres things you can do to reduce your chance of getting mugged.

its also the miliitaries responsibility to educate their soldiers on dangers that can be encountered taking their post around the world or being on furlough in a strange country.

Women who have more than 4 drinks in one day are more likely to become a victim of sexual assault.
Dont drink 6% chance of being assualted.
have 4 or more drinks in a day 39 perent chance of getting sexually assaulted.

seems that not telline women they can control or impact their chances of being sxually assualted would be the disgusting thing.

we are way past the days when people let the assaulter off the hook because of "victim blaming"

Scientific study after sceintific study have found that young women can significantly control their chances of sexual assault.

 

[Sebastian]

Of note: 2 women have advanced to the second phase (of three) of Ranger School. The other 17 were dropped after multiple recycling. Ranger School is a very hard school for even the toughest guy.

Women in the Infantry and Cav is still a bad idea although they have been integrated in to the Artillery Branch (officers only) with few issues.

 

[Marcus]

I wasn't aware that the initial "victim blaming" comments were in regards to her telling people not to get drunk at some guy's place. If that's the case, then I fail to see what is wrong with what she said.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

she had 3 drill instructors. the other battalions had 5 each.

That doesn't make sense. A battalion has a hell of a lot more than 5 Drill Instructors. However, it is possible that fewer DI's are assigned to female companies because they tend to have fewer recruits, and often fewer platoons. The reason for the disparity wasn't explained in the article, though.

you also seem to go back to integration as slowing the men down.. Thats not the case at all they take the same hike at the same time. this doesnt hinder the male company

They all may start "the same hike at the same time", but that's not the point. The point is to finish together. You do those hikes to challenge the Marines physically and hopefully keepi the bulk of the unit together. It's for conditioning and the building of esprit de corps. So if you have an "integrated hike", with the female company joining the male companies, one of two things happen: Either 1) the female company will start breaking apart as more and more can't keep up with the pace, thus destroying the "esprit" element and resulting in a "failed hike", or 2) the hike is too slow to challenge the males and build their esprit, that would come from completing a demanding physical challenge.

The sort of third alternative is that before actually finishing, the column turns around, marches back the way they came, and picks up stragglers into the formation, then turns around again to complete the march. Although that doesn't actually fool anyone as to what really happened.

What you have here is a Senior Officer Haas putting an argumenaitive woman in her place. If Haas was really concerned about the womens complaints he would of followed the MCTE suggestion and done the survey that only allowed one entry per soldier.

Did you read any part of the actual investigation? I did. There are pages and pages of statements from her female subordinates absolutely ripping her. And it's not like just one or two. The majority said negative things about her, even some of the ones she thought would support her. There are a lot of redactions, but it's pretty clear that she even cut her own XO completely out of the chain of command and basically stopped talking to or even acknowledging her. And the term "gender bias" comes from the "Defense Employment Opportunity Management Institute" survey, not just from the Command.

The name of that survey makes me want to puke, but DoD policy has kind of been moving in that direction for awhile anyway Touchy-feely bullshit, but it is what it is.

The core (no pun intended) of the problem is on page 34 of that report. Essentially, she believed that female Marines should have to meet the same standards as male Marines. And not just for combat-arms training after boot camp, but for all recruits. And if females did not meet those standards, then she'd say things like they would never be respected by men, or shouldn't count themselves as successful, etc..

But as the investigation specifically noted, that is not Marine Corps policy, and she doesn't have the authority to change that. So even though Marine Corps policy is that a female recruit who completes boot camp should feel proud to consider herself a Marine, Lt.Col Germano thought, and said, the exact opposite. This created a shitload of problems with her subordinates who resisted what amounted to a command environment that contradicted policy.

This is why the claim that she was picked on because she was female is so without merit. At one point, after the final Crucible hike, she addressed a company of female recruits. Per policy, that is supposed to be a time of major congratulations/happiness for recruits, because it means they've met the standards the Marine Corps itself established to become "Marines". Instead, according to numerous witnesses, she minimized their accomplishments. At one point during the meeting, she asked any recruit who ran the PFT (3 miles) in 21 minutes or less to stand. Only one recruit stood. She then told the rest of the group that they shouldn't expect males to respect them or even consider them worthy of wearing the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor (symbol of being a Marine) if they couldn't do that. Other (female) officers present reported that the recruits' enthusiasm, high spirits, etc.. just evaporated when she said that.

Now, just imagine if it had been a male officer telling those female recruits that they weren't "real Marines", and that male Marines won't respect them because they can't meet that same standard. Massive shit would hit the fan pretty much instantly, and the NYT certainly wouldn't have been out front defending him.

The report itself is just interesting as hell to read, especially when you consider that just about every negative thing about her came from statements made by other females officers and NCO's. And that shouldn't really surprise anyone because she's demanding that they meet standards that most of them simply can't meet physically.

Look personally, I actually agree with her position. To the extent the Corps needs fill certain non-combat duties, fill them with Navy personnel of either gender. Everyone who wants the title of "Marine" should have to meet the same standards regardless of gender. But that is not Marine Corps policy, and never has been. It was "old school" thinking even back in the 80's. And if you adopted that policy, the percentage of Marines who are female would drop from about 7% to less than 1%. Civilian leadership would never approve that in a million years. The Corps already gets crap because it supposedly doesn't have enough women.

So even if she is right in terms of what the policy should be (which I admit is debateable), she was wrong to push that belief in violation of what the policy actually is.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Of note: 2 women have advanced to the second phase (of three) of Ranger School. The other 17 were dropped after multiple recycling. Ranger School is a very hard school for even the toughest guy.

And see, what the diversity advocates will say is "well, that's fair. Those women who complete the course should be allowed in."

The problem is that it is inefficient as hell. You simply cannot afford to put cadres through when the passing rate is going to be in the neighborhood of 10%. It's a waste of a training slot and a waste of staffing to have them in a school they are likely to fail. So unless the passing rate for women gets fairly close to that of men, it doesn't make sense from a military perspective unless there are particularly military reasons to have some females.

Women in the Infantry and Cav is still a bad idea although they have been integrated in to the Artillery Branch (officers only) with few issues.

Damn. That is just freaking strange as hell. What's the logic behind letting only female officers into artillery units? That's like wearing a sign that says "if shit gets bad, don't expect me to break any nails". Officers should be at least able to do everything their troops do, even if they normally won't be required to do it.

My unit got into a direct fire shootout with just the advance party present (that was fun) and I was humping rounds from the ammo truck to the gun line just because it was needed. Helped muscle-fuck gun trails on quite a few occasions as well. Officers that just stand there and watch when there is a physical task that could obviously use their assistance tend to earn the stink-eye.

 

[Tornicade]

Im not sure where you going here Q Tip.

The reports state that all the bbattalaions are the same size and that the women were alotted 3 instructers while the others were alotted 5. it doesnt matter how the army or navy or Aiir force does things. This is how they do it at Parris Island for the Marines

The MTCE investigated and said there were insufficient drill instructors Agreeing with the CO and disagreeing with the Training Commander.

Its pretty clear cut.

transitioning into the ranger school.

really your gonna talk about efficiency? over 40% dropout rate in ranger school for men. not really efficient.

the ranger school doesnt care about efficiencies. they care about making rangers who meet the ranger standard.

unlike the marines the women being trained is completely integrated and the women have the same standards as the men.

These initial numbers amongst women are a sample. The success rate would likely increase with each class

this isnt the best women can do. its the best they can do right now.

3 Women getting through phase 1 is 3 more women than they expected.

roughly 60% of all candidates who fail ranger school do so in the Assesment plan. The women passes 8 out of 19.
now 3 of 8 made it to through phase 1.
Granted these women 3 women did fail phase 1 twice before passing on to phase 1. but that only bolsters that a learing curve is in effect.

here is an excerpt form the article about it.
General Odierno went on to add that the problem the women were having was with patrolling. “Patrolling is something you learn from experience, and they just have not had the experience of doing it.”

Recommended: Cover Story Breaking military's ultimate glass ceiling? Women start Ranger training.
(“Patrolling” is when a military unit moving through terrain faces tactical challenges, including ambushes, enemy fire, and dealing with medical emergencies. Ranger School students are evaluated on how well they react to all of these scenarios, and whether they make it to their given objective.)

now the counter is that these are west point women and Chaplains and doctors have passed this course which has the Army looking at scoring and determining if it is subjective or objective.

How are the women doing with their peers..

The women have also received positive assessments from their peers, known as “peering well,” according to sources familiar with the Ranger School class.

“How did they [the women] do it?” says one military officer familiar with the course. “They wrote patrol orders for their squad mates. They made sure they were always carrying some of the squad equipment. They sleep less and hustle more. You know the deal.”

now the other 5 women still can make it to phase one i believe .

if these 3 women get past the mount phase. they are very likely to graduate.

your comparing overall success rates of thousands of soldiers who have attempted the program compared to a select group of 17 and making premature conclusions.

 

[gourimoko]

Sometimes when I read your posts @Tornicade , I feel sad, like... is he alright? Wtf is going on? Too much coffee or..?

 

[Tornicade]

Sometimes when I read your posts @Tornicade , I feel sad, like... is he alright? Wtf is going on? Too much coffee or..?

Thats probably just your disappointment that i am not anti women

Ps I dont drink coffee

 

[gourimoko]

Thats probably just your disappointment that i am not anti women

Lol... nice try.

I am genuinely curious to know.. what the fuck is going on... but, we don't gotta talk about it.. it's cool.

 

[The Oi]

Sometimes when I read your posts @Tornicade , I feel sad, like... is he alright? Wtf is going on? Too much coffee or..?

He's one of my favorite posters for about 7-8 lines.

I generally scan his posts for the areas with the fewest commas per square sentence and pick out the general idea of his argument. It's rarely convincing, but usually entertaining.

Now that doesn't mean I don't wonder about his welfare. I absolutely do. But it does mean that he's not only more tolerable, but it also reduces his lack of readability.

 

[Tornicade]

dont know what you guys are talking about, Jigo
Im not sure what this is
Do i make some syntax errors and typos Aye
but I have no problems if you guys wanna bitch

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Im not sure where you going here Q Tip.

I'm going with facts, dude. It's frustrating because you're spouting stuff that isn't factual.

The reports state that all the battalions are the same size and that the women were allotted 3 instructors while the others were alloted 5.

What "report" are you talking about? The article, or the investigation listed in the article? Because neither states that the battalions are the same size. So did you just make that up, or what?

Here are the actual facts: The three male battalions have four companies each, average of six platoons per company, 60-80 recruits per platoon.

4th Battalion (female) has only three companies, two platoons, 50-60 recruits per platoon. Read it for yourself:

http://www.mcrdpi.marines.mil/Units/RecruitTrainingRegiment.aspx

Now just look at the disparity. 24 platoons per male battalion, but only 6 platoons per female battalion. And, the male platoons are larger. So your claim that the battalions were the same size is wildly off.

really your gonna talk about efficiency? over 40% dropout rate in ranger school for men. not really efficient. the ranger school doesnt care about efficiencies. they care about making rangers who meet the ranger standard.

Exactly. And when 90% of women drop out, they're going to be making fewer Rangers who meet that standard than they would if all those slots were taken by men who pass at a much higher rate.

unlike the marines the women being trained is completely integrated and the women have the same standards as the men.

You have completely confused two entirely separate issues. Congratulations.

Lt.Col. Germano is at boot camp. Ranger school is an advanced course for soldiers that comes after boot camp, and this is sort of an experiment they're running. If you want a comparator, try the Marine Corps sending women through it's Infantry Officer's Course, which is also "completely integrated" and the "women have the same standards as the men." Although, all 29 women who have tried to get through IOC have failed as well. Which means there would be about 22-23 (taking into account failure rates of males) fewer infantry-qualified Lts. than there would have been had those spots not been wasted on women to satisfy political agendas.

your comparing overall success rates of thousands of soldiers who have attempted the program compared to a select group of 17 and making premature conclusions.

No, what I actually said was:

So unless the passing rate for women gets fairly close to that of men, it doesn't make sense from a military perspective unless there is a specific military need for females in those particular jobs.

And of course, since the Army has gotten along perfectly fine for decades without putting women in Ranger units, I suspect the motivation behind this is not military efficiency, but pure gender politics. So, if there is significant improvement in the passing rate for women, then you'd at least get over that hurdle. But if not, then it's a waste of time and assets.

 

[Tornicade]

I'm going with facts, dude. It's frustrating because you're spouting stuff that isn't factual.



What "report" are you talking about? The article, or the investigation listed in the article? Because neither states that the battalions are the same size. So did you just make that up, or what?

Here are the actual facts: The three male battalions have four companies each, average of six platoons per company, 60-80 recruits per platoon.

4th Battalion (female) has only three companies, two platoons, 50-60 recruits per platoon. Read it for yourself:

http://www.mcrdpi.marines.mil/Units/RecruitTrainingRegiment.aspx

Now just look at the disparity. 24 platoons per male battalion, but only 6 platoons per female battalion. And, the male platoons are larger. So your claim that the battalions were the same size is wildly off.



Exactly. And when 90% of women drop out, they're going to be making fewer Rangers who meet that standard than they would if all those slots were taken by men who pass at a much higher rate.



You have completely confused two entirely separate issues. Congratulations.

Lt.Col. Germano is at boot camp. Ranger school is an advanced course for soldiers that comes after boot camp, and this is sort of an experiment they're running. If you want a comparator, try the Marine Corps sending women through it's Infantry Officer's Course, which is also "completely integrated" and the "women have the same standards as the men." Although, all 29 women who have tried to get through IOC have failed as well. Which means there would be about 22-23 (taking into account failure rates of males) fewer infantry-qualified Lts. than there would have been had those spots not been wasted on women to satisfy political agendas.



No, what I actually said was:

So unless the passing rate for women gets fairly close to that of men, it doesn't make sense from a military perspective unless there is a specific military need for females in those particular jobs.

And of course, since the Army has gotten along perfectly fine for decades without putting women in Ranger units, I suspect the motivation behind this is not military efficiency, but pure gender politics. So, if there is significant improvement in the passing rate for women, then you'd at least get over that hurdle. But if not, then it's a waste of time and assets.

About time you showed your work.

What would lead you to suspect it was purely political? hmmm perhaps a congressional mandate.


You gotta start somewhere.. previously women marines were trained to serve in support position now they are mandated a right to join combat units.


so these are trials and test..

If a military service opts to not use women in combat units they have to have to present a valid reason. Is congress gonna accept that women outperforming expectations while meeting qualification for Elite officer courses and Ranger training but not being able to fully complete it is gonna hold any sway? I doubt it

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

About time you showed your work.

Wish I could say the same, but you haven't actually done any.

You didn't answer my question. To what specific "reports" were you referring when you said that Germano's 4th Battalion was the same size as the others?

What would lead you to suspect it was purely political? hmmm perhaps a congressional mandate.

No. If you think it is Congress that has mandated this, you are misinformed again.

You gotta start somewhere.. previously women marines were trained to serve in support position now they are mandated a right to join combat units.

You still don't get it.....

It is one thing to say that those specific women who want to enter combat MOS's should have to meet male standards. That's what is happening at IOC and Ranger school.

It is entirely different, and would be a direct violation of policy, to require all enlisted female recruits, regardless of MOS, to meet male standards in Marine boot camp. You'd lose at least 80% of female recruits if you did that. Unless you lowered the male standards.

If a military service opts to not use women in combat units they have to have to present a valid reason. Is congress gonna accept....

It is not up to Congress. Congress did not order this. All Congress did was was lift the legal prohibition on women in those units. That left it in the hands of the President.

....that women outperforming expectations while meeting qualification for Elite officer courses and Ranger training but not being able to fully complete it is gonna hold any sway? I doubt it

Well that's one thing you may be right about that. It is entirely possible that the Administration will order the military to accept women into combat MOS fields and elite combat units even if they cannot complete the required courses. I don't believe for a moment that military effectiveness is much of a priority for them.

 

[The Oi]

Someone make this thread interesting again.