Female Officer Fails To Make Military Cuddly Enough For Women, Is Dismissed
Cathy Young writes at Newsday about U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Kate I. Germano, dismissed because of accusations of "hostile, unprofessional and abusive" behavior toward recruits.
Female recruits, that is.
Whom she felt should have to meet a few standards and not have lesser standards applied to them than are applied to men. For example:
When Germano took over as commander of an all-female battalion of recruits on Parris Island, she discovered that 21 percent of those recruits failed to meet qualification standards at rifle marksmanship, compared with 7 percent of male recruits.Traditionally, lower standards for women in this area (in which women are capable of achieving the same skills as men) had been tacitly accepted as the norm. Germano would have none of it. She set out to raise women's rifle qualification rates -- and, in a year, improved them from 79 to 91 percent.
In other areas, too, Germano pushed higher standards and equal expectations for women.
She also didn't let women have...yes...chairs!...at the end of a training course, in case the poor dears were tired, while men were made to stand.
Some officers described her as "firm but fair." But some found her approach too authoritarian and even abusive. Apparently, one of her transgressions was telling female trainees the men would not respect them or take orders from them if they could not meet high standards of physical performance. A report obtained by the Marine Corps Times claimed that such a message "reinforced gender bias and stereotypes."Apparently, Germano also deviated from the party line on sexual assault by emphasizing prevention and telling trainees that heavy drinking put them at risk. This led some women to claim they would not feel "safe" reporting an assault.
After complaints from some recruits, there was an investigation and a command climate online survey, completed by about two-thirds of the battalion, in which half of the respondents said the leadership failed to promote a climate of respect and trust. Germano says the complaints came from disgruntled low performers and the survey was skewed because it allowed multiple voting.
Germano's supporters say she was penalized because male commanders were put off by her bluntness and her aggressive efforts to promote coed exercises. The Times followed its report on her ouster -- which omitted the complaints about her supposedly "victim-blaming" message on sexual assault -- with an op-ed criticizing the Marines' "culture of hypermasculinity" as an obstacle to women. But it seems that what Germano ran into was a culture of hypersensitivity.
Imagine! The HORROR! Shooting a rifle is hypermasculine!
There is absolutely no institution that incessant whiners can't bring down. What a shame these poor dears will discover that not only the enemy, but the indigenous people of their area of deployment do not give a DAMN about them.
No atmosphere of respect and trust? Those things are EARNED, not granted. This is probably an alien concept to any PC crowd brimming with self-esteem gained from a shelf-ful of "Participant!" trophies.
Radwaste at July 25, 2015 2:42 AM
Radwaste: "Imagine! The HORROR! Shooting a rifle is hypermasculine!"
Apparently shooting it skillfully is thought to be so. Or more like felt to be so.
Ken R at July 25, 2015 3:20 AM
But it seems that what Germano ran into was a culture of hypersensitivity.
OR, perhaps the members of the battalion who had been, let us say, underperforming (lazy?) before, wanted to continue in their old ways and knew they would be unable to with an actual commander.
Real life isn't a movie where the new commander comes along and inspires everyone to suddenly work hard and excel.
If this were a company of men, this would be an obvious conclusion. Why not women?
DrCos at July 25, 2015 3:33 AM
Who would have realized that 19 -20 year olds being pushed to their limits would decide, that given a choice, they would choose to not be pushed to their limits.
It's not like they were training for war or anything.
Bob in Texas at July 25, 2015 5:46 AM
Since Global Climate change is considered our greatest national security threat, why would a woman Marine need to shoot a rifle?
Bill O Rights at July 25, 2015 6:34 AM
The reason why it is considered a *security* threat is because it will create more conflicts.
Given everything we hear about female athletic performance, I am a bit surprised that the female recruits weren't naturally better marksmyn.
google seems to agree that many with experience also think women are better marksmyn.
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+women+better+marksmen
jerry at July 25, 2015 7:14 AM
In the real world of combat, if you can't shoot you die. If you can't carry a full pack with ammo and water and food, you die. The military is not merely symbolic, like say posturing in front of a classroom is or going on TV.
But of course the people pushing these lowered standards won't be there to carry your wounded a$$ off the battlefield, so you will lie there and bleed to death.
Craig at July 25, 2015 9:38 AM
Women and better NATURAL shots then men due to their lower center of gravity and other physiological factors. Likewise, when training females there is a greater tendency for them to listen as do as instructed, whereas men need to be told "Why" to perform a task women tend just to do things step by step, assuming you know what you are doing when you inform them of the steps.
That being said, the military has never been all that concerned with getting the females trained to an acceptable standard. In the '80's we had a First-Sergent (female type) who had never qualified with any firearm in 17 years of service. They assigned my Father as her instructor and he had her at Sharpshooter (2nd level) in 3 days. The problem was that everyone had simply said "She won't need it" and kicked her up the line. Dad said "Bulls--t, she simply needs to be taught" and did it.
Women simply need to demand excellence rather than lower standards in these kind of tasks. If you want to be a tanker you need to crank-track (repair the treads on the vehicle), I have never met a woman who had the strength and stamina to do so. I COULDN'T DO IT, so I don't belong in one either. The Feminists of course do not want excellence, the want mediocrity that they may demand special privilege.
warhawke223 at July 25, 2015 9:41 AM
While I agree with holding equal expectations as a general "rule," exceptions do exist. I admire her approach.
I think U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Kate I. Germano made a fatal mistake by failing to ensure that she was not feared to the point of hatred as referred to in Machiavelli's The Prince.
justin at July 25, 2015 10:52 AM
Maybe I am an exception to the rule, but I would never expect different standards or treatment from the men when we are both trying to do the exact same thing. It's actually insulting. If I'm running or training a course with them my goal is to push through and finish better than them to show them up and prove I can hold my own. I don't want a chair to sit in if no one else gets one. I don't want my passing to be based on lower scores than them. If it is, then it cheapens me and my worth and makes me to be viewed as weaker whether it is true or not. If women truly wanted to be equal to men they would stop pushing for or accepting lower standards and special accommodations.
BunnyGirl at July 25, 2015 11:25 AM
What BunnyGirl said. I don't want it made easier for me because I'm a girl.
Daghain at July 25, 2015 12:06 PM
BunnyGirl I partially agree with you.
Men & women are more alike than we are different. So we should have equal expectations for most things. The things that we should have different expectations about are the exceptions and both sexes need to be mature and realistic about that.
I don't measure my "self worth" feel "weaker" or get surprised when the opposite sex can perform a job better than me. I respect that they are capable (at whatever they put their minds to), neither should you.
justin at July 25, 2015 12:24 PM
BunnyGirl I partially agree with you.
Men & women are more alike than we are different. So we should have equal expectations for most things. The things that we should have different expectations about are the exceptions and both sexes need to be mature and realistic about that.
I don't measure my "self worth" feel "weaker" or get surprised when the opposite sex can perform a job better than me. I respect that they are capable (at whatever they put their minds to), neither should you.
justin at July 25, 2015 12:25 PM
I personally don't feel devalued if I can't do something, but on the other side of it, others view your accomplishments and position as if you didn't really earn it when the standards are not the same, as if you are only there due to an unfair advantage.
BunnyGirl at July 25, 2015 1:46 PM
they have accepted the dual standard at the top [CIC], and will require it being pushed down...
and like a bayonet charge into heavy machine guns, this will not change until there are heavy casualties.
It's very sad.
SwissArmyD at July 25, 2015 3:57 PM
My dad was a marine-drafted for Vietnam. I thought I might enlist back in my late teens. He got SUCH a laugh out of that, thinking what I'd go through. He said the female drill instructors were the worst-they'd made it through so they had no intention of being easier on you, or being nice cause you were a girl and maybe you really couldn't do ___ number of pushups, etc. He said the males might go easier on the female recruits, but not the female instructors, if anything they were meaner and harder on girls than boys
Guess times have changed. Not for the better, I say. People need to make it through shit, so they know they can, before the real shit happens.
momof4 at July 25, 2015 6:05 PM
Since Global Climate change is considered our greatest national security threat, why would a woman Marine need to shoot a rifle?
To take out Global Climate change with one shot.
JD at July 25, 2015 7:40 PM
I need to dig up an article I read a while back... student evaluations are basically useless, high marks go not to the professors who taught them the most material which the students actually absorbed, but to those who give high grades and bring in food.
NicoleK at July 26, 2015 4:36 AM
Nicole, that reminds me of a stunt I was part of when I was an undergrad. We had a calculus instructor who was an adjunct. She was well liked and, thinking back, I still think she was a pretty good instructor (much better than some full professors who had more knowledge, but couldn't communicate with students worth a damn). Near the end of the quarter, someone in the class who had a part-time job with the university admin found out, by accident, that our instructor's contract was not going to be renewed. That pissed us off. So on the final day of the class, when the student evalutions were handed out, the entire class got together and we all gave her top ratings in every category. We figured that if she wasn't going to be retained, at least we could give her a royal send-off.
Her contract was renewed. The story that got back to me later was that it was obvious to the administration that we had rigged the survey (no surprise). But they were impressed enough that the entire class would go to that trouble that they decided to retain her.
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2015 7:04 AM
I have taught dozens, maybe hundreds, of first-time women shooters as part of the NRA's 'Women on Target' initiative. Fabulous program, by the way - support your local program, or go to it, your choice.
My experience is that first-time women shooters are immediately better than comparable men - they listen to instruction, make the necessary mental connections, they usually don't have bad prior habits to unlearn, and generally have less to prove in a group setting than men do. I have a standing wager that I can teach any woman who has never shot before to hit station 8 skeet (notoriously the toughest bird on the course) in 20 rounds or less - I have had to pay out very few times indeed. With a suitable instructor and a suitable setting. there's no reason why women can't shoot every but as well as men, and likely better.
That Being Said, the USMC rifle qualification course is demanding of many more skills than just accuracy with a rifle. It's not just mere marksmanship, it involves shooting from a variety of challenging positions, at various ranges, under various other stresses (time, discomfort, very specific ways of handling the weapon, people yelling at you, etc, etc). So there's that. But I don't see any reason why women couldn't pass the course at rates comparable to men, given proper instruction. I don't see why pass-fail rates should be adjusted for women - the prime purpose of a Marine is to be an infantry soldier - but I don't see why the training can't be modified for women to get the desired result. It's the outcome we care about, the process by which it is obtained matters little.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 27, 2015 8:32 AM
Conan the Grammarian at July 28, 2015 4:01 PM
Leave a comment