Posted on 06/28/2016 9:11:46 AM PDT by PROCON
The Marine Corps is eliminating the job title “basic infantryman” along with 18 others and replacing them with terms that are gender neutral.
Others titles, including “rifleman” and “mortarman,” will remain the same, due to their historical and cultural significance for Marines.
The service plans to replace 19 of its military occupational specialty titles, the Marine Corps Times reported Tuesday, seven months after Navy Secretary Ray Mabus ordered the Marine Corps to conduct a review of all job titles to ensure gender neutrality.
For most of the 19 terms that will be changed, the word “Marine” will replace the word “man.” Basic infantryman, for instance, will become Basic infantry Marine, and “reconnaissance man” will become “reconnaissance marine,” according to a list of the 33 titles reviewed that was obtained by the Marine Corps Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Wait till we fight a real opponent....
Yep. Sad day for personkind.
In the next war, we can just refer to the frontline Marine wymyn as corpses.
I agree 100%, that it doesn’t tell the whole story. I did it because it uses established facts that one can get from any number of non-impeachable, unbiased sources.
Your example is a good one.
And...yes. Size and strength make a difference. I used to play hockey, and two women were invited to play one night. It was said they were very good, fast, etc.
They were fast, had good puck handling skills, and could shoot very well, but...it was no contest for them. A guy would lean on them, and that would be it. They had no way to counter it, and would lose the puck.
There is a reason the first female crosses the finish line at the Boston Marathon 15 minutes after the first man does, and it isn’t because women haven’t been given the chance to compete, since they have for decades now.
It is simply because they are at a physical disadvantage.
And anyone who thinks that won’t matter in combat is a fool.
I believe discussions about women in combat should also consider Napoleon’s maxim that the moral is to the physical as three to one. Too often operations demand unpredictably and unimaginably exhausting brutality to achieve victory. Therefore, only the most severe restrictions on human behaviors and interactions can foster the required high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion required.
Combat forms personnel into rigid, task oriented units. They then descend into a squalid cacophony of shrieking, cursing, sobbing, crashing dissonance to orchestrate the killing of other humans without hate or joy. These people continuously face extraordinary mental stress, and survive by acquiring the wisdom of wild animals that live in the moment without schedules for eating and sleeping. Resorting to war for national defense entails the ultimate Olympics of conflict occurring at the bleeding edge of existence where the unbelievable must become the possible. The many who think they are prepared physically are then overcome by those who are also psychologically annealed as individuals and as a unit.
Human sexuality should never intrude into this alternate reality demanding trained killers subject to totalitarian leadership. There is no opportunity for imagined compatibility with the social alchemy popular in civilian life.
This tragedy of women in combat provides another reason I now council men to never enter the armed forces. Social engineering that amalgamates feminist ideals everywhere has now become the over arching imperative to which all operational capabilities must submit.
I was never in the armed forces. However, this makes me sick - plus all of the other crap that the PC crowd has shoved down our throats in the name of some incredibly dubious social theory.
I don’t just want these people to lose the next election, I want them OFF OF MY PLANET! Up is down, black is white (oops, was that waaaaaacist?), right is wrong, girls are boys...WTF, over?!
“What about ‘Corpsman’?............................”
I’m beginning to think we’re getting what we deserve. After all, we’ve allowed it to happen. (We not including FReepers, of course)
“too many women believe this to be true (don’t believe me? ask a millennial woman what percentage of men she thinks she could take in a fight. don’t be surprised at answers like 70% or 80%)”
I recently had an online debate with some woman who argued guns should be banned because she knew karate and could whip any attacker. Someone that stupid deserves what she gets. Another woman suggested a Great Dane was a fine substitute for carrying a gun, because her Great Dane once woofed at a bad guy and the bad guy ran away.
The Stupid is Strong with Liberals!
did you know there is a valsalva device in astronaut’s helmets so that they can scratch their nose if/when it itches?
http://www.space.com/11806-nasa-spacewalk-astronauts-spacesuits-pain.html
Your example is a good one.
Another consideration that goes unsaid is the fact that we are facing a very downsized, all volunteer professional military.
Given that there is a serious limitation on the number of soldiers we can maintain at a given time, we simply cannot afford to carry any dead weight.
Open slots for the military are becoming increasingly rare and recruitment is becoming increasingly competitive.
Our military recruitment should become more in line with tryouts for a football team where many try out and only the most talented and strongest candidates make the cut and win the job slots.
The days when we could turn the military into a big social welfare jobs program are coming to a close. If women can compete with men for open slots head to head and win, more power to them, but due to force downsizing we really need to set a higher bar for military induction to make up for lower numbers of soldiers.
In summary, my opinions on this cover everything from mission capability, to logistics, to unit cohesion.
And, I agree completely with your last paragraph. In a shrinking military environment, they should individually be more capable, not less, which is where we are going by diminishing the standards.
If you haven't seen it, one of the best articles anywhere is this one: "Women in Combat: The Question of Standards" by Jude Eden (USMC)
Something I thought about... The left want women to be “equal”, but don’t want them in the draft. The left want women “equal”, in pay (already laws against that), work (men work longer hours than women, a recent study showed), etc. But if a woman hits a man, it’s cool. If a man hits a woman, he’s to be strung up by his gonads.
There’s no “equality” if one group is elevated higher than another.
To be honest, I’m beginning to look at the world as Jesus does - “His, not His” - the rest of it doesn’t matter there. Here - you are to follow the laws - and if you are truly His, you want to.
ask a millennial woman what percentage of men she thinks she could take in a fight. don’t be surprised at answers like 70% or 80%),
You’re wrong. Of the millennial men she encounters, she probably COULD take 70 to 80%.
However, of the average “MAN”, closer to 10-15%.
Very well said. My emphasis for a very important point. All too many people do not understand that the liberties we have sworn to defend are largely sacrificed by those who do the defending. Freedom is defended by MEN who do not experience freedom. Our present political leaders either do not understand this paradox ... or understand it all too well (and have evil intentions).
More folks should watch “American Ninja Warrior”. The announcers are politically correct dunderheads ... the action on the course makes mockery of their blather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.