Saturday, December 01, 2012

Son of a bitch! They already made the move to put women in the infantry!

Feel good lady.  You and yours took what many men failed to earn...all because you have ovaries and leadership that's too scared to call bullshit on bullshit.

via the Daily Reporter...

SAN DIEGO — Marine 1st Lt. Brandy Soublet is about as far from the war front as possible at her desk in the California desert, but she's on the front lines of an experiment that could one day put women as close to combat as their male peers.
The Penfield, New York woman is one of 45 female Marines assigned this summer to 19 all-male combat battalions. The Defense Department in the past year has opened thousands of combat positions to women to slowly integrate them and gauge the impact such a social change would have on the military's ability to fight wars.
No branch is likely to feel that change more than the Marine Corps.
The small, tight-knit force is the most male of the armed services and prides itself on having the toughest and most aggressive warriors. The Corps historically has higher casualty rates because it is considered to be the "tip of the spear," or the first to respond to conflicts. It also was among the last military branches to open its doors to women, forming the first female Corps in 1943, according to the Women's Memorial in Washington D.C.
But changing times are challenging the traditions of the force, long likened to a brotherhood.
Modern warfare has put women in combat like never before over the past decade, even though a 1994 policy bars them from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level, which were considered too dangerous since they are often smaller and closer to combat for longer periods.
Already under pressure to provide the same opportunities for women, the Defense Department was hit Tuesday with a second lawsuit by female service members — including two Marines — charging that the gender barriers unfairly block them from promotions open to men in combat.
The lawsuits are intended to accelerate the military's slow march toward lifting the ban that plaintiffs allege has barred women from 238,000 positions.
Defense officials say they recently opened 14,500 jobs to women, and they need to move cautiously to ensure the change will not disrupt wartime operations. Soublet and the other 44 women are part of the quiet, slow transformation. Women make up about 7 percent of the Marine Corps compared to about 14 percent overall among the military's 1.4 million active military personnel.
She said some Marines initially eyed her pioneering presence in the all-male battalion with skepticism.
"The way that I would describe it to friends and family was it was kind of like I showed up to work in a costume," the 25-year-old logistics officer said in a phone interview from Twenty-Nine Palms, a remote desert base east of San Diego. "They stared a little bit but after a while it wasn't like that anymore."
That experience may play out on bases and boats worldwide as the Pentagon levels the battlefield.
The Corps earlier this year opened its grueling infantry officer training school to female Marines and surveyed 53,000 of its troops with an anonymous online questionnaire about the impact of erasing gender barriers. Survey results are expected to be released soon after review by the defense secretary.
Only two female Marines volunteered for the 13-week infantry training course at Quantico, Virginia, and both failed to complete it this fall. No women have volunteered so far for the next course offered in January, officials said.
Soublet said she was nervous she would feel unwelcome in the combat engineer battalion.
Six months into her historic assignment, she said she has been treated equally.
"I have heard, you know, whisperings, like 'Hey, before you got here we decided to maybe take down some pictures and clean up our language a little bit,' but other than that, they haven't really expressed anything to me," said Soublet, who will remain two years in her battalion and is expected to deploy with them to Afghanistan this spring.
The Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos said he met with the top leaders of the 19 battalions and told them to establish the proper command climate. The early steps of assigning females to artillery, tank, combat engineer and other all-male battalions have been successful, but there may be some anxiety if women join infantry, Amos said.
Camp Pendleton combat Marine Carlos Laguna, who left the Corps in 2011, agreed.
"The screams of women, they have a big psychological effect on men. A woman just has a different pitch," said Laguna, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder after two tours in Iraq. "If we're in a firefight and a woman is shot or lost her arm, male Marines like me would want to stop and help. It's our nature to help women."
The survey addressed those concerns, asking males if they would be distracted or "feel obligated to protect female Marines." It also asked whether women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues.
Female Marines were asked if they would feel pressured to suppress their femininity.
Former Marine Capt. Kristen Kavanaugh, who runs The Military Acceptance Project, a San Diego-based organization promoting equality in the services, found those questions offensive.
"I don't think women who signed up to give their life for their country are worried about the appearance of their femininity," she said.
Former Camp Pendleton Marine Capt. Anu Bhagwati was only the second woman to complete a martial arts instructor training school, earning a black belt in close combat techniques. But she said years of discrimination caused her to quit in 2004.
"I learned early on that the Marine Corps will expect you to fail if you are a woman," said the head of the Service Women's Action Network, which helped the women file the lawsuit. "I faced so much discrimination and sexual harassment that it made me wonder why I was serving."
Soublet said in her three years in the Corps she has found her fellow Marines to be respectful and professional.
"This isn't a big deal," she said. "We're Marines, we're here to do a job and it doesn't matter what our gender is."
The worse part?

The total lack of institutional honesty.  I've seen it from the Commandant's Office, the SgtMajor of the Marine Corps office and from extensions such as USNI.

Instead of honestly telling Marines that women will be allowed in combat per orders of the President of the United States they've fed us all bullshit.

I find the fact that social change is more important to the Marine Corps than winning the war that we're in and getting ready for the next one disturbing.  We have a child in the white house and it seems we have cowards in the Pentagon...but most especially in and around the Commandant's lair.  The lack of leadership will be the reoccurring theme when the history of the Marine Corps during this era is written.  From Jones up to Amos these bastards will be vilified---and rightfully so.  

10 comments :

  1. When the Government says integrate them into the battalion what does that mean? Does that mean she is assigned to a battalion Hqs position? A line company? I could give a crap if she is assigned to a battalion hqs position -my concern is the rifle companies. I feel sorry for the rifle platoon that gets the first female platoon leader and/or company commander. Maybe I'm old fashion. Maybe younger guys don't mind this stuff are more "open minded" (brain washed).

    For a number of years now movies and t.v. have been conditioning the viewer to woman playing in traditional male roles and beating up bad guys.

    There's a reason Gen. Amos was selected as the Commandant and IMO it had everything to do with social engineering. The Commandant is a pilot, woman have been serving in combat positions in the wing for years. He has no appreciation/loyalty to the infantry and/or combat arms. I can only hope that when the feminist douche bags were vetting applicants for the position of Commandant that when they considered General Mattis they all burst into flames like a demon having Holy water thrown on em.

    I'm gonna puke again.

    gute

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just another example of the military giving in to feminist demands to let women have these jobs "given" to them or the military system is deemed sexist if they don't. They still want to believe women are equally capable to perform like their men counter parts and then jump up and down and cheer "Women are better than men! Women are better than men!" When only a few women out of hundreds of men are able. These girls didn't. They failed the course and still got the green light.

    Makes me angry. It will back-fire when the real deal hits and these girls aren't able to perform the position they were assigned to. I do hope that happens too. So they'll realize the stupid choice they made all because some bitch (who gets no dick because she is fat or ugly as hell and her only way of avoiding that truth is to be a feminist and pout she is better than men) behind a computer protests against something that they know very little about. *STOMP* *STOMP* *STOMP*

    ReplyDelete
  3. well the thing that really has my goat is that leadership lied.

    there is no if's and's or but's about it. they lied.

    they should have been honest and said that it was a done deal but they didn't ...they said that they would trial putting women in combat units. they didn't --- it was all for show. how can you trust an organization when its leadership lies? they're just tools of the white house. they might as well be spokesman for the democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These women are assigned to HQ company and staff positions at the Bn level. They are less exposed to combat than the females running logistics convoys or the FETs. Much ado about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i am constantly amazed by people that cannot see five minutes ahead or see indications of things.

      you're smoking crack if you're not taking what the females themselves and supporters of women in combat are saying. THEY'RE ADMITTING THAT THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. and yet you want to say much ado about nothing.

      get off my blog you fucking clown.

      Delete
    2. Crybaby. Take your toys and go home.

      Delete
    3. get off my blog pussy. grow some balls, stop sucking your mammies tits and don't talk when grow folks are. you can't sneak in here you faggot. don't think i've forgot about you. you're still on the list bitch.

      Delete
  5. CLNC 1972`73 They ran Bam's (Can I say that here?) through the training area in a week of simulated war, every unit in the field training at the time were allowed to attack them at any time with CS and blanks.
    45 lb was their load bearing capacity, it was found the women were unable to do what the average Marine 0311 could do, dig holes, stand alerts 50/50 in them, the mud the crud and the rain wiped them out.
    The field studies found they talked too much were slower, carried less ammo, food and water and while able to respond to attacks well were just under powered physically to do such demanding duty.
    Of course these women were different Marines then, lived in a barracks all to them selves and watched over by an armed Marine male sentry with a trench gun, I swear to the war gods it was a Winchester 1897 pump, ventilated hand guard and bayonet stud.
    The Bam's then wore the blue green Utility dresses as their work uniform.
    Women these days?
    I don't know, maybe if you ease up on the requirements so they can compete with male Marines but you cannot make the rules where the enemy will show restraint because they are women and cannot carry the basic infantry load of the Riflemen.
    There are some jobs, posts and conditions that just do not need women assigned and that's field combat for Marines.
    Hell I was an Assaultman at 17 to 21 years old and it almost killed my phuc'en ass!
    This is not a good idea. This is PC bullshit and feminist bullshit at that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Did anyone in this study take Pelilui or Betio as an example and say, "Would a woman be able to do this daily 24/7/90 and still be able to fight and win against a tenacious and ruthless enemy?"
    If not then the idea is ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

    The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit.

    She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

    An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

    Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

    - in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

    After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:

    - using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.

    - only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

    - on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.

    - adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.


    This seems pretty decisive.

    when we talk about women in combat, we must frame the debate in fact and fiscal sense. This helps our position and helps to resist the "you're all sexists/pigs" emotional arguments. Simply put, it costs more money (we don't have) and more time (we don't have) with a higher chance of injury (that require more time and money we don't have) to get women to the same level of proficiency in combat arms as a Training day 1 Male.

    If anyone thinks that Women can be just as strong, fast, and big as men, kindly ask them why we don't have women and men competing against each other in the Olympics, or any other sport for that matter. If they were equal, the Pittsburgh Steelers would be a reflection of the population, IE 50 percent female. If women were capable of NFL level play, they would be foolish not to jump in for the millions of dollars, and coaches would be stupid not to have 50 percent more players to draw from.

    You must fight emotional arguments for equality with hard reality.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.