The Demise of the Once-Great United States Marines

[Prosay]

Then...

Now....

wsj.com

Opinion | Women Don’t Belong in Combat Units

Heather Mac Donald
Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.”

6-8 minutes

The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.

In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.

Ignoring the Marine study, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in December 2015. Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting “gender neutral” standards in the hope that more women would qualify. Previously, women had been admitted to noncombat specialties under lower strength and endurance requirements.

Only two women have passed the Marine Corps’s fabled infantry-officer training course out of the three dozen who have tried. Most wash out in the combat endurance test, administered on day one. Participants hike miles while carrying combat loads of 80 pounds or more, climb 20-foot ropes multiple times, and scale an 8-foot barrier. The purpose of the test is to ensure that officers can hump their own equipment and still arrive at a battleground mentally and physically capable of leading troops. Most female aspirants couldn’t pass the test, so the Marines changed it from a pass/fail requirement to an unscored exercise with no bearing on the candidate’s ultimate evaluation. The weapons-company hike during the IOC is now “gender neutral,” meaning that officers can hand their pack to a buddy if they get tired, rather than carrying it for the course’s full 10 miles.

Lowering these physical requirements risks reducing the American military’s lethality. A more serious effect of sex integration has become taboo to mention: the inevitable introduction of eros into combat units. Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.

A Marine commander who served in Afghanistan described to me how the arrival of an all-female team tasked with reaching out to local women affected discipline on his forward operating base. Until that point, rigorous discipline had been the norm. But when four women—three service members and a translator—arrived, the post’s atmosphere changed overnight from a “stern, businesslike place to that of an eighth-grade dance.” The officer walked into a common room one day to find the women clustered in the center. They were surrounded by eager male Marines, one of whom was doing a handstand.

Another Marine officer, who was stationed on a Navy ship after 9/11, told me that a female officer had regular trysts with an enlisted sailor in the engine room. Marine Cpl. Remedios Cruz, one of the first women to join the infantry, was discharged late last year after admitting to a sexual relationship with a male subordinate. Army Sgt. First Class Chase Usher was relieved of his leadership position for a consensual relationship with a female soldier that began almost immediately after she arrived at his newly gender-integrated unit in Fort Bragg, N.C.

Long before infantry integration became a feminist imperative, evidence was clear that a coed military was a sexually active one. In 1988 then-Navy Secretary Jim Webb reported that of the unmarried enlisted Navy and Air Force women stationed in Iceland, half were pregnant.

President Trump’s first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, had seemed a good candidate for reversing the integration of women in combat units. A former Marine commandant, Mr. Mattis had previously addressed the incompatibility of eros and military discipline. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand challenged him about these politically incorrect views during his confirmation hearings, but he left enough wiggle room to preserve his options.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump chose to ban transgender people from serving in the military rather than tackling gender integration. Mr. Trump cited the cost to taxpayers of sex-reassignment surgery for soldiers, but those costs are minute compared with the future medical bills for women’s combat-battered bodies. And women pose a far greater challenge to combat-unit cohesion than do transgender troops, because of their numbers and the nature of sexual attraction.

The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs. But war isn’t about promoting equality. Its objective is to break the enemy’s will through precise lethal engagement, with the lowest possible loss of American life. The claim that female combat soldiers will perform as lethally as men over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality as great as the one underlying the transgender crusade.

Female engineers and others did return fire when attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. But performing well in incident-related combat is a far cry from serving in a dedicated ground-combat unit, with its months of punishing physical demands.

The incoming Pentagon chief can expect an aggressive grilling on gender integration from the Senate Armed Services Committee. He should promise to resolve the claim that, when it comes to combat, there are no significant physical differences between men and women. He could do it by pitting an all-female infantry unit against an all-male unit and seeing how they measure up.

[dustoff262]

The two pictures are an unfair portrayal. The first is obviously during WW2 and the second is the current era of boot camp. Everyone, including males are a hot mess in boot camp.

[The Detail Rack Guy]

"The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs."

Who's kidding who? The Pentagon (much like 1PP) is probably busting at the seams with Nurse Ratchett type quota females who have never done any real soldiering except fighting for the last  Little Debbie Cake at the mess hall. 

[The Detail Rack Guy]

Jan 14, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5 dustoff262 said:

The two pictures are an unfair portrayal. The first is obviously during WW2 and the second is the current era of boot camp. Everyone, including males are a hot mess in boot camp.

Dusty, they have M-16's. That has to be Vietnam. 

[19pct]

1. The picture is from 2013
2. What unit were you in prosay?

[dustoff262]

Jan 14, 2019 13:09:10 GMT -5 The Detail Rack Guy said:

Jan 14, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5 dustoff262 said:

The two pictures are an unfair portrayal. The first is obviously during WW2 and the second is the current era of boot camp. Everyone, including males are a hot mess in boot camp.

Dusty, they have M-16's. That has to be Vietnam. 

Correct. I looked at it too quickly.

[dustoff262]

Jan 14, 2019 13:35:49 GMT -5 19pct said:

1. The picture is from 2013
2. What unit were you in prosay?

He wasn't in any branch, but he still has the chutzpah to criticize those who would serve.

[Prosay]

And, in a related story.....

This isn't, as this article seem to indicate, about "bullying" of women, but about bringing everyone down to the least common denominator of person, despite physical differences of the sexes and the natural course of events ("eros") that everyone seems to want to overlook.

Of course, like welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid, and the push for legalized addictive marijuana, this is all part of the Socialists' Big Plan to bring the United States down from its top standing in the world:

---

wsj.com
P&G Challenges Men to Shave Their ‘Toxic Masculinity’ in Gillette Ad
Alexandra Bruell
4-5 minutes

Gillette is embracing the #MeToo movement in a new digital ad campaign aimed at men, the latest message from an advertiser attempting to change societal norms.

The ad, dubbed “We Believe,” opens with audio of news about the current #MeToo movement, bullying and “toxic masculinity.” A narrator then goes on to dispute the notion that “boys will be boys,” asking, “Is this the best a man can get? Is it? We can’t hide from it. It has been going on far too long. We can’t laugh it off, making the same old excuses.”

The ad puts a new spin on the brand’s 30-year tagline, “The Best A Man Can Get,” challenging men to take positive actions, such as stopping other men, and the next generation, from harassing women.

The ad will be hosted on Gillette’s YouTube page with paid digital and social support.

Gillette parent Procter & Gamble Co. is among companies that in recent years have used advertising as a platform to promote their stance on social issues such as gender equality, and polarizing political topics such as immigration and gun control. P&G is perhaps best known for its lauded “Like a Girl” ad campaign for feminine-care brand Always and “Stress test” for deodorant brand Secret.

The latest ad, created by Gillette’s ad agency Grey, is among the first to address the #MeToo movement head on, and to blatantly tell men to change their behavior.

“This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own,” said Pankaj Bhalla, Gillette brand director for North America in an emailed statement. “We are taking a realistic look at what’s happening today, and aiming to inspire change by acknowledging that the old saying ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ is not an excuse. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and hope all the men we serve will come along on that journey to find our ‘best’ together.”

“It’s a risky move,” said Dean Crutchfield, CEO of branding firm Crutchfield + Partners. On one hand, it “creates a credible, believable, and upfront conversation that takes brutal honesty and tough decisions,” he said. ("conversations," "honesty," and "tough decisions," are all political bywords of the Leftist to seek total compliance with their demands)

Gillette needs to appeal to millennials who care about what companies stand for, he said. “There’s a demand for this, for purpose, for brands to be tackling tough issues in the moment.”

But the ad could backfire and alienate Gillette’s base, Mr. Crutchfield cautioned. “Does the customer want to be told they’re a naughty boy? Are you asking too much of your consumer to be having this conversation with them?”

Brands diving into charged social issues risk turning off customers who don’t agree with their stance, don’t believe it is authentic or consider it poorly handled.

Nike ’s recent ad starring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who had led player protests for racial justice during pregame national anthem ceremonies, was widely praised (though criticized by others). But a 2017 commercial in which Kendall Jenner joins a protest march and hands a Pepsi to a cop was accused of trivializing the Black Lives Matter movement.

“It’s about execution,” said Mr. Crutchfield. “Sometimes brands stretch themselves too fine and they snap.”

Write to Alexandra Bruell at [e-mail]

---

See also this:

lerant.proboards.com/thread/14340/american-labels-traditional-masculinity-harmfu

[Blue Trumpet]

If they want to put women in combat, then make a battalion of only women. If they all get killed, at least nobody else does at the alter of stupidity. On average, men have more strength and stamina than women and fighting on the ground is not the same as aerial combat, where women have proven themselves.

[The Detail Rack Guy]

Jan 14, 2019 13:54:29 GMT -5 dustoff262 said:

Jan 14, 2019 13:35:49 GMT -5 19pct said:

1. The picture is from 2013
2. What unit were you in prosay?

He wasn't in any branch, but he still has the chutzpah to criticize those who would serve.

He brings up a valid point about the destruction of the fighting ability of US forces. Women can be in the military, but somewhere outside of Combat Arms MOS's. 

[Pressure Point Cop]

When I was deployed I worked with some badass female Marines. In fact, our SEL was a hard charging SGT Major whose name was thrown about as a possible contender to be the first female SGT MAJ of the Marine Corps. We had a couple of brilliant female linguists (both Caucasian, not that it matters) who were fantastic Arabic linguists.

The USMC has changed but it is still the most lethal fighting force on the planet. This coming from a sailor.

If you think this is problematic, think about what other allied and friendly countries' forces are going through:


And the accompanying article:

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dont-ask-dont-tell-lives-transgender-troops

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' lives on for transgender troops
Emma Margolin
10/21/14 04:55 PM—Updated
10/22/14 07:54 AM
When Petty Officer Landon Wilson enlisted in the U.S. Navy as a woman three years ago, on the cusp of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he remembered thinking everything was going to be OK. The law that had prevented gay and lesbian troops from serving openly was going away, and the military, he hoped, would soon be welcoming transgender service members like him.

“So Sep. 20, 2011, rolled around, and the gay, lesbian, bisexual community, you could almost hear them take this collective sigh of relief that no longer would they be losing their careers over who they were, who they loved,” said Wilson, 24, during an international conference of transgender military service members Monday in Washington, D.C. “But I waited. And it wasn’t until a year later, when I began my transition from female to male, that I really felt like I took my very first breath.”

“Pentagon regulations prohibit military service on the basis of ‘transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism and other paraphilias.’”
There are approximately 15,500 transgender troops like Wilson serving in the U.S. military according to the Palm Center, a San Francisco-based think tank that teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union to sponsor the conference. But because of longstanding – and, many argue, outdated – Pentagon regulations prohibiting military service on the basis of “transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism and other paraphilias,” transgender troops in the U.S. may not serve openly.
The goal of Monday’s gathering, entitled “Perspectives on Transgender Military Service from Around the Globe,” was to hear from representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden – five of the 18 countries that currently allow transgender service – and determine what, if anything, the U.S. can learn from its allies’ practices.

Seated beside Wilson at the conference were two top-ranking female military officials, one from the Royal Australian Air Force and the other from the U.K.’s Royal Air Force. Like WIlson, both were transgender and had undergone transition-related surgeries. They were wearing uniforms, bedecked with rank and merit bars earned over long careers serving in austere conditions.

Wilson, on the other hand, was wearing plain clothes – a sad reminder of his military discharge for being transgender.

“I need to know what you are,” Wilson recalled his sergeant major asking one night while deployed in Afghanistan. “Your paperwork here says female, but you certainly don’t look like one.”

Hours later, Wilson was sent back to the U.S., where he was ultimately kicked out of the Navy because of his gender identity. And he’s not alone.

Participants in the day-long program offered a range of ideas on how to persuade the U.S. military to soften its position on transgender service. Strong leadership on the issue from the highest level of command emerged as a central requirement to becoming more inclusive, as did repeated education and awareness training at every level. Another recommendation was to adopt a looser culture that de-emphasizes gender roles, norms, and categorizations, and instead focuses on empowering service members to perform at the best of their ability – something that cannot be done under constant fear and anxiety that they’ll be outed and discharged.

RELATED: Is the military ready for transgender troops?

If Wilson’s story illustrated what not to do for military leaders in dealing with transgender service members, then Sergeant Lucy Jordan, the first and only member of the New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) to transition in uniform, offered the experience to strive for.

When she decided in 2010 to begin the medical process of transitioning from male to female, the chief of the air force sent out a letter informing all unit commanders of her upcoming surgeries. Simple, short, and somewhat vague, the memo nevertheless managed to convey a strong showing of support for Jordan, while at the same time keeping her identity private. The chief also called on other members of the NZDF family to discuss the issue “with an open mind.”

As Jordan read the letter aloud Monday, her colleague in the audience began to cry.

“People don’t hear these stories,” Graeme Field, a remuneration specialist with the NZDF, told msnbc after his tears and Jordan’s panel discussion – one of five that day – had ended. “I think her ability to show how much support the New Zealand Defense Force gave to her, especially reading out [the chief of air force’s] email, really demonstrates how far we’ve come.”

New Zealand is ranked Number 1 in the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies’ LGBT Military Index, which scores over 100 countries on their armed forces’ LGBT inclusion policies. Similar stories were told by representatives from Sweden, ranked Number 4, where the minister for defense has marched side by side with the Swedish Armed Forces’ Supreme Commander in Stockholm’s Pride Parade.

The U.S. is ranked Number 40.

“The U.S. has more estimated transgender service members silently serving in its military than the entirety of the NZDF.”
Questions naturally arose as to whether policies implemented in these much smaller countries’ armed forces could successfully translate to the U.S.’ massive operation. Lucy Jordan is the only openly serving transgender person in New Zealand’s 14,000-member Defense Force. The U.S., by contrast, has more estimated transgender service members silently serving in its military than the entirety of the NZDF.
Countries like the U.K. and Sweden also have strong anti-discrimination laws that provide a framework for their military policies. The U.S., on the other hand, has no nationwide protections for its LGBT citizens; such measures have languished in Congress for decades.

Still, the central takeaway from the conference – billed as the first-ever and largest international gathering of transgender military service members on American soil – was that the Pentagon could and should take tangible steps toward ending its ban on transgender service members, a move that would not only solve a moral predicament, but also strengthen the very core of the U.S. Armed Forces.

“Being able to be open and authentic is the key to being able to perform in your job,” said Major Donna Harding of the Royal Australian Army Nursing Corps. “If you’re hiding,” she added, “you’re not going to be able to perform.”

Unfortunately, hiding is exactly what thousands of American service members are forced to do. Some transgender service members choose to suffer in silence, either hoping the ban will go away, or waiting for retirement so that they can access medical treatments like hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. Others choose to risk their careers and go ahead with transition-related care while serving, paying for it out-of-pocket.

“As of right now, I’m currently under investigation for being transgender,” Captain Jacob Eleazer, an officer in the Kentucky Army National Guard, told msnbc.

At first, Eleazer would only present as male in his civilian life, asking people to call him “Jacob” and use the correct pronouns. Meanwhile at drill, he’d keep his mouth shut and wear the standard issue uniform for women. The arrangement, while not ideal, worked for about four years. But over the winter, Eleazer underwent “top” surgery to have his breasts removed – a move that forced him to come clean to his female commanding officer.

“I was really worried when I talked to her because I had a long relationship with her as a female and as a mentor because there aren’t very many females in my field,” said Eleazer. “I was really worried she was going to feel a little betrayed by that, like I had been hiding something from her. But she wasn’t. She was incredibly open and accepting.”

Soon afterward, however, a Kentucky official told Eleazer he had to resign and issued him a separation order. While he was able to get that order rescinded, Eleazer says he’s “been in limbo ever since.”

Unlike “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s former ban on openly gay service members, the ban on transgender personnel isn’t a statutory bar. That means that changing the policy would require only the direction of the president – in this case, the most-LGBT friendly commander-in-chief in history – and the secretary of defense.

“Active duty, guard, and reserve service [are] the only government jobs where transgender discrimination is still permitted.”

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in May that he was open to reviewing the transgender ban. But last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he didn’t know if President Obama would seek to overturn the policy before the end of his administration. A Department of Defense official later confirmed to the Washington Blade that a review was not underway.
Despite the inaction, advocates for military inclusion believe that change is coming.

In June, President Obama signed two executive orders expanding LGBT equality – one protecting transgender employees of the U.S. government, and the other barring federal contractors, many of whom work with military personnel overseas, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That leaves active duty, guard, and reserve service as the only government jobs where transgender discrimination is still permitted.

“As it relates to transgender inclusion broadly, President Obama has done more than not just any other president, but every other president who’s preceded him,” said Allyson Robinson, founder of Warrior Poet Strategies, to msnbc. “I have to imagine that leaving this bit undone would be a source of regret for President Obama. No, I think we’ll be looking at this in the rearview mirror by inauguration day.”

[bohica141]

[The Detail Rack Guy]

  I'm going to take a pass and agree with the author of the article. 

It's a recipe for failure. I could lie to be politically correct, but actually, no I can't. Too old for that. 

[southerncop1]

Jan 14, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5 dustoff262 said:

The two pictures are an unfair portrayal. The first is obviously during WW2 and the second is the current era of boot camp. Everyone, including males are a hot mess in boot camp.

The first is 🇻🇳 Vietnam.  M16s.  

[southerncop1]

Damn, if they are going thru PMS, watch out.

[mongo]

Most women I know are afraid of spiders and mice and run from snakes. I'm not being critical, it's simply a fact of life.
What will they do if they come upon a fanatic Muslim with an AK-47?

[hapd]

NYPD RANT 1998 to THEE RANT 7/13/2017 16,575 posts and who's counting?

at least they signed that check-plenty of metrosexuals and millennial azzclowns not serving and frankly they are mostly unfit to serve, unless we begin LOSER DIVISIONS-where they are cannon fodder in return for testosterone injections upon survival of the front lines.

yup, once again pro-way-say-day who never served is passin judgment. most of the female Cops I worked with were heavy hitters and better than most men. same in the military and I LIVE IN A MILITARY COMMUNITY-with numerous females of all ranks up to Captain, some of whom land jets and E-2D's on carriers at night in shitty weather. that is some bad azzed stuff. We need them. they stood up. more than all those watchers of pmsmsnbc/cbs/nbc/abc/pbs and all the weenies put together. so just salute them and thank them for their service. women are not just in our military, but are also on the front lines against terrorism with three letter intel agencies and allies far and near. just remember it was a female analyst at CIA that ran down UBL.

[wobblypops]

Jan 14, 2019 18:47:16 GMT -5 mongo said:

Most women I know are afraid of spiders and mice and run from snakes. I'm not being critical, it's simply a fact of life.
What will they do if they come upon a fanatic Muslim with an AK-47?

I hate spiders but I do love snakes. Mice are cute especially when their necks are broken in traps BUT I personally can't remove the bodies, I toss the whole trap.

[The Detail Rack Guy]

If they want to have them sitting on boats in the navy, or being "analysts" shining a chair, that's one thing. Infantry? No, thanks.

We can ignore our differences all we want and pretend, but that isn't going to end well. But just for entertainment value, they should make the Army and Marines all female. We can all just sit back and enjoy the show. I love women but has everyone lost their minds? Demi Moore and GI Jane is fiction, folks.

[The Detail Rack Guy]

Jan 14, 2019 21:21:59 GMT -5 hapd said:

1-yup, once again pro-way-say-day who never served is passin judgment.

2-most of the female Cops I worked with were heavy hitters and better than most men. 

1- Don't shoot the messenger.

2- Come on. 

[hapd]

NYPD RANT 1998 to THEE RANT 7/13/2017 16,575 posts and who's counting?

perhaps it was a reflection on the males in the commands I worked at.