|
The ultimate victory of feminism
Sending the below item from Fox News, JC from Houston writes:
Leon Panetta announced that all restrictions on women serving in combat units will be removed. We no longer have a real armed forces. Of course we no longer have a real country either. Sooner or later though, reality jumps and bites you. That is inevitable.
LA replies:
Without a fight, without a debate, without a controversy, the final nail has been sunk in the coffin of the U.S. military.
And remember, the conservatives surrendered in principle to this catastrophe decades ago, when they accepted the integration of women in the service academies, then in the armed services themselves, then in quasi combat units. The “conservative” position on the feminization of the military over the last twenty years has been: “We support women in the military, we honor the men and women who have died in service to our country, we just don’t think women should serve in official combat positions.” It’s been a textbook case on the utter emptiness, meaninglessness, and fraudulence of modern “conservatism.”
Fox News reports:
Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation’s wars.
Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama’s defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
“This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.
Some front-line military roles may open to women as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.
A defense official told the Associated Press that the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta’s decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.
Panetta’s move expands the Pentagon’s action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached—but not formally assigned—to units on the front lines.
Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.
Panetta is preparing to step down as Obama begins his second term, with former Sen. Charles Hagel nominated to take Panetta’s place.
- end of initial entry -
Karl D. writes:
Panneta has lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. The warriors of America 2.0 will now include, women, homosexuals, Muslims and various other grievance groups and unqualified individuals. Perfection and total human liberation is just around the corner. Think about it, once guns are finally banned we can all feel very safe and secure knowing that the armed forces of America 2.0 will be there protecting us from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Ted D. writes:
These sorts of stories used to fill me with anger and sadness. As a veteran of formerly all-male designations, I understand this will destroy the unique (and neccesary) culture of these units, lead to lower standards and a breakdown in discipline as fraternization becomes the norm. Now, I merely shrug. I don’t care. It is their country now. If THEY want to destroy THEIR military, so much the better. Maybe we can stop engaging in wars to make the world safe for whatever putrid ideology is the flavor of the month.
Warren N. writes:
After watching “Band of Brothers” and “Saving Private Ryan,” I knew immediately that two changes were immediately needed to make those combat units more effective; the inclusion of women and open homosexuality. I am stunned that it took decades for everyone else to see it.
James N. writes:
“Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer”
May … take … longer
OK. Until the first lawsuits.
The funny thing about that sentence, about that CONCEPT, is that the odds of a MAN, who passes the screening for BUD/S (thus placing him in the top 0.1 percent of MEN)—the odds of a selected SEAL candidate of passing the BUD/S course are less than 30 percent, maybe less than 20 percent. There are no women who overlap, or who beat out, this absolute, world level, pinnacle of masculine fitness, endurance, and drive.
Even speaking the words “Assessments for … Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force … ” reveals such a fundamental lack of knowledge of what’s involved as to be frightening—frightening that there is anyone in a position of responsibility who could even think the thought.
Ed H. writes:
Prisoners of war are inevitable in any conflict. What happens when women with guns in their hands are captured by, say, Afghan mujahideen?
What happens when the sounds of screaming women under torture are broadcast in attempts to lure American men into killing zones or to get America to quit the battle ? What kind of victory will it be if such is the cost? Will anything bring the liberalsphere into the realm of humanity or will it take us all down into subhuman depths with it, all in the name of “equality” and “freedom.” All being spurred to its final insanity by a half black alien freak for whom no amount of destruction of America is enough to make up for his own deracinated, lack of identity.
LA replies:
I would say that when America cheered at the sight of females in uniform bidding goodbye to their children and husbands as the women were heading off to a foreign war, it had already gone down to subhuman depths.
Daniel W. writes:
Allowing women to serve in combat positions in the U.S. Army may ultimately be good for conservatism. When the libs finally decide to use the Army against American citizens in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states, it will be so incompetent that it won’t pose a threat to the citizens it wants to subdue.
But where’s the furor about how this might affect minorities? After all, don’t they tend to enlist in greater proportion than whites? When black women die in combat, hasn’t the real victory gone to the U.S. military-industrial-prison-whatever complex, in its war on the black family?
And what’s to be done about black unwed mothers in the Army? Can’t have the Afghanis making orphans of their children, you know. Will they be granted special privileges?
Aditya B. writes:
Buried in the story is this priceless gem: “The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.”
There is a reason coups are led by majors and colonels. The generals are every bit part of the establishment. The sort of person who becomes a chief of staff is a citizen of America 2.0. His job is to preserve and protect that nation and that order.
Therefore, it is the “top brass” which is in the process of turning the U.S. military into one big joke.
UNLESS—and this is a big UNLESS—The Pentagon has come to the conclusion that our current military model is obsolete, and so they let the politicians have their fun, provided that the projects they believe essential to what is called “Fourth Generation Warfare” are kept in motion, and expanded.
Or, it could be a bit 0f both. Either ways, the Military will turn into a joke. Keep an eye out for the next big conventional combat to watch the grotesque horror and shame of a crushing defeat followed by a sexual desecration of women “soldiers,” especially white. All captured on film and distributed in every city world-over.
Fun times ahead.
January 24
Jewel A. writes:
Here is a woman in the US Army. This tiny woman will be required to carry her body weight in gear into combat. She is typical of many women in the Army.
We are doomed.
LA replies:
And what about those ridiculous, clown-like uniforms? How could any general staff choose uniforms like that for their army unless they want their army to be defeated?
Patrick H. writes:
Ed H. asks what will happen when videos of women being raped and tortured to death are put onto the Internet by jihadis. Answer: Nothing. Remember Lara Logan? She was the CBS correspondent manhandled in Cairo for twenty minutes in a grotesquely humiliating and sexual manner (and, she thought at the time, life-threatening) by dozens of young Arab men. How was that covered? More to the point, how was that covered up? Should Ed’s scenario come to pass, as will be inevitable, the mass media mouth-organs of the powers-that-be will simply refuse to cover the story. They’ve done this kind of thing before, and they’ll do it again.
It’s their Army now.
William in Texas writes:
There was a time when many blacks felt they should not serve in the “white man’s” army, maybe that time still exists, but I believe any WASP parent that encourages their child to join today’s U.S. military is guilty of bad parenting, at the very least. There was a time when I would have been proud to have my three sons attend any of the military academies, but now I would just be setting them up for failure. I am still considering letting my sons apply the Coast Guard Academy and the Merchant Marine Academy, but none of the others. I have time to do the research to determine if either of these will still be acceptable places for a young white male with a strong Christian upbringing.
David P. writes:
America is intending to fight its wars using drones and robots. Thus the armed forces are only needed for social engineering or containing internal enemies, such as the ones who cling to their Bibles. Pajama suits are good for fraternizing and pillow fights, but quite unsuitable for public display.
PS: Are these pajama suits available in pink on ebay?
Hope and pray that you will be in full fighting form soon (minus the pajama suit).
LA replies:
Has any mainstream conservative—you, know, those super patriotic types—ever made a critical comment about the humiliating uniforms that today’s armed services wear?
Henry McCulloch writes:
I have had many years to think about what role women should have in the armed forces. I was a Marine infantry officer and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot in an active capacity for over 16 years. Now, mercifully, I am completely separated from the U.S. armed forces.
During my active service and in the years since it ended, I have seen women over-preferred and over-promoted at every step. Inevitably their presence in any numbers is burdensome to the force and detrimental to combat readiness—even when serving only in support units. No matter what promises about high standards Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey may make, standards will be lowered until enough women qualify that this great social experiment can be declared a success. But the truth will be otherwise and, should the U.S. armed forces have to fight a serious adversary that does not engage in this nonsense, very quickly obvious. Men, and some of these ladies, will pay for this social engineering with their lives.
In the 1970s, I saw the service academies thrown open to women, and male cadets and midshipmen at all three academies ordered not to tell the press anything about the blatant dual standards that prevailed thenceforth—despite command assurances to the public that no standards were being relaxed to accommodate women. So much for the Honor Code. It is not surprising that Air Force Academy graduates of the Class of ‘80 (the first to include women) are among the most cynical men I have ever known.
I saw women offered more chances to overcome physical unfitness and injuries in Marine officer training than any man—even a Naval Academy graduate—would be given. That was in 1980. At least in 1980 an unqualified Marine officerette was never in danger of having to attempt to lead Marines in combat. After 2013, however, all bets may be off.
I saw women offered several chances to repeat flunked check rides in Air Force flight training, when one flunked check ride was almost always enough to wash out a man, even an Air Force Academy graduate. That was in 1984. And at least in 1984, there was not yet any danger that an underqualified Air Force pilotess would have to attempt to fly a tactical aircraft in combat. After 1994, however, all bets were off.
In the late 1980s, I watched uniformed women officers lobbying openly in the Capitol and on national television for the removal of any restrictions on their assignability—engaging in political activity while in uniform that would have earned (deservedly) any male officer a court-martial. These ladies were not lobbying because they wished to fight, but because they wanted more chances at promotion. No senior officer disciplined any of them, and no elected or appointed federal official that I am aware of, either Republican or Democrat, protested their gross breaches of military decorum.
In 1991 and 1992, I watched the careers of many male naval aviators ruined because one woman Navy helicopter pilot, Paula Coughlin, complained about their behavior at Tailhook ‘91 in Las Vegas, where they were celebrating victory in Desert Storm. The high-jinks Lieutenant Couglin and other naval aviatrixes present engaged in were overlooked, while the Chief of Naval Operations stood by and allowed good men’s careers to be destroyed rather than question the very questionable account of one junior, but female, officer.
In 1994 and 1995, I watched as the failed attempt to qualify Captain (“inexplicably” speed-promoted to Major) Jacqueline “Jackie” Parker in the F-16 effectively ruined the 174th Fighter Wing—a unit that had recently distinguished itself in Desert Storm. Parker destroyed several careers along her erratic flightpath, including those of the 174 FW’s Wing Commander, Vice Commander and Deputy Commander for Operations—with whom she had an affair—all the while firing off accusations of sexual harassment to cover her dangerous deficiencies as a “fighter pilot.” (I put that in quotes because a woman can no more truly be a fighter pilot than two homosexuals can truly be married to each other.) Once it became too obvious that the vaunted Parker would kill herself or someone else if she continued attempting to fly the F-16 operationally, she was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and sent to a non-flying job in California. Search the internet: it’s easy to find propaganda lauding Parker as a Pioneer of Aviation. She never paid the slightest price for the devastation she left in her wake.
After 1995, I stopped flying actively because of the demands of my civilian career. While I regretted leaving the F-16 and my fighter squadron, I had no regrets about leaving what the armed forces had already become. In the years since, the armed forces have only become worse—much worse.
And eventually, after considerable reflection, the conclusion I reached is that women should not, for moral and readiness reasons both, serve in the armed forces in any capacity. I might allow a strictly limited exception for nurses in rear-area hospitals; even in that case I’m not convinced that role would not be filled just as well or better by uniformed men or civilians.
As for the other social revolutions liberalism has force-fed into the armed forces, I do not believe homosexuals should serve in the armed forces, period. The same goes for foreign nationals; nobody should be able to buy U.S. citizenship simply by enlisting in the U.S. armed forces.
Whatever the current commander-in-chief and the generals and admirals who advise him may be serious about, they clearly are not serious about America’s having armed forces capable of fighting and winning wars. So while I am disgusted by the decision to eliminate the combat exclusion altogether, I am not in the least surprised by it.
Randy writes:
It came to mind that over the years the only word I could think of to describe liberal thinking being implemented into a given policy or action was insanity. The given action defied any reasoned logic or grasp of reality. If an insane person were allowed to fly an airplane, it would eventually crash. If an insane person is allowed access to guns, we know the eventual result. So, insane people are kept out of airplane cockpits and prevented from owning guns. Unfortunately, the insane are in charge of our uh … country who were placed into power by an equally insane citizenry. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING matters to ANYONE anymore-lest a few VFR bloggers. Yes, they may agree with us, but there is no ANGER or OUTRAGE. I can’t wait to hear the powerful conservative spokesman, Sean Hannity, go on the air with an impassioned and outraged response to this attack on our very existence as a civilization.
W. Whiteman III writes:
James N. wrote: “Even speaking the words “Assessments for … Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force … ” reveals such a fundamental lack of knowledge of what’s involved as to be frightening—frightening that there is anyone in a position of responsibility who could even think the thought.”
It is such a break from reality as to be psychotic. It reminds me of Caligula making his horse a senator.|
Daniel S. writes:
While American liberals are congratulating themselves over their supposedly great victory of women now being able to openly serve in combat roles, European governments have started to advise their citizens to leave Benghazi in Libya, with Britain warning about “specific and imminent” attacks against Westerners. In Afghanistan the Taliban continues to wage their jihad campaign, brazenly attacking police stations in Kabul and killing over a thousand Afghan policemen over the past six months. So-called “rogue” nations Iran and North Korea openly defy American attempts to thwart their nuclear ambitions.
America is a sick, dying nation and the rest of the world knows it. The Pentagon can “equalize” the military all it wants, but the truth of the matter is that America can no longer defeat her enemies, nor does she instill fear into “rogue” Third World regimes, which now openly snear at the corpse that is America.
JC in Houston writes:
I’ve also noticed that we haven’t heard a peep about this monstrosity from any GOP legislator.
January 25
Brandon F. writes:
I am not sure but I think you have commented on the use of all caps in the past. It really is such a crude method. Your commenters on this post use it quite a bit which makes them look foolish and uneducated. Do they not have underline and italics buttons?
LA replies:
First, based on a quick scan of the thread, only two commenters have used all caps for emphasis; the others appearances of all caps in this thread are acronyms.
Second, since I’m the editor, if all caps are used, I’m the one who allows it.
Third, I do not have a completely consistent approach to this issue. Most of the time when preparing comments for posting I follow the rule and change an all-capped word to italics. But sometimes I’m in a hurry or tired and don’t bother changing it; or sometimes a commenter uses so many all-capped words that I throw up my hands and leave them as is; and sometimes I confess that I don’t mind it terribly, if it is used sparingly. In fact, I myself sometimes use all caps, when it feels appropriate to the feel of what I want to express.
However, the bottom line is that Brandon is correct. Generally if you intend to emphasize a word, you should italize it, not make it all caps. There are some commenters who are consistent violators of this rule, meaning that they never use italicization to express emphasis but only all caps, and they cause me unnecessary work to correct their unregenerate error.
January 26
Brandon F. writes:
Before anyone gets defensive toward me they should consider that Lawrence Auster used the word unregenerate not me!
Alex P writes:
I understand your reader’s dislike for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but some Internet users—including, until recently, myself—don’t know how to italicise when there’s no “I” button on a nearby toolbar to do it with. I spent my whole first decade online emphasizing with CAPS before I learned the pointy-parentheses-enclosing-the-letter-i alternative. Admittedly, I am a cyber-dunce, but I’m far from the only one. Many of those CAPS commenters may be doing it only because they don’t know any other method.
That said, I will also make a case for the use of CAPS for when one’s emphasis needs to be, shall we say, of the “extra-strength” variety. I can meet most of my emphasizing needs through italics, but when I need to SHOUT it’s time to break out the CAPS. This tri-level system puts an extra level of loudness at a writer’s disposal—just as a musician has three main choices of how hard to pound the keyboard: piano (soft), forte (loud) or fortissimo (loudest). And three is better than two.
LA replies:
You really don’t know that in all Windows applications, Ctrl+I italicizes the current word or selected text, and Ctrl+U underlines it, and Ctrl+B bolds it?
And I believe Apple has similar keystroke commands.
I am always beyond amazed at people who spend their lives using computers, and haven’t bothered to learn the most basic commands. It would be like driving your whole life, and not knowing how to do a left and right turning signal.
Also, one should not makes excuses for duncehood, either one’s own or others’. As the butler says approximatetely about poverty in Preston Sturges’s Sullivan’s Travels (or maybe it’s Andrew Undershaft in Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara), duncehood should not be tolerated, accommodated or celebrated; it should shunned and avoided.
I agree with you that all-caps does serve the purpose of conveying greater emphasis than do italics, and that is why, as I said, I do not have an absolute rule against it.
Alex P. replies:
You wrote:
You really don’t know that in all Windows applications, Ctrl+I italicizes the current word or selected text, and Ctrl+U underlines it, and Ctrl+B bolds it?
I just tested this out on the Disqus comment system at a website. The bold and the underline worked, but (for whatever reason) the italics didn’t.
Not sure what Shaw said in Major Barbara, but here’s the butler in Sullivan’s Travels:
Burrows: You see, sir, rich people and theorists—who are usually rich people—think of poverty in the negative, as the lack of riches—as disease might be called the lack of health. But it isn’t, sir. Poverty is not the lack of anything, but a positive plague, virulent in itself, contagious as cholera, with filth, criminality, vice and despair as only a few of its symptoms. It is to be stayed away from, even for purposes of study. It is to be shunned.
LA replies:
Well, it’s different with blogging and online comments. There you often need to use toolbar buttons or perhaps special keystrokes.
Yes, that’s a terrific speech. His employer, a rich Hollywood director, is romanticizing poverty and wants to travel among poor people making a movie about them, and the butler says this is a terrible idea.
Alex P. replies:
Oh, I’m quite familiar with Sullivan’s Travels. I even read a book on Preston Sturges once. I’m only a dunce about computers.
LA replies:
Here’s an example of the stubborn ignorance and incompetence that even very intelligent people embrace with computers. I noticed that a friend navigated to the end of a very long Word document by simply holding the down arrow until the document moved to the end, which of course took quite a long time. I said, “Don’t you know how to move instantly to the end or the beginning of a document? You use Ctrl+End or Ctrl+Home.” She said testily, “I don’t want to know!” She seemed to resent the fact that I was going to impose on her some complicated instruction. Notwithstanding her resistance, I showed her the keystrokes, and in spite of herself, she became interested and thereafter began to use them when navigating Word.
But here is the amazing thing. She had been using Word for many years, and she had never thought that there must be a better and quicker way of navigating to the end of a long document than holding down the down arrow key for a long, long time. She never asked. She was never curious.
And this, I came to realize, is the way a very large number of people, perhaps a majority, use their computer applications. They have zero curiosity about how to manage their applications more efficiently. They don’t want to learn the most basic things, but are satisfied with the slowest and most inefficient ways of doing simple tasks. And I just don’t understand this. I am the opposite of the Latin writer Terence, who said that nothing human was alien to him. Many human things are alien to me.
James P. writes:
“It would be like driving your whole life, and not knowing how to do a left and right turning signal.”
Countless people in the Washington area suffer from this lamentable ignorance!
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 23, 2013 07:11 PM | Send
|