Female Marine Commandat fired -

[Sweet and Savoury]

Well I'm no fan of the current trend of SJWism but I came across this article about a female marine commandant who was removed because of complaints from her female soldiers for creating a "toxic environment" by shouting at them and berating them in front of male soldiers.

Take a read of the article, I'm interested in opinions on whether soldiers should be able to "vote out" commanders they dislike and whether its fair to train an all female combat unit to the same standards of a all male combat unit.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...corps-female-recruit-unit-commander/29763371/

 

[Tranhuviya]

That's like, gay and unrealistic, bro.

Spoiler: On a more serious note...

How did the SJWs manage to infiltrate the military?

 

[exball]

whether its fair to train an all female combat unit to the same standards of a all male combat unit.

If it's a combat unit, yeah. Dying is way less fun than being shouted at.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Spoiler: On a more serious note...

How did the SJWs manage to infiltrate the military?

probably trying to get enough soldiers to launch their coup execute the kyriarch-president and the entire senate on live television and implement martial law while still claiming to be oppressed by cishets not working 100 hour work weeks for social justice and evading the 100% tax which completely goes to unprivileged people as reparations for the terrible lives that they live under the kyriarchy

 

[Dudeofteenage]

What's a marine

 

[Blueberry]

 

[waffle]

If it's a combat unit it should be trained to combat unit standards, period.

I don't necessarily see a problem with someone being removed if their troops don't have confidence in them though. The traditional way that officers were chosen in militia units, all the way up WW1 as far as I know, is that the units elected the officers and they served at the pleasure of the men they lead and could be removed by a vote any time the unit wasn't in combat.

 

[PantsOfDesire]

If it's a combat unit it should be trained to combat unit standards, period.

I don't necessarily see a problem with someone being removed if their troops don't have confidence in them though. The traditional way that officers were chosen in militia units, all the way up WW1 as far as I know, is that the units elected the officers and they served at the pleasure of the men they lead and could be removed by a vote any time the unit wasn't in combat.

There is definitely a point where an officer should be removed if they've lost the ability to command. It depends though on the reasons for this loss of authority, and an organised military is not a militia. It's also worth noting that in the past officers could buy commissions or receive them by virtue of having noble blood.

I'm hoping the USMC has good reasons for making this change and that it's not simply removing an officer who was actually doing the right thing to prepare their people to succeed. Could be the colonel was over-compensating and holding her people to unreasonable standards which is no more acceptable than a black commander pushing black recruits harder because he feels they have something to prove. The article mentions that the female battalion was kept separate in some activities, which could actually be reasonable if female recruits simply cannot complete the activity, but unreasonable if completion of this should be possible for recruits completing their training. The expectations of the training should match the expectations of female Marines when they enter service, and should not be a softened and safe version for sexist reasons. Her calling them out for not being able to complete pull-ups isn't great unless that kind of upper-body strength, which is uncommon even among pretty fit women, is a necessity of being a Marine, in which case they shouldn't pass training if they can't do them. Ultimately it comes down to the requirements for the job.

 

[AnOminous]

If it's a combat unit it should be trained to combat unit standards, period.

I don't necessarily see a problem with someone being removed if their troops don't have confidence in them though. The traditional way that officers were chosen in militia units, all the way up WW1 as far as I know, is that the units elected the officers and they served at the pleasure of the men they lead and could be removed by a vote any time the unit wasn't in combat.

What if you have a useless force that just gets rid of any officer who tries to impose actual military discipline, because of a culture of whining?

 

[waffle]

What if you have a useless force that just gets rid of any officer who tries to impose actual military discipline, because of a culture of whining?

It's not impossible for that to happen, and I don't know that electing officers is the best idea. It historically worked well for certain purposes, but the character of the regular military is different enough that I suppose it easily could turn into a way to collect welfare without doing anything.

 

[KingQueen]

Off-topic: I read the title of this pot and thought it was going to be about the recent spate of "why aren't there Female Space Marines???" going around Tumblr.

If it's a combat unit, yeah. Dying is way less fun than being shouted at.

Without going full autistic, I think you need to define what "standards" are.

If we're talking about "how female soldiers are treated in communication" then it should obviously be the same as males. I'm presuming some dudes overheard them being berated and gave them jibes, meaning they heard "standard bootcamp berating" as "lol wimminz are incompetent". "Toxic Environment" wouldn't happen if the men were punished for being shitheads, and/or taught to accept females as equally deserving of respect. (How to accomplish that, beats me, I've given upon trying to fix the world.)

If we are talking about physical training standards, that's a whole 'nother bag.

It's worth noting that the Marines have specifically-designed macho training and are the most difficult to integrate with females. I've been told the Army doesn't give a hoot that there's girls.

 

[AnOminous]

It's worth noting that the Marines have specifically-designed macho training and are the most difficult to integrate with females. I've been told the Army doesn't give a hoot that there's girls.

Then people shouldn't join the Marines who aren't up for being part of an aggressive, elite culture. There are plenty of places in the world to be a delicate flower that aren't the Marines.

 

[BOLDYSPICY!]

Her comments regarding sexual assault were pretty shitty, but I don't see a real problem anywhere else.

Here's my take---I was campus police for several years while I was a student. While campus police =/= Marines, there was still a similar machismo culture going on, both in the department & in the university as a whole. (This was at Penn State, mind you, which is fucking huge, & as everyone probably knows by now, completely insane.) I was the traffic supervisor, so I taught new recruits how to direct traffic, deal with rabid football fans, & subdue drunken frat boys. Because those two groups don't take anyone seriously, much less female officers, I was tougher on my girls & held them to a higher standard. I told them straight up that they were going to have a harder time dealing with bullshit because they were female, & I was preparing them for it.

TL;DR all my trainees wound up being the best of the best, but my girls were hardcore because they had to be. Because patriarchy. Basically, when working in a male-dominated field, it's not enough to be as tough as your male counterparts---you have to be tougher. Or you'll be eaten alive.

 

[KingQueen]

Then people shouldn't join the Marines who aren't up for being part of an aggressive, elite culture. There are plenty of places in the world to be a delicate flower that aren't the Marines.

I didn't mean for the women, I meant for the men. I'm saying it's not possible to be "elite" whether you're a delicate flower or not, because the existing club teaches their members to stomp anything smaller than them. That's not a criticism of the Marines, btw, just a note on their training, which is heavily psychological.

It does indeed dumbfound me that anyone would join the marines and somehow not expect, you know, the roughest treatment.

As a side note, girls who do boy's jobs are almost always held to a higher standard. (I could pull up studies if I wasn't on my phone.)

 

[Red_Rager]

Whenever I hear the word "toxic" being used, at this point I feel my bs detector start to beep. From the sounds of this article it seems like she was fired because a few people were mean and someone in leadership is a pansy in regard to not wanting to look unPC. Men and women should be held to the same standards and if a female cannot meet the same standards then she should not be there. Of course, I admit to only knowing what the article presents, maybe there is something more that the article is leaving out.

The military does not make it a secret what boot camp is like nor is it a secret that you are going to be thrown into a life or death situation where your actions can mean the difference between life and death for yourself and your comrades. They do not treat you like shit for the lulz; they want to make you into a tougher individual so you have the skills to not only survive but thrive. It sounds like this women was punished for encouraging this excellence.

 

[PantsOfDesire]

Whenever I hear the word "toxic" being used, at this point I feel my bs detector start to beep. From the sounds of this article it seems like she was fired because a few people were mean and someone in leadership is a pansy in regard to not wanting to look unPC. Men and women should be held to the same standards and if a female cannot meet the same standards then she should not be there. Of course, I admit to only knowing what the article presents, maybe there is something more that the article is leaving out.

The military does not make it a secret what boot camp is like nor is it a secret that you are going to be thrown into a life or death situation where your actions can mean the difference between life and death for yourself and your comrades. They do not treat you like shit for the lulz; they want to make you into a tougher individual so you have the skills to not only survive but thrive. It sounds like this women was punished for encouraging this excellence.

It's fine to have different standards in training and selection so long as this is reflected in how they're deployed. For example, they might require that recruits intended for combat be able to lift x amount of weight because of equipment and the need to carry the wounded. If so, then this must be a requirement of the training, and no exceptions given for gender or anything else. Either you can do the job or you can't. If people can't complete these tasks then it's fine to let them graduate if the intention is to place them in roles where their inability to lift won't be a problem. Great eyesight is probably important for marksmanship but less so for someone intended to become a mechanic. It really comes down to expectations of their future roles, and did the colonel hold them to a reasonable standard?

 

[HG 400]

This is why we need the Men's Rights Movement.

 

[KingQueen]

The military does not make it a secret what boot camp is like nor is it a secret that you are going to be thrown into a life or death situation where your actions can mean the difference between life and death for yourself and your comrades. They do not treat you like shit for the lulz; they want to make you into a tougher individual so you have the skills to not only survive but thrive. It sounds like this women was punished for encouraging this excellence.

Exactly. She should get a medal. This is what I meant about the training: for better or worse it exists for a reason.

(As a note I find it way more likely that some upper person didn't like the female commander, and knew if he claimed there was complaints from girls that everyone would believe it, because everyone knows girls are butthurt.)

It's fine to have different standards in training and selection so long as this is reflected in how they're deployed. For example, they might require that recruits intended for combat be able to lift x amount of weight because of equipment and the need to carry the wounded. If so, then this must be a requirement of the training, and no exceptions given for gender or anything else. Either you can do the job or you can't. If people can't complete these tasks then it's fine to let them graduate if the intention is to place them in roles where their inability to lift won't be a problem. Great eyesight is probably important for marksmanship but less so for someone intended to become a mechanic. It really comes down to expectations of their future roles, and did the colonel hold them to a reasonable standard?

This is exactly he conversation I had when the first female Marines all failed their first screening, some months ago. A lot of people went "haha, women are weak and therefore inferior", but they don't understand where the standards come from.

Let's say one of the test is to walk 10 miles carrying 60 lbs. (BS numbers, sorry.) The average male who trains will easily do this, unless he has some health/behavior problem, but the average female can't. But where did they get he numbers? They didn't pull them out of the sky. They got them from decades of statistical data on training males and then set a reasonable a goal point.

If we were taking an average of both sexes over a hundred years, the numbers would reflect female physiology. and skew the numbers lower. (If anyone's interested I can pull up data that shows omen who strength train actually see an equal percentage of gains as males.) The problem is, currently, that military equipment and deployment execution are designed to average male standards, so smaller people really will struggle physically to keep up. The solution is either adjust standards, or create separate standards for female-only groups. USMC doesn't want to do either of these, because they don't want to (a) weaken their male force, or (b) create a schism between male/famale groups because they're incapable of treating outsider-groups as brothers-in-arms which is an important part of their psych training.

And I'm gonna turn off the autism now.

 

[HG 400]

This is exactly he conversation I had when the first female Marines all failed their first screening, some months ago. A lot of people went "haha, women are weak and therefore inferior", but they don't understand where the standards come from.

Let's say one of the test is to walk 10 miles carrying 60 lbs. (BS numbers, sorry.) The average male who trains will easily do this, unless he has some health/behavior problem, but the average female can't. But where did they get he numbers? They didn't pull them out of the sky. They got them from decades of statistical data on training males and then set a reasonable a goal point.

If women can't carry stuff what's the point of letting them in the army? They'll just distract everyone by smiling at boys and asking them to carry their gun for them or w/e.

 

[CatParty]

she prob got fired for not making good sammiches