Totalitarian countries send women to war.

EVEN under the seemingly best of conditions — when a hard-working female officer is put in charge — an all-female military battalion  faces extraordinary conflict. A reportedly tough female Marine officer who led the only all-female recruit battalion has been dismissed, allegedly because she was too hard on the women soldiers, whom she insisted should meet higher standards:

On one occasion, the investigation found, she made comments during a sexual assault prevention brief that female Marines interpreted as victim-blaming, leading some to testify that it would make them feel less comfortable reporting a sexual assault within the command.

[Lt. Col. Kate] 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.

I did not know soldiers grade their commanders. Germano did not score well on the “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute command climate survey taken by 64 members of the battalion in April.” (Be forewarned. Pretty soon your children will be taking a “command climate survey.”)

The integration of America’s military forces is a farce. It has nothing to do with fighting for America and everything to do with fighting against it.

— Comments —

Bert Perry writes:

It strikes me that if I had been in Lt. Col. Germano’s position, I would also have pointed out that a huge proportion of sexual assaults are committed while one or both participants are drunk–as people said in my father’s day, “candy’s dandy, but liquor’s quicker.”  What appears to be going on is that those selected for training in units like Lt. Col. Germano’s former batallion are those who are convinced that to state unwelcome facts constitutes harassment.

Given that “battle” seems to be an unwelcome fact, as is the systematic rape of women in war, God help this batallion if they ever face hostile fire.  It will not be pretty.  The only positive thing that I can say is that right-thinking people–the kind who would note unwelcome facts like this–will not be among the immediate casualties when units like this are put into combat.

They’ll be at home, trying to figure out how to put together a militia to stop the new Emir Abdul Rahman (loser at Tours, 720 AD to Charles Martel) once he crosses the pond to our nation.

Brian D. writes:

Your commentator wrote

“God help this batallion if they ever face hostile fire.”

It should be pointed out that the unit in question is the female recruit training battalion, and in no conceivable scenario will it ever come under fire.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the clarification.

WF writes:

A new study shows that women suffer from PTSD at twice the rate of men. And this study
doesn’t factor in that women have yet to enter combat.

Wheeler writes:

On Lt. Col. Germano: I noticed that among her decorations, both her rifle and pistol qualification medals are “Marksman,” which is the lowest (bare minimum) award required at a Marine’s annual requalification with small arms.

When I served in the Corps, any officer who shot below “Expert” (the highest, with “Sharpshooter” being the mid-range medal between the two) was practically a pariah among fellow Marines. A Marine officer who can’t fire “Expert” is akin to a plumber who can’t use a plunger or a mechanic who can’t change the oil in a car.

Leadership by example, anyone?

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

Brian D. writes: “It should be pointed out that the unit in question is the female recruit training battalion, and in no conceivable scenario will it ever come under fire.”

But we have long since passed the line where the inconceivable cannot happen.

Incidentally, college students have been grading their professors since the 1960s.

Sven writes:

Here’s more on Lt. Col. German from an excellent blogger:

One more little detail that’s crept out since our last report — the “command climate survey” was conducted online, and word about it spread by word-of-mouth among the CO’s critics. They discovered that there was no barrier to taking the survey over, and over again. So 100 voices raised against Lt. Col. Germano may well have been one voice raised 100 times, all along; and the Marine personnel office that established the survey deliberately set it up like that; and the Marine commanders that relied on the survey knew, or should have known, its… limitations.

Now comes Aaron MacLean in the Washington Free Beacon. (It’s good; RTWT™). MacLean has some interesting parts of the back story that suggest commanders may have had their Mameluke swords out for Germano since she and the other members of a Board of Inquiry crossed them in a case where the command wanted To Make An Example Out of Somebody after he was acquitted (!) of sexual assault. Sexual assault in the military is one of the few things that the current administration’s appointees care about, and the rule of law in these cases, including such arcaic details as the rights of the accused, doesn’t enter into the picture. It’s supposed to go like this: accusation made; target identified; locked on; target destroyed. And Lt. Col. Germano (and other principled officers) stepped in front of that train and said, “No.”

Here’s MacLean’s conclusion (again, we urge you to Read The Whole Thing™). Emphasis ours:

So why was Germano fired? Was she too much of a progressive crusader? Or too conservative in her blunt opinions, especially about sexual assault? This story is more complicated than a simple morality play wherein sexist bosses grow tired of an abrasive female subordinate. It appears that Germano’s aggressiveness, not to say her political incorrectness, made her vulnerable to female subordinates who didn’t care for her style, and who then campaigned for Germano’s removal on the grounds that she insulted them over poor physical performance, and made them feel “less safe.” Germano’s bosses, already exasperated by her refusal to shut up and color on a wide array of issues, no doubt felt they were doing the Right Thing by relieving her.

Germano’s sin seems to be that she was pursuing actual respect for—and self-respect by—women in the Marine Corps, and not the fictitious appearance of equality that both her bosses, and some of her subordinates, appear to prefer.

It’s probably not possible to reinstate Lt. Col. Germano or save her career. That’s not how officer careers work under DOPMA and today’s military culture; like Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff, “It can blow at any seam.”

But MacLean’s report confirms our suspicion that Lt. Col. Germano’s stand against “the soft bigotry of low expections” was instrumental in her downfall.

Mr. Perry writes:

Brian may be correct that a “training batallion” may never come under fire as a unit, but with the opening of combat roles to women, it is possible that they will individually come under fire. In that case, the assumptions that….”distinguish” the training batallion will become painfully obvious to their fellow Marines, possibly involving what soldiers often call “having their whole day ruined.”

Please follow and like us: