I am a life-long professional American soldier — who fully supports women serving in US Army and Marine ground combat roles. It’s an “equality” change that’s already over thirty years late.
Since 2002, the US military has lost more than twice as many women soldiers killed (111) than any continental European “ally” has lost men – even though American women are barred from combat jobs, and even though Afghanistan is in Europe’s own back yard! (December 2012: The number of American military woman killed in action is now 152.)
Most of these American women were serving as ground combat medics, military police or combat logistics technicians. One 19-year old woman medic, Specialist Monica Lin Brown, with the Regular Army’s 82nd Airborne Division last year was even awarded a Silver Star for repeatedly risking her own life while on patrol in Afghanistan to protect and save the lives of widely dispersed wounded infantrymen under extended rifle and mortar fire by a much larger enemy force. A woman Army MP, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester, was earlier awarded a Silver Star (for Valor) for her actions during extended running armed conflict with a superior enemy force ambushing an American convoy in Iraq.
Neither of these women were anything other the average young American woman next-door. The 82nd Airborne, of course, is the same tough infantry unit that parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. Just look at the way that young women looks you straight into your eyes, how she holds that M4 at the ready, how she proudly displays the “All-American” patch of her famous airborne unit on her sleeve. What American soldier would not want Brown on their team? I’d fight to get her; her sense of responsibility for others matches her claim to rights. This isn’t one of those millions of self-anointed “special” people sitting safely in the rear and pontificating ad nauseam with the royal “we” – demanding that “someone else” go do the hard stuff for “me” (solely to make “me” feel better about myself). Fully accountable for her actions and fully qualified in a tough meritocracy, this American woman leader has earned, on her own merit, the right to expect others to follow her lead, from the front. This is one women who does make me proud to be an American. (I should add that I’ve known one or two women Navy corpsmen serving with deployed Marines who filled the bill, too.)
Such young American women obviously make better and more reliable soldiers than those of almost any of our European “allies” – which is a principal reason why we’re still fighting a stupid war in Afghanistan that should have ended five years ago had the Europeans only held up their end of the bargain. (This is, in fact, the main reason Europeans “like” Americans: Not only do the dumb Americans pick up most of Europe’s cost of its own defense, but the girly Europeans can also inflate their fake national “machismo” by hiding behind dead American soldiers – even when those dead soldiers are women. US presidents who play this silly charade the way the Europeans want it played are always “rewarded” with European “popularity” – which is as totally meaningless as anything can possibly get. Think about it: Just what difference would it make in the world regardless of what the Europeans thought of America? Absolutely zero. A century of babysitting them is enough.) Next to such American women, among all of Earth’s other armed forces, with the exception of a very few small specialized national units, the ground forces with whom I would most prefer to fight beside are Russian.
Besides, thanks to the shameful way we now “raise” and “educate” our boys, many more young American women than men today can meet the minimum educational, physical, mental, moral and psychological requirements for professional military service. Girls as a group also benefit far more from public education tax dollars than do boys. With over 80% of young Americans unable to meet minimum requirements to become a Regular Army private, in any capacity, the military needs as many of the smartest and bravest Americans it can find in the top 20%. (Most of the “men” I meet from that 20% are little more than girly boys full of blustery noise signifying nothing anyway.) It’s also entirely appropriate that the group benefiting most from what America has to offer be at least equitably represented among those defending their benefits on the battlefield. This is even more important in the combat arms (infantry, armor and artillery) than in any of the far less dangerous and demanding positions in that military.
If this sounds “revolutionary”, just check out the story of 22-year-old Robert Shurtleff of the 4th Massachusetts Regiment during the American Revolutionary War. Shurtleff was a light infantryman who during his first battle in July 1782 took two musket balls in the thigh and self-treated the wounds with a penknife and sewing needle before returning to the fight. Shurtleff was actually Deborah Sampson who voluntarily served incognito with distinction for 17 months before being honorably discharged at the end of the war at West Point in October 1783 and subsequently awarded back pay, pension and disability benefits as a female American infantry soldier – 230 years ago.
However, both the Army and Marines, which incur over 98% of US war casualties, today have very different physical conditioning standards for men and women.
Those gender double standards were imposed on the military thirty years ago by Beltway “feminists” – who were, as always, far more interested in rights than in responsibilities. I’m the same size as the average American 21-year old women today, and no one anywhere in the Army for forty years ever even thought of requiring me to meet standards any different from men twice my size or half my age. I never gave it any thought myself. Those gender double standards have always been stupid, unnecessary and counter-productive, and need to be eliminated – without lowering the standards now set for men. Thankfully, many young women entering the Army and Marines today agree. Made of stuff different from their mothers, many of them hate the double standards.
The average Nepalese Gurkha warrior, among the best soldiers on the planet, is 5’4” (162 cm) tall and weighs 120 pounds (54 kg); you do not want him, or her, as an adversary.
Check out the women soldiers of the very effective Peshmerga. Among the world’s best unconventional warfare soldiers are the Kurdish Peshmerga, with whom the US Army Special Forces have been closely working for the past two generations; they are America’s most effective allies against Islamic militant extremism. Over 30% of the estimated 250,000 Peshmerga forces, organized into independently-operating brigades, are women. Those forces tied to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) have been directly waging war against the Islamic State (IS) extremists and include many Kurdish women on the ground in the front lines in that most brutal of wars. (The Kurds have been trying for the past 1,000 years to claim their own ancestral homeland, no thanks to repeated betrayals by the West. Today they marginally rule their own semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq, noted for its very forward looking and tolerant views, but not their adjacent lands in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Turkey is so fearful of these tolerant Kurds and their great women that the pathetic country uses US war planes to wage war against the Peshmerga just as do the Islamic extremists.)
The knee-jerk “answer” of American women for such challenges everywhere for the past half century has always been to either lower the standards for all or institute despicable double standards for “me”. It’s not the institution or its mission or anyone else in the institution; it’s strictly all about “me”, damned the consequences to anyone or anything else. And, of course, as long as you can keep doing this, there’s no need to measure up, no need to even try, no need to compete as actual equals. It’s a totally perverted version of “equality” – serving “me” – that does little more than steadily lower the standards for everyone, until little or no effort at all is required, and the institution may as well belong to Haiti. (Just look what women have done to our public school indoctrination centers!) These stupid things always start out as “temporary measures”, but they always become permanently institutionalized, regarded as “normal”. Double standards are never normal. How in God’s name do you get guys to dedicate their lives to a career which, for them, is the toughest on the planet, while others can just waltz on through and then fake it – because their gender so “entitles” them, in the name of some twisted notion of “equality“?
(Here’s the way it works: Two really great women out of 500 manage to meet the standards and get their toe in the door – which is trumpeted via great publicity. Now all women have their vicarious self-esteem all pumped up and believe that they, too, can do that. And when they can’t, or don’t want to make the effort, they start to whine, claiming “discrimination”. Women’s lobbies, elected women representatives, newswomen, and all politicians needing the women’s vote, take up the chant. The inevitable result is double standards, which always evolve to reduced standards for everyone. This has been the “normal” practice in many dozens of endeavors in America over the past half century. And, of course, no one is even allowed to mention it; it’s one of those countless “censored truths.” This is why nothing in our society works anymore; the standards everywhere, including the accountability, are so low that anyone off the street can waltz into them with little or no effort at all.)
In October 1993 a small task force of US Rangers, Delta and Pararescuemen were pinned down and taking very heavy fire from a far greater force of over 5,000 militiamen in Mogadishu, Somalia. Shortly after the assault began, Somali militia and armed civilians shot down two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters that had gone in to try to evacuate the men. The two-day battle resulted in 18 deaths, 80 wounded, and one helicopter pilot captured among the US raid party and rescue forces. Black Hawk crew members and their defenders (two members of Delta) were dragged through Mogadishu’s dirt streets behind vehicles by huge crowds of local civilians. (Their bodies were later recovered in horrible condition, one with a severed head. The captured helicopter pilot was released barely alive after 11 days of captivity.) The pilot of one of the rescue helicopters, an Army warrant officer, was one of those killed, stripped and dragged naked through the streets. That event was captured on video by network television crews and broadcast in the US thousands of times on every news show in the country for weeks. I often wonder if it would have been broadcast even once had the pilot been a women. In September 2012, four Americans, including the US ambassador and two former SEALs, were killed by armed Islamic extremists in Benghazi, Libya, during an organized military attack on the US Consulate and nearby annex. The US Secretary of State, yet another woman affirmative action appointee in high office, later screamed at a US congressional committee seeking to determine why the killings had occurred, “What difference does it at this point make!?” Since the deaths were directly due to gross negligence in her own agency on her watch, and since she had failed miserably in her leadership responsibility and then refused to accept accountability, I often wonder if she would have been so incredibly arrogant and cavalier had the four dead Americans been women.
There are very few things more despicable in a democracy based on equality than double standards. In a military organization, it’s even worse than that.
When she was Secretary of State, affirmative action appointee Madeline Albright once actually berated General Colin Powell, then serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of cowardice for being hesitant about sending American soldiers into Kosovo – in another emotional World Cop mission that had absolutely nothing to do with defending the US. She even accused Powell, who had begun his long and distinguished career as a junior infantry officer leading men from the front in the jungles of Vietnam, in public of not having “balls”, but she never offered to lead those men in or remain with them until they were withdrawn. Powell, of course, was concerned about the exact definition of the mission and when and how it would end, about how many American soldiers would be killed or maimed in the process, but privileged Albright, who was born in Czechoslovakia and raised in London, was able to get President Clinton, who had avoided the Vietnam Draft to protest against the war from the safety of London and Moscow, to send in American soldiers anyway. On Albright’s “expert” assurances, Clinton did so, without Congressional authority, after solemnly promising the American people three times that they would not be in action for as long as twelve months. Those soldiers were still there over ten years later, and Albright had long moved on to find other things for American soldiers to do, to build her “glorious” résumé. As America’s top “diplomat”, she was famous for walking into a “negotiation” room and immediately slamming a really huge club down hard on the table so that the thunder could be heard all the way across town; that club was the US military, and she always threatened to use it – as her first step in “negotiations” – to re-shape the world according to her own wishes as a privileged immigrant to America who had never in her life risked anything. (Princess Albright has never stopped crowing to other women that her greatest “achievement” was placing soldiers – “someone else” – on the ground in Kosovo. She, like apparently those other women, just doesn’t understand that any two-bit twit off the streets can scream orders to others from the very safe rear, that the use of military force represents the failure of diplomacy. I know a half dozen guys who can do this better than Albright, and none of them graduated from high school or ever left their home neighborhoods.)
Albright, who knows nothing about matters military, was later appointed by President Obama as his special representative to “NATO” in an effort to find something useful for that “military alliance” anachronism to do, especially since it had proven itself for years so inept with its tokenism in Afghanistan. She, along with another immigrant (from Ireland) Samantha Power (White House), Susan Rice (UN) and Hillary Clinton (State) eventually struck on the idea of an unprovoked military attack on Libya, completely ignoring the case of Pearl Harbor. The remote-control bombing of Libya, also with no US Congressional authority and no understanding of what would come next, went on for over eight months, until the country was left in ruins and its leader, who had already given up his weapons of mass destruction and was fully cooperating with the US in the war on terrorism, was finally murdered in a sewer pipe – sending a powerful message to other Mid-East leaders about what to expect when they, too, cooperate with the Americans. The “freeing of Libya”, as a sterling example of her “expert foreign affairs leadership”, was intended as the centerpiece for Clinton’s run for the White House, by cheaply jumping on the “Arab Spring” bandwagon. But at the end of the bombing campaign – an unauthorized war against another sovereign country – for which the US taxpayers picked up over 85% of the costs, the European members of “NATO” predictably just walked away, turning the country over to militant extremists and terrorists. The entire “country” remained ungovernable three years later, well after four American men were killed in Benghazi, but the Europeans were not about to take the ladies’ bait and put the required “boots on the ground”. She never considered that using a static defensive military alliance in a purely fluid offensive manner to attack and destroy a sovereign country would send a powerful signal to Moscow that Russia could very well be next in the crosshairs of these women.
So, as any actual American military expert always knew, the whole scheme was a total failure all around, but, of course, “expert” American women cannot be held accountable, and thus risk nothing with their adventures risking the lives of “someone else”.
Note that today a few women and their powerful lobbies are pushing to become officers in combat arms, not enlisted soldiers in combat arms, meaning that they want to be able to order around junior men and thus get promoted in officer ranks faster. You certainly don’t see women demanding a “right” to become enlisted combat soldiers, i.e., those receiving the orders to do the hard stuff. So it’s just more of that old familiar picking only the good stuff you like, while leaving the hard stuff to “someone else”, screaming orders to guys who will be expected to bail the female officer out when she gets in over her head, definitely not the reverse. This is why the percentage of women officers in the US military greatly exceeds the percentage of enlisted women. In a nation that illegally ensures twice as many college degrees to women as men, it’s not difficult for “entitled” women to get a leg up on men in the military just on the basis of civilian education alone.
I have been living with such crap, big and small, routinely since the 1960s, literally hundreds of times, and it never ceases to amaze me how American women automatically absolve themselves for their lack of responsibility and sexist double standards just because they are “special”, because they are allowed despicable double standards as “normal” entitlement. (At lower levels in the military, where anything necessary, any lie necessary, to avoid accusations of “sexual harassment”, or worse, ending up in the man’s promotion or assignment folder, the double standards number in the thousands.) I always figured that eventually American women would grow up and grow into the “equality” thing. But I was wrong; their version of “equality” is all about being able to dictate to (or threaten) “someone else”, with impunity, as one of our self-anointed “special” people. Even though there is no “special” in equal, only a fool would ever count on an American woman to have his “expendable” back.
American women have rights; they do NOT have responsibilities. Get it? Everyone else has the responsibility for ensuring whatever rights our “special” women decide to demand for themselves at any given moment in time. As a group, American women – the most pampered, protected, promoted, privileged and powerful group on the planet – are taught every hour from birth onwards that they are perpetual victims of those inherently evil men, that they are not even responsible for their own free choices, their own elective behavior. They can even be handed great “responsibility” in public service, but responsibility that conveniently comes without accountability (which, of course, renders those women just meaningless quota figureheads). After a half century of this “feminist” affirmative action nonsense without challenge, it’s now deeply ingrained into their whole psyche. What man in his right mind would ever want such a person anywhere near or above him on the battlefield? Such women would not hesitate a second to sacrifice those men to save their own “special” skin. They are simply filling quotas demanded by women perpetually whining about rights.
There is nothing in the US Constitution, or in US military regulations, that requires me to like anyone, associate with anyone, respect anyone, maintain a social relationship with anyone. Laws, rules, regulations, etc., govern my official actions, not my personal feelings. I freely admit that have zero regard for anyone who demands to be treated as “special”, and most especially in a US military environment. No one is forcing anyone to join the US military – an institution with a 240 year history that has until now accommodated all sorts of people under one set of rules. If you can’t meet the rules and standards of that institution, including those for dress, grooming and appearance, then you are free to join some other institution whose rules and standards you are willing to meet. But forcing that institution to alter what it is, alter its universal rules and standards, to accommodate your personal demands is simply asinine. If you want to stand out as “very special me”, go try out for a role in a Broadway musical. There is no “special” in equal, and every right demanded for “me” comes with a corresponding responsibility for “us”. If you can’t accept such simple principles, then please stay away from me, and most especially when the bullets start flying. I still have a few rights left of my own, and one of them is to be free of your arrogant narcissistic imposition. This is a military organization; it is not a rainbow coalition mush, and your rights do not trump mine.
Going to war is NOT going to an office party. You do not go to war against those who share your values. When you have differences with those who share your basic values you employ very astute and knowledgeable diplomacy that is fully capable of comprehending the board from the other side and gifted enough to reach intelligent and reasonable compromise. The chances of the US going to war against such people are just about zero. When the US military is employed, it is only after the failure of diplomacy. The probability that the US military will be employed against those who do NOT share our basic values, on the other hand, is enormously high. Very many of the people whom the US military is likely to encounter in combat simply regard brutal rape, sexual assault, torture, sodomy, even dismemberment, castration and decapitation, as acceptable treatment of enemy personnel – regardless of gender or rank. Anyone who trots out a long list of their rights as an American woman is definitely NOT going to engender sympathy from such people. There should be no one in a US military uniform who does not fully accept such real world realities and is not fully capable of dealing with them through very realistic training – in advance. Given that basic logic, any woman of any service who is not capable of adequately defending herself against a single person assault does not belong in a US military uniform. Period. Nor should they be receiving the same pay and benefits of men who must meet much higher standards. Anyone who does not accept such simple logic is going to get people needlessly killed on the battlefield. I do not want them anywhere near or above me, including in a support role. I need to know that they can and will back me up with the exact same brute force that they want me to back them up. No one is forcing anyone to play on the big kids’ team. There is no place for double standards in war, and therefore no place for double standards in the US military. Measure up, or find something else to do.
Pay, allowances and benefits are barely sufficient to maintain required US military personnel strength on a voluntary basis during normal circumstances, but may not be sufficient in time of great emergency when the military needs a large and sudden increase in strength. Registering with the Selective Service essentially is entering your name and age into a data base of those between the ages of 18 and 26 who are available should their service ever be needed in an emergency. Should additional personnel be rapidly required above voluntary strength, the Draft would then randomly select people from the Selective Service register for induction and training in designated military specialties. Today an infinitesimally small 0.5% of 320,000,000 pampered Americans have any credible military experience at all; in time of a very major war, it might become necessary to increase that percentage all the way up to a full 1%, or even a frightening 2%, a truly staggering 3%. (Yes, it’s shameful, especially considering the many tens of millions who invoke the royal “we” to lay claim to their military expertise and macho power.)
But it gets more specific than this; the Draft would be needed primarily to quickly replace combat casualties and augment those specialties in the standing force which incur a disproportionate share of combat casualties. Experience has shown that the contemporary US military experiences the vast majority of its combat casualties in about 10% of the overall force that are Army and Marine ground combat arms and combat support arms. By a really huge overwhelming majority, infantrymen incur the greatest number of combat casualties in America’s wars, and it is not possible to “win” a war without large numbers of infantrymen. (A failure of the Baby Boomers to grasp this simple fact is the main reason why the US, with all its incredibly expensive high-tech conventional toys, lost its last three unconventional wars – against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and why it can’t win against Syria or ISIS, either.)
So the primary function of the Draft is to ensure that combat losses in Army and Marine Infantry are replaced as rapidly as possible. The secondary purpose of the Draft is to induce eligible men to volunteer for far less dangerous and demanding jobs before the Draft makes the decision for them. Experience (and human nature) have demonstrated that in times of national emergency, it is not especially difficult to get people to volunteer to sit in an office and type pay data into a computer screen. It is enormously more difficult, however, to get people to volunteer for the nation’s most physically demanding jobs that involve people with rifles facing other people with rifles trying really hard to kill them on a battlefield. So the “threat” of a draft for Army Infantry (very high danger) is also used as “incentive” for volunteers for Air Force Finance (very low danger).
I know this will upset all insecure “men” and daddies of little girls everywhere, but it’s also time to require ALL American women to register for the Selective Service Draft. Just require women to take off those stupid shoes to qualify. The incessant campaigns to get 18-year-old men to register for the Draft (a responsibility) and 18-year-old women to register to Vote (a right) keep sending the worst possible message to our young about their respective roles in society. Germany also has a discriminatory male-only draft, and every year a third of the draftees elect to pull their service doing menial chores in elderly care homes. Now that’s certainly not any kind of duty we want “special” women doing, is it? (German men quite obviously are even dumber than American men.) Germany, thanks to a female Chancellor, even has a privileged female politician with no military experience as its Defense Minister, giving her the power to rule over the private lives of all those “Nazi storm troopers” in military uniform and to make a number of major “reforms” that have been popular with other women. (Update: In 2011 Germany suspended its previous conscription of males, primarily because the size of the force had steadily shrunk to a size that barely required drafted soldiers.) About 10% (18,000) of German voluntary military personnel is female, and their numbers are greatest in areas like medical services.
Well over half (58%) of today’s American women between 18 and 48, who have never been married and never had children, now enjoy gratis as absurd “birthright entitlements” all the benefits which their grandmothers actually earned. And all they ever do is arrogantly make demands of everyone else, all while producing ever worse results in homes and schools and community and nation. If women are eventually required to register for the Draft, it will be the first time in history that American women have ever been required to do anything. Do you think that American women would be so supportive of a token few representatives exercising their right to dabble with men if that right required all of them to accept an actual responsibility? Only in your dreams. American women have RIGHTS; they do NOT have responsibilities.
The 17 years from age 18 to age 35 are the ideal ages for military service. Those same 17 years are also the ideal ages for women to give birth and raise children. There are a total of 35,250,000 American women who are between the ages of 18 and 35. Society depends greatly on women between the ages of 18 and 34 to produce at least the two children necessary to replace one man and one women and keep the society barely viable. (It is actually necessary today for women to have at least 3 children each – who will become future taxpayers needed to pay for the entitlement benefits expected of one aging man and one aging woman.) The first obligation of any society is to ensure its own survival.
Yet 31% of American women ages 30 to 34 (3,089,000 women) have never given birth. And this trend, started by the narcissistic Baby Boomer generation, is growing significantly; an incredible 54% of younger American women ages 25 to 29 (5,651,000 women) have never given birth, either. A total of 19,035,000 women 18-34 have simply “out-sourced” their most fundamental role in society to “someone else”. There is absolutely nothing about such women that earns them the “special” status in society they keep claiming for themselves. (The primary solution chosen by society is to import millions of Third World women who WILL have and raise the necessary children; these women actually earn their “special” status.) These women are so self-involved that they continually demand their government saddle the children of “someone else” with trillions of dollars of debts that they will never be able to pay off in their lifetimes solely to meet their own whiny wants for the here and now – and without even giving those children a say in the matter. There is absolutely no justification at all why childless women are not expected or required to meet the same standards as men, including registering for the Draft and dying in America’s ground combat wars in equal numbers as men. Today 19,000,000 is a really huge number of American women claiming unearned birthright entitlement for which they are simply not eligible, who are simply “freeloading”. You can field a pretty large army of warm body cannon fodder if you had 19,000,000 primping women from whom to choose.
Furthermore, there is zero reason to defend a society whose members don’t even care about sustaining it at home. Just what makes such a society worth defending?
American women have always had the ability to give the finger to any societal convention or authority, including government, expecting or directing them to do anything – without fear of cost for refusal. Whatever they did, they did voluntarily, and usually in their own self-interests. Even in employment arenas, women did not enter jobs in any numbers until men had finally rendered those jobs, sometimes after a century of deadly struggle, relatively safe from injury, disease or death and reasonably rewarding of their labor. And when women did move into such jobs, their first order of business was to demand that the standards be altered to better suit themselves. There has never been a price to pay for American women walking, or running, away from anything, and they have always retained the “right” to “change their minds” on a dime. This remains the case today, and it is what makes American women essentially devoid of principles, absent a sense of responsibility for anyone or anything beyond themselves, unwilling to lay it all on the line for any “greater cause”. Self-proclaimed “perpetual victims”, our “special” American women see the world through their own myopic vision.
Some claim that only Congress can change the law and require women to also register for the Draft, and that the women’s majority vote would ensure that never happens. But requiring women to register for the draft just as men must is not something that only Congress can accomplish. If women are allowed by the military to serve in all ground combat positions in the Army and Marines, and they should, then any 18 year old boy in the country, required to register for the Draft, could file a gender discrimination law suit under the constitutional principle that all citizens are equal under the law. The Supreme Court in the past has deferred to the military on this matter, has accepted the military’s need to draft men to be used as combat arms cannon fodder, but now the Court would have no option but to declare a male-only draft discriminatory, and thus constitutionally illegal, since heretofore the Draft was used first and foremost to fill male-only ground combat positions when needed. (In 1981 the Supreme Court ruled that women did not have to register for the draft because they could not hold ground combat jobs.) In today’s wars, those ground soldiers in the Army and Marines incur, incredibly, over 98% of war casualties. Now that the military has given women what they demanded, there is nothing anywhere that says all boys are any more capable of meeting infantry physical standards than are all girls. Some boys can, but some can’t. Some girls can, but some can’t. If boys don’t have a choice, then girls don’t have a choice. It’s just that equality simple.
Rights And Responsibilities
Any two-bit twit can scream orders to idiots from the very safe rear. There is only one way to lead people worth leading – from the risky front. “Show me.” It’s a learned and demonstrated capability, a willing assumption of responsibility, and accountability – for others – and to get them to willingly follow your example. To think otherwise is to arrogantly regard those subordinate to you as morons, something I have never encountered in the Regular forces. We no longer draft soldiers; we are dependent on volunteers, volunteers who would readily leave if faced with inept or uncaring leadership. Ever since women in Congress mandated the 1970s forced indoctrination training programs and all their subsequent reiterations, all military men know what they are required to say and write about military women; there never has been a requirement that it must be truthful. (The original intention was to avoid the career-deadly “sexist” label and to induce our “special” women to believe the praise and live up to it, but all it ever really accomplished was to make their rights ever more entitled and their whines ever more infantile.) Only when I know that you are fully competent will I even consider following you anywhere, and, obviously, under double standards, your rank proves nothing. The very last thing I want anywhere near me on the battlefield, or in my direct chain of command, is someone whose pathetic rights are more important to her than her responsibility for my life.
How is it possible to justify, rationalize, a women rising in the Army and Marine ranks to general officer under such grossly different standards? The US Regular military is just about the last institution in our society that remains a true meritocracy, and it’s still pretty tough and competitive. Are we trying to re-create the privileged nobility classes who stood safely in the rear while incompetently sending so many hundreds of thousands of drafted men to their certain deaths, for example, in World War I? There are few things more despicable than double standards in war, and military leadership does NOT come in a book. The first thing a ground soldier looks for on another’s uniform are combat service ribbons and bars, the Combat Infantryman’s Badge on his chest. Not being stupid, I don’t follow anyone who has not already demonstrated their own ability and willingness to do exactly what they want me to do. I am an American. I believe in equality; I do NOT believe in “special” – regardless of the mental gymnastics self-serving groups go through trying to force such nonsense on others.
If I can do it, am expected to do it, then so can women. Women serving in combat roles certainly does not threaten my “manhood”; in tough situations I want the very best people possible next to me, and it doesn’t make any difference to me if they need slightly different body armor. Besides, some of the best unconventional fighters I met in other cultures around the world over the years, including in Vietnam, have been women. The key is to make responsibilities stand above rights, and not offer any asinine excuses.
“Sorry, girl. I love ya’, but I just don’t trust ya’. Your culture allows you far too many excuses, far too many ways to claim a million rights, far too many ways to avoid responsibility, far too many ways to shift blame. And you have a long record of demanding that the rules and standards be changed to suit yourself whenever you wanted. This isn’t a fantasy movie. At crunch time, because I value my life above your wants, I wouldn’t follow your ‘leadership’ across the street.”
If any “special” American woman thinks this American soldier would follow her anywhere, then she also thinks I’m a damned fool. To those women and their lobbies demanding the “right” for a token few to serve in combat so as to have equal opportunity for promotion, because it’s a simple matter of money, about “special me”, know this: The very last person I want anywhere near me in combat, or anywhere in my chain of command, is a “special” birthright entitled women wallowing in her eternal victimhood and whining about all her rights with no sense of at least the exact same level of responsibility for others, and especially for me and my buddies, as she expects others to have for her. American women are defined by how well they wallow in victimhood – due primarily to the women-controlled indoctrination program instilled during the first dozen years of childhood, in both genders. This enables them to substitute dictatorship for leadership while avoiding responsibility both for others and for themselves. Until women automatically embrace a sense of responsibility for others, including for me and my sons, that exceeds the rights they claim for themselves, I’d be a fool to trust them with my dog, no matter what rank they manage to acquire with all those enforced rights.
American women are not even expected to stand firm on principle, and, far too self-interested, simply don’t. In our society we can send 10-year old boys to prison for life, sentence 18-year old boys to death, blame boys for failing in female-dominated schools, and hold boys adult enough to register for the Draft and die in war, but we have to wait for women to approach age 35 or 40 before we start holding them partially responsible for their own social and procreation choices, their own elective behavior. The “principles” held by American women have the consistency of mashed potatoes, and they instill the same spineless narcissism into children in their charge. “Say and do whatever has the least cost to “me” at any moment in time.” As principles go, even the principle of “equality” is just a twisted perversion serving “special” women. With all politicians ever eager to buy as many majority whining women votes as possible, all this double standard crap gets permanently institutionalized.
In other words, I would never trust even my reputation, not to mention my life, to an American women; the odds are overwhelming that, due to her culture, she simply does not possess the same level of responsibility for others that she expects of me as her “right”. After generations of self-serving “feminist” propaganda, to an American women, I am “the enemy”. (I get really nervous when one of these “special” people just has information that could place a male soldier’s life in jeopardy.) Has anyone ever heard of an elected American woman championing a cause for any group other than her own? Of course not. Americans elect women to champion themselves, ad nauseam, and the fact that the country is now $20 Trillion in debt and nearly bankrupt shows how superb a job they do. There is only one way to lead – from the front, by example. American women will never lead anyone in any endeavor until they fully embrace far more responsibility for others, including for men, than rights they claim for themselves. Whining about promotions and money, about more damned rights, is NOT the correct rationale for their demands. All they do with such rationale is proclaim that the only thing important to them is themselves, and that is a recipe for disaster. They are telling me to avoid them like the plague, and, believe me, I will. (See Leadership under “Verbal Slight Of Hand” near end of Marketing And Propaganda – Techniques .)
Consider this: I am considerably older than the average reader here. I have not lived a single day in which American women were not whining about something, and in every case the major factor in those complaints were those evil men, of which I am one. This has been the case since at least age 10, even though I have always gone out of my way to avoid interjecting myself in the affairs of others unless strongly urged to do so. In all those many years I have never once heard other women voicing a counter to the incessant complaining, so I must assume that such views are universal among all American women. I was, through no fault of my own, by simple accident of birth, born a healthy heterosexual white male. Today I am independent in the extreme; I need and seek nothing from anyone. Because I am so very self-sufficient, thick-skinned and financially secure, the things which others have to offer me which I would find beneficial are very few indeed. A veteran of many wars, my confident self-image has always been just fine, and I don’t need anyone else to “complete me”. The only thing anyone might have that I would find helpful is simply human exchange of the intellectual non-complaining variety. Everything else I can pretty well manage on my own, thank you. Yet none of this absolves me of being everyone else’s enemy. Since I refuse to become you, I often feel that I am actually more of an enemy to you than the armed enemies you want me to fight in war. That being the case, I must evaluate my position in an entirely rational manner. If I am your enemy, the cause of all your problems, why would I EVER trust you? All your life you have just wanted me dead and gone. And I am definitely no one’s dumb fool. Besides, dead soldiers are not useful to anyone. Still, it’s a difficult question: Just where would my death best suit you, or would you complain about my choice for that, too?
(I have always been very cautious with women in the military, but that caution went into overdrive in 1991 when I and every other American had to endure the shameful circus that took place in the US Senate over the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas for the US Supreme Court. That was without doubt the most disgusting event that ever took place in the US Congress, and mainly because women’s groups were afraid some guy was going to take away their “right” to kill their unborn children. The lesson for any man with half a brain was that, if this can happen in the US Senate, it can happen anywhere. Since no woman is worth risking my good name, my reputation, I will grant trust only after it has been fully earned, or if I am so ordered. (I have never met an American woman who earned my trust; they all assume trust is another of their “rights”.) Since 1991 I have never had a discussion in private, in confidence, or of a personal nature with an American woman in the military. And I have always stated on their performance appraisals exactly what I am supposed to say, regardless of my own professional evaluation. Assuming that they are five-year-old children made of the most fragile rice paper, I will not even shake hands with an American military woman. I also assume that any military man who gets involved with a sexual harassment situation without unimpeachable witness is simply too stupid to warrant my defense. Never close the door, maintain the greatest distance possible, never ever turn your back, and keep very good records. “Equality” is a fantasy; you are presumed guilty, so, despite the US Constitution, always be prepared to prove your innocence. Women are “special”; until men complete being re-engineered as childishly whiny women, you are NOT allowed to treat women as you treat men.)
If women can’t run first-class public schools responsibly and equitably, not to mention legally – for girls AND for boys – then what makes anyone think women can run the military, much less the country, responsibly and equitably? In 21st century America these perpetual children can’t even be adult enough to assume responsibility for their own free choices, their own elective behavior. American women urgently need to learn that with every right comes a corresponding responsibility, and, despite all the lobby and daddy nonsense, there never has been any “special” in “equal”.
And it definitely is NOT about slick “feminists” still despicably demanding that a whole institution bend to its will, degrade itself, so that a tiny few women can serve in tough positions under separate self-serving standards in the only entity in the nation that can be dictated to – just so that all women who do nothing but sit on their asses on the safe sidelines can share vicariously in their service. This is simply asinine. Unearned vicarious self-worth gained from a tiny few is becoming a plague in this country. The US military has been suffering under endless campaigns of such nonsense for the past forty years. That’s enough.
“These are the standards required of the job. They apply equally to everyone. If you can meet them, then welcome aboard. If you cannot, then we wish you well in some endeavor that is better suited to your aspirations and capabilities.”
February 2014 Addendum: The Army has been studying the whole issue in considerable detail to determine how best to orient and focus training. Some of the findings so far: Over 99.99% of American women are not even interested in joining the US Army. (That 99.99% is far worse even than another area of “oppressive discrimination” that whining “feminists” have been milking for the past forty years – competitive sports.) So, less than 0.01% of American women are interested in joining the Army, and, of those tiny few, less than 7.5% of women who have already qualified for an Army career say they want a combat job in infantry, armor, artillery or combat engineers. Of those, an overwhelming majority said they’d like to be a member of the elite special operations helicopter crews. (Such an interest usually indicates a desire for paid military training in a profession that will pay quick dividends in a civilian career, with a leg-up provided here by waving the flag of “elite” military membership.)
So, as always, to accommodate an infinitesimally small number of women, the entire institution must be changed, degraded, mainly to meet personal ulterior objectives. How many women of military age are 7.5% of 0.01%? Real Numbers: Of 170,000,000 American females, about 25,000,000 are of military age. Of these, about 250,000 are interested in the military, and about 20,000 of them are interested in ground forces combat arms. And most of that 20,000 want to be helicopter pilots or similar machine crewmen supporting ground soldiers. So, about 6,000 American women want to try to become infantrymen, and perhaps 1,000 may succeed. That’s 1,000 out of 170,000,000 women. And for that tiny few a whole institution must bow? (And, guys, before you pump up your chest, you should know that most young American men can’t qualify under today’s standards, either.) It is such extreme tokenism, born in “feminism”, that is turning American society into one gigantic phony front, in which 99% of citizens do nothing but sit on their asses in the very safe rear while laying claim to esteemed membership in the royal “we”. Obviously, those who claim a “right” to jump on for a free ride on the accomplishments of a tiny few others are simply perpetual losers childishly invoking unearned entitlement.
Talk is the cheapest thing there is.
But, on the positive side, all women interested in such jobs agreed that the physical standards for the jobs should remain the same – which would dramatically reduce the number of women who qualify. (See Footnote #3 below.) (While 92.5% of young Army women are not interested, the vast majority of Army women who did express interest in combat jobs were in the lower ranks, and age 27 or younger.)
However, male soldiers already in those careers worried that their unit’s readiness will be degraded because of what they term “women issues” such as pregnancy and menstrual cycles. (Such views haven’t changed since women began coming into a peacetime Army after the Vietnam War and the Draft ended, and pay and benefits went way up, in the mid-1970s – 40 years ago.) Or they worried that, as has been the historical practice in the larger Army, women incapable of the physical demands would be brought in anyway, perpetuating double standards that always gravitate to other standards, but without double standards in pay, promotion and assignments. Officers were concerned about being accused of sexual harassment, discrimination in performance appraisals, and improper relationships. (There has been a constant problem in the US military since around 1975 of male superiors not telling subordinate women well enough the lies they want to hear.) Some soldiers say they are worried to be in the same room together, which makes them vulnerable to all sorts of accusations. As with the rest of the Army, the men are concerned that anything they say could ruin their careers. In addressing women’s complaints about sexual harassment, job discrimination and improper relationships in recent years, the Army has created an environment of fear, which it now fears will hinder integration in those jobs. (First Rules: Always leave the door wide open; always have a witness; and never speak the truth.)
(But have no doubt: Women and their “feminist” lobbies WILL, as always, be able to force on the Army whatever they want to force. Everyone else has the responsibility to ensure whatever rights women decide to demand for themselves, even if only a very tiny handful are even interested. It’s the story of standards everywhere in American society for the past half century. It’s ALL about “me”.)
In March 2016 the Secretary of Defense announced that henceforth American women will have the “right” to serve in all ground combat roles. Let’s see how long it takes for American women to demand the responsibility to register for the Draft.
Addendum: Mandatory Civic Service
Combat arms personnel (ground forces infantry, armor and artillery, Army and Marine) suffer the highest casualty and turn-over rates in modern wars, and it is not easy to recruit people into these most essential yet very tough and dangerous positions, especially during times of war. (The threat of being drafted for combat jobs is also an inducement for men to preemptively volunteer for non-combat jobs – which enables the other services to meet manning quotas.) So having a registry of draft-eligible young Americans who can be called to service when needed, primarily to fill combat arms positions, will remain necessary for any possible contingency. With women eligible to serve in combat arms, under equal standards, that draft registry will of necessity finally consist equitably of both men and women in order to be non-discriminatory and thus constitutionally legal. But requiring young men and women to register for a draft that has a high probability of never being used falls far short of what is now needed to correct tremendous gender imbalances that have developed throughout our society.
Note that a major aspect of the rationale for firing almost a million soldiers at the end of the “Cold” War, and farming out a small part of their critical functions to the National Guard, was that Americans who saw their local mechanics, their police officers, their firemen, their small business leaders, etc., go off to war would ensure that their elected representatives would not let those wars go on forever. As it turned out, Americans don’t really care about anything that doesn’t directly involve “me”, so that whole rationale went out the window when the time came. Wars are now just fine – as long as they don’t involve “me”, especially since women have been the dominant voting bloc in America since 1980.
So I also believe that a minimum of two, and preferably three, years of civic service at minimum wage should be required of all Americans, and all those seeking citizenship, between the ages of 18 and 38 in order to become eligible for any government assistance program, including student loans/aid and Medicare and Social Security benefits (that begin earliest at age 70). This mandatory civic service program would be run the same way as a military Draft (but without loopholes for all the self-anointed “special” people). A person could volunteer for one of three possible types of service (military, public works, K-12 teaching), but the needs of the local, state and national communities would take precedence. It’s not about rights; it’s about responsibility. Just as with the military, “We’ll try to meet your request for a specific type of civic service, but the overall needs of our society come first.”
All levels of government (local, state and national), and all agencies and departments, would be required to set aside 20% of their authorized spaces for such productive civic service – at non-union minimum wage. Any spaces not filled by volunteers would be filled by draftees drawn from a lottery in each state. Only those qualifying for service in the nation’s armed forces and the permanently comatose would be exempt from this mandatory civic service program.
Temporary deferments for such things as pregnancy, university enrollment and criminal or mental institutional incarceration, but not exemptions, would be possible. Deferments for full-time satisfactory college enrollment would be possible only if that gender at that
particular university was no more than 2% above 50%, in accordance with US civil rights law, for American citizen students, or if the student was making satisfactory progress toward earning a degree in one of twenty specialties listed on a national high-need list, and only if there were still a minimum of four years remaining before age 39. No deferments would be possible after reaching age 35. A primary emphasis for those with university educations would be service in our nation’s K-12 public schools – at minimum wage.
Currently half of American adults pay no income taxes, but all benefit from government services paid for by the other half. Well over half of American women between 18 and 48 have never been married and never had children but still enjoy all the benefits their grandmothers actually earned. Currently we have two American women getting university educations for every one American man – a gross violation of federal civil rights law at truly staggering financial and social cost – and most of those educations are not in fields that the nation needs most. This requires the US to annually import many hundreds of thousands of better educated foreigners to meet our society’s critical needs, just as we have to import millions of Third World immigrants willing to take up our slack in producing babies – tomorrow’s taxpaying workers needed to pay for all those ballooning birthright entitlements the “special” people refuse to reduce. Far less than 0.3% of American adults even serve in the nation’s military services anymore, but all love to throw around the imperial “we” when pumping themselves up with the tough service of a very few others. Worse, that military is drifting further and further apart from the larger society with its superior standards, knowledge and experience. Even so, all Americans enjoy the same benefits of citizenship, which are paid for by only half and defended by far less than 1% of the adult population. There has to be a better way to get everyone contributing a fair and equitable share of what all enjoy, without lame excuses from our legions of self-anointed “special” people — an equitable way that benefits the nation, all of us, not just “me”, and it definitely is not about money, about buying your way out.
We are rapidly becoming a caste nation of whining leeches dominated by a privileged gender claiming eternal victimhood and a million rights – to avoid responsibility – which is absolutely impossible to sustain. People who benefit so much from our society need to understand that a very healthy part of the equation is “us” – subordinate to the insufferable “me” – that there is a real cost to all those societal gifts.
(See also “Don’t Ask“, “Military Fruit Salad“, “Sexual Offenses In The US Military“, “Gymnastics Of The Mind” and “Smiling Faces and Purple Fingers – And Egypt“, posted separately.)
Footnote #1: I am an American.
Canada, Israel, France, Norway, Australia and New Zealand also allow women to serve in combat positions.
In Norway all young people of both genders are registered for the draft, and both genders receive conscription letters inviting them to complete an on-line questionnaire. About a third of those completing the questionnaire are then invited to report for interview and evaluation. There is no gender favoritism when about half of these are then selected for training based on capabilities shown by physical and psychological testing. So, Norwegian armed forces end up training the most competent 10,000 young men and women of the 65,000 completing the initial questionnaire each year. The Norwegian military service system, in theory, is the world’s most equitable, but it remains a question as to what criteria are used by the inituial on-line questionnaire. And, of course, the Norwegian armed forces are very small compared to those of the US and rarely see similar types of deployments. (Scandinavian countries are out front in the drive to a “uni-sex” entity, a concept about adults with which I can find little fault – with one very major exception. The concept is being used most aggressively in the United States to hide the degree to which boys are being intellectually and academically crippled by standards that are purposefully designed to favor girls. Anyone using “uni-sex” for children below the age of 18 is simply engaging in the most despicable kind of sexist bigotry possible. This has become a very wide practice in the United States, especially among our entire women-dominated “education” system serving “very special me”.)
Canada has a “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” that requires “equality”, and three Canadian women have died in combat roles in Afghanistan. About 2.5% of Canadian combat units are women, but this means only 145 officers and 209 enlisted – predictably an officer-enlisted ratio far out of fair proportion in a total military force that has only 9,350 women – 14% of the whole (not 50%). Obviously in Canada, too, “equal” has its limits when it’s all about self-serving rights and not about other-serving responsibilities. It’s all about forcing your “special” view of the world on to everyone else, about changing the standards to best suit yourself, so a few members of your group can dabble, too, so the whole group can derive some fake vicarious self-esteem.
As an American I believe in equality; I do NOT believe in “special”. Ours is NOT a caste society. A nobility class is anathema to our fundamental values; we do NOT live in a monarchy with an asinine “birthright entitled” nobility class. We can’t keep lowering standards so everyone can meet them with little effort; the objective should be to keep the standards high so that only those who most apply themselves can meet or exceed them, with a sense of actual accomplishment. Our military should be 50-50 men and women with everyone meeting the same high standards, with no excuses. All those double standards are eating away at our society and turning it all into a mess of emotional mush serving the “special” people. If it’s not permissible to “sexually harass” women, then it is not permissible to “sexually harass” men. If women can demand and receive “privacy”, then men can also demand and receive “privacy”. If consensual sexual relations with a female under age 18 is rape, then consensual sexual relations with a male under age 18 is also rape. If women can demand and receive treatment by a female doctor, then men can demand and receive treatment by a male doctor. If it’s not permissible to sexually humiliate a female inmate, then it is not permissible to sexually humiliate a male inmate.
If women don’t want to hold up their end of the bargain for which they were designed – having and raising on their own the healthy and well-educated children that any society needs to survive, at least two for each women – then they are just more schmucks in the arena. If it is permissible to require men to register for the draft, then women can also be required to register for the draft. If men can be drafted, then women can also be drafted. If it is permissible to send men to die in combat, then it is permissible to send women to die in combat. If it’s not permissible to torture a female prisoner, then it is not permissible to torture a male prisoner. If military women can refuse to allow a male psychologist to fool around with their minds, then military men can refuse to allow a female psychologist to fool around with their minds. If it is not permissible to allow a woman to commit “suicide by cop”, then it is not permissible to allow a man to commit “suicide by cop”. If women have a unilateral right of “choice”, then men should not be held responsible for the choices women make. Etc., etc.. Anything other than such standards of equality is discriminatory, bigotry, i.e., against US constitutional law that holds “all men equal under the law”. Period.
The double standards in physical conditioning and capability were demanded by women’s groups back in the 1970s when women first started coming into a post-Draft, high-pay, peacetime military in large numbers, but the double standards then were regarded as temporary measures until women got up to snuff. Like all such double standards demanded by special interest lobbies, however, they have now become permanently institutionalized. But that fact does not change the fact that very many of those women cannot meet the same requirements for the job that men do. (I am about the same size as the average woman, and no one is going to try to do me harm without paying a very dear and immediate price for their stupidity. I haven’t bothered to check the double standards for years, but the last time I did, I discovered that the minimum physical conditioning standards for a 21-year-old Army woman were the same as for a 46-year-old Army man. It wasn’t until there was a full quarter of a century in age difference were women expected to be able to meet male standards. A 21-year-old should be able to do twice as much as a 46-year-old, regardless of gender. Because of such simple life realities, younger people are typically handed the most physically demanding tasks. Now how brilliant (or equal) is THAT – in an organization where INHERENTLY young people will do most of the heavy stuff, and older people, who have already done the heavy stuff 28 years earlier when they were young, are leading them?) Given the mission of the US military, there is no rational justification for such double standards. Women soldiers who cannot meet the same standards as the men next to them represent an inherent danger to everyone, and those standards need to be as high as humanly possible.
Given all the “special me” nonsense, there can be only one sensible advice for men in uniform: avoid all women like the plague; you live and work in a prison, and your women keepers occupy their very own alternate reality to best serve themselves.
There is NO “special” in “equal”, and no amount of self-serving “rationale” can change that simple fact. Adult participation in society does not mean that you get to pick and choose only those goodies that you like, while leaving the hard stuff to “someone else”. There just are not enough of the “someone else” to go around. All those rights DO come with corresponding responsibilities, and women need to understand and accept this before we all go belly up.
Navy Guard Post Incident. During a late night in Norfolk Virginia in March 2014 an unarmed civilian on a naval base walked up a tight boarding ramp to the US Navy’s extremely potent guided missile destroyer USS Mahan, confronted an armed woman guard, knocked her to the ground and took away her weapon – and was then killed by a male sailor who simultaneously shielded her with his body, and gave his own life to save hers. It was all about her right to be where she was. But he retained all the responsibility, and paid the ultimate price for it. That’s certainly just the woman I want exercising her right to back me up in battlefield combat, or, far worse, having her as my combat commander. Real life is not a Hollywood movie.
White House Breach. It’s not just the US military. The US Secret Service, which has responsibility for the protection of the US President, has also long been subjected to such absurd double standards. In September 2014, a man climbed over the White House fence and knocked aside a female Secret Service guard before sprinting across the huge lawn and actually entering the White House, where he was finally tackled and restrained by an off-duty Secret service man. (Fortunately the lunatic was unarmed and not wearing an improvised explosive device, and the President and his family were not present in the White House at the time.) It is not known why the female guard did not empty her service weapon into the man, but the head of the Secret Service was a woman who had risen all the way to the top of the agency by benefitting for 30 years from such double standards – which obviously have had a steady deleterious effect on the entire agency. The US Secret Service has long drawn its people from the US military, especially the US Marine Corps.
American women will never lead anyone until they accept and embrace far more responsibility for others than rights they claim for themselves. But “responsibility” is the one word American women never even mention. It’s far easier to blame men for “oppressing” them, denying them rights, etc.. The simple truth is that the woman sailor and the Secret Service guard were not qualified for the jobs they filled. The male sailor automatically demonstrated the responsibility that was also his female buddy’s. The same was true of the two Secret Service people. In 2014, any man is a fool to heed any woman’s whine about her rights unless she at the same time places equal or greater weight on her responsibilities. This nonsense is killing our whole society. “Everyone else has the responsibility to ensure whatever rights I demand for me.” is just bullshit. Our society can no longer afford such stupid double standards, in the interest of “equality”. Either you measure up to the standards that apply to the job, or you find something else to do.
Footnote #2: Can You Do This?
John Franklin Baker, Jr. was born on 30 October 1945 in Davenport, Iowa, and attended Moline High School from 1963 to 1966, where he also competed as a gymnast. He entered the US Army in Moline, Illinois, and served as a private in A Company, 2nd Battalion of the 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Division. In Vietnam, he became a “tunnel rat”, an infantry soldier who entered labyrinthine Viet Cong tunnels searching out the enemy and destroying their caches of war material, in a unit known as “The Wolfhounds” for which he participated in some 300 missions. A “tunnel rat” was a man who engaged in an exceedingly dangerous and deadly endeavor, in very tight confines.
On 5 November 1966, Private Baker and his unit were called to assist another unit that was pinned down near Dau Tieng, close to the Cambodian border, by a force of about 3,000 Vietnamese enemy soldiers who had taken positions in the surrounding jungle. En route, Baker’s A Company began to take fire and lost its lead soldier. For his subsequent actions, Baker was awarded the Medal of Honor. At the time of the action Baker was a 21-year old Private E-2.
Medal Of Honor Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.
En route to assist another unit that was engaged with the enemy, Company A came under intense enemy fire and the lead man was killed instantly. Sgt. Baker immediately moved to the head of the column and together with another soldier knocked out two enemy bunkers. When his comrade was mortally wounded, Sgt. Baker, spotting four Viet Cong snipers, killed all of them, evacuated the fallen soldier and returned to lead repeated assaults against the enemy positions, killing several more Viet Cong. Moving to attack two additional enemy bunkers, he and another soldier drew intense enemy fire and Sgt. Baker was blown from his feet by an enemy grenade. He quickly recovered and single-handedly destroyed one bunker before the other soldier was wounded. Seizing his fallen comrade’s machine gun, Sgt. Baker charged through the deadly fusillade to silence the other bunker. He evacuated his comrade, replenished his ammunition and returned to the forefront to brave the enemy fire and continue the fight. When the forward element was ordered to withdraw, he carried one wounded man to the rear. As he returned to evacuate another soldier, he was taken under fire by snipers, but raced beyond the friendly troops to attack and kill the snipers. After evacuating the wounded man, he returned to cover the deployment of the unit. His ammunition now exhausted, he dragged two more of his fallen comrades to the rear.
Sgt. Baker’s selfless heroism, indomitable fighting spirit, and extraordinary gallantry were directly responsible for saving the lives of several of his comrades, and inflicting serious damage on the enemy. His acts were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.
His military decorations included: Medal of Honor, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Purple Heart. This soldier wore the Combat Infantryman’s Badge.
Private Baker was paid about $2.00 for each day he managed to stay alive in Vietnam – a little over $60.00 a month*. He was one of those many Vietnam Vets whom, when they came home from the war, the Baby Boomers vilified, ostracized and labeled “baby killers”. He made the Army his career and retired as a Master Sergeant (E-8) in 1989 at the end of the “Cold” war after 24 years service. He then went to work as a computer analyst for the Department of Veterans Affairs in South Carolina. He was a member of the National Infantry Association (Order of St. Maurice) and a recipient of the Primicerius Award, the highest designation for those who have made a significant and lasting contribution to the US Army Infantry.
Suffering from heart problems in his later years, Master Sergeant Baker collapsed in his home in northeast Richland County, South Carolina, and died on 20 January 2012 at the age of 66. John Baker was one of nine siblings, and he is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
Under fire, and returning fire, he still was able to pull out six other wounded men.
He was 5’1” (155 cm) tall and weighed 105 pounds (47.6 kg).
American women today have an average height of about 5’4″ (162.5 cm) and an average weight of about 164 pounds (74.3 kg). (I am taller but weigh considerably less.)
(*$60 monthly pay in 1966 is equivalent to about $410 monthly pay today.)
It’s time to get over this stupid size thing, all those asinine double standards for the “special” people. Besides, I concluded while still a teenager than the bigger the body, the smaller the brain, and I never encountered anything in later life that disproved that general principle. (Worse, the principle gets even more solid the older I get.) Small guys have to use their brains; big guys can mostly just bully their way through. (That’s why big guys make such easy suckers for women’s lame propaganda.)
“These are the standards. You are welcome to try out, but your own capabilities will determine if you can meet the standards. If you can, welcome aboard. If you can’t, there must be a million other things in life that you can pursue.”
“You learn the rules, you master the process, and then you beat the jerks at their own game. You do NOT make up new rules just for “special me”.”
No “feminist” had told her she couldn’t do it:
In January 2014, Cara Jumper, 10, expected a fun day with her grandpa at the family fishing hole in South Carolina. But when he suffered a stroke and fell into deep water, the little girl found herself leaping to his rescue and saving him from drowning. The quite petite Cara then dragged her 230-pound (104 kg) grandfather a quarter of a mile through the woods, pulled him into the vehicle, got behind the wheel and drove him three miles back home to safety. He was subsequently hospitalized for six days and thankful that his granddaughter had been able to save his life. Cara said, “I think it was the hardest thing that I’ve ever done.” “Hard”, of course, is what makes it “great”.
Footnote #3: January 2014: The Defense Department has announced a change in policy that will allow women to serve in Army and Marine combat infantry roles – to meet women’s demands for greater chances for faster promotion. But the results so far have not been stellar. Women have always enjoyed significantly lower minimum physical fitness standards for basic military training that applies to all members of their military service, including Army and Marines. But the infantry physical fitness standards are supposed to reflect the strength required in an expected battlefield scenario, including lifting heavy ammunition, equipment or wounded comrades – which for this particular career profession is naturally considerably above the norm. In November 2013, three women graduated for the first time from the Marine’s grueling enlisted infantry training course, and officials said no rules were relaxed for the female troops. (Women also have been invited to enroll in Marine infantry officer training, but no woman has successfully completed the course so far.) But just three of twenty is not a promising result. Then in December the Marines revealed that 55% of women who tried out still fell short of a three pull-up minimum standard. Just 45% could do just 3 pull-ups! Despite earlier statements, there were, in fact, reduced minimum standards for women. All male Marines have to perform 20 pull-ups to get a maximum score on their basic fitness test, but their female equivalents only have to pull their weight up eight times to earn the same result. Etc..
It is not all that uncommon for male recruits to fail minimum standards when first entering basic military training, but very rigorous training continually perfected by the US military for well over a century will quickly enable such men to meet and significantly surpass the minimums (unless there is a physical injury that precludes further training and military service.) This, however, was not the case with very many of the women. There really is no excuse for this. There really is no valid reason why women cannot be trained to meet such minimum standards – if they arrive with a reasonable degree of fitness and are not allowed any excuses. The fact that some could do it is evidence enough. I never met a man in the Army who couldn’t do at least twenty. At three times their age, I could still do at least fifty pull-ups. Do they think playing combat soldier is the same as answering telephones? Give me a break.
If you can’t pick up my dead weight and my weapon from the ground and carry both of us, plus your own weapon, at least 100 yards at double-time speed (And, yes, some actually fit women can.), then I don’t want you anywhere near me on a battlefield or in my chain of command. You’ll just get both of us killed. But no doubt whining women and their lobbies will, as always throughout our society, force the institution to change its standards to accommodate a tiny few. Their knee-jerk “answer” for such things everywhere for the past half century has always been to either lower the standards for all or institute despicable double standards for “me”. It’s not the institution or its mission or anyone else in the institution; it’s strictly all about “me”, damned the consequences. It’s all so a tiny few of the “special” people can play with the big boys and thereby transfer unearned vicarious self-esteem to huge herds of others who do nothing but sit on their asses making demands. And, of course, as long as you can keep doing this, there’s no need to measure up, no need to even try, no need to compete as actual equals. It’s a totally perverted version of “equality” – serving “me” – that does little more than steadily lower the standards for everyone, until little or no effort at all is required, and the institution may as well belong to the Boy Scouts. How in God’s name do you get guys to volunteer for, and dedicate their lives to, a career which, for them, is the toughest on the planet, while others just waltz on through as “special”?
(The primary reason why younger women as a group have such huge general health care costs compared to men is because so many of them are overweight and out of shape – both strictly matters of voluntary personal choice, personal behavior for which they insist that “someone else” pick up huge portions of the inevitable cost. And their children usually turn out as copies of themselves. Sooner or later a way has to be found to start holding people accountable for their own elective behavior – just like we did with smokers – before we all go bankrupt.)
As a young man growing up during a time when a male Draft was a normal fact of life, I knew military service was a foregone conclusion in my future. So I dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot in an involuntary military. But when the time came, I discovered I was an inch short of the minimum height standards. (Fighter cockpits were designed as tight chambers intended for humans who fell within a very specific size range.) So that was that. There was nothing I could do to change physical realities, and the Army had other ideas about how to use me. But after women began entering a peacetime Army when the Draft had ended and pay and benefits were raised enormously, some women complained to other women in Congress that they were too short to qualify for flight training, that the Air Force was discriminating against them because they were smaller than men. So the Air Force was required to completely re-design cockpits to accommodate women who were as a group smaller than men – at an astronomical cost for every plane in the inventory. It wasn’t a matter of admitting women who could meet the standards; it was all about changing the standards, changing the institution, to accommodate women who could not – as a simple matter of physical realities – meet the standards, even though the number of women who were even interested in such a career in a voluntary military was just incredibly small. (There has never been a requirement for American women to serve in the military, and no requirement for women to serve in any military capacity, including pilot. It’s all a matter of the free choices women opt to make, for “me”. Everyone and everything else is required to accommodate whatever women want for themselves.) Such forced “adjustments” have been very common in American society for a half century, but today most think the standards everywhere were always so low for everyone. (Later, by the way, surveillance drones got their big boost because it was a way to not needlessly endanger the lives of women pilots who were daughters of the Air Force Chief of Staff.)
Footnote #4. Married, With Children. One of the phrases we hear a lot these days is “single mothers” – who need tons of pity and admiration and help and money for the consequences of their own decisions, their own choices. I’ve spent my adult life among rather masculine and stoic men, almost all of whom considered themselves, essentially, “single fathers”. Even if they didn’t have children, their wives were every bit as much hassle and expense and worry as children. Even when they were deployed there seemed to be no end to the problems and whines and expenses emanating from the home front. For some guys, addressing those things took more energy and concern than the requirements of their jobs, and insufficient money was a constant anxiety. They were expected to keep such problems at home to an absolute unseen minimum so that they did not detract one iota from their ability to perform at peak effectiveness on the job. I often wondered why such men remained married, but the answer really was the same as it’s always been: “It’s what is expected of me.” (And just what is expected of women?)
In fact, for military officers at least, being married was an important ticket for faster promotion, and how well he addressed those constant “family” problems was a critical factor in those promotions, a very well known invisible box on the score sheet that required the maximum points. How well the wife conducted herself in public was also a critical aspect of her husband’s promotion, an aspect that could just as easily have dire negative consequences as positive. A man with a “problem wife” (or children) who could not be “contained”, or who did not measure up to the highest standards in public, was a guaranteed pass-over at promotion time. If he got two pass-overs, he was on his way out of service. Some officers tried to apply these same standards to their senior NCOs, who, naturally, had a way of passing them on down the chain, with varying degrees of effectiveness. This promotion aspect began to change around 1980, when women who were streaming into a peacetime military (after the Draft ended and pay went way up) refused to be held to such standards. So they weren’t. But, in many ways, men still are. “Single fathers” is still pretty much a universal concept in the US military, probably even more so since their wives now have so many watchdogs in their lobbies and regulations and politicians all eager to listen to their whines and broadcast them to the world. I advise military men to either leave the service or seek a divorce the minute the first signs of trouble on the home front show up; to do otherwise is simply to invite professional suicide.
For myself, I always fall back on the very loud and stern admonishment I was given by a crusty NCO when I first showed up with a bunch of other young men for basic training long ago: “If the Army had wanted you to have a wife, the Army would have issued you a wife!” An army exists to fight and win deadly wars; it does not exist to play babysitter. But these days, it does. Soldiers, especially male soldiers, are a secondary consideration. And many married male soldiers are just a ticket to lucrative benefits for some greedy woman.
Furthermore, I have always been strongly in favor of a federal statute that states unequivocally, “The spouse of any military member who is deployed in a declared or undeclared combat zone who engages in infidelity or psychological abuse, to include harassment or taunting or filing for divorce or similar irresponsible actions, of that deployed service member, shall forego any and all benefits arising from that service member’s death in the combat zone, including current pay and allowances. The same shall apply to any family member engaging in similar psychological abuse if the service member is not married. Upon criminal investigation and decision, all such benefits, pay and allowances shall defer and accrue to the next surviving family member, without challenge.”
Footnote #5. April 2015: The US military has long been the world’s largest Petri Dish for social engineering. In very many ways, it’s almost identical to communist-era forced indoctrination centers that “re-educated” whole populations with the mandated nonsense of the day. It helps a lot when those who serve in the US military give up a lot of their own rights in order to serve – to then be subjected to tyranny by offensive others imposing their rights.
In the following story, keep in mind that those driving this particular sub-interest are 95% interested in officer jobs, i.e., being able to order around those guys who actually do the hard stuff. (Also keep in mind that there are currently several other similar programs underway in the US military, with their own staffs and commissariats and regulations and “researchers” and “public information” propagandists, etc.. Women’s Rights is the oldest and most thoroughly institutionalized program in the US military, going back over forty years, but a new one that is now ginning up its operations is the “LBGT” group. And, yes, the US taxpayer picks up the bills for it all.)
Aside: No one ever notices that ALL news media stories concerning women are written by women. Women are the only people allowed to comment on women in our society, so it is women who determine what “truth” is concerning anything to do with women. And women, of course, also have a right to say anything they want about men (and boys). Of course, any information released by the Defense Department about women is only allowed to originate from women. After a century of this self-serving stuff, greatly intensified over the past half century, half of our society is based on a totally false construct that exists only in delusion. Is it any wonder that almost NOTHING makes sense anymore? This story, too, was written by a woman, but because it’s an AP wholesaler story, it contains more information than will ever be found in retail news media after it has been appropriately “massaged” even further by all the other women at the retail “news” level. (Just try to find a story on school performance that talks about “boys” and “girls”; it’s ALL some uni-sex entity (which, of course, just happens to be identical to girls).)
AP Exclusive: Special ops troops doubt women can do the job
Associated Press, 4 April 2015, by LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) — Surveys find that men in U.S. special operations forces do not believe women can meet the physical and mental demands of their commando jobs, and they fear the Pentagon will lower standards to integrate women into their elite units, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press. ((Notice the blanket statement that is made from a survey, without revealing the details of the survey. What percentage of men felt so? Were they enlisted or officer? Newbies or old hands? Combat support or combat infantry? Does this mean ALL women? Etc. It’s a very common propaganda trick, designed to convey the impression that certain groups are monolithic in their views. It’s used with greatest effectiveness in political surveys – to convey that “everyone” has such views, that there are no differences between the views, for example, of men and women, young people and older people, etc.. You use such blanket statements when you want any dumb men out there to “wise up and join the majority”, etc., which, of course, is the view of most majority women. And, since our schools now only teach kids WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think, dumb boys and men are easy suckers for such slick propaganda.))
Studies that surveyed personnel found “major misconceptions” within special operations about whether women should be brought into the male-only jobs. They also revealed concerns that department leaders would “capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards,” according to one document. ((“major misconceptions” is a military euphemism for views that are not in lock-step with “feminist” doctrine.)) Some of those concerns were not limited to men, researchers found, but also were found among women in special operations jobs. ((Most such women are in high-tech support roles, such as pilots for those nifty helicopters used by the Nightstalkers – which makes certain they will reap the Big Bucks from their military training when they leave the military – unlike combat grunts who have no market in the civilian community. Anyone who thinks women don’t know how to work EVERYTHING to their advantage is a delusional fool.))
Dan Bland, force management director for U.S. Special Operations Command, told the AP that the survey results have “already driven us to do some different things in terms of educating the force.” ((“Educating the force” is another military euphemism for forced indoctrination. It dates back to programs developed during the 1970s under mandates issued by women bigots like lesbian Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder where every man is told what “truth” is concerning women and various minority groups, and instructed that this is the Thought Police “truth” that WILL determine ratings, promotion and retention. See below.))
About 68,800 people serve in the command, including 3,000 civilians. ((Almost 3/4ths of the 68,000 are in combat SUPPORT roles.)) The main survey went to about 18,000 people who are in positions closed to women, and the response was about 50 percent. ((These 18,000 are the 26% of special ops who actually DO the special ops, such as the Special Forces, where casualty rates are twenty times higher. The “teeth-to-tail” ratio, even in special ops, is 3 to 1 – three straphangers for every one working dog.)) The high response rate, officials said, reflects the wide interest in the subject. ((Getting grunts to respond to surveys is quite a task, so the 50% figure is indeed impressive. This is obviously a MAJOR problem to them.))
The studies are part of the Pentagon’s effort to open all military combat positions to women or provide reasons why any jobs should remain closed.
One survey, by RAND Corp., reflected doubts that women could meet the overall job demands, found concerns that sexual harassment or assault could increase ((This is because the definitions of “harassment” and “assault” are whatever women say they are, whenever they decide to do so, including during routine rough training in which women must be regarded as “special”.)), and cited worries about “unequal treatment” of special operations candidates and personnel. ((“Unequal treatment” has been mandated by the US military for a half century, especially after Rep Schroeder (D-Colo) changed all the policies in the late-1970s. Schroeder was on the House Armed Services Committee. I know no men in the military who treat women as equals with men, without fear of ending up in court under some felony charge. Anyone who says there’s “equal treatment” by gender in the US military is just lying.)) Some worried that if women were let in to some jobs, they might be treated more harshly. ((Not sure this is possible in special ops; the normal training and regimen is simply BRUTAL, so brutal that most men can’t handle it. So any women coming in definitely WILL be treated FAR harsher on their very first day than they ever even imagined in their very worst nightmare – UNLESS the standards are thrown completely out. Why don’t they just create a “special forces” made up completely of women with their own standards – and see how well they do on their own in the real world? And if they do well, then, “You go, Girl. I’ll just sit back here and watch.” Now, THAT would BE something.))
Survey details have not been released. This was the first time that officials from Special Operations Command publicly discussed the results.
Andy Hamilton, who works with Bland and has expertise on this issue, noted that women in special operations jobs had concerns, too, about the broader integration. “They’re concerned that this might result in the lowering of the standards in what are currently our male-only occupations, and that would then reflect on either them or on the women who come into those occupations,” said Hamilton. ((This concern is entirely valid, since that has been the steady practice for the past forty years everywhere else.))
Pentagon leaders lifted the ban on women in combat jobs in 2012, but gave the military services time to integrate women gradually and systematically into the male-only front-line positions. By January 2016, the military must open all combat jobs to women or explain why any exceptions must be made. ((And those few women who have come in, all came in under significantly reduced and different standards – because they could.))
Positions within the special operations forces, including the clandestine Navy SEAL and Army Delta units, are considered the most grueling and difficult jobs in the military, with training and qualifying courses that push troops to their physical, mental and emotional limits. ((And it is illegal to push women to such extremes.)) The commandos often work in small teams in harsh, remote locations.
As a result, those jobs are some of the last to be addressed as commanders review the qualifications needed and assess the impact of bringing in women.
As integration unfolds, the surveys have brought home the reality that there are “some reservations or misperceptions in the force in terms of why we’re doing this,” Bland said. ((They are doing it solely because women demand their right to do whatever they want to do – here so they can get promoted faster – no matter what the impact on anyone else or even on the institution they seek to invade.)) Defense officials have stressed that they will not reduce standards in order to let in women. ((And if anyone believes that bullshit, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell them. “Defense officials”, who are almost always women political appointees, ALWAYS say this. Unapologetic lying is now the most common trait of our officials.))
Women have so far had mixed results as they try to move into the more demanding combat positions – jobs for which men also have difficulty qualifying.
So far, about 7,200 positions within the special operations forces have been opened to women, including combat jobs in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment ((this is the Nightstalkers – specialized Army helicopters dedicated solely to special ops)), a specialized unit used to fly forces fast, low and deep behind enemy lines at night. For the first time, a woman last year made it through training and began serving as a pilot in the unit. Three female pilots, 25 women in other jobs, and 16 other women are now going through initial training for these helicopter crews, known as Night Stalkers. ((And the training offers the highest return on investment for those qualifying – in civilian hiring preference, income and prestige after they leave the military.))
Most female soldiers do not want combat jobs, an earlier survey found. But among those who do, the Night Stalkers were a popular choice. ((Well, duh.))
Women have moved into Army artillery jobs and serve on Navy submarines and in the naval Riverine units. But none has made it through the Marine Corps’ officer infantry course. ((And this was true even after they altered the standards for women.))
Special operations command leaders have made it clear that genuine concerns exist about incorporating women into some jobs.
In 2013, when the planning was in its infancy, then-Maj. Gen. Bennet Sacolick spoke of demanding nature of missions requiring forces “to operate in small, self-contained teams, many of which are in austere, geographically isolated, politically sensitive environments for extended periods of time.”
In an email last month to members of the special operations forces across the services, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, said leaders had done initial analysis on training, facilities, education and other policies. Now, officials are examining “the social and cultural challenges of integrating females” into male-only jobs. ((The BIGGEST problem is that women view the whole subject as a matter of their RIGHTS. Men view the whole subject as a matter of their RESPONSIBILITY. And THAT has ALWAYS summed up ALL of this crap.))
Next, Votel said, officials will analyze requirements for the jobs to make sure standards are accurate and gender neutral. “We will continue in our commitment to provide the best manned, trained, and equipped special operations personnel to execute our nation’s most difficult and sensitive missions,” Votel said. “With that in mind, we can assure you that our high standards will not be lowered.” ((A half century of experience everywhere has very clearly shown that it is impossible in America to have “gender-neutral” standards that are NOT significantly lower. “Gender-neutral” is a propaganda euphemism designed to conceal how much males (especially boys) are being institutionally screwed over, hobbled, crippled. This has been the case everywhere, simply because we allow women a plethora of excuses in order to ensure their rights, and never challenge their nonsense. Does anyone know of any lobbies out there that are making any loud noises on behalf of boys or men? Of course not. It’s a game on an open field – with no opposing team. The name of the name is Whatever Women Want, for themselves.))
Bland said that in addition to Votel’s email to service members, leaders have discussed the issue with commanders at frequent meetings so they can better educate their troops. ((I’ve heard that exact comment at least a thousand times since 1970. Then they devise these stupid re-education programs that take up enormous time and get everyone really pissed off – when all they really have to do is come up with a list of the latest things that women are demanding and hand it out to each man.))
+++++++++++++++ end AP article +++++++++++++++
All the stuff in the article is driven by women who demand positions in special operations infantry as OFFICERS, i.e., so they can get promotions as fast as men in fields that have very high rates of male casualties, turn-overs, and separations. MONEY is THE driving factor. The underlying principles are this: “Women have rights; they do NOT have responsibilities. It is everyone else’s responsibility to ensure whatever rights women decide to demand. If women don’t want to meet the existing standards to qualify, compete and remain, then it is NOT the fault of the women; it is the fault of standards “that discriminate against women”. So change the damned standards! And if you find yourself in a life-or-death situation next to a woman, or under a woman’s command, and she is more concerned about her damned rights than about your life, that is just your bad luck. It’s just another price of “equality”.”
The second driving force here is to enable a very tiny few women to provide vicarious self-esteem to 100,000,000 other women who never get off their fat asses to do ANYTHING. It’s like all those TV shows and movies with all those silly Wonder Woman heroines. The only place that silliness exists is in Hollywood Fantasy Land. It’s just fantasy-based porn for women, designed to mentally emasculate boys and men while pumping up women, in their own minds, on the couch.
This stuff has been going on systematically for the past forty years. It’s why most standards anymore are on a par with sniffling ten-year-olds in 1970. During the 1970s there were actually two sets of military regs – one for women and one for everyone else. But double standards only worked in administration, with ratings, test scores, personal problems, “women’s issues”, etc.. They never worked on the job, so gradually those job standards got lowered for everyone. It turns everything to milquetoast. (It’s most widespread in the National Guard.) But it gets women a foot in another door with lower standards, and, once in, they immediately gravitate to the flagpole, and stay there, ruling over men actually doing the job out there in the rest of the world without ever experiencing that world. And now, as a result of what our women-dominated schools do to boys, women bring much better educations into the military, so that, too, gives them a big leg up on running the show – without ever actually doing the job itself. Of course, ANY twit off any street corner can stand in the very safe rear and scream orders to crippled morons.
The Catch-22 is that some women CAN meet the standards, CAN work really really hard to measure up no matter what that takes – as long as no one offers them excuses. But these women are an incredibly tiny few. And why should they even bother? When there are far easier alternatives? The vast majority of women naturally just want to lean on excuse crutches, because they CAN, and still reap the same rewards in money and promotions and command. Because of all this crap, I do not want women anywhere near me or calling my shots out there.
But this stuff now permeates our whole society. Do you think for a minute that I regard John Riggins or Jim Brown in the same class as all those NFL running backs of today all hoped up on “performance enhancing drugs”? Today EVERYONE cheats, lies, perverts the system to favor themselves and their own group of slackers and whiners. We now even care far more about multi-million dollar specimens playing a game getting hurt on a carpeted stadium floor than we do about thousand-dollar combat soldiers engaged in combat getting dismembered on a dusty road. And all thanks to the “feminism” that has thoroughly corrupted ALL of our “thinking”. Even our vaunted “justice” system bears no resemblance to “equality”, to the hallowed principle of “all equal under the law”.
That’s why we have all these women in very high places with all that “responsibility” – but without any accountability. Responsibility without accountability, of course, is totally meaningless bullshit, signifying absolutely nothing. “As Queen, I get to take credit when things go well, but I can also blame “someone else” when things go wrong. So I win no matter what happens.” It’s just the defining characteristic of a birthright entitled nobility class that has a trainload of rights – which everyone else must ensure. This “thinking” has turned our whole society into a pile of reeking dung. And it’s all based on absolutely nothing but the difference of one single chromosome determined at conception – nine whole months before that “special” human is even BORN. It is NOT a matter of size, or strength, or smarts, or anything else. It’s solely a matter of will. And actual equality.
In this country, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone has choices. All anyone has to do is make better choices. Is THAT asking too much? Why do guys like me have to keep kissing everyone else’s damned “special” asses? Just because they hate me and my standards?
Will our society disappear before our “men” find enough spine to challenge this really stupid “thinking”? Are any of them bright enough anymore to know that it IS stupid? And dangerous? Is challenge to this nonsense now even POSSIBLE – when telling the truth about women is now the crime of “sexual harassment”? What happens when everyone discovers that the Empress has no clothes – and isn’t afraid to say so?
A truly universal draft would also cut down on some of that really offensive use of the royal “we”, along with ancient notions like disposable “troops”, solely to pump up “my” self-image while degrading those who actually do the really hard stuff for “me”. We live in a democracy based on equality, not in a monarchy based on birthright entitlement caste. The most disgusting aspect of contemporary America is its growing hoard of self-anointed “special” people with all those rights but no responsibilities, who exist solely to take what America has to offer while contributing nothing except the cheapest thing there is – talk. Now that the totally useless and self-involved Baby Boomer generation with all its zero “accomplishments” is finally beginning to get off the stage, there are growing calls to re-instate a draft, along with a range of rationalizations as to why it wouldn’t work. Note that it is not just in wars in which ALL Americans need a stake; it is in literally everything that threatens the continued viability of the nation – beginning with a third-rate public education system through massive Third World baby immigration and ending with unearned birthright entitlements. It is just asinine to pretend that American women don’t play a major role in all of these really huge and steadily growing problems.
Let’s Draft Our Kids
New York Times, July 9, 2012
By THOMAS E. RICKS*
IN late June, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, called for reinstating the draft. “I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk,” he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game.”
This was the first time in recent years that a high-profile officer has broken ranks to argue that the all-volunteer force is not necessarily good for the country or the military. Unlike Europeans, Americans still seem determined to maintain a serious military force, so we need to think about how to pay for it and staff it by creating a draft that is better and more equitable than the Vietnam-era conscription system.
A revived draft, including both males and females, should include three options for new conscripts coming out of high school. Some could choose 18 months of military service with low pay but excellent post-service benefits, including free college tuition. These conscripts would not be deployed but could perform tasks currently outsourced at great cost to the Pentagon: paperwork, painting barracks, mowing lawns, driving generals around, and generally doing lower-skills tasks so professional soldiers don’t have to. If they want to stay, they could move into the professional force and receive weapons training, higher pay and better benefits.
Those who don’t want to serve in the army could perform civilian national service for a slightly longer period and equally low pay — teaching in low-income areas, cleaning parks, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, or aiding the elderly. After two years, they would receive similar benefits like tuition aid.
And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.
Critics will argue that this is a political non-starter. It may be now. But America has already witnessed far less benign forms of conscription. A new draft that maintains the size and the quality of the current all-volunteer force, saves the government money through civilian national service and frees professional soldiers from performing menial tasks would appeal to many constituencies.
Others argue that the numbers don’t add up. With an average cohort of about four million 18-year-olds annually, they say, there is simply no place to put all these people. But the government could use this cheap labor in new ways, doing jobs that governments do in other countries but which have been deemed too expensive in this one, like providing universal free day care or delivering meals to elderly shut-ins. And if too many people applied for the 18-month military program, then a lottery system could be devised — the opposite of the 1970s-era system where being selected was hardly desirable. The rest could perform nonmilitary national service.
A final objection is the price tag; this program would cost billions of dollars. But it also would save billions, especially if implemented broadly and imaginatively. One reason our relatively small military is hugely expensive is that all of today’s volunteer soldiers are paid well; they often have spouses and children who require housing and medical care.
Unmarried conscripts don’t need such a safety net. And much of the labor currently contracted out to the private sector could be performed by 18-year-olds for much less. And we could raise the retirement age for the professional force from 20 to 30 years of service. There is no reason to kick healthy 40-year-olds out of the military and then give them full retirement pay for 40 years. These reforms would greatly reduce both recruiting and pension costs.
Similarly, some of the civilian service programs would help save the government money: Taking food to an elderly shut-in might keep that person from having to move into a nursing home. It would be fairly cheap to house conscript soldiers on closed military bases. Housing civilian service members would be more expensive, but imaginative use of existing assets could save money. For example, V.A. hospitals might have space.
The pool of cheap labor available to the federal government would broadly lower its current personnel costs and its pension obligations — especially if the law told federal managers to use the civilian service as much as possible, and wherever plausible. The government could also make this cheap labor available to states and cities. Imagine how many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public school custodians, before overtime.
The savings actually might be a way of bringing around the unions representing federal, state and municipal workers, because they understand that there is a huge budget crunch that is going to hit the federal government in a few years. Setting up a new non-career tier of cheap, young labor might be a way of preserving existing jobs for older, more skilled, less mobile union workers.
But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.**
*Thomas E. Ricks, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Generals: American Military Command From World War II to Today.”
**I happen to believe that going into Iraq was the right thing to do for the greater long-range strategic objective of beginning the removal of dictators who had oppressed their people throughout the Muslim World for centuries – which gave natural rise to fanatical organizations such as al Qaeda that blamed America for propping up those dictators. Overthrowing the most universally hated dictator in Iraq was certainly far more justifiable than turning a six-month mission in Afghanistan into a decade-long mess that accomplished nothing of significance beyond dead and maimed American soldiers. I also believe that some of the critical mistakes made in Iraq would not have been made if we had gone in with sufficient US numbers, under one unified military command (without incompetent US civilian interference), to maintain occupational stability, and if ALL Americans in the effort had the same stake in its outcome. If after six months the Europeans saw Afghanistan as a problem for them, then the Europeans could have invested whatever they wished into that country – without US involvement. Deciding when to leave is just as important as deciding whether to enter; it should NEVER be a matter of really stupid domestic American politics. Regardless, none of this changes the desirability of a universal draft for national service in the United States – for both young men and young women – for whatever type of service they can qualify.
On 26 May 2012 I included the following in my reply to an Australian reader’s comments posted to my article “American Feminism, Part 1”:
Recently I was greatly disappointed by the treatment of Command Sergeant Major Teresa King, the first woman commandant of the Army Drill Sergeant School; she has a legitimate complaint about a factor not of her choosing. (Only two ranks have stars in the Army: generals and command sergeants major.) She deserved better. Now we have the following news article. (I always say that American women get whatever they want, if enough of them can decide just what that is. But, in this case, I think the suit by just two Army women will succeed.)
2 female Army officers sue to reverse combat ban
Associated Press, 25 May 2012
By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Two women in the Army Reserve ((Command Sgt. Maj. Jane Baldwin and Col. Ellen Haring)) have sued the U.S. Department of Defense and the Army in a bid to reverse military policies banning women from serving in combat roles.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia accuses the government of violating the constitutional rights of servicewomen by excluding them from certain ground combat units and other positions solely on the basis of their gender. It seeks to end such policies by the Defense Department and Army and to require the military to make all assignments and training decisions without regard to a service member’s gender.
(Naturally, and unfortunately, the suit addresses discrimination resulting in financial disadvantage, rather than in discrimination prohibiting the assumption of an equitable level of responsibility. It’s the world we live in…. Still…. “The ((Defense)) Department remains committed to removing barriers that prevent service members from rising to their highest potential, based on each person’s ability and not constrained by gender-restrictive policies,” ((spokesman Todd)) Breasseale said.)
One of the most astounding feats that occurred during the initial 2003 ground assault on Baghdad was the secret advance construction under fire at night of an absolutely critical combat bridge across the very wide river by a team led by a woman Army captain. As the 3rd Division roared forward through the night desert, that major structure was completed just before dawn and allowed the massively powerful division to keep on rolling at full speed, without missing a beat. Soaking wet and caked with mud, she stood there proudly with her team next to their bridge and waved the mechanized 24,000-man division, with all its vehicles and supply train, on through, her M4 rifle ever at the ready. Can you even imagine the pressure of knowing that a massive combat division is roaring toward you in the night expecting that you will deliver perfectly and make certain that it all doesn’t end in an abrupt disaster? Now, baby, that’s leadership, under incredibly extreme pressure. At that moment, I would have gladly voted for her to become President. It didn’t make any difference to me if that soldier was a sergeant or a general, a man or a woman; she and her team delivered, when it counted most in a very rapidly evolving wartime orchestration in which speed, power and synchronization were essential. It’s witnessing moments like that that make you incredibly proud to be an American soldier, to know that nothing is impossible, that failure is not an option. I haven’t been able to determine if she’s the same women, but Colonel Haring was also a bridge commander in her 28-year career.
(There is, of course, an incredibly pathetic irony here. These are outstanding women, but they are still American women, and by making issues such as promotion and pay and career advancement central to their suit, they are, in effect, customarily making the whole thing all about “me”. The very most important key to economic opportunity – to promotion and pay and career advancement – in America is, of course, education. Yet no privileged American women has ever stepped forward to file a suit on behalf of American boys seeking to ensure that just as many of them as girls are fully prepared by our women-dominated K-12 public schools to enter and succeed in college – an equitable balance that is, in fact, mandated by long-existing federal civil rights law. So, decade after decade, we continue to send twice as many women through university as men, while many millions of American boys are simply encouraged, purposefully channeled, to fall by the wayside. Sad, isn’t it? It’s that lost art of responsibility, trampled to oblivion in the relentless stampede of “rights”.)