apnews.com
I think this is one of the downfalls of the DEI push. When you visibly use racist or sexist criteria, all your selections will be questioned due to your bias, whether or not they are the best candidates.
I largely agree, and anecdotally, I hear many of the female officers around me share that same sentiment. I first heard this news through USNI and their article did not make mention of ADM Franchetti’s gender at all. Maybe the milestone is something that civilians care about more? IMO the military’s culture can be expressed with the mantra “I don’t care who you are or where you came from, as long as you do your job well”. I’m not saying there’s zero bigotry in the military, but I would venture to say that in general there’s less of it than in the civilian world.
It varies. I will say it’s a mixed bag. In the Marine Corps I always felt I was treated fairly. My first civilian career, never felt I was treated fairly. I finally said it was time to find a new career and what a change. I work for a Fortune 50-ish. I have been treated very fairly, way better than the Marine Corps even. I love where I work. But you must perform there. Sure there are politics, but alot less of it than any other place I have been. When I look up and down our teams and leaders, we are a mixed group of all kinds of backgrounds. I think the one thing that is very different from the military world is retention… I am weighted very heavily as a leader. Hiring is expensive. Retaining talent is key. We are all competing for the same quality talent. In the military as an officer we see and hear about it, but we are not necessarily held accountable like I am today.
How you are treated now as compared to when you were in the Corps or the first civilian job could also be a reflection of how much has changed over the past ten years or so. There has been some huge changes especially in the accountability area.
See what Identity politics got us, Kamala Harris! How is that working out for the USA?
Her qualifications are irrelevant to my point. The fact that a politician used her as an identity politics prop is. He harmed her reputation, females and other minorities in the service, and the service itself by making it about something that should not be relevant in 2023. This is especially egregious given current recruiting challenges where perception (which is as powerful as reality) questions the military being "woke" and erodes trust and confidence in the institution.
Optics matter.
The question that matters is if she is qualified. How politicians frame it doesn’t distract from that answer. She appears qualified. And should be referred to as the CNO.
Here is the real issues! Are politicians held accountable? They seem to be be the only people who creat a problem then act like hero’s when they attempt to fix that same problem. And people fall for this malarkey. They also play the divide and conquer card a lot as well.
