Men are faster,stronger and bigger than women. Matter of fact. This is why Rousey doesn't want "transgender people" in the women's league for UFC. Rousey is one Bad. But she would literally be killed or seriously injured if she fought a male of equal or near equal skill and weight. Any real athlete gets that.
Modifié par BioWareMod07, 14 juillet 2015 - 10:35 .
Mod edit: removed inappropriate language
Personally I think there are three issues here which seem to be getting conflated:
Firstly, theres the question of equal treatment. For me, in an organisation such as the army - especially for front line soldiers - then there definitely should be the same treatment to both men and women, and the same requirements of them. The nature of the job in question means that being able to meet the needs of the army in terms of your physical ablities is far more important than being sexually/religiously/ethnically etc. diverse. If being able to muster a sufficient number of suitably capable soldiers requires that the army consist overwhelmingly of men, then so be it.
However, there's a second matter which has nothing to do with the fact the the people in question are women, and thats the question of whether the aggressive "drill sargeant nasty" style of training is the most effective way to produce good soldiers. I know many western militaries - although, I've read that America is being slower to adopt such principles than many European nations - are moving away from the traditional, dehumanising form of training which aims to break the recruits down and reforge them into soldiers, instead focusing on a more positive approach - not beacuse of "whining", but beacuase they believe it makes for better troops. An environment in which you are being constantly belittled and abused might be good for churning out men to point a gun at the enemy, but it is not conductive to producing the kind of soldier our militaries want these days, nor is it conductive to forming good relationships and bonds within a unit of men (and/or women). it's not about changing the overall requirements to pass training, but the methods used to get the soldiers to the point at which they can pass. And don't misinterprest me here, I'm not syaing that soldiers need to be coddled or anything, training is and indeed must be hard. But subjecting them to constant emotional abuse during the training is not the best way to get them through it, and reflects very badly on those running the training. From that article, it seems that this particular training was done under the old style.
Finally, the third matter is whether the officer in question's exact actions were actually acceptable regardless of the overall culture of the training regime the soldiers were being put through. I don't know what the exact regualtions and such covering the US Marines are in these situations, so I can't say one way or another.
OK i need you to....
At the end of US Army basic training, I did my 2 mile run in 17 minutes. I would have done it faster if I hadn't slowed down briefly to yell encouragement to someone in my squad. Make it hurt, drill sergeant!
Nothing like talking with your battle buddy then watching them perk up and keep up tbh. I would have done better but I paced myself more in BCT than I do now. Didn't wanna risk injury or anything so I didn't have to go to sick call. Now I run 2 mile in 14.6 minutes, I've been trying to get it down to 14 exactly but life likes to throw paradoxes at you.
At least Fort Sill didn't have high humidity, but Oklahoma still sucks.
I did notice that the drill sergeants that were the toughest on recruits, cared the most about them.
Damn trainees in that article sound like they need to go make me sammiches instead. I'll get more use out of them.
"You can't handle the truth."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.
Women should not be in combat. Period.
They fought in the Red Army in WW2, in fact some of the best snipers during that war were women.
I am not okay with this and I'm not Jewish -- I'll just stare at your posts awkwardly for awhile.
Rich Evans has that effect on people.
Women should not be in combat. Period.
A bit too far no?
There was indeed more to this story.
Colonel Germano said her relationship with the commander of the training regiment, Colonel Haas, had started to go bad soon after she arrived.
She began contacting recruiting stations to detail why some recruits had failed basic training — information she thought would help prevent failures in the future.
According to her statement, included in a command investigation obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Colonel Haas told her to stop contacting recruiters, saying she was being overly aggressive and breaking the chain of command. She responded that he would not say she was “being overly aggressive if I were a male.”
The male battalions had five drill sergeants for each group of recruits, but the female battalions had only three. Colonel Germano pushed for more staff, saying her sergeants were exhausted and unable to function.
When Colonel Haas was not responsive, the investigation found, she went up the chain of command to request more staff, straining their relationship further and causing him to challenge all her command decisions.
He has held a longstanding grudge against me for disagreeing with him,” she said in her request for relief, “and is now looking for any reason to discredit me.”
In his statement to investigators, Colonel Haas agreed that their relationship “went south,” saying she disagreed with him over too many things and went over his head a number of times. “Making an argument is O.K. and encouraged, being argumentative is not,” he told an investigator.
Marine Commander's Firing Stirs Debate On Integration of Women in Corps
Her being sacked sounds like it was more linked to the personal conflict with a superior officer. Half of all respondents in the investigation saying her leadership did not promote a climate based on respect and trust is fairly damning. At the least it seems that her leadership style was divisive.
Also one thing that needs pointing out is that the people being interviewed in that investigation weren't recruits. She was in command of all the junior officers and Drill Instructors of the all female 4th Recruit Training Battalion. The complaints about her leadership style would have been coming from those junior officers and Drill Instructors.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the hand it sounds like she was getting results, as the female recruits' performance had improved in most areas while she was the recruit battalion's CO. However insubordination and 'jumping the chain' are big no nos in the military. While I have no problem with her contacting recruiters to find out while some of the recruits being sent to Parris Island were unprepared, when she was told to knock it off by the Colonel that should have been the end of it. Arguing with him and then going over his head to a superior officer on another issue when she didn't get the answer she wanted, was never going to end well.
There was indeed more to this story.
Marine Commander's Firing Stirs Debate On Integration of Women in Corps
Her being sacked sounds like it was more linked to the personal conflict with a superior officer. Half of all respondents in the investigation saying her leadership did not promote a climate based on respect and trust is fairly damning. At the least it seems that her leadership style was divisive.
Also one thing that needs pointing out is that the people being interviewed in that investigation weren't recruits. She was in command of all the junior officers and Drill Instructors of the all female 4th Recruit Training Battalion. The complaints about her leadership style would have been coming from those junior officers and Drill Instructors.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the hand it sounds like she was getting results, as the female recruits' performance had improved in most areas while she was the recruit battalion's CO. However insubordination and 'jumping the chain' are big no nos in the military. While I have no problem with her contacting recruiters to find out while some of the recruits being sent to Parris Island were unprepared, when she was told to knock it off by the Colonel that should have been the end of it. Arguing with him and then going over his head to a superior officer on another issue when she didn't get the answer she wanted, was never going to end well.
I am now mixed on this as well after you putting things into context. I think she was doomed to start honestly. She cared enough about the success and safety of her people, but should have let it go like you said.
It's a real shame. She sounds like she was really good at her job.
“Making an argument is O.K. and encouraged, being argumentative is not,” he told an investigator.
Does not compute.
And it's entirely possible the junior officers and DIs may have been dissatisfied with the command climate as was the term exactly because they were understaffed. If she pushed her staff to meet the standards of other recruit battalions despite having fewer staff to do all that work, it's no wonder people get stressed out, but in that case it's obviously a problem that she tried to adress with her superiour officer and for some reason he didn't care to remedy the problem. If I were to train people for potential combat deployment, I'd feel the obligation to train them properly, setting them up to standards that give them the best chances of survival if they ever get in the thick of it and not babysitting them by being lenient and if my superiours were not giving me the appropriate support in form of sufficient staff, I'd go over their heads to if they aren't responsive.
Because in the end, this isn't about a commander and her colonel, this is about the recruits. The latter are going to get hurt if they aren't properly prepared, not the colonel sitting in his comfy chair.
Without more context, what I'm feeling happened there is an uptight colonel who couldn't get his priorities straight and a commander who pushed things past the breaking point in order to give the recruits what they needed.
However insubordination and 'jumping the chain' are big no nos in the military.
Yes they are big no no's. I heard a few that did that when I was in the army and ended up getting a field grade article 15. These guys were nco's and not officers
Arguing with him and then going over his head to a superior officer on another issue when she didn't get the answer she wanted, was never going to end well.
It never does end well and never will. The military doesn't put up with crap like that
There was indeed more to this story.
Marine Commander's Firing Stirs Debate On Integration of Women in Corps
Her being sacked sounds like it was more linked to the personal conflict with a superior officer. Half of all respondents in the investigation saying her leadership did not promote a climate based on respect and trust is fairly damning. At the least it seems that her leadership style was divisive.
Also one thing that needs pointing out is that the people being interviewed in that investigation weren't recruits. She was in command of all the junior officers and Drill Instructors of the all female 4th Recruit Training Battalion. The complaints about her leadership style would have been coming from those junior officers and Drill Instructors.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the hand it sounds like she was getting results, as the female recruits' performance had improved in most areas while she was the recruit battalion's CO. However insubordination and 'jumping the chain' are big no nos in the military. While I have no problem with her contacting recruiters to find out while some of the recruits being sent to Parris Island were unprepared, when she was told to knock it off by the Colonel that should have been the end of it. Arguing with him and then going over his head to a superior officer on another issue when she didn't get the answer she wanted, was never going to end well.
Thanks for the clarification. Thankfully what i had originally assumed to have taken place was false. Despite her conduct, it's a shame because she went out of her way to up the performance of her recruits.
Does not compute.
And it's entirely possible the junior officers and DIs may have been dissatisfied with the command climate as was the term exactly because they were understaffed. If she pushed her staff to meet the standards of other recruit battalions despite having fewer staff to do all that work, it's no wonder people get stressed out, but in that case it's obviously a problem that she tried to adress with her superiour officer and for some reason he didn't care to remedy the problem. If I were to train people for potential combat deployment, I'd feel the obligation to train them properly, setting them up to standards that give them the best chances of survival if they ever get in the thick of it and not babysitting them by being lenient and if my superiours were not giving me the appropriate support in form of sufficient staff, I'd go over their heads to if they aren't responsive.
Because in the end, this isn't about a commander and her colonel, this is about the recruits. The latter are going to get hurt if they aren't properly prepared, not the colonel sitting in his comfy chair.
Without more context, what I'm feeling happened there is an uptight colonel who couldn't get his priorities straight and a commander who pushed things past the breaking point in order to give the recruits what they needed.
You might be right.
In any case I think this whole issue boils down to a conflict between her and that Colonel, and thats ultimately what is behind her sacking, whether justified or not. The headlines about her being fired for being mean are misleading. She was removed from command because her authority had already been fatally undermined by the investigation into her fitness for command. Once that happened she couldn't remain where she was at. She wasn't even 'fired.' She was sent to the Washington Navy Yard pending a new command. She thought she was treated unfairly and resigned instead. I supposed 'transferred' makes a less sensationalist headline than 'fired.'
I wonder why her Colonel wasn't removed from command as well. Unless there is other information that hasn't come to light, if this was primarily a conflict of personalities (which is how it sounds) the General should have resolved the issue by shuffling them both off to new commands.
In any case I think this whole issue boils down to a conflict between her and that Colonel, and thats ultimately what is behind her sacking, whether justified or not. The headlines about her being fired for being mean are misleading. She was removed from command because her authority had already been fatally undermined by the investigation into her fitness for command. Once that happened she couldn't remain where she was at. She wasn't even 'fired.' She was sent to the Washington Navy Yard pending a new command. She thought she was treated unfairly and resigned instead. I supposed 'transferred' makes a less sensationalist headline than 'fired.'
“This whole thing started when her Marines — her female Marines — were telling us they were being mistreated,” said Col. Jeffrey Fultz, the chief of staff for Parris Island. “She was telling them their male counterparts will never respect them if they don’t get good physical scores. You just don’t do that.”
Women should not be in combat. Period.
Two sides to every story. I can't really make a judgement here since this one seems to be mixed with people who served in her unit praising her and others thinking she went too far in her discipline of troops but what is too far in the army?
If her unit exceeded expectations and improved performance then she was doing her job correctly regardless of whether she "publicly shamed" those who could not keep up, at the end of the day, she improved their chance at surviving and isn't that what matters most? I guess it depends on whether she was singling people out that she didn't like or whether she gave the same treatment to everyone who didn't perform well.
Granted, I did fail to mention any conflict with her commanding officer, because I was unaware of it. However, it still seems to me that the major factor in this was her treatment of the people under her command. From the article you posted earlier:
This just sounds like whining. It's true that they won't be respected if they can't perform well physically. Why is saying that something "you just don't do"? You can't afford to hold back criticism just because it might hurt someone's feelings.
Had those marines not complained about her being mean to them, Germano would probably still have her job. I don't think it was even a majority of the marines; it sounds like a vocal minority. I also suspect that these complaints would not have been taken seriously if they had been made by male marines towards a male commander.
As for the use of the term "fired," I don't think it was misleading of me to use the term, given that several news stories, including the one I posted in the OP and the one you posted, have used the word "fired."
Wow. I missed that line about her recruits complaining.
They really got their feelings hurt after being told that they won't be respected by their male colleagues if they're underperforming?
Based on all the articles of the story i just looked up Colonel Germano was axed from a combination of her agitating her ranking officer, and from her recruits just being pansies. Sad part is that it seems like she's one a few who actually gave a damn about those recruits. Now, like before her arrival, mediocrity will reign supreme in that battalion.
Granted, I did fail to mention any conflict with her commanding officer, because I was unaware of it. However, it still seems to me that the major factor in this was her treatment of the people under her command. From the article you posted earlier:
This just sounds like whining. It's true that they won't be respected if they can't perform well physically. Why is saying that something "you just don't do"? You can't afford to hold back criticism just because it might hurt someone's feelings.
Had those marines not complained about her being mean to them, Germano would probably still have her job. I don't think it was even a majority of the marines; it sounds like a vocal minority. I also suspect that these complaints would not have been taken seriously if they had been made by male marines towards a male commander.
As for the use of the term "fired," I don't think it was misleading of me to use the term, given that several news stories, including the one I posted in the OP and the one you posted, have used the word "fired."
To be clear I wasn't criticizing your thread title, but the initial reporting of this incident. The first linked story failed to mention some details I think are crucial to understanding what is going on, and chose to use a sensationalist headline that didn't accurately reflect what had gone down.
This was the key bit for me:
When Colonel Haas was not responsive, the investigation found, she went up the chain of command to request more staff, straining their relationship further and causing him to challenge all her command decisions.
He has held a longstanding grudge against me for disagreeing with him,” she said in her request for relief, “and is now looking for any reason to discredit me.”
In his statement to investigators, Colonel Haas agreed that their relationship “went south,” saying she disagreed with him over too many things and went over his head a number of times. “Making an argument is O.K. and encouraged, being argumentative is not,” he told an investigator
Do the complaints go anywhere if she and this Colonel weren't already butting heads? According to her own statement in her request for relief, the personal grudge was the root cause for her being placed under official scrutiny.
The people who would have complained about her command climate in the investigation would have been junior officers or Drill Instructors, also female, and people who wouldn't be among the 'can't do three pullups' crowd. It could be that they opposed some of the tougher training she was advocating for, but some of the reporting has been misleading in implying that recruits who couldn't hack the physical requirements of boot camp had complained about her being 'too mean.' The subordinates surveyed were Marines, not recruits. Also those recruits, quite frankly, wouldn't even know who she was. She is too far above them in rank to be anything other than a name and a title. Recruits, male or female, don't interact with the colonels in charge of recruit battalions. The only daily interaction they have is with their immediate Drill Instructors who are all enlisted (Sergeants and Staff Sergeants), and some very occasional interaction (weekly at best) with the officers (Lieutenant and Captain) who are the supervisors to those Drill Instructors.
I'm personally in favor of men and women in the military having the same physical standards, and I think women should also have the chance of going into a combat arms MOS (infantry / armor / artillery) if they choose (they are currently barred from it in the Marine Corps) and meet the same requirements. So on that I'm sympathetic to the Lt. Colonel in trying to hold her recruits to the same standards. I'm just not entirely sure, based on some of the information in that NY Times article, if that was responsible for her removal or the catalyst for her being placed under investigation.
At the same time this is going on, the Marine Corps is also conducting a study on integrating women into the combat arms specialties. From a NY Times article on that...
"The aim, Dr. Allison said, “is to establish gender-neutral characteristics that can predict safe and successful completion of ground combat tactical training and tasks.” If remediation is necessary for subsets of the population, she said, “targeted physical training may aim to increase overall force readiness and resiliency.” In other words, smaller female Marines might need additional physical training to prepare for inclusion into combat arms specialties. But so might short, slender men. Targeted training would increase the probability that more female Marines could fill combat arms roles, and could help the corps comply with federally mandated gender integration.
But Dr. Allison also warned that “the load is the same regardless of the size of the person carrying or moving the load,” and “Marines of smaller stature may find difficulty.”"
Testing a Few Good Women for Combat
So there is a study currently under way that acknowledges that some female Marines (as well as short or slender men) might need additional physical training rather than less, and the female participants in that study aren't being held to lower standards than the men. I think that is important to mention since this topic has provoked a few hyperbolic 'the sky is falling' complaints about the Marine Corps bowing to political correctness and compromising its standards. If and when female Marines make it into combat arms specialities, it doesn't sound like it is going to be with an asterisk attached.
The 'conducting a study' link is a better and more in depth read on the study than the NY Times article.
I'm personally in favor of men and women in the military having the same physical standards, and I think women should also have the chance of going into a combat arms MOS (infantry / armor / artillery) if they choose (they are currently barred from it in the Marine Corps)
Not quite, females can now go into the infantry MOS, but they have to pass the male standards (combat not guaranteed, however).
http://archive.marin...ything-you-got-
Not quite, females can now go into the infantry MOS, but they have to pass the male standards (combat not guaranteed, however).
They can't become infantry just yet. From the same article:
Marine Corps infantry specialties remain closed to women; the three female ITB graduates will receive credit for the course, but report to non-infantry MOS schools for further training.
Gorz plans to pursue a logistics specialty; Fuentes Montenegro will train to be an aviation mechanic, and Carroll will train in signals intelligence.
All the military services have until Jan. 1st of 2016 to remove all gender restrictions or demonstrate why integration can't be implemented.
They can't become infantry just yet. From the same article:
All the military services have until Jan. 1st of 2016 to remove all gender restrictions or demonstrate why integration can't be implemented.
I know, but they can still attend the MOS. Unless I misread your post, it looked like you were saying they're barred from the school itself. I know they won't actually be placed in an infantry unit.
Retour en haut
