Women In Combat
Unwelcome Facts From A Closet
Is about facts, reality, evidence. Read it, believe it. Also look at
Women In Combat written
by a woman.
Women In The Military - Fraudulent Equality
Fred mentions inter alia that black women join up because it pays better than
the dole.
Done
Been Girled The Price Of Matriarchy
Deals more with the general case of feminist damage.
Sexual Equality And Phlogiston Take Away Reason And Accountability
Is about the active evil of
feminism.
Baez, Coyne, and Reed
Yes,
war is dangerous.
Note to a Generic Pentagon General
A Cause of Delayed-Nausea Syndrome
Fred mentions pogues = personnel other than grunts but not REMFs [ Rear echelon
mother fuckers ]
Women In Combat Unwelcome Facts From A Closet
QUOTE
Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically
demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and
unworkable. Predictably I’ve gotten responses asserting that I hate
women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can’t get a date. A few,
with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded
supporting data.
OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over
from my days as a syndicated military columnist (“Soldiering,”
Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known
for a long time.
From the report of the
Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in
book form by Brassey’s in 1993): “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 of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that
women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly
five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men.”
Further: “The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about
the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as
follows:
“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.”
From the same report: “Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army,
testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an
Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence
Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
“(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the
upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test
equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
“(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score
equal to the male mean score of 260.
“(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a
score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
“(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70
percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the
end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the
Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness
badge….”
The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book
Women in the Military
- Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known
to students of the military, are results of a test the Navy did to see
how well women could perform in damage control — i.e., tasks necessary
to save a ship that had been hit.
| Test | % Women Failing |
% Men Failing |
|
Before Training |
After Training |
Before Training |
After Training |
| Stretcher carry, level |
63 |
38 |
0 |
0 |
| Stretcher carry/up, down ladder |
94 |
88 |
0 |
0 |
| Fire hose |
19 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| P250 pump, carry down |
99 |
99 |
9 |
4 |
| P250 pump, carry up |
73 |
52 |
0 |
0 |
| P250, start pump |
90 |
75 |
0 |
0 |
| Remove SSTO pump |
99 |
99 |
0 |
0 |
| Torque engine bolt |
78 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
Our ships can be hit. I know what supersonic stealth cruise
missiles are. So do the Iraqis.
Also from the Commission’s report: “Non-deployability briefings
before the Commission showed that women were three times more
non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations
Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead’s
testimony before the Commission, ‘the primary reason for the women being
unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the
women who could not deploy.’”
Maybe we need armored strollers.
My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I’m
not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in
Reader’s Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest’s archives.
She told me the following about her experiences: “I was stunned. The
Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers
using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried
to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had
no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were
always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from
training injuries.
“They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women
weren’t allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called
them ‘Battle Buddies.’ It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I
couldn’t go to the bathroom by myself.”
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need
protection in the ladies’ room. Military policy is endlessly
fascinating.
When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience
of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report
from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:
“After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to
support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian
women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the
initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the
testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching
the physical size and strength of the average male are more than
130-to-1.
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the
Pentagon’s library:
(p. 690): “One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that
they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and
field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was
probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly
while participating in field exercises.” Because peeing was
embarrassing.
Or, ((p. 661): ” Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of
PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…” Depression,
says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training
injuries. Et cetera.
The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine
has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears,
is more important than protecting the country. Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.
UNQUOTE
Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.
REMF
Is the
MLA [ Multi-Letter Acronym ] for Rear Echelon Mother Fucker. A
derogatory term of US
Vietnam
era origin that's somehow found it's way in to the lexicon of British Army
slang - probably due to repeated showings of Chicken Burger Ridge in
the NAAFI.
Anyone who is further from the
FEBA than the
person using the phrase is a REMF - the bloke 'in the rear with the gear'.
Generally, if you are so far back that your laundry goes forward, you are a
REMF.
That said, in today's operational environment even REMFs are on the front
line: IEDs, rockets and mortar rounds making no distinction between
infantryman and hygiene operative [ a polite term for shit house cleaner
].
Ministry Of Defence Will Put Women Into Combat
[
6 April 2016
]
QUOTE
The Ministry of Defence admits it is reviewing military physical fitness
standards in preparation for the expected announcement later this year that
women will be allowed to serve in all front-line combat units, including
the infantry and SAS.
The MoD denies that standards will be reduced, but of course that is
precisely what is going to happen. Generals – having put up a fight for many
years – have been told women will join front-line units and, like the good
soldiers they are, intend to make it work.
The people who have demanded this change – politicians desperate to be
seen as “progressive”, feminist zealots and ideologues hell-bent on equality
of opportunity without exception – would never dream of volunteering. Indeed
only a very small number of women will want to join the infantry and of
those only a fraction will have the physical capability.
Hence the need to lower the bar.
UNQUOTE
Colonel Kemp is
telling the truth about Women Soldiers
albeit he panders to the Zionist crazies who like
Killing Children For Fun in Israel.
He can do it because the retirement cheque has cleared. The
Ministry of Defence is full of officers, far too many who have nothing
to do except snivel to the right people, to practice politics. The
efficiency of the British Army comes behind
making nice to Feminist harpies who hate men,
hate England and love power. If you doubt that
women can, or even want soldiering consult
Fred; he did his time for real in Viet Nam. It wasn't pretty. See
Women Soldiers for more and better details.
Grunt is an acronym used during WW2 for troops who had no formal training,
or skills. G-general, R-replacement, UNT-untrained,...GRUNT, as they had no
special training, they were given rifles and sent to the front.
Phonetic spelling of the military acronym HUA, which stands for "Heard
Understood Acknowledged." Originally used by the British in the late 1800's
in Afghanistan. More recently adopted by the United States Army to indicate
an affirmative or a pleased response.
Go Ugly Early
This tactic is employed in order that a
squaddie
can avoid disappointment at the end of an evening out. Instead of wasting
time, energy and
Beer
Tokens on an unattainable
female, the
sensible squaddie GOES UGLY EARLY in the hope that he can pick up a
lady who rates somewhere below unattainable but somewhere above
hippocrocagrillapig. The benefits of this are twofold:
1. The G.U.E. prey is selected before the
beer-goggle effect is at maximum strength, thus the
squaddie
who plays the G.U.E. game isn't left with the absolute dregs of the
hippocrocagrillapig pool.
2. The G.U.E. prey is probably aware that she's not the most attractive
female in the
room, so in order to stake her claim, will probably buy the
Adonis-like
squaddie
a few drinks during the course of the evening, and if the
squaddie
is really lucky, the G.U.E. prey may also cough up for a pre-coital kebab,
an entre to the
Badly Stuffed Kebab that he'll eat later.
It is also quite permissible to Go Ginger Early - so if she's ugly and a
gwar, you really can't go too badly wrong. A recent rise in the number
of
Go Disabled Earlys led some to question whether the practice has gone
just that little bit too far.
Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces
ex Wiki
The Wiki's write up is long and evasive
The role of women in the United States armed services became an important
political topic in 1991.[1]
Women military personnel had engaged in combat in the most recent U.S.
military actions:
Grenada
in 1983 Panama
in 1989, and the
Gulf War
in 1991.
Senator
William V. Roth R-DE) introduced a
Senate bill in 1991 to clarify women’s roles in the armed forces,
including combat.[2]
Representative
Patricia Schroeder (D-CO1) and
Beverly B. Byron (D-MD6) then convinced the
House Armed Services Committee to amend the
House bill under consideration for military appropriations for 1992 and
1993 to allow combat roles for military women.[3]
In the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator
John
Glenn (D-OH) opined that a thorough review and study of the issue of
women’s role in the armed services would take up to 18 months.[4]
Senator
Sam Nunn (D-GA), Chair of the Senate Committee, then introduced several
Senate bills—102 S. 1507, 102 S. 1508, 102 S. 1509, and 102 S. 1515—to
create just such a commission.[5]
The Congressional
conference committee chosen to reconcile the House and Senate versions
of bills for 1992-1993 military appropriations (of which Sen. Nunn was a
member) included creating the Commission in the approved 1992-1993 military
appropriations law.[6]
Women in the Military
- Flirting With Disaster
The disaster Mitchell deplores has so far been on an individual
scale: a few suicides, forced retirements and discharges, and the
trials of drill sergeants. This litany is hardly a bill of good
organizational health, and the public policy question has thus
become whether to press forward with gender integration of the armed
forces--or to pause and reconsider the wisdom of the effort.
Conservatives such as Mitchell take succor from second thoughts
emerging from such neoliberal tastemakers as columnist Richard Cohen
of the Washington Post.. Mitchell, hardly a guarded writer,
disputes every argument ever put forward to open the military
services to women, and for evidence he reviews most of the studies
and commissions that have examined the issue since the 1970s. This
information underlies the claims bruited about amid sensational
media flaps (les affaires Hultgreen and
Flinn). Mitchell's
well-researched, though opinionated, book can be balanced with a
benign view of the issue,
GROUND ZERO: The Gender Wars in the Military Hardcover
by
Linda Bird Francke.
Today only one-third of uniformed women believe that the military's primary
purpose is to fight wars. Nowhere in the military do women meet the same
physical standards as men - not in the military academies, not in basic
training, and certainly not in the field. Applying common sense, the history of
men under arms, and a quarter-century's worth of research on women in the
military, Brian Mitchell reveals how "equal opportunity" has been allowed to
trump military readiness and national security. Women in the Military is an
illuminating - and frightening - look at our nation's armed services.
Kara
Hultgreen ex
Wiki
Read this one from the Wiki with a jaundiced eye. Read
past the Disinformation & omissions gets to
the truth.
Being a large She-Hulk does not sound very
feminine to me. It took her three months after "qualifying" to write
off a $38 million
Grumman F-14
Tomcat. An honest source says it was pilot error [ hers ] - the
Centre for Military Readiness has a
detailed analysis.
NB The other woman hasn't killed herself yet. A
Discussion of
the Prang also says it was pilot error. She stalled the port engine by
using too much rudder.
QUOTE
Kara Spears Hultgreen (5 October 1965 – 25 October 1994) was a
lieutenant and
naval aviator in the
United States Navy and the first female carrier-based fighter pilot in
the U.S. Navy. She died just months after she was certified for combat, when
she crashed her
F-14 Tomcat into the sea on final approach to
USS Abraham Lincoln..
Hultgreen was commissioned through the
Aviation Officer Candidate School at
Naval Air Station Pensacola, where she was a Distinguished Naval
Graduate.[1]
Upon graduation she was assigned to Training Air Wing 4 at
Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, for primary flight training
with VT-27 in the
T-34C Turbomentor. Screened for the Strike Pilot training pipeline, she
underwent follow-on training in the
T-2C Buckeye and
TA-4J Skyhawk II with Training Air Wing 3 at
NAS Chase Field, Texas.
Following designation as a
naval aviator, she received orders to fly
EA-6A Prowlers with Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 33 (VAQ-33)
at
NAS Key West, Florida.[2]
Upon the Navy's integration of women in combat in 1993, LT Hultgreen was
selected to be among the first female pilots to undergo F-14 Tomcat training
at
NAS Miramar, California.
While with Pacific Fleet F-14
Fleet Replacement Squadron, Fighter Squadron 124 (VF-124)),
Hultgreen failed her first attempt at carrier qualification. Hultgreen
successfully carrier-qualified during a second period aboard
USS Constellation in mid-1994, becoming the first "combat
qualified" female naval aviator.[2]
Upon completion of the VF-124 Category I fleet replacement pilot syllabus,
she was assigned to the Black Lions of Fighter Squadron 213 (VF-213)
and began preparations for deployment to the
Persian Gulf.
Her
call signs were "Hulk" or "She-Hulk",
for her ability to bench-press 200-pound (91 kg), her 6-foot (1.8 m) frame,
and a play on her surname of Hultgreen. Following a television appearance,
in which she wore detectable makeup, she received the additional call sign
of "Revlon".[3]
Centre for Military Readiness
is about
DOUBLE STANDARDS IN NAVAL AVIATION
QUOTE
...............NOTE
As indicated in VF-124's official grading criteria, various kinds of "safety
of flight - downs," or "pink sheets"
are given to
document and correct
serious errors in performance or attitude among aviation trainees. In the
highly-competitive environment of naval aviation, as few as one or two downs
may result in dismissal of the trainee, depending on the seriousness or
patterns of the offenses, and other factors such as low cumulative scores............
DDOWN NO. 4: 9 MAY, 1994
- Lt. Hultgreen received another safety of flight - down during the
conventional weapons phase of her training. She failed
to safely perform a pop-up delivery maneuver with simulated bombs. If she
had been carrying live weapons, the too-shallow dive
and bottom-out altitude
well below the fragmentation zone would have destroyed Hultgreen and her
aircraft.
On numerous runs during this flight, Lt. Hultgreen also continued to press
the target without having the proper symbology on her
heads-up display
(HUD). On several runs she unknowingly left the HUD in landing
mode for the entire run on target,
and on two runs attempted to
simulate bomb release
without proper symbology on HUD, while engaging incorrect switches.
SECOND CARRIER QUALIFICATION ATTEMPT: 19-27 JULY, 1994
- During the 5 week work-up period prior to her second try at carrier
qualification, Lt. Hultgreen earned cumulative scores improving
to 3.24. Her second CQ overall grade was 3.10, which was widely
described as above the
2.99 average.
?
Category 1 pilots (first tour
in the F-14 aircraft) require a total of 20 passes
at the ship to carrier qualify. During her second
carrier qualification
Lt. Hultgreen received a total of 32 practice landings, which raised her
overall average and boarding rate.
?
Lt. Hultgreen's
second try(second look) CQ average of 3.10 was higher than the 2.99 average of other
pilots on their first try, but below that of
other pilots since 1986 on their second look, which was 3.13.
OCTOBER 25, 1994
- Lt. Kara Hultgreen was killed while attempting a landing on the carrier
USS
Abraham Lincoln
in clear daytime conditions off the
coast of San Diego. Her back-seat Radar Intercept Officer (RIO)
successfully ejected from the rolling aircraft, but she was killed
instantly when she was
ejected into the water at low altitude,
a fraction of a second later.
UNQUOTE
It was blatant pilot error. Using the wrong setting for the HUD [ head up
display ] is an obvious foul up. She "qualified" by fraud.
Pussycat
from
Martin
Van Creveld [ a Jew ]
For several decades now, Western armed forces—which keep preening
themselves as the best-trained, best-organized, best-equipped, best-led,
in history—have been turned into pussycats. Being pussycats, they went
from one defeat to the next. True, in 1999 they did succeed in imposing
their will on Serbia. But only because the opponent was a small, weak
state (at the time, the Serb armed forces, exhausted by a prolonged
civil war, were rated 35th in the world); and even then only
because that state was practically defenseless in the air. The same
applies to Libya in 2011. Over there, indigenous bands on the ground did
most of the fighting and took all the casualties. In both cases, when it
came to engaging in ground combat, man against man, the West, with the
U.S at its head, simply did not have what it takes.
On other occasions things were worse still. Western armies tried to
create order in Somalia and were kicked out by the “Skinnies,” as they
called their lean but mean opponents. They tried to beat the Taliban in
Afghanistan, and were kicked out. They tried to impose democracy (and
get their hands on oil) in Iraq, and ended up leaving with their tails
between their legs. The cost of these foolish adventures to the U.S
alone is said to have been around 1 trillion—1,000,000,000,000—dollars.
With one defeat following another, is it any wonder that, when those
forces were called upon to put an end to the civil war in Syria, they
and the societies they serve preferred to let the atrocities go on?
By far the most important single reason behind the repeated failures
is the fact that, one and all, these were luxury wars. With nuclear
weapons deterring large-scale attack, for seven decades now no Western
country has waged anything like a serious (let alone existential)
struggle against a more or less equal opponent. As the troops took on
opponents much weaker than themselves—often in places they had never
heard about, often for reasons nobody but a few politicians
understood—they saw no reason why they should get themselves killed.
Given the circumstances, indeed, doing so would have been the height of
stupidity on their part. Yet from the time the Persians at Marathon in
490 B.C. were defeated by the outnumbered Greeks right down to the
present, troops whose primary concern is not to get themselves killed
have never be able to fight, let alone win.
One would think that, aware of the problem, the politicians and
societies that so light-heartedly sent the troops to fight under these
circumstances would do everything in their power to compensate them in
other ways. For example, by allowing them some license to enjoy life
before a bomb went off, blowing them to pieces; making sure that those
put in harm’s way would be given a free hand to do what they had to do;
allowing them to take pride in their handiwork; celebrating them on
their return; and giving them all kinds of privileges. Was it not Plato
who suggested that those who excelled in war on behalf of the republic
be given first right to kiss and be kissed? After all, in every field of
human activity from football to accounting it has always been those who
enjoy what they do who do it best. Conversely, in every field those who
excel are those who enjoy what they are doing. Is there any reason why,
in waging war and fighting, things should be any different?
Instead, far from honoring their troops or even showing them respect,
Western societies have done the opposite. During training and in
garrison, they are surrounded by a thousand regulations that prevent
them from doing things every civilian can do as a matter of course. That
includes, if they are American and not yet 21 years old, buying a can of
beer and drinking its contents. On campaign they are bound by rules of
engagement that often make their enemies laugh at them, prevent them
from defending themselves, lead to unnecessary casualties, and result in
punishment if they are violated. Anybody who openly says that he took
pride in his deadly work—as, for example, the legendary, now retired,
Four-Star U.S. Marine Corps General Jim Mattis at one point did—will be
counseled to shut up if he is lucky and disciplined if he is not.
American troops returning from a tour undergo obligatory testing for
post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. PTSD, of course, is a real
problem for some. However, as all history shows, it is simply not true
that fighting, killing, and watching others being killed is necessarily
traumatic. Suppose the Roman Army had dealt with PTSD as we do now;
would it have conquered the world? Nor, contrary to what one often
hears, is it true that historical combat was less terrible than its
modern equivalents. Perhaps to the contrary, given that the combatants
could literally look into each other’s eyes, hear the screams, see the
spurting blood, and touch the scattering brains.
As I wrote decades ago in Fighting Power, the real origin of
PTSD is found in a personnel system which, for reasons of administrative
efficiency, treats the troops like interchangeable cogs, isolates them,
and prevents them from bonding. Adding offense to injury, the
abovementioned tests, introduced with the possibility of liability in
mind, are humiliating. Wasn’t it Frederick the Great who said that the
one thing that can drive men into the muzzles of the cannon trained on
them is pride? Nor do things end at this point. Far from celebrating the
troops’ courage and sacrifice, society very often treats them as damaged
goods. Indeed things have come to the point where it expects them to be
damaged.
An important role in all this is played by military women and
feminism generally. In every known human society (even, as far as we are
able to judge, in some animal societies) since the world began, whatever
treatment was considered suitable for males has been seen as too harsh
for females. Conversely, to be treated like women was perceived as the
most humiliating thing men could undergo. By insisting on gender
equality the way they have—even putting in place “equal employment
opportunity officers” charged with hounding any man who dares “offend” a
woman—Western armed forces have dragged their men’s pride through the
mire. The more so because, as the distribution of casualties shows, it
is the men who do practically all the fighting. At the same time they
have often confronted women with demands that were too much for them.
The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating. Proportionally
speaking, far more female than male soldiers are said to suffer from
PTSD.
Had the system been deliberately designed to sap the fighting power
of Western armies, it could hardly have been improved on. This might
well make us ask: cui bono? Who profits? There are several
answers. First come thousands of “mental health professionals” hired to
treat the people in question. Like the female psychologist in Philipp
Roth’s book, The Human Stain, who asks a Vietnam veteran
whether he has ever killed anybody (firing a machine gun from a
helicopter, he has killed hundreds, perhaps thousands), most would not
recognize a bullet if they saw one. Next come the corporations that
produce all sorts of psychopharma (the standard method for treating PTSD
is to drug the patients). Third are the media. Always eager to throw the
first stone, very often they have a field day selling those suffering
from the symptoms to a slavering public. Between them, these three make
billions out of the enterprise.
Last not least are feminist organizations which always insist on “equality”
(in reality, privilege) even if it means going over the bodies of many “sisters”
and wrecking their countries’ military. Two points remain to be made. First, as
their repeated victories prove, the Taliban, their brothers in arms in other
countries, and non-Western societies generally know better than to follow the
West on its self-destructive path. Second, societies that lose their fighting
power by treating their troops in this way are doomed. Sooner or later, somebody
will come along, big sword in hand, and cut off their head.
Let those with ears to listen, listen.