You Might want to read this, What happens when .mil females are held to standards?

[3 AE]

Excerpt from another article, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...parris-island/

"Although female Marines have been required to qualify with a service rifle such as the M-16 since 1985, Germano chafed against a “women can’t shoot” mentality among some in the Marine Corps. At the recruit depot, she worked with the head of Weapons and Field Training, Col. Jerry Leonard, to encourage marksmanship coaches to focus on mentoring female recruits, resulting in a bump in first-time rifle qualifications from 68 percent to 91 percent in a few months."

I'll be toasting the Colonel and all the instructors who did such a great job to get those recruits to improve their marksmanship scores to a better standard. To her superiors who canned her, "GFY"!

[TehLlama]

The irony here is that she has TWO pizza boxes.

Irony not lost, but every quote I've seen published mirrors my feelings - it's generally upsetting to see shit-how women Marines kept down because of the laziness of others, intransigence of a command structure informed by the former, and obnoxious cattiness that I've never fully understood - not sure if this is yet another case of it, but the bare minimum should be trying to keep the baby even if we're flushing out the bathwater.

[Eurodriver]

Irony not lost, but every quote I've seen published mirrors my feelings - it's generally upsetting to see shit-how women Marines kept down because of the laziness of others, intransigence of a command structure informed by the former, and obnoxious cattiness that I've never fully understood - not sure if this is yet another case of it, but the bare minimum should be trying to keep the baby even if we're flushing out the bathwater.

That's sexist.

This girl I was speaking to a while ago (who had probably never even met someone who has served in the military until I was behind her [whaaat ] ) claimed that women not meeting standards is not the problem. The problem is that the standards were set by men, and in a truly "non-sexist" society, women would have just as much input as men in designing standards which would apply to everyone equally. Summarizing, but what she said was that women don't have it easier, men make the standards harder than necessary.

I looked her dead in the eye, with a straight ass face, knowing that I might lose the booty and said "Woman, a machine gun bullet fired by a woman-hating Islamic insurgent doesn't give a **** what kind of gender equality standard you have set. You are the same type of person who is going to blame the U.S. Military for failing to train women properly when they start coming home in body bags."

[Frailer]

There isn't nearly enough evidence presented to accurately judge what happened here.

But since the majority of posts are taking her side on the issue, I'll play devil's advocate: it's entirely possible to do the right thing the wrong way.

If your command climate sucks, you're a lousy commander. Period. It's not about politics--it's about leadership.

[Averageman]

A survey is a crappy way of measuring your effectiveness as a Leader.
If you take over a sinking ship as it would appear She did, telling everyone they need to grab a bucket and bail isn't going to be popular. The idea that people will work with you to fix things is less likely than that they are willing to go with the status quo where they are comfortable watching the system fail.
Any Leader that tries to implement change will always be faced with the sick, lame and lazy that have found a home within the failing system/unit.
You have to weigh your options and build your unit and discard those around you who are fat, dumb and happy. Leadership and being in charge can be a damned lonely place when you try and fix a failed system.
Handing out a survey to measure you effectiveness undermines the way to your goals. Those who will resent your changes, even if it is to make them better will resent you as a troublemaker and a bitch to work with. Once you get to the goal line, they will all be happy to have been a part of the "club", but until then you'll be an asshole.

[jpmuscle]

That's sexist.

This girl I was speaking to a while ago (who had probably never even met someone who has served in the military until I was behind her [whaaat ] ) claimed that women not meeting standards is not the problem. The problem is that the standards were set by men, and in a truly "non-sexist" society, women would have just as much input as men in designing standards which would apply to everyone equally. Summarizing, but what she said was that women don't have it easier, men make the standards harder than necessary.

I looked her dead in the eye, with a straight ass face, knowing that I might lose the booty and said "Woman, a machine gun bullet fired by a woman-hating Islamic insurgent doesn't give a **** what kind of gender equality standard you have set. You are the same type of person who is going to blame the U.S. Military for failing to train women properly when they start coming home in body bags."

Can I be your wingman?

[Averageman]

Can I be your wingman?

I can only imagine how much fun that would be.

[Frailer]

A survey is a crappy way of measuring your effectiveness as a Leader...

Ever been a battalion commander?

A command climate survey--if done properly--is a fantastic tool, because you can garner information unavailable from any other source. Yes, you're always going to have a few that'll suck up to the boss and others who'll bitch to high heaven no matter what, but taken in the aggregate they tend to be a good dipstick measure of the climate within a unit.

I've never--not even once--seen a good leader get hammered by such a survey. I have, however, seen a few egotistical assholes get nailed to the wall.

[Averageman]

No, but I have been in a unit where someone was sent in to fix a problem. Getting from where we were, five deaths in a Battalion in 120 days with a nice mix of negligence, murder and stupidity to a fully functional border unit during the height of the Cold War.
The idea that a few hearts are going to be broken during such an upheaval of what has become the norm shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I'm sure had someone went around and passed out a survey to see how folks were feeling about such a change it wouldn't have went well for the Battalion Commander.

[Frailer]

No, but I have been in a unit where someone was sent in to fix a problem. Getting from where we were, five deaths in a Battalion in 120 days with a nice mix of negligence, murder and stupidity to a fully functional border unit during the height of the Cold War.
The idea that a few hearts are going to be broken during such an upheaval of what has become the norm shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I'm sure had someone went around and passed out a survey to see how folks were feeling about such a change it wouldn't have went well for the Battalion Commander.

And I'll bet you're wrong.

Nobody likes to be part of a brokedick unit, and when somebody comes in and makes an honest effort to fix it the *majority* of the unit (minus a few "broken hearts") will get onboard for the big win. Yeah, you'll always have the guy or gal who was flourishing under the old regime go whining to the IG (if you haven't had an IG complaint or a congressional or two as a commander, you probably aren't doing your job), but if your ducks are in a row you'll come out just fine.

I'll add that these surveys aren't generally interpreted by idiots--as you say, that a few will be disgruntled will surprise no one. It's quite possible this lady was shafted, but the odds are against her.