Final Word on Military and Standards

by W.F. Price on December 5, 2012

Yesterday, Reddit user Demonspawn linked my article on the women washing out of the USMC combat training, sending the site an extra 1,500 visitors for the day (about 35-40% more than usual), and it sparked some debate on Reddit as to whether the military would actually lower standards for women. Many people, including some veterans, insisted that standards would not be changed to accommodate women.

Unfortunately, they are wrong. People can be naive about these things, because they have preconceived notions about “the way things are.” Often it’s those who have real, past experience with the institution in question who most stubbornly reject the possibility of change. For example, I’d probably be a lot more surprised to see a high rise go up in my residential Seattle neighborhood than someone from, say, Boston, because it would challenge my sense of normalcy more than his.

But change is certainly coming, even to the US Marine Corps, and integration of women into combat roles is one of those changes that will happen. How can I state this with any certainty? Well, there’s a document that a Congressional commission came up with last year, and it mandates these changes. President Obama has expressed his support for the changes, and has given them the go-ahead.

The commission is called the “Military Diversity Leadership Committee,” and it put out a report titled “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military”

The report explicitly calls for full implementation of affirmative action in the US Military, in all branches, and including combat MOS. Read it for yourself if you have any doubts — it’s quite explicit:

Second, DoD and the Services must remove institutional barriers in order to open traditionally closed doors, especially those relating to assignments—both the initial career field assignment and subsequent assignments to key positions. An important step in this direction is that DoD and the Services eliminate combat exclusion policies for women, including removing barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all servicemembers who meet the qualifications…

Sure, they’ll say “everyone must meet the standards,” but we’ve all heard that before. The USMC has already rejiggered the physical test to enable women to achieve a higher score with inferior physical performance. At the same time the USMC said it was raising women’s standards at the bottom to integrate them into combat MOS, it also quietly lowered them at the top for the same purpose.

Here’s how the new scheme works:

Women now have to complete three pullups to pass the physical, whereas before they only had to perform the flexed arm hang. However, before they weren’t allowed into direct combat. So now, in order to qualify with a perfect score, men have to complete 20 pullups, and women must complete 8. To pass, both must perform 3.

Here’s how it will lower standards: If a man completes 8 and a woman also completes 8 pullups, and both get middling scores on the other tests, the woman ends up with a significantly higher overall score, and is thereby considered better physically suited to combat. This is a handicap, and it will result in people being assigned to combat specialties who couldn’t have made the cut under the old rules, in some cases over people better qualified than they are. In other words, affirmative action. This is just the beginning, of course. Standards will be lowered in other areas as well, and I expect we’ll have less competent people flying helicopters, firing mortars, driving tanks and all that fun stuff.

It was really a combination of damage control and sleight of hand. The Marine Corps doesn’t want terrible soldiers who will screw things up badly (i.e. average women), but they know they have to give a little to please the Democrats, and they don’t want it to be widely reported that they are lowering standards.

It is not uncommon for militaries to be degraded by political mandate. The Communists gutted the Red Army leadership in political purges prior to Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion, with pretty unfortunate results for the Russians. Stalin was quite fortunate to make it out of that one intact.

It may be that there’s a minor political purge going on now in the US military. The number of generals dismissed this year for sexual escapades, which are all but guaranteed in a sexually integrated military, suggests that to be the case, but it’s merely speculation at this point — there’s no hard proof that I know of.

However, what we can say for certain is that the US military is now facing a complete affirmative action makeover. This won’t result in invasion (we have nukes these days), so one might wonder whether the consequences will be all that bad. If we have a lousier military that can’t effectively fight wars abroad, couldn’t that stop foreign adventurism and end up being a good thing?

The problem is expense. If the Democrats have their way, the US military is simply going to end up like public schools: huge, expensive, and ineffective, with an untouchable budget. And given that our Constitution doesn’t seem to get much respect any longer, in the future it will probably be used against Americans in one way or another. Probably ineffectively, kind of like the Mexican military with the drug bandits in their ongoing civil war.

{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }

livingwell December 5, 2012 at 13:00

No invasion? You mean the US military will only be effective in protecting our borders, our sovereignty? Does the military become ineffective at fighting pointless foreign adventures? Does the military provide a platform for incompetent, female-empowered, “equal go-girls” to get devoured in the meat grinder of war? Problem?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
gunner451 December 5, 2012 at 13:07

One should realize that the military has always been used as a crucible for social engineering. Integration of females into all military roles is just the latest in a long line of efforts. It was not all that long ago that the major push was the integration of blacks/minorities and I believe that there was even more push back on that effort than you’ll see with this one.

Being that I work with the military in a non-combat role I can say that I’ve seen the slow progression of females into the entire structure. It has been quite blatant as far as the preferential treatment afforded most females in all aspects from job assignments to promotions (and strangely or maybe not it seems lesbians get even more preferential treatment than straights, not sure what’s up with that). And like most other organizations where females become a significant portion of the organization they start to demand feminization of the rules and the organizations in order to better support them. It’s a natural progression that you can see in any field but is most clearly seen in education where females have pushed males almost completely out of the field and quality/standards and most importantly boys have suffered as a result.

Combat is the holy grail for a lot of the feminists on the outside (the movie GI Jane telegraphed their view which was anything a man can do a woman can do even better) so getting females into combat really is a validation of their world view. Will it reduce military effectiveness and get a lot of people killed? Hell yes, but that doesn’t really matter to those in power so it will be done and called a blazing success.

So is there anything that men can do to stop this insanity? Not really, the military of the US is a pawn of US politicians and is used as a funnel for an amazing amount of money into the pockets of those well connected to those politicians and generals and in reality the only thing that matters is that the money keeps flowing. Sure at some point when there’s a huge screw-up some heads will role but as with most cases the politically connected (and that includes feminists) will deflect the blame to some patsy so even with that lessons will not be learned. The only thing men can do is stay away from the military, unless you like being cannon fodder that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 5, 2012 at 13:26

I welcome this change, given that the US military is being used only to fight various illegal proxy wars on behalf of various special interest groups. A less effective military will be a good thing.

I remember thirty years ago laughing at the long-haired, unionized, 9-t0-5 Dutch military. Their lack of effectiveness didn’t hurt The Netherlands. No real wars to fight? Then an affirmative action military is no problem.

OK, so there’s some kind of gigantic shitstorm at the end of all this dysfunctional change. But who knows what and when exactly? My plan is to watch it all from a safe distance, whatever it turns out to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bill December 5, 2012 at 13:42

You bring up a good point about education system in the end. The education system is “protected” by the democrats because they know that children are the ultimate incentive to vote. I mean yea the average person would like to see some social change (either way it goes, some more liberal, and some more conservitive), and the one issue that democrats hold above everyone is “how could you hurt the CHILDREN”? The ironic thing is that they are actually setting up the CHILDREN for a financial disaster in the future. Most people want a strong educational system and think that spending more on education is the way to strengthen education, but what have we seen in the las 40 to fifty years or so. We have seen a huge increase in spending in education but we have actually fell backwards and are now preforming somewhere in the 30′s range in ranking worldwide. We were once #1 and we spent a lot les money on education. The reason are system is not getting better is because we are continuing to bow to the will of the public teachers unions demanding unreasonable pay due to supply and demand. Most teachers do deserve a lot of credit but they know full well going into teaching that it doesn’t make near as much as other field but they choose it because they will “enjoy it”(basically women talk for the work will be “fun” and not boring like working a day job or climbing the corperate ladder). Anyway the unions continue to high more teachers with the money instead of ingestion in a better system they just higher more teachers and make the system more institutionilized which is cheaper for them so they can hire more teachers which makes them richer because of dues and stuff which grows the machine. Now I want to make it clear I believe teachers have a extremely I portent Jon because they basically raise the children and guide their thinking, but teaching is not a c suite job where they can make bank. They have a summer off (and can fill it with summer school to make extra dough) as well as a fairly nice paycheck as time goes along (my mother made 40k to 50k as a kindergarten teacher with full benifits) and if they move up to principle or one of the high jobs, they can be making 100k or more (my mom was a superintendent the last 5 years of her career). They then get to retire at a nice age (most in 60′s to early 70′s) with decent retirement funds (no huge but decent). They can even work at day cares for extra money on side and it requires very little education to work at a day care (but a lot of energy).

Sorry about going on their but I just wanted to give to an idea of now the public school system works (votes vote democratic for more gov spending to education and them union use it hire more teachers and those teacher pay more to unions to pay them more, and the system continues). Now what does this mean for the military, well we can look to education to see the future of the military (more money for less results).

While we all know the republican will continue to block defense spending , we also know that they will continue to lose power in the next decade or so (more liberal college kids who want the birth control and abortion and gays marrying) and unless they change the social issues, they will lose power. Now the military will most likely in this administration continue to be spending even more for “defense” while getting less out because of looser qualifacations. The military will most likely start loosing its standards (by having these quotas) which hurts everyone and put many in risk. It also hurts those who would have been their which only discourages the best from being their. And once the republican loose power the demos will start spending more in social programs and less in critical things like defense. So not only will it be less effective, it will be funded less and less only weakening the united states. Kinda like education getting less for money and only hurting the united states.

I have come to realize that there will most likely not be a strong enough momentum in the near future to change this, but I do thin our careless ways will bite us in the ass eventually. Once we can no longer afford to borrow this much debt, the Public will shift. Maybe it is through a financial collapse or natural diaster, but we will most likely have a correction from one of these which will change and correct our attitudes. If we can not continue to borrow, we most likely will collapse and the dollar and purchasing power will lose value fast. We will have no other choice but to rebuild and start over and hopefully correct our society. From the attitudes of the liberal privileged feminists to the average guy will have to change into a completely different person in order to survive. That’s when the comfy office job of both men and women (but majority will be women) will be left on their own (kinda like collapse of ussr). When the ussr collapsed, single women where easily targeted and rape and stolen from because they were easiy targets. Women where smart to stay with a man (father , husband , or even son) that would give them more protection. Also the ones who will capitalize from the fall when we recover will most likely be men (when the ussr was being sold off, men where buying them up at cheap prices and were making the money, not thhe women, that’s why there are so many rich obligarchs in Russia be ause they profited when all the betas and women where trying to survive, the alphas took risks and got dirty.
Anyway look for the end in the next 20 years or so. Learn the skills now to provide for yourself. Hunting fishing even sewing would be useful skill which really are easy to learn. Even focusing on building or engineering could be very useful (thankfully for me, I learned these as a kid (yes even sewing).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Wilson December 5, 2012 at 14:02

Obama wants to scrap most of the USA’s nuclear warheads. As anti-missile technology spreads invasion or strategic strikes against US assets become possible. But feminists will continue their anti-establishment agitation, because fundamentally women aren’t invested in “man’s world,” i.e. civilization. They didn’t build the infrastructure or institutions and don’t care what happens to them. Even when foreign armies occupy they will be mostly spared, at worst raped, possibly elevated by becoming an officer’s mistress, while their former countrymen, those boring weak losers, are liquidated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Johnycomelatley December 5, 2012 at 14:09

I can’t wait for the US female version of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

So this is the US version of Stalin’s Great Purge, I guess future historians may refer to it as The Pink Purge.

Given the fact that females cannot carry combat weight equipment, I guess they’re going to have to create useless auxillery positions to fit them in, the combat version of HR.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo December 5, 2012 at 14:10

Women in the military=less and less capable military over time.

We all know the drill; women enter prior male dominated space. Women scream until they get positions they want. After they get said positions, they turn it into a maternity ward.

It is really no different than when they get into a home.

Imagine this: you save up a few hundred thousand dollars after getting your career, or business up and running. You keep 60k in the bank, 40k on a brand new vehicle of your choice; and the rest you buy a foreclosure property and use the skills you amassed to get it to your standards.

My first recommendation: Don’t effin marry! We all know why here, we talk about it all the time.

If that is not an option, and you must have a permanent vajayjay in your life:

My second recommendation: Claim the space that is your office, the garage, and get plenty of yard work done so you won’t have to mow much and make them your own. It may or may not work deending on the woman of “your night…….dreams” I meant dreams. Then get the kitchen and everyother room done in the most neutral colors (in case you need to sell), and all the most top of the line appliances.

Why that you ask?

Simple, once the witch enters your life, sees you have a killer car, house, business; she is going to want to ef it all up! She will move in; and then, you will go to work. Maybe a little day by day at first; or just overnight your home will be turned into her maternity ward.

They have done it since forever. The military will be no different, they did it at every other job they have “comandeered.” Look at that photo of two military officers breastfeeding on-base demanding they get “succor” for their “healthcare needs.” Also, those two got no punishment.

Let this be a lesson to all of you: if you fail to prevent your women from running the show; then RUN! Our country has given the rally call to foreign powers; business as the world leader is too hard and our nation is going into retirement. Time to help our women shut up and just give them what they want. For tomorrow; we die.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 14:40

OT.

You guys should check this out:
http://equalitycanada.com/cafe-response-warren-farrell/

The video is great. It shows feminists from the U of Toronto, who claim to be part of the women’s studies center, protesting Warren Farrell and blocking the entrance and being really obnoxious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Justinian December 5, 2012 at 14:44

Even when foreign armies occupy they will be mostly spared, at worst raped, possibly elevated by becoming an officer’s mistress, while their former countrymen, those boring weak losers, are liquidated.

Only the young and cute ones.

The vast vast majority will have the same fate as that “useless old woman” in the movie apocalypto when her tribe gets conquered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 December 5, 2012 at 14:54

Some day the price for indulging the fantasy that women can fight as well as men will be paid in blood, and all the maxi-pads in the Commissary won’t be enough to soak it up.

Deniers gonna’ deny, but the truth will come out in the end. I’m glad I’m out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 5, 2012 at 14:58

One thing is good about lowered standards. It is going to be a lot harder to use them on us. I have no doubt before Obama is done he will use the military on americans. This last move on top of decades of constant nagging of males in the service will dishearten the men to not fighting for their own enslavement. No man in the military now is fighting for the constitution or his freedom. He is simply empowering a government to enslave him. More and more military men need to know this. This huge tell on this will be the push to draft young men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gunner451 December 5, 2012 at 15:20

greyghost,

Sorry, there will always be someone that’s willing to do the dirty work and women will be there going right along with the program. Just look at Abu Ghraib to see how it will go down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
woggy December 5, 2012 at 15:22

Mr Price,
I doubt that our possessing nukes will stop an invasion. No one, except possibly Israel, has expressed a willingness to nuke their own backyard to thwart invasion.
Our (real) enemies know that.

So it will be GI Jane going hand to hand with an infantryMAN not hailing from a society so enlightened and egalitarian as ours.

Sooner or later, we’ll figure out (and probably too late) that the reason we used to send only men to war wasn’t to fill body bags with male bodies (though that did happen). It wasn’t to disempower women.
It WAS to prevail on the battlefield, where there are winners and there are losers.
The fact that we – as a nation – have been sufficiently dumbed down so that what I’ve explained in one paragraph is incomprehensible to most should have none of us surprised that the evil charlatan who just got a four year extension in the White House was able to beat a more substantive man who lacked pizzazz and didn’t worship at Temple of the Vagina.

I’d say that a pre-emptive mailing of “Against our Will” to the combat forces of all potential invaders is in order.
Our “combat troops” will expect all of the sensitivity and deference to which they’ve become accustomed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 5, 2012 at 15:37

There already exists the burden of covering up female exploits in the interest of shielding women publicly from seeming to fail.

Jessica Lynch was key to this; how she bravely fired upon the enemy until her gun jammed – – whereas in actuality she later confessed she just laid there never firing a single shot.

There WILL be incidents and there WILL be cover up. I know because I saw the same thing in Encorpera. Women were impervious to failure of any kind no matter how hard they tried. If a woman made a mistake “it was the process, not the person” and commitees would be formed to address re-writing the process so no one could make this mistake again.

It will bog the military fighting forces down somewhat, but they’ll manage to overcome it. The real question is why the military is not fighting just as hard to make it mandatory 18 year old women sign up for Selective Service. I suppose because there are no wars right now that require conscription. If and when there are, will anyone dare stand up and demand – – “18 year old women too”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
minuteman December 5, 2012 at 15:51

Enough men have died in wars. If women want to die in the next one let them. Its their turn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 16:22

OT.

I probably should post this in the military article but I think it will get more views here.

I don’t even know what to say. I actually feel embarassed for the US right now.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/my_shameful_military_pregnancy/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 16:43

Ooops, I thought I was posting my last comment into a different thread. Oh well.

From the salon article I posted upthread:

I’d spent most of my military career feeling like a substandard soldier. I really didn’t want one more reason to add to an already lengthy list.

I’d joined the Army right out of high school. The life had seemed so glamorous, and my recruiter swore up and down that I would be a world traveler. But as an innocent, home-schooled girl from the suburbs of the Midwest, I was unprepared for military life. I sobbed my way through basic training. As a child, my tears had been a way to pacify an overly strict father, so whenever my 4-foot-11 male drill sergeant got in my face, I dissolved into waterworks. It earned me the nickname of “Crybaby LeRoy.” It finally caught the attention of the female drill sergeant.

Most female soldiers feel like they have to prove their toughness — and female drill sergeants are particularly notoriously for this because they have to establish themselves as authority figures over males. They were inevitably stricter, especially with other females; they had to prove they weren’t soft.

One day, we were learning to use pugil sticks (which were basically giant Q-Tips we used to beat each other to a pulp) and I was going up against a tall, frail-looking girl everybody thought I could take. But she came at me so mercilessly I never even had the chance to raise my stick before I was on the ground wondering what in the hell just happened. “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” the female drill sergeant screeched at me. “YOU DIDN’T EVEN FIGHT BACK!” (Cue crying.) This scenario seemed to be a metaphor for the rest of my military career.

By the time my boots hit the sand in Iraq, I was tired. I had spent the last five years getting pummeled by life in the Army — an abusive marriage, a nasty divorce, an unsuccessful relationship, getting raped by a co-worker, and an alcohol problem that had only added fuel to an already roaring fire. Though I was on the road to recovery with six months of sobriety under my belt, I was mentally and spiritually exhausted. Truth be told, I was looking forward to a year in the desert. As a child in Sunday school, I’d heard stories about saints who went to the desert looking for spiritual peace — the very desert where I now found myself. I envisioned a life made less complicated by distractions with a simple job to perform and lots of time for personal reflection. I needed this deployment, I thought. I need some quiet.

When I met J., I wasn’t looking for a relationship. But Iraq had turned out to be more alienating that I’d originally thought. I was disconnected from everything familiar, surrounded by people who did not understand my sobriety or my sudden need for spirituality, and I felt more alone than I ever had in my life. J. was fresh out of a relationship where he’d been cheated on and was feeling rejected and hurt. After a month of friendship, we sought solace in each other’s arms. We thought we were in love, but the reality was that we were suffering from isolation, and were willing to settle for any closer connection with another human being. We needed assurance that our lives were worth living, that we had value to something else
[...]

I still couldn’t believe it. “Does that mean it’s positive?” I asked, clinging by my fingernails to the last thread of hope that this was all just a bad dream.

“Congratulations!” he said. I burst into tears like a child.

That night, I finally was able to get in touch with J. “Are you really pregnant?” he asked in disbelief.

“Yes. I went to the doctor this morning,” I said.

“Listen,” he said. “I cannot think of a worse time to tell you this but …”

I knew what was coming. “You’re getting back together with K., aren’t you.” It was more of a statement than a question.

The conversation that followed consisted of the usual phrases that go through breakup dialogue — you lied to me, how could you, etc. Except I couldn’t slam down the phone and write him off as a jerk for the rest of my life. We had created a child together. We had decisions to make. Decisions that I was in no condition to make but had to be made anyway, fast.

“Are you going to keep it?” he asked.

“Yes,” I said. “I can’t do an abortion. I just can’t.”

“OK,” he said. “I am going to be there for you and the baby. We will work this out. No matter what, I will be there for you.”

Strong words spoken in the heat of the moment, just like everything else about our relationship. In just 24 hours, my world had shattered. Tomorrow I would have to face everyone. Tomorrow everyone would know that I was pregnant and going home.

No one ever said to my face that they were disappointed in me, but I could see it in the eyes of my commander, my first sergeant and my boss. They all congratulated me but I sensed I had let them down in some way. They kept asking me what my plan was: Would I stay in the Army? It was clear they thought that was the best option for me as a single parent. I would have a steady income, health insurance, housing, etc. But the idea of raising my child alone, without a support system, away from his or her grandparents, with the chance of being gone for a year at a time for deployments — it didn’t sound like the kind of life I wanted for my child.
[...]

Unfortunately, I knew that not everyone shared my command sergeant major’s opinion. Instead of being seen as making a responsible parenting decision, you are seen as a faker, a soldier who couldn’t take the pressure and went to extreme lengths to get out. I’m sure there are some women who have. But it is unfair to assume that every single female who made a bad judgment call to have unprotected sex (or maybe even protected sex — nothing is ever 100 percent foolproof) did it in order to get pregnant and go home. I mean, really: What’s 18 months of blood, sweat and tears compared to 18 years?

But that logic didn’t help me at the doctor’s office. I sat on the exam table completely bewildered by the old Marine’s unkind remark. I felt angry that I was being falsely accused. The world as I knew it had come crashing down and I had struggled to make what I felt was a responsible decision. But I chose motherhood over the mission and in this guy’s world, I had made the wrong choice. Therefore, I was no longer worthy of respect.

I thought of J. and how he was in Iraq, consequence-free, at least for the time being. I had no way of knowing that his promise to be there for me and the baby would be meaningless, that I would eventually have to go after him for child support, and that he would one day sign away his paternal rights to the man who is now my husband. In that moment in the doctor’s office, I felt I had been kicked in the stomach while the other party responsible walked away. I had let everyone around me down, including, apparently, this Marine I did not know. But I wasn’t going to let the little person snuggled up in my belly down. One day, my son would be old enough to ask me questions, and I wanted to be able to tell him that I gave him the best life I possibly could. At the end of the day, my son was the only person I would have to explain myself to.

I met the old man’s contemptuous gaze with defiance. He signed my papers, and I left.
Close

Bethany Saros is a writer, a runner, a mother and a wife — not necessarily in that order. She lives in Minnesota with her husband and two children. More Bethany Saros.

I wonder how many women in the military are single moms by choice. We tend to think of the civilian government as a cuckolding alpha male suppressing normal guys but the military may be the biggest

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 16:58

I was googling around looking for stats on single mothers in the military and found this:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/12220/ban-single-moms-from-the-military/

The comments are especially great. They are full of half-literate single mothers by choice (SMBC) who are either in the military or were in the military and were deployed, er sorry “went down range” (what are they, SEALs or something?), and are irate over being challenged. Lulz was had by me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 5, 2012 at 17:15

Troll King
I don’t even know what to say. I actually feel embarassed for the US right now.

Unbelievable train wreck of a story. My Shameful Military Pregnancy

“I’d joined the Army right out of high school. The life had seemed so glamorous, and my recruiter swore up and down that I would be a world traveler. But as an innocent, home-schooled girl from the suburbs of the Midwest, I was unprepared for military life. I sobbed my way through basic training. As a child, my tears had been a way to pacify an overly strict father, so whenever my 4-foot-11 male drill sergeant got in my face, I dissolved into waterworks. It earned me the nickname of “Crybaby LeRoy.””

“One day, we were learning to use pugil sticks (which were basically giant Q-Tips we used to beat each other to a pulp) and I was going up against a tall, frail-looking girl everybody thought I could take. But she came at me so mercilessly I never even had the chance to raise my stick before I was on the ground wondering what in the hell just happened. “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” the female drill sergeant screeched at me. “YOU DIDN’T EVEN FIGHT BACK!” (Cue crying.) This scenario seemed to be a metaphor for the rest of my military career.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 17:39

Women in the military=less and less capable military over time.

We all know the drill; women enter prior male dominated space. Women scream until they get positions they want. After they get said positions, they turn it into a maternity ward.

It is really no different than when they get into a home.

- El Bastardo

So true. Did you read the link from the other article about Radical Women? Here it is.
http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/1995/12/5/radical1205/

Radical Women founder dies at age 79

This is what Gloria Martin, a founding member of Campus Radical Women in 1967, would have said about her own death, according to UW staffer Margaret Viggiani.

Martin, an internationally known political activist, died Wednesday, Nov. 22, of cancer. She was 79.

Martin left behind more than grandchildren and belongings. Her lifetime of political and social activism changed the face of the UW campus permanently.

“Gloria and the other founding members of Radical Women were the first to bring child care to campus,” noted Viggiani, a five-year member of Campus Radical Women and program coordinator for the UW athletic ticket office.

“They turned the old Freeway Hall into a daycare center for any women who needed it,” she added.

But the Campus Radical Women didn’t stop there. In the late 1970s, the group took over the Physics Building and converted it into a daycare center for a few days.

“They wanted to bring women’s concerns to the attention of UW administration and the UW responded with more support for daycare,” stated Viggiani.

So, women move into the university and the first thing they do is take over a building or two, one of which was the male bastion of physics, and turn them into daycare centers. As a “misogynist” I really don’t think I could make up some stuff this funny and entertaining. Between this article and the crybaby soldier I am laughing my ass off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Justinian December 5, 2012 at 17:42

Coming soon to beta males in the West who are thinking about dropping out of the system:

Belarusian Ruler Introduces Forced Employment

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 17:50

Unbelievable train wreck of a story. My Shameful Military Pregnancy

@ Charles Martel

Lulz. I know right. I read it twice just to make sure it wasn’t some sort of joke or something. Each time I switched from uncomfortable hysterical laughter to mouth gaping shock and awe. It’s like watching a clown car full of clowns collide with a trainwreck.

I usually don’t put much stock in the “kids these days” type of arguments but this really makes me wonder. What happened to propriety and shame and what not. As an ebil “misogynist” I don’t think I could have written that article. I literally can’t even put myself in the headspace to understand why someone would write that article and put their name to it. Maybe I am just not as imaginative as I like to think but damn. Part of me wants to think that it is embellished, I wouldn’t be surprised if your mentioning the rape is to cover up a drunken escapade that she feels bad about, but women these days seem to have to compunction about attention whoring the hell out of their failures.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Szebran December 5, 2012 at 17:59

I wonder what feminists will do when affirmative action starts showing up in casuality figures where women approach 50% of a unit’s loses.
Will they sue the enemy for discrimination? Claim it is violence against women?
And speaking of affirmative action when will it be applied to child support? When will we see a diversity of child support payers which include 50% female payers?
What about domestic violence? When will affirmative action be apllied so that men can recieve EQUAL protection. Right now I dont see diversity in domestic violence programs.
What about education? Many student assistant programs are geared toward females. When will diversity be applied to these programs?
These losers claiming diversity -Obama being one of the biggest – are liars and frauds. The only thing they intend to do is spread their own brand of bigotry.
And Obamais one of the worst frauds. His entire education policy is based on discrimination against men.
http://antifeministsite.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-education-policy-of-discrimination.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 5, 2012 at 19:00

Here is an interesting story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-strains-of-war-lead-to-infidelity/2012/11/15/1d6c020e-2f49-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

It is written by the wife of Brig. General Sinclair who recently got charged with sexual assault and other crimes. She, the wife, is claiming that the woman made up the false rape claim to try and not be punished for engaging in faternization with an another officer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MKP December 5, 2012 at 19:56

Charles Martel:

I welcome this change, given that the US military is being used only to fight various illegal proxy wars on behalf of various special interest groups. A less effective military will be a good thing.

OK, so there’s some kind of gigantic shitstorm at the end of all this dysfunctional change. But who knows what and when exactly? My plan is to watch it all from a safe distance, whatever it turns out to be.”

_______________

I agree. And everyone’s saying “ooo, when our enemies invade, the weakened state of our feminized military will become clear!” Who the hell would invade the USA, and to what end? You’d need a massive military full of hundreds of thousands of well-equipped, well-trained and brutal men just to make an attempt at conquering and pacifying the East coast. And vast, mostly empty Middle America could never be successfully occupied. Parts of it are damn near abandoned as it is.

And why would anyone bother? To “take over” the trillions of dollars in debt we owe to China? Most of our cities are vast camps full of non-productive, impoverished, mediocre people. What would China, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else have to gain from attacking us? The idea our “enemies” are lurking in the shadows, waiting to invade, is ridiculous. It’s a fantasy used to justify a never-ending stream money that enriches well-connected people behind a facade of military honor.

Let the feminists have the military. They can go drive around some worthless desert trying to avoid having their legs blown off. Have fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" December 5, 2012 at 21:28

Words fail me. I had to get it off my chest about the wussification of society. I ridiculed the last three presidents for being faggots, figuratively speaking. That made me feel better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Buck December 5, 2012 at 23:44

Quick story,
I was on a military base recently, in the Midwest, firing a competition. During a break period we civilian shooters were under a canopy staying out of the sun, when a truck pulls up and a group of soldiers park and take a break. Along comes a 4′ something gal, I’m guessing 30, a bird colonel. She approaches the guys, none over the rank of 3 stripe sergeant, and addresses then. None show any acknowledgement of her presence, they’re slouching, shirts unbuttoned, hats off. She orders them to move along, they ignore her. She turns beet red and storms off, while the soldiers do the nose trumpet and blow raspberries, and one says “fuck off “…she hears, stops, begins to turn around, then apparently decides to pretend not to hear, and she moves on. I’m not a military man, but I’ve never seen such open disrespect. It was stunning! I comment to one of the soldiers “I guess you don’t like her aye?” He responds, “these broads are all useless”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
greyghost December 6, 2012 at 03:45

Gunner451
The guys most likely to be in combat are solid middle class white males. The most hated and despised people in america. (that makes you too) This election that just past says you are now chumps. That reality hasn’t set in yet. But believe any body serving their country under the delusion they are protecting freedom is coasting on the inertia of the past when the constitution meant something.
Now with the lowered standards they will just change tactics and use line infantry type tactics. Less movement more artillary and firepower. less will be made of maneuver type warfare with individual initiative simply due to less physically capable soldiers. They will still have SF type units that will then have women in them with reduced standards of course and that will be that. There will be more road bound mechanised type operations and less foot patrols and more logistics due to hygene and medical issues and a new way to have moral and discpline issues with sexual activity from rape jealousy and STD’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mike43 December 6, 2012 at 06:13

You are correct. Ever since the WAC/WAVE/WMC were abandoned in the 70′s, all we have ever seen is lowering of female standards in the military. We integrated them, and then compensated for them. Men hate being assigned to mixed units. They know it means that they will do all of the heavy lifting, instead of taking turns because the women can’t or won’t do it. And it’s even funnier; when I was an ROTC senior cadet, we had a bunch of female cadets who couldn’t pass the Land Nav portion. Well, I noticed that all of them were pretty busty, so I went to the Platoon NCO and told him to have the women quit wearing under-wire bras when using a compass. (The metal throws the compass off.) They all passed.

Now, it’s a great story, but the point is that there are unattended consequences for this inclusion. Most of the Intell Officers I knew that were male, lamented that they would always be assigned to tactical units because there were so many female Intel officers, that few remained or had the interest in serving at lower than brigade level. So all the males were shut out of strategic analysis, where the fun really starts.

Someone needs to re-read that female Marine Captain’s article about being female in a combat zone. She has, at least, an understanding of reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lushfun December 6, 2012 at 06:42

Stalin was lucky that it was possible to save some of the experienced people (ergo they weren’t killed yet).

Rokossovsky(marshal), Meretskoy(marshal), and Kolobanov(captain) were some of the people that survived the tortures and were rehabilitated because they were needed.

In some cruel twist of fate you could even say that had there been no purges those people would have been on the overrun on the front line and perhaps dead. Due to the thin line defensive posture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Final Hex December 6, 2012 at 06:54

TrollKing, for the love of God, PLEASE stop embedding long text excerpts from the links that you post!!! Why do you post the link and then include the full text anyway?

I love the related and off-topic links that people provide on the Spearhead… yours included! But I don’t want to waste time scrolling down through long text excerpts to get to more comments.

Why do you allow this Mr. Price?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
yinjia December 6, 2012 at 18:04

@Charles Martel

Crying was the FIRST thing they beat out of us when I went through Basic. And not the male cadre, either. It was the other females who came down us the hardest. By the end of that six weeks, we’d gotten so much shit from our male classmates about the favoritism we were being shown, we were literally begging the OIC to let us shave our heads.

The hardest lesson a woman (who’s paying attention) learns in the military is that everything that makes her a woman is a liability, and has to be destroyed as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

If this girl couldn’t hack it – and I feel sorry for her having to go through that, but she obviously couldn’t hack it if her answer to being away from home for three months was to start fucking some random guy – she shouldn’t have been there. She made the right decision getting out. What’s unfortunate about that article is the sheer lack of self-awareness it represents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
highwasp December 6, 2012 at 18:31

Hey – maybe the powers that be PTB have already agreed the days of ground wars are over. No need for ‘real’ soldiers. Let the ladies in and make a maternity ward out of it… we won’t be using it for large scale invasions anymore anyway.

Won’t be needing that school system anymore either – so let the women have it. They’ll create a slave mentality naturally over time more effectively than the PTB ever could… and look at the state of our educational systems and institutions… same same -

most women don’t like you and half of the men don’t either. been that way for 10,000 years with the occasional cultural foray into patriarchy. and that’s when civilization’s technological and cultural capabilities flourish… and like democracy, patriarchy has a shelf live.

democracy votes itself out of existence in favor of narcissism – which leads to matriarchical societies – which leads to break down of technology and culture… forms of society based on the greater good – not on the importance of the individual.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila December 6, 2012 at 20:41

Reading this makes me less and less willing to lift ONE finger to help ANY female – except for the very elderly- and for my CLOSE relatives (of course). NOT ONE FINGER!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
BC Dad December 7, 2012 at 02:40

@Final Hex;
“Why do you allow this Mr. Price?”

Because Mr. Price is not your mother, it is not his job to save you from the rigors of scrolling. Feel free to blast Troll King, just don’t ask Mr. Price to babysit, he has more important things to do.
Man up! (as they say).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kyo December 7, 2012 at 05:39

@Final Hex : I like seeing excerpts from links that people post. There’s just too much to rad on the internet for me to go clicking on every single link that anyone posts. Better to have a preview and then click on it if I like what’s in the excerpt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
GT66 December 7, 2012 at 16:31

” If we have a lousier military that can’t effectively fight wars abroad, couldn’t that stop foreign adventurism and end up being a good thing? ”

We have drones for this now. Women have no problem killing from a distance. Perhaps even less so than men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 7, 2012 at 19:20

Final Hex.

I’ll try to keep them shorter in the future. The problem with some articles is that when copy and pasting them it is hard to know where to stop because there is just so much delicious insanity. Anyways, point noted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3legdog December 26, 2012 at 15:52

I wonder at what “percentage of females” break-point will make cutting the military’s budget a “war on women” election issue?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: