This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Who's to Blame When Women Don’t Measure Up?
Some of my fellow junior officers argue against opening combat roles— especially carrier aviation—to women. The argument goes like this:
Women are being advanced through the aviation pipeline who are not as qualified as their male counterparts. They are allowed to continue after mistakes that would cause a male aviator to lose his wings. When they get to squadrons, they are dangerous. If allowed to fly off carriers, they will get themselves—and probably their shipmates—killed. Women, therefore, should be banned from combat.
Invariably, this argument is supported by many colorful true-life stories about women aviators who have made collosal blunders but are still flying. 1 hate this argument, because it acknowledges a serious problem but Places the blame entirely on the wrong group. The fault is not with women.
but with Navy leaders who allow subordinates to continue doing jobs for which they are not qualified.
As an intelligence officer for an Orange-air early-warning squadron, I served with some outstanding officers, both men and women. Unfortunately, I also witnessed incidents that provided prime material for the women-don’t- belong-in-combat argument, ranging from innocuous-but-embarrassing to potentially dangerous. In one instance, a female lieutenant naval flight officer circulated a petition asking that, since women’s uniforms were so unattractive, the women of the squadron be allowed to wear civilian dresses to a scheduled dining out. Some officers, male and female, actually signed it, but the commanding officer had a great response: He posted the petition on the ready room door, along with a note that read, “Women may wear whatever they choose to the dining out. Naval officers will come in uniform.”
In a more serious incident, a female
pilot blew a tire and ran off the runway. She was praised by top leadership for keeping her wits about her as she did so, but the general consensus among the junior officers was that if a male pilot had done the same thing, he would have been severely disciplined. True or not, that perception only increased the anger and frustration of the male officers. I have heard of other incidents involving female aviators that range from a woman near the bottom of her class being allowed to continue at the training command as a selectively retained graduate, because the commanding officer needed to keep a female instructor; to a female pilot who damaged the landing gear after an ugly touch-and-go, and then cried as she was told to land on the drop tanks; to women being allowed to carrier qualify, although they didn’t meet the required standards at the field. While stories of mishaps involving male aviators seem to end in “so he lost his wings,” stories about women often end in
101
Proceedings / April 1994
$
“and can you believe she’s still flying?”
While it is frustrating to witness and hear of such incidents, the anger at the starring players— the women—is misdirected. This is not a gender issue. If an aviator or an intelligence officer or a surface warfare officer or any naval officer or enlisted person fails to meet the standards of the community, then that person—regardless of gender—should be disciplined. If that discipline is lacking, the fault belongs not with the transgressors but with the leaders who are shirking their duty. The Navy has a screening process in place to ensure that only qualified personnel advance in their respective communities. This selection process is imperfect, but it generally ensures that the best and brightest succeed in the Navy while the rest find other career paths. Tremendous problems arise, however, when commanding officers and other leaders apply the screening process selectively to meet their own needs.
Why would some leaders demand less of the women in their command? The most obvious reason is for personal benefit. Fraternization is not supposed to occur, but it does. There were several incidents in my squadron that were commonly accepted as proof of fraternization between the top leadership and junior members. When allegations traveled up the chain of command there was some shuffling of personnel, but no public disciplinary action took place. Morale in the squadron plummeted. Although all parties involved share in the blame, the heaviest portion must be reserved for the leaders who knew what was happening and refused to stop it. No leader can inspire trust and confidence in junior officers and enlisted personnel while using a position for personal gain.
Another reason for the lack of leadership is that senior officers are—in a word—scared. They do not want to take disciplinary action against women, even when deserved, because they are scared they will get slapped with a sexual harassment suit and have their careers ruined. These men are some of the Navy’s top decision makers—and thanks to them, women who are unqualified are being advanced.
A third reason why senior officers might look the other way when they should be holding women accountable for mistakes is that they’re directed to do so by the top of the chain of command. Senior leaders may feel that they must ease standards to meet a quota for
With restrictions prohibiting women from serving in combat units lifted—as shown by combat pilot Lieutenant Shannon Workman on the flight deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)—the issue of fair and even-handed performance standards is more important than ever.
women and minorities, but by doing so, the quality of the personnel becomes less important than the number of bodies moving through the system. Keeping the decision maker’s career moving along is seen as more important than standing on principle.
In addition, some men may not be holding women to rigorous standards because they feel comfortable with the status quo. They neither challenge women to excel nor correct those who do not or cannot. Quick to complain about the “poor quality” of the women with whom they serve, these men do not take any steps to solve the problem as they see it. As long as they can point to women who are clearly inferior, they don’t have to bother competing with those women. This mentality was evident in my squadron when the female pilot ran her jet off the runway. When I asked why none of the junior officers confronted her with what they believed was a grave error on her part, I got a lot of mumbling—but no action. What incentive or opportunity was there for this woman to improve her performance? After she ran off the runway, she came back to receive praise from the senior officers—the ones who write her fitness reports. From her fellow junior officers she got nothing but backstabbing. Had they really been committed to holding women to the same standards of excellence to which they felt they were bound, they owed it to her and the naval service to take her aside and suggest that, in fact, she may not have done such a great thing after all and may need to improve her performance.
But they kept silent. Now, let us look several years into the future: If this woman is still flying and still failing to meet the highest standards, who is to blame? She’s not—she never has been told that her performance is anything less than outstanding. The fault lies with the senior leaders, as well as
her peers, who chose to let what they perceive as an unequal status quo continue, rather than challenge it.
When Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced that more combat positions will be open to women, the issue of fair and even-handed standards of performance became increasingly critical. If the Navy is to produce top-notch officers and enlisted personnel, leaders can make no compromises. If senior officers are challenged on occasion, so be it. The response is simple: documentation. If a senior officer can document a problem and demonstrate how similar problems have been dealt with—regardless of the discipline's gender—complaints should be easy to resolve. If, however, senior officers don’t take the lead, nothing will change. Substandard performers will never self-select themselves out of their chosen careers—especially if they are being told by their seniors they are doing a terrific job.
Unfortunately, real problems—ranging from sexual harassment to plain male chauvinism—do exist. When a female hears grumbling in the wardroom, it can be difficult for her to determine whether it’s justified criticism or just plain sexism. If she takes her problem to the senior leadership and is told “we’U take care of it,” she can only assume the complaints she heard were not legitimate. When her next fitness report lists her as a top performer, that only enforces the idea that problems are not with her but with her “sexist” male shipmates. She has been given no reason from her leaders to examine or change her performance. Many men would blame the woman in this situation, but the fault is not with her. She is merely following the established system and relying on the feedback she receives from her superiors.
The true fault lies with senior officers who refuse, for whatever reasons, to offer honest feedback and criticism and to enforce tough, unpopular decisions. They are perpetuating a terrible disservice to the poorer performers, who are allowed to continue in an atmosphere where they cannot compete safely. At the same time, they also are cheating most of the outstanding personnel—both men and women—who crave and deserve a challenge to perform to their utmost capacity, operating in an atmosphere of excellence.
FVei
'13
8ai
<'14
h
%
Ms
t
'at,
ft
I^ar
%
$
'°S
Lieutenant Hamblet is currently a senior analyst for a Washington analytical service center and an intelligence officer of VAQ-33.
Proceedings / April 1994