Posted on Mar 19, 2017
How We Changed The Negative Perception Of Female Sailors In My Unit
2.57K
13
10
6
6
0
Overcoming obstacles to success 1LT Sandy Annala Col Rebecca Lorraine Maj Kim Patterson
How We Changed The Negative Perception Of Female Sailors In My Unit
Posted from taskandpurpose.comPosted in these groups: 
Leadership
Women in the Military
Leadership Women in the Military
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Don't know why the writer quotes Kate Germano... She was relieved for toxic leadership from her command of 4th recruit training Battalion.
She has a spot of philosophy in making sure there is no separation of genders in standards or mentoring. Division only leads to putting uneeded attaention on gender.
She has a spot of philosophy in making sure there is no separation of genders in standards or mentoring. Division only leads to putting uneeded attaention on gender.
(2)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
Top,
We all know that was a political move to catch doing something irregular...while I agree that since she was "proving" herself all the time to her peers and superiors she may have went to far. Here is the article she wrote prior to command on why are we training women less than the standard. Enjoy:
“When Did It Become An Insult To Train Like a Girl?”
By Lt. Col. Kate Germano
During the Super Bowl this year, the feminine product company Always created sensation with their commercial “Run Like a Girl.” For those non-football enthusiasts out there like myself, I had to tube the commercial up on the Internet to see what the “ad for pads,” as the Huffington Post called it, was all about. The commercial begins with a very attractive blonde 20-something being asked to demonstrate what it means to run like a girl. Predictably, she jogs in place while flailing her arms in the air and giggling. When the same question is posed to a group of 9-12-year-old girls, however, they have a completely different understanding of the question. Determinedly, they commit every muscle to simulate winning a race, clearly unaware that anything else would be expected by society or their peers on the playground. The question is then asked, “When did it become an insult to run like a girl?”
At first glance, it would seem that there could be no practical application of the commercial or its underlying message to the recruit training environment. After all, the military is supposed to be one of the few bastions of equality and fair treatment existent in modern American society – a meritocracy which holds all of its members to the same high standards and rewards success with opportunities for promotion and advancement. A deeper examination of how the Marine Corps trains women, however, falsifies this premise. For years the Marine Corps has tacitly accepted that substandard performance from female recruits is to be expected, thus begging the question, “When did it become an insult to train like a girl?”
In order to get at the root of this question, we must first examine how success is quantified at recruit training. The Marine Corps is unique in that it maintains gender-segregated enlisted entry-level training. All women who enlist are trained at Fourth Recruit Training Battalion on the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island. Regardless of gender, each recruit is expected to pass the initial strength test (IST) comprised of a mile-and-a-half run, flexed arm hang or pull ups, and abdominal crunches. Each recruit must then pass a series of nonsubjective graduation requirements, including academic testing, practical application testing, swim qualification, and the physical and combat fitness tests. They must also qualify on the rifle range with the M16-A4 service rifle. The culminating test for every recruit is the Crucible – a defining event requiring endurance and teamwork for more than two days with little food or sleep. Only after successful completion of these requirements can a recruit earn the title of United States Marine. Other than gender-normed physical and combat fitness tests, there is no difference in how graduation requirements are evaluated or scored for males or females. Unfortunately, that is where the parity for males and females in training ends.
In general, from the instant a female applicant joins the delayed entry program (DEP) she faces lower expectations for accountability and performance than her male peers. Females are often allowed to miss applicant physical fitness training, seldom hold leadership positions within their respective recruiting substations, and are frequently allowed to ship to recruit training in spite of not having made progress with their physical development, all of which is observed firsthand by their male counterparts. As a result of this double standard, many female recruits arrive at boot camp utterly unprepared for the mental and physical rigors of training. Even more significant, their male counterparts arrive at recruit training with well-established preconceptions about the difference in accountability for men and women in the Marine Corps based on their observations in the DEP. The double standard is reinforced by the fact that, despite most females having an average of five months in the DEP, their IST failure rate is historically nine times greater than that of their male counterparts.
The performance double standard extends to virtually every aspect of recruit training. Over the past decade, female recruits have consistently scored below their male counterparts in every quantifiable category minus the gender-normed physical fitness test. Yet despite the statistics, historical records do not indicate that anyone has ever seriously considered why females have consistently been outperformed at boot camp. Acceptance of the status quo has simply become the norm. Ironically, notwithstanding the delta in female-male performance, a greater percentage of female recruits are promoted by contract to private first class upon graduation, meaning they are also more swiftly promoted to lance corporal in spite of potentially being less qualified. This is essentially where the Marine Corps meritocracy cart goes off the rails.
For decades, female recruits have been trained in general isolation from their male peers. Female recruits are primarily trained on a compound in a removed location on the Depot with its own recruit exchange, chow hall, health clinic, classrooms, and squad bays. Female-male recruit interaction is strictly limited to occasionally sitting in the same large classroom for instruction or attending church on Sundays. There is very little male-female socialization during training. The bottom line is that gender bias in the Marine Corps starts in the DEP and continues at recruit training in part because the males believe the females don’t work as hard – mainly because the males rarely see their female counterparts during training. Further, the segregation of female recruits and drill instructors during training creates a sense of mystery about how female Marines are made – even though they follow the same training schedule and regulations as the males.
If females are held to lower standards for performance from the day they join the DEP, it stands to reason that they will continue to underperform at recruit training when surrounded only by other females. Because they aren’t challenged to compete with their male counterparts during physical fitness events, most only aspire to achieve female standards for physical performance, which many would justifiably argue are too low to begin with. The truth is that when female recruits are held to higher standards, they rise to the occasion. This was clearly evidenced in Fourth Battalion following recent changes to the conduct of the final Crucible hike and the subsequent Emblem Ceremony where successful recruits are formally made Marines. For years, the females and males on Parris Island conducted the nine-mile hike back from the Crucible separately, only to link up for a joint Emblem Ceremony at the Iwo Jima statue after the hike. Conspicuously, a line of chairs would be staged behind the female formation for recruits who were too “exhausted” or sore to stand. Conversely, there were no chairs staged behind the male formation. It was simply expected that the females would fall out of the formation, and fall out they did because there was no set expectation that standing through the ceremony was part of earning the title of U.S. Marine.
Fourth Battalion has worked to make the final Crucible hike a joint male-female evolution to strengthen the mindset that all recruits are expected to work hard and meet the same standards in order to earn the title of U.S. Marine, regardless of gender. It has not been without a fight, however. Many senior personnel on the Depot are adamantly opposed to conducting a co-ed Crucible hike. None of the critics have been able to articulate why it would be bad for the Institution, particularly since males and females hike at the same pace of three miles per hour and all hikes elsewhere in the Corps are integrated. Despite assertions that a joint hike would cause more females to drop out and lead to more injuries, neither has come to fruition. Since we implemented co-ed hikes, our female recruits have completed the hikes without slowing the males down and more female recruits actually complete the hikes instead of getting into a van midway. Clearly, it became an insult to “train like a girl” when it became normal to expect less from female recruits. If we are to make a lasting impact on how female Marines see themselves and are perceived by others, we must demand more from them right from the start.
High standards for performance should never be gender-normed and, barring physiological differences, concrete evidence shows that women can perform to the same standards as their counterparts if it is demanded of them. In Fiscal Year 15, the Fourth Battalion witnessed this phenomena firsthand at the rifle range. For decades, the female initial qualification rate on the rifle range at Parris Island hovered between 67% – 78%, compared to 85% – 93% for the male training battalions. The male battalions also produced significantly greater percentages of rifle experts and sharpshooters. In Fiscal Year 15, however, the Fourth Battalion drill instructors received a defined intent for success on the rifle range, and through a strong partnership with Weapons and Field Training Battalion were able to achieve an unprecedented 91.68% female initial qualification average. The key to success was establishing the firm expectation that change was both possible and necessary to improve the credibility of our female recruits- come-new-Marines. Once the drill instructors, coaches, and primary marksmanship instructors began to see success, the movement became contagious. For the first time in history, female recruits are competitive with their male counterparts on the rifle range, proving it is not an insult to “shoot like a girl”. However, for lasting improvement across all of the testable categories to be realized, the Institution must be willing to critically examine the environment in which Marines are made and implement radical changes.
The Marine Corps has consistently touted that gender segregated training is healthy in that it provides female recruits the environment they need to develop self-confidence. However, if it is automatically assumed they won’t be able to compete with their male counterparts to achieve stellar results, the expectation that females will somehow magically develop confidence simply because they are led by female Marines is unrealistic. Isolation of female recruits does nothing to foster a climate of mutual respect, nor can it be said that it contributes to their self-confidence. The assumption that confidence can be created without hard work and high standards is patently false. As football coach Bill Parcells once said: “You can’t dream up confidence. Confidence is born of demonstrated ability.” This applies to outward identity as well.
Most female Marines will tell you that the adoption of the male dress blue uniform by women won’t increase their sense of belonging or identity as a Marine. If a female recruit or Marine is held to less rigorous standards for conduct and performance, no new cover or dress-blue coat will camouflage the existence of gender bias. High standards should be demanded of all recruits and Marines in order to eliminate performance and conduct double standards and drive the Marine Corps towards a true meritocracy. The continued passive acceptance of diminished standards for females simply because we assume they are less capable of achieving high standards is contrary to our very ethos and is corrosive to our character as an elite fighting force. Until every leader demands the best from our recruits and Marines regardless of gender and the Institution truly considers the benefits of a more integrated approach to boot camp, it will continue to be an insult to “train like a girl”.
We all know that was a political move to catch doing something irregular...while I agree that since she was "proving" herself all the time to her peers and superiors she may have went to far. Here is the article she wrote prior to command on why are we training women less than the standard. Enjoy:
“When Did It Become An Insult To Train Like a Girl?”
By Lt. Col. Kate Germano
During the Super Bowl this year, the feminine product company Always created sensation with their commercial “Run Like a Girl.” For those non-football enthusiasts out there like myself, I had to tube the commercial up on the Internet to see what the “ad for pads,” as the Huffington Post called it, was all about. The commercial begins with a very attractive blonde 20-something being asked to demonstrate what it means to run like a girl. Predictably, she jogs in place while flailing her arms in the air and giggling. When the same question is posed to a group of 9-12-year-old girls, however, they have a completely different understanding of the question. Determinedly, they commit every muscle to simulate winning a race, clearly unaware that anything else would be expected by society or their peers on the playground. The question is then asked, “When did it become an insult to run like a girl?”
At first glance, it would seem that there could be no practical application of the commercial or its underlying message to the recruit training environment. After all, the military is supposed to be one of the few bastions of equality and fair treatment existent in modern American society – a meritocracy which holds all of its members to the same high standards and rewards success with opportunities for promotion and advancement. A deeper examination of how the Marine Corps trains women, however, falsifies this premise. For years the Marine Corps has tacitly accepted that substandard performance from female recruits is to be expected, thus begging the question, “When did it become an insult to train like a girl?”
In order to get at the root of this question, we must first examine how success is quantified at recruit training. The Marine Corps is unique in that it maintains gender-segregated enlisted entry-level training. All women who enlist are trained at Fourth Recruit Training Battalion on the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island. Regardless of gender, each recruit is expected to pass the initial strength test (IST) comprised of a mile-and-a-half run, flexed arm hang or pull ups, and abdominal crunches. Each recruit must then pass a series of nonsubjective graduation requirements, including academic testing, practical application testing, swim qualification, and the physical and combat fitness tests. They must also qualify on the rifle range with the M16-A4 service rifle. The culminating test for every recruit is the Crucible – a defining event requiring endurance and teamwork for more than two days with little food or sleep. Only after successful completion of these requirements can a recruit earn the title of United States Marine. Other than gender-normed physical and combat fitness tests, there is no difference in how graduation requirements are evaluated or scored for males or females. Unfortunately, that is where the parity for males and females in training ends.
In general, from the instant a female applicant joins the delayed entry program (DEP) she faces lower expectations for accountability and performance than her male peers. Females are often allowed to miss applicant physical fitness training, seldom hold leadership positions within their respective recruiting substations, and are frequently allowed to ship to recruit training in spite of not having made progress with their physical development, all of which is observed firsthand by their male counterparts. As a result of this double standard, many female recruits arrive at boot camp utterly unprepared for the mental and physical rigors of training. Even more significant, their male counterparts arrive at recruit training with well-established preconceptions about the difference in accountability for men and women in the Marine Corps based on their observations in the DEP. The double standard is reinforced by the fact that, despite most females having an average of five months in the DEP, their IST failure rate is historically nine times greater than that of their male counterparts.
The performance double standard extends to virtually every aspect of recruit training. Over the past decade, female recruits have consistently scored below their male counterparts in every quantifiable category minus the gender-normed physical fitness test. Yet despite the statistics, historical records do not indicate that anyone has ever seriously considered why females have consistently been outperformed at boot camp. Acceptance of the status quo has simply become the norm. Ironically, notwithstanding the delta in female-male performance, a greater percentage of female recruits are promoted by contract to private first class upon graduation, meaning they are also more swiftly promoted to lance corporal in spite of potentially being less qualified. This is essentially where the Marine Corps meritocracy cart goes off the rails.
For decades, female recruits have been trained in general isolation from their male peers. Female recruits are primarily trained on a compound in a removed location on the Depot with its own recruit exchange, chow hall, health clinic, classrooms, and squad bays. Female-male recruit interaction is strictly limited to occasionally sitting in the same large classroom for instruction or attending church on Sundays. There is very little male-female socialization during training. The bottom line is that gender bias in the Marine Corps starts in the DEP and continues at recruit training in part because the males believe the females don’t work as hard – mainly because the males rarely see their female counterparts during training. Further, the segregation of female recruits and drill instructors during training creates a sense of mystery about how female Marines are made – even though they follow the same training schedule and regulations as the males.
If females are held to lower standards for performance from the day they join the DEP, it stands to reason that they will continue to underperform at recruit training when surrounded only by other females. Because they aren’t challenged to compete with their male counterparts during physical fitness events, most only aspire to achieve female standards for physical performance, which many would justifiably argue are too low to begin with. The truth is that when female recruits are held to higher standards, they rise to the occasion. This was clearly evidenced in Fourth Battalion following recent changes to the conduct of the final Crucible hike and the subsequent Emblem Ceremony where successful recruits are formally made Marines. For years, the females and males on Parris Island conducted the nine-mile hike back from the Crucible separately, only to link up for a joint Emblem Ceremony at the Iwo Jima statue after the hike. Conspicuously, a line of chairs would be staged behind the female formation for recruits who were too “exhausted” or sore to stand. Conversely, there were no chairs staged behind the male formation. It was simply expected that the females would fall out of the formation, and fall out they did because there was no set expectation that standing through the ceremony was part of earning the title of U.S. Marine.
Fourth Battalion has worked to make the final Crucible hike a joint male-female evolution to strengthen the mindset that all recruits are expected to work hard and meet the same standards in order to earn the title of U.S. Marine, regardless of gender. It has not been without a fight, however. Many senior personnel on the Depot are adamantly opposed to conducting a co-ed Crucible hike. None of the critics have been able to articulate why it would be bad for the Institution, particularly since males and females hike at the same pace of three miles per hour and all hikes elsewhere in the Corps are integrated. Despite assertions that a joint hike would cause more females to drop out and lead to more injuries, neither has come to fruition. Since we implemented co-ed hikes, our female recruits have completed the hikes without slowing the males down and more female recruits actually complete the hikes instead of getting into a van midway. Clearly, it became an insult to “train like a girl” when it became normal to expect less from female recruits. If we are to make a lasting impact on how female Marines see themselves and are perceived by others, we must demand more from them right from the start.
High standards for performance should never be gender-normed and, barring physiological differences, concrete evidence shows that women can perform to the same standards as their counterparts if it is demanded of them. In Fiscal Year 15, the Fourth Battalion witnessed this phenomena firsthand at the rifle range. For decades, the female initial qualification rate on the rifle range at Parris Island hovered between 67% – 78%, compared to 85% – 93% for the male training battalions. The male battalions also produced significantly greater percentages of rifle experts and sharpshooters. In Fiscal Year 15, however, the Fourth Battalion drill instructors received a defined intent for success on the rifle range, and through a strong partnership with Weapons and Field Training Battalion were able to achieve an unprecedented 91.68% female initial qualification average. The key to success was establishing the firm expectation that change was both possible and necessary to improve the credibility of our female recruits- come-new-Marines. Once the drill instructors, coaches, and primary marksmanship instructors began to see success, the movement became contagious. For the first time in history, female recruits are competitive with their male counterparts on the rifle range, proving it is not an insult to “shoot like a girl”. However, for lasting improvement across all of the testable categories to be realized, the Institution must be willing to critically examine the environment in which Marines are made and implement radical changes.
The Marine Corps has consistently touted that gender segregated training is healthy in that it provides female recruits the environment they need to develop self-confidence. However, if it is automatically assumed they won’t be able to compete with their male counterparts to achieve stellar results, the expectation that females will somehow magically develop confidence simply because they are led by female Marines is unrealistic. Isolation of female recruits does nothing to foster a climate of mutual respect, nor can it be said that it contributes to their self-confidence. The assumption that confidence can be created without hard work and high standards is patently false. As football coach Bill Parcells once said: “You can’t dream up confidence. Confidence is born of demonstrated ability.” This applies to outward identity as well.
Most female Marines will tell you that the adoption of the male dress blue uniform by women won’t increase their sense of belonging or identity as a Marine. If a female recruit or Marine is held to less rigorous standards for conduct and performance, no new cover or dress-blue coat will camouflage the existence of gender bias. High standards should be demanded of all recruits and Marines in order to eliminate performance and conduct double standards and drive the Marine Corps towards a true meritocracy. The continued passive acceptance of diminished standards for females simply because we assume they are less capable of achieving high standards is contrary to our very ethos and is corrosive to our character as an elite fighting force. Until every leader demands the best from our recruits and Marines regardless of gender and the Institution truly considers the benefits of a more integrated approach to boot camp, it will continue to be an insult to “train like a girl”.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SFC A.M. Drake - Do you believe that 1SG Harless was not aware of the article that you posted here?
It is a great article and has many salient points in regards to this subject area, but....
Thank you.
It is a great article and has many salient points in regards to this subject area, but....
Thank you.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It does not matter. One can write until they are blue in the face. The MC has been destroyed with this lowering of standards. Now, known as gender neutral standards. A ****ing joke!
There is a reason you don't see women in the NFL. But, let's destroy the MC Victor units so a very few can have upward mobility in rank.
XX will never be XY.
To me, women have always been apart of MC and other military branches. I love women and hope they do well. But, stay the hell out of Victor units unless you can perform the same, or better than the men.
End of rant.
M. Morris RVT
There is a reason you don't see women in the NFL. But, let's destroy the MC Victor units so a very few can have upward mobility in rank.
XX will never be XY.
To me, women have always been apart of MC and other military branches. I love women and hope they do well. But, stay the hell out of Victor units unless you can perform the same, or better than the men.
End of rant.
M. Morris RVT
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Virtually every competitive athletic endeavor for adults is divided between men and women. Why? If women had to compete in track, swimming, soccer, boxing, etc. against men they would not be able to make the team or excel at their sport. We seem to understand this enough that we have divided every sporting event and in colleges have even codified this with title IX requirements. There is nothing wrong with this separation. Women's sports allow women to compete on an equal playing field and allow them to excel in sports and to get the gain from playing sports.
Where is the outrage to remove this clear discrimination and make all sports co-ed? Crickets chirping...We all know what would happen.
But, when we talk about combat, the event that you can lose your life or cost others theirs, some seem to think that going co-ed makes perfect sense. It is an absurdity that knows almost no bounds.
My experiment would be, raise me a company of women infantry and deploy them (after training) to Afghanistan. If they are truly equal there should be zero concern, correct. If man=woman and woman=man then this company would be as good as any other.
We all know that this unit would be almost impossible to staff, keep healthy, hump the gear and be combat effective and once the enemy knew they were on the ground, they would be the target of every attack. The experiment would not last. So, the progressives want to slide a few in here or there and try to hide them so they can be there and not really hurt the units effectiveness. They do this at risk to men's lives and to unit cohesion, morale and combat effectiveness. We all know it.
Where is the outrage to remove this clear discrimination and make all sports co-ed? Crickets chirping...We all know what would happen.
But, when we talk about combat, the event that you can lose your life or cost others theirs, some seem to think that going co-ed makes perfect sense. It is an absurdity that knows almost no bounds.
My experiment would be, raise me a company of women infantry and deploy them (after training) to Afghanistan. If they are truly equal there should be zero concern, correct. If man=woman and woman=man then this company would be as good as any other.
We all know that this unit would be almost impossible to staff, keep healthy, hump the gear and be combat effective and once the enemy knew they were on the ground, they would be the target of every attack. The experiment would not last. So, the progressives want to slide a few in here or there and try to hide them so they can be there and not really hurt the units effectiveness. They do this at risk to men's lives and to unit cohesion, morale and combat effectiveness. We all know it.
(1)
(0)
SPC Ann T.
Never lower standards. That is wrong. Merely allow all who MEET or exceed the standards for acceptance into the schools or selection processes. If they don't pass, fine. But to prevent anyone from making the attempt based on nothing but something they were born with is ridiculous. Make them prove themselves with their actions and merit. There will be very few females meeting or exceeding standards for some schools, and even fewer who actually WANT to attend them. Most females who can meet the standards to graduate Special Forces schools, for example, are probably in training for the Olympics and never joined the military at all. These things all have to be considered. But to simply say "You're a girl, you can't go," is a poor way to get ALL of the best of the best. Lose the quotas, just hold to the standards, and let the chips fall where they may.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Common on sense is lost on New Agers who try to make day night and night day.
I enjoyed reading you post Sir.
M. Morris RVT
I enjoyed reading you post Sir.
M. Morris RVT
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Be sure to open and read the referenced article by LtCol (Rtd) Kate Germano, who is the lead spokesperson in this effort at culture change in the MC. She consistently hits the nail on the head when speaking out on the issue and had the courage to take the lead and set the personal example in practicing what she preaches. The Corps took the drastic but inevitable step in firing her. She was willing to risk that and in doing so has established her credibility as a leader. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/guest-voices/sd-me-germano-females-20170308-story.html
Column: Senior female Marines must speak out on sexism in ranks
Kate Germano, a retired lieutenant colonel, says senior female Marines don't speak out about sexism in the ranks. Why? The need to 'belong to the tribe.'
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google