Female Cruiser captain relieved for being "mean"

[Murph]

Captain Graff was relieved and is being charged for various offenses that took place while Captain of the USS Cowpens.

Navy captain demoted for berating her crew - Military- msnbc.com
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...9602-1,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35721626...stry/35724100/

[CaptainTom]

Family connections may have played a role. As noted, her father is a well-respected admiral, and her older sister is also highly regarded.

But there's the suspicion -- a downright belief -- in many quarters that Captain Graf was given considerably leeway because enough of "the brass" wanted a woman to succeed, and didn't want to be the one to end a woman's career.

It seems that Capt. Graf had a personality problem for a long time before anyone dared do anything about it. A man might have been disciplined much earlier.

[mmuhlenkamp]

It's unfortunate that someone obviously not suited to being in a position of authority was left in power for so long, but would this have gotten the same amount of press if it were a man? I really hope this isn't used as a case against women in the military, when a man screws up it doesn't reflect on all men, but for some reason when a woman screws up it reflects on all women (I'm over-generalizing, but you get the point).

She sounded unstable, I hope she gets some counseling or something and I'm glad the safety of a naval crew and a multi-billion dollar vessel are now under more sane supervision.

[Imagebuffet]

I read the article in "Time" magazine a few days ago. As you may know, I am a Navy veteran (1984-87). I do not understand why the military not only retains mean or abusive people, but also promotes them to greater positions of power?

As for women in the Navy, it is a rare woman who is a good fit for the Navy. That is true for men, too, but for different reasons, and maybe not as much. For women, though, my experience is that 1) right from the start, their physical requirements are significantly less than for men; 2) many of the enlisted women who I met lack aggressiveness; 3) many of the women officers who I met try too hard to be aggressive. What I notice is that strong, aggressive leadership is not natural to women, and those who demonstrate it usually are faking it, and over-compensate. Instead of being a strong, aggressive leader, they come out as shrill, or even mean.

I liked having women on my ship. I'm not a particularly aggressive man, either. I liked having women around in the first place, and the improvements to quality of life aboard ship that we got because the women were aboard. But, a lot of the men did not like having women aboard ship, because the men have to do any of the hard, physical work, and the women were usually excused from anything terribly stressful or difficult. One of the men in my division often said in anger that the Navy should paint an aircraft carrier pink, man it with an all-female crew, then send it out and watch it sink. He was being snide, but it is a point that the Navy accepts women because government officials have an agenda, and the Navy is patching over deficiencies to meet that agenda.

[CaptainTom]

Off to Sam's Club for the case of popcorn..

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Off to Sam's Club for the case of popcorn..

PC doesn't belong in foxholes. Though, to be honest, I'm not impressed with most of the leadership I've encountered in life, whether male or female, military or civilian.

[mmuhlenkamp]

Yeah, I don't like that requirements are adjusted for women to be in the military (especially those going into the field). By making exceptions or allowing women to NOT do things and still be enlisted only puts them and their fellow soldiers at risk. Not as many women are going to be in the military, not everyone has the right attitude, are physically strong enough, or emotionally capable. The military will always be male-dominated, I have no problems with that.

I watched something about women soldiers in Iraq not too long ago ("Lionesses" or something). Women weren't supposed to be on the front lines and were not trained as much for field battle, but Iraqi women wouldn't let themselves be searched by a male soldier so women soldiers had to be brought in. These women soldiers were in just as much danger as the men, but with less training and experience because they were women. All this did was put them and their fellow soldiers at risk, it's ridiculous.

The double standard just creates more problems, not every man that tries to join the military is suited for it and not every woman either. Complete fairness should be the goal, if a woman or a man cannot complete requirements to be in service, then they shouldn't be in service. A woman might have to learn how to handle things differently because of a lack on natural physical strength, but as long as she can get it done there shouldn't be an issue.

Back on topic: I'm glad Captain Graff was removed from her position, it sounds as if her bad attitude and personality (that was disruptive to fellow officers and soldiers) was ignored for way too long. There's a difference between a strict, firm command and an erratic and cruel command.

[Cajungaltx]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

I read the article in "Time" magazine a few days ago. As you may know, I am a Navy veteran (1984-87). I do not understand why the military not only retains mean or abusive people, but also promotes them to greater positions of power?

As for women in the Navy, it is a rare woman who is a good fit for the Navy. That is true for men, too, but for different reasons, and maybe not as much. For women, though, my experience is that 1) right from the start, their physical requirements are significantly less than for men; 2) many of the enlisted women who I met lack aggressiveness; 3) many of the women officers who I met try too hard to be aggressive. What I notice is that strong, aggressive leadership is not natural to women, and those who demonstrate it usually are faking it, and over-compensate. Instead of being a strong, aggressive leader, they come out as shrill, or even mean.

I liked having women on my ship. I'm not a particularly aggressive man, either. I liked having women around in the first place, and the improvements to quality of life aboard ship that we got because the women were aboard. But, a lot of the men did not like having women aboard ship, because the men have to do any of the hard, physical work, and the women were usually excused from anything terribly stressful or difficult. One of the men in my division often said in anger that the Navy should paint an aircraft carrier pink, man it with an all-female crew, then send it out and watch it sink. He was being snide, but it is a point that the Navy accepts women because government officials have an agenda, and the Navy is patching over deficiencies to meet that agenda.

Cap - hope you enjoy the popcorn....

Richard - it's been such a long time since I've heard such an offensive statement ...I mean blatantly offensive....

Just because you have a penis does not make you a better leader.

The fact that I have a vagina does not make me 'less' capable of leading.

Individuals, regardless of 'sex', are equipped with skills that make them better at leading...and some worse....you learn those skills, you KEEP learning skills....and you use them.

Some people are whiny little victims, and others grab their bootstraps and keep on moving...regardless of what they have for their sexual parts.

The reality is that in the military it is very much about Do This, get Promoted....Do that...put in your time....get promoted....at a certain point, they might exceed their skills/capabilities - regardless of male/female. It is not as if that is 'only' occurring in the military.

The military accepts women because - guess what - women want to be part of the military. And some of them for longer than just one enlistment....as a matter of fact....women in the military has doubled in the last 30 years...and they account for the LARGEST increase in enlistment.

Basically what you just told me....is that anytime you have a supervisor that is female... that you can't respect that person....for no other reason than the fact that you decided in advance that a female isn't capable of being a NATURAL leader.

My dad has always told me... "Can't never could do a damn thing"... and I would say you have firmly placed yourself in that category.

When you shut your mind off, for whatever reason...then you will never work with that person in a positive note... and THAT corrupts everything....

YOU corrupt everything... just like every other person who keeps up the ongoing idiocy about women bosses/women soldiers/etc....and it really has NOTHING to do with HER....it has to do entirely with how YOU think....

YOU are the problem... not HER.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

Cap - hope you enjoy the popcorn....

Richard - it's been such a long time since I've heard such an offensive statement ...I mean blatantly offensive....

Just because you have a penis does not make you a better leader.

The fact that I have a vagina does not make me 'less' capable of leading.

Individuals, regardless of 'sex', are equipped with skills that make them better at leading...and some worse....you learn those skills, you KEEP learning skills....and you use them.

Some people are whiny little victims, and others grab their bootstraps and keep on moving...regardless of what they have for their sexual parts.

The reality is that in the military it is very much about Do This, get Promoted....Do that...put in your time....get promoted....at a certain point, they might exceed their skills/capabilities - regardless of male/female. It is not as if that is 'only' occurring in the military.

The military accepts women because - guess what - women want to be part of the military. And some of them for longer than just one enlistment....as a matter of fact....women in the military has doubled in the last 30 years...and they account for the LARGEST increase in enlistment.

Basically what you just told me....is that anytime you have a supervisor that is female... that you can't respect that person....for no other reason than the fact that you decided in advance that a female isn't capable of being a NATURAL leader.

My dad has always told me... "Can't never could do a damn thing"... and I would say you have firmly placed yourself in that category.

When you shut your mind off, for whatever reason...then you will never work with that person in a positive note... and THAT corrupts everything....

YOU corrupt everything... just like every other person who keeps up the ongoing idiocy about women bosses/women soldiers/etc....and it really has NOTHING to do with HER....it has to do entirely with how YOU think....

YOU are the problem... not HER.

What you are telling me is that just because you believe the world *should* be a certain way, I am obligated to accept it, on grounds of fairness and openness. Now, I've never been in a position where my opinion would keep women out or bring them in to anything. I'm just a worker, regardless, and I've worked with a lot of people in a lot of occupations. I've seen a lot of bad leaders, male and female; I can think of 3 male captains the Navy has dismissed over the last 25 years for inappropriate behavior. How do you suppose that all these unsatisfactory captains made it as far as they did? None of these people joined the Navy as the captain of a ship, and all of them had years on record for abusiveness. Does that not tell you anything at all about how people are promoted?

Incidentally, the majority of people who join the military do not re-enlist, at least not more than once, if I recall the statistics correctly. That is the reason that the average age of Navy sailors is 19 years.

There is a difference between being a military officer and being a leader, too. Not every leader needs to be a military leader. Not every leader needs to be able to face physical combat. Not every job requires the same qualities that leadership on a ship at sea for 6 months at a stretch requires. So, my statements should not be interpreted to mean otherwise.

As for women bosses being high quality, don't tell me, show me. I'll give you that Texas has biases. More than one company in Texas has given me a hiring test that assumes that I know the details of baseball, and asks me questions based on what might happen to a team (this is an illegal test, btw).

[Lin]

I think the fear here is that the Captain didn't reach her position despite being a woman; but because she was a woman. If so, that endangers the lives of the crew and the national security.

Anyone remember karen Hultgren?

[Hanky]

what type of butter can we get on the popcorn? i like the stuff they banned myself

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Lin

I think the fear here is that the Captain didn't reach her position despite being a woman; but because she was a woman. If so, that endangers the lives of the crew and the national security.

That would be a danger if it were the case, and maybe that happens, but I think there are too many bad male officers and enlisted to say that she was promoted just for being a woman. I think that she found a way to fit into the "good ol' boy" network; she appealed to the ideal of a tough officer. Quite often, the jerk is the person who gets promoted, as they are seen as capable and have high standards. Who can argue with the idea that we should all be working harder, and people who complain are weak? Our society rewards jerks.

The military was considering advancing Capt. Holly Graf to a job in the Pentagon, before the investigation recommended her removal. So, she advanced all the way up the chain of command, and her supervisors saw nothing significant enough to stop her. Only her subordinates felt threatened enough to complain. If the Navy command had its way, she would continue to be promoted. That's because the people who are in charge don't care if someone is abusive of subordinates.

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

YOU corrupt everything... just like every other person who keeps up the ongoing idiocy about women bosses/women soldiers/etc....and it really has NOTHING to do with HER....it has to do entirely with how YOU think....

[Imagebuffet]

Interesting blurb in "The Washington Post."

"Navy has fired 6 commanders since January, triple its usual monthly rate"

"Lt. Justin Cole, a Navy spokesman, said that fewer than 1 percent of the service's approximately 1,500 commanding officers are relieved each year but added that the spate of firings so far in 2010 was not part of a planned crackdown or policy change.

"'We hold them to high standards,' he said of the officers. 'But standards of accountability have remained consistent throughout the years.'"

"Navy culture and standards dictate that a captain is held responsible for any major mishap on a ship; a commander will almost certainly be fired, for instance, if a vessel runs aground, even if low-ranking sailors were directly to blame.

"A study conducted last year by the Navy Times, however, found that personal misconduct was the leading cause of commanders losing their jobs, with about one-third of all firings occurring for that reason between 1999 and 2008.

"Findings of "cruelty and maltreatment" -- the judgment levied against Graf -- are few and far between.

washingtonpost.com

[Crashoran]

Sometimes I think people create these threads to start wars.