I Have Neither The Time Nor The Inclination
To Explain Myself To A Man Who Rises And Sleeps
Under The Blanket Of The Very Freedom That I Provide
And Then Questions The Manner In Which I Provide It
---U.S. Marine Corps---



"Invisible Souls ... Leave .308 Holes." - USMC

Oh, I can already hear the bitching from some of you. Well, that's fine, nobody asked for you opinion, so stow that horseshit.

Alright, my unstable and insatiable journal minions,

There is a lot of controversy on this particular subject; especially in the U.S. Marine Corps right now. Considering this is the United States; most countries on the outside would think that it is odd women do not have more full, "hands-on-guns", combative roles. In the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as the Special Operations Forces subunits, it is becoming increasingly agitating for some people to see women's rights being shoved down their throats by the forces of idiot Top Brass.

Argumentatively, I think there are better countries out there to fight with, in regards to who they let fight and what they fight with. All in all, it's not what they fight with. Air Forces and Navies, alike, rely on machines and computers to get the job done. The Armies of today mostly rely on logistics and "intelligence" assets (old joke) to get the job done. There are really only two stables left to consider. Who? The Marine Corps' and the Special Operations Forces communities. And, I'm not just referring to the United States units. I mean, all of them.

Marine Corps' and SOF units are made primarily by the men in them; not by machines or computers. The MCs' or Naval Infantry forces are normally always oppressed by the respected countries' Defense Departments and Navies, as 99.9-percent of them are under Navy jurisdiction. I might add, unfortunately --- especially when and where the U.S. Marine Corps is concerned. But, that's just my notation and my notation, as far as any one persons' care in the DoD and Navy, means jack-and-shit.

Marine Corps' and SOF units are also the "first-in, last-out" units. When wars are fought, especially in the U.S.'s case, considering their standing military position and nearly twelve-year engagement in two wars since 11 September, 2001., the Special Forces are normally sent in first as training and priority-one units, and then when the full military might gets the green-light --- that's when the Marine Corps goes in; before the Army and with Naval air and medical support. Other than that, they do rely on the minimum. Grunt work.

Moving back to what I was saying; there are countries that better illustrate the means behind utilizing females in their militaries. Israel, namely, allows women to serve in any capacity a male counterpart can. This would include their Special Forces units, or Sayerets. Another perfect example is how the South Koreans manage a small group of female SF personnel in their 707th Special Mission Battalion, otherwise nicknamed as the White Tiger. All of the raving video game idiots probably only know them by the Ghost Recon, Counter-Strike and SOCOM video game series'.

Hell, remove the addition of conscription from the states like Israel and the People's Republic of China and you've got perfect groups. Tell me that there's a problem with their militaries on the infantry level and I'll crush you with all of my might. Why?

The fact of the matter is that men are afraid of women overtaking them. Male ego. While this will never happen, not fully, there are things in the military that females excel at over their male counterparts. For instance, female pelvic bone-structures actually enable them to construct for better sniper shots than males, and the fact that most women are smaller in size than men enable their bodies to cope with manned flight of fighter aircraft: less body mass to pump blood through, more Gs can be had at the stick. Take two F-18 Hornets, one piloted by a 6'2" male and one by a 5'0" female, with the same level of training, and she will kick his ass because she will outmaneuver him. The larger person has to put more energy and focus into staying conscience when he needs tight maneuvering at high rates of speed.

The rules are changing for the Marine Corps though. Women are getting into levels that used to be reserved only for the men. They made company-level, which means their chances of experiencing contact are higher. However, there is a serious misstep that has been made in the process! The Marine Corps is goose-stepping this conformation bullshit in the wrong manner. Making the men conform to a lower standard, so that the women can work alongside of the men. This is a heavy breach of correct protocol.



There are three things that could be done to correct this serious breach.

1. The first idea, and less 'extreme', so to speak, of the three is bringing women into infantry roles without downgrading the current training standards and while bringing the female level of training up to the male's level. You can see the current standards for male/female recruitment into the U.S. Marine Corps here. Everybody does need to keep in mind that the standards of today's military is bullshit compared to what we had back in the 1940s.

The idea behind this approach is to weed out the bullshitters. And, yes, I am talking about the women. The weak and the potential down-the-road fuck-ups to be exact. Base Queens, get-pregnants and the other weak-kneed fairy princesses who thought the Marine Corps was hot-shit until they got in and reality kicked them in the cunts. The latter two are usually rolled into the same package, because the "easiest way out is to let someone cum in" for them.

If the military followed this mindset, they could let women into infantry units. Slam them with cold reality at the start and you eliminate the weaklings before having to deal with them in the field where it could get people injured and/or killed. There's a lot of things I'm willing to die for, but dying for idiots with more tits than brains is not one of them. Dying for any idiot is a fool's errand, in my honest opinion. So, thus, I will try to avoid doing so while I do my best to protect those back here in the U.S. who are worth their salt.

2. Excusing the fact that the training was for space combat, the training was far exceeding what might be considered for both males and females. It was equal and grueling!

The second is very old-school and outlined in an old sci-fi novel called The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. His outlining of male-female infantry unit integration included dropping the dis-allowance of sex while serving in co-ed units. Making it mandatory for either sex is pointless and unnecessary though, as people will have sex whether you want them to or not, and people will also skip sex regardless if it is mandatory.

Also, making it a legal obligation for women to have sex with men (a common misconception for some readers of Haldeman's novel - one such misconception here) unneeded because it implies that women are always unwilling sexual partners, when in fact, the post-puritanical and post-Victorian cultural hold-overs are the only thing keeping said pussy in said pants, as well a standing tacit implication that men never turn down sex which, contrary to popular wisdom, is untrue. Self-honesty has proven, to both women and humanity, that women are just as likely to want sex as men (to summarize, humanity, both male and female, is just one big passive whore: the reason being because sometimes we don't want sex and sometimes we can't get enough in one laying *youseewhatIdidthere*).

In a semi-recent article posted by former U.S. Navy SEAL Bradon Webb on SOFREP Military Blog, he outlined a blunt fact that occurs on Naval vessels in the U.S. Navy, and has for a very long time, no doubt. The excerpt here;

<sub>Women and men cannot be closely confined with the expectation that they will not sleep with each other if given enough time. It's against human biology to think otherwise.  I saw this first hand when I served aboard two U.S. Aircraft carriers (The USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Kitty Hawk). Five-thousand people and 10-20% of crews these days are women, and it's against regulations for single men and women to have sex on the ship.

The truth is that it happens with regularity, there are even code words for it (e.g. "want to play cards?"). So good people continue to screw each other and some are caught and careers are ended. Too bad.</sub>

Of course, with this idea, there is requirement of a number of aspects. Enforcement of condom use with the threat of an immediate Other-Than-Honorable Discharge for any woman found to be pregnant and serious penalties for said father --- if he himself is in the military --- is soundly reasonable. Another reason for this, other than the obvious, is because you can't have mandatory tubal ligation or vasectomy. The reason for an OTH under such circumstances is to promote a no-slack policy. If you show softness to one, the rest will accept it as the norm and expect the same. Give nobody slack. If you fuck up, you --- and you alone --- are to blame for fucking you military career up.

3. Option three was outlined by Brandon Webb in The First Female Navy SEAL article over at SOFREP. You can read the full article in that link, but I'll post the summarizing.

<sub>The CIA Gets One Thing Right

The CIA uses female Case Officers extensively and effectively to recruit good human assets. Nothing gets a guy talking like a sexy and powerful woman. Sex sells, and why not use it to our advantage in Special Operations? Most women case officers I've come across are ill prepared for the ugly real world. They don't have the hard skills (social, weapons and hand-to-hand), training and honed instinct that only comes with decades of practice to deal with real threats. This is one reason they hire and use former Special Operations men to babysit.

When I worked with groups of women in the CIA, I felt sorry for them. Here they were, intelligent, capable and ill prepared for their environment. A few were even afraid to carry a loaded sidearm and some broke down crying in front of me because of operational pressure. I imagine a female that completed the Special Forces Q course or Navy SEAL training (BUD/S) would not have this problem.

But what do you expect from an organization that pulls smart people from college, puts them through "The Farm", and unleashes them on the world with little practical knowledge or training. You end up with men and women that go from working at the GAP in college, then the "Farm" and over to Iraq to run amok. Reminds me of the Private Security Contractor Blackwater, and how they grew too fast and ignored their QA. A good company started grabbing any idiot with a desire to be a wannabe SOF guy and shipped him off to Iraq (after a few weeks of indentured training). What did you expect would happen, Erik?.

Me and my friends saw the transformation and it scared the hell out of us overseas. We avoided the BW guys like the plague, hell, we were afraid they'd shoot us! And then these idiots started shooting innocent civilians. At least they shot a few of each other off duty as well. Good riddance.

We have an ethic in the Special Operations community that goes: Don't bitch about a problem without bringing a viable solution to the table. How do you create a viable female US Special Operations Force (SOF)? It's really very simple and the framework and curriculum is already in place. Minor opposite sex tweaks are all that is needed. Some will say "It's too expensive" and I will argue and budget and DoD waste all day long.

The Solution

You train females to the same hard standards as Special Operations selection, but you do it separately. You don't mix men and women in training or at the unit level. Special units for the women. An entire SEAL Team made up of female SEALs. They would train and fight together and you better get the fuck out of their way.

Eventually once they're seasoned they could transition into other roles and parallel career paths similar to men. I imagine these ladies working behind the lines with the CIA or JSOC in very covert missions and one day commanding US SOCOM.

There's a reason terrorists use women. Think about it.

The world we live in is small, complex and we face an enemy with no borders or rules. It's time to cast our differences and fixed ideologies aside and embrace the female Special Operations Warrior.</sub>

------
Now, despite all of this, the Army seems to have recently gone ahead and decided that women will be attending Ranger School in the due course of time. However, while they're bringing them in, they're doing nothing whatsoever to combat the issue of the sex that will take place, also in the due course of time. The Army is also... also, lowering the standards of the U.S. Army Ranger School that has stood for the last 60-years. This is a joke...

I would go into more of this myself, but like SOFREP's Jack Murphy stated, there was a better and more level-headed, rant to be had.

I was going to go on an epic rant but I found someone who said it and sourced it better than I did so here it is.  First hearing about this a few weeks ago, I held off commenting until we had confirmation.  Yesterday, it hit the press.  Maybe when I regain my composure I will take a shot at it myself.  It sounds like many, if not most, former Rangers are okay with this if the high standards are maintained at the school house.  I don't have that much confidence in the Army.  No one will resign in protest but will rather bow down to political pressure to have a certain quota of female Ranger School graduates. -Jack Murphy (Ranger School Class 04-04)

That being said, the guys over at WeaponsMan really went all out with the reporting. I'm very disappointed with the Chief of Staff of the Army, as well as whoever else in the Head-Shed above him gave the order, and that came from Congress for sure. The idiots... Congress has no business dicking with military situations, as most of them never had the balls to join the military in the first place. The WM report is here and the excerpt is as follows.

<sub>It was clear that nobody's opinion was being solicited. The message came from the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the order seems to have come from echelons above him: Ranger School will admit women within a few months. And the women will pass, whatever it takes.

Female officers have complained that the lack of the school credential disadvantages them for promotions and commands, and in an election year their complaints have found champions among the political appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In a Department whose highest priority is the Secretary's million-dollar Gulfstream commute, and that has lost interest in two ongoing wars and a dozen other flashpoints where soldiers risk their lives daily, a stroke of a pen can upend a 60-year-old course that embodies a tradition with roots in the 18th Century.

And it just did.

The Ranger Training Brigade has been told to roll the welcome mat and the first class could be 03/13 but will definitely be 05/13 at the latest. Each class in the remainder of FY 13 will receive five to eight women, and the treatment, mentoring, nurturing and ultimate success of those female candidates will be intensively managed by the Chief of Staff and the Sergeant Major of the Army, not to mention civilian appointees. The male candidates in the same courses are not of interest to the command, as long as they don't interfere with or criticize the women. Even the timing of the feminized classes was established for political reasons: to ensure that a fait accompli of female Ranger attendees, if not graduates is presented to the incoming SECDEF and Secretary of the Army if, as the current leaders think likely, their patron is defeated in November. They did not want to put women in class 1/13, which starts in October, to prevent Congress from intervening before the elections, but 2/13 is an outside possibility.

Current Ranger graduates, Ranger veterans, and the Ranger units and Ranger training establishment were never consulted about the decision. Officers who argued against it in Pentagon meetings have already been dismissed or shunted into career-ending punishment assignments.

The RTB has not been directed that all female candidates must pass regardless of performance, and Ranger Instructors will retain a limited ability to dismiss an individual under-performing woman from the course, as long as "enough" women remain to please the higher-ups. But they will have to justify every dismissal to the highest levels of command, who have made their intention clear. Regardless of performance, the majority of women attendees must pass -- at least as high a graduating percentage as the men in the same class. For the first time in Ranger history, graduation will be guaranteed -- for some.</sub>

More following outlining came from another WM post that followed the one from above. This one, here, showed some new information on what was being allowed and what wasn't.

1. The first females will probably be freshly commissioned West Point grads. They will be volunteers, Note that while all Ranger students are nominally volunteers, an infantry officer, particularly an Academy grad, who opts not to go will be explaining that decision to a superior. Infantry officers are already prepped for Ranger School at IOBC, and officers from other branches can opt for extra-session ranger prep at their basic courses.

2. No enlisted women. They're not the ones clamoring for a shiny.

3. They will be given a variety of training before the course to ensure preparation/success. So far it looks like this is not a special course like the SOPC given to 18Xs but is existing courses like the Warrior Leader Course.

4. The Chief of Staff has been all over the news. His message is a dual one: first, he's denying any decision has been made and insisting that this is just being studied. If that's the case, he won't mind releasing the FRAGO issued to the RTB and the accompanying slide decks, right? (Operators are standing by! -- pun intended. When the phone doesn't ring, we'll know it's GEN Odierno not calling). Second, he's confirming that the decision is essentially made, and that it's all about the officer careers:

<sub>"If we determine that we're going to allow women to go in the infantry and be successful, they are probably at some time going to have to go through Ranger school," Odierno told reporters. "If we decide to do this, we want the women to be successful."

According to Odierno, about 90 percent of senior Army infantry officers have gone to the school and are qualified as Rangers. Allowing women to go to Ranger school, he said, would allow them to be competitive with their male counterparts as they move through the ranks."</sub>

Odierno's denial is not a denial, it's a set-up for a coming announcement.

5. The women will succeed. (Two words: Kara Hultgreen).

------

To echo some of the comments over at SOFREP, this is very unsettling. It's unfair to the males in particular, because of the rates at who will get in. Who here thinks that even one woman won't pass? Well, you're a fool. The instructors have to provide a warrant to the release of the women to Army High Command, but can drop any male they see fit? What the fuck, over!. And none of the women will fail. That's been all but guaranteed by the Army.

Also, and what's worse, is that this whole event will alienate every female candidate that goes through training for that exact reason. They want to gain the trust of the men that they will lead (keeping in mind that it is NOT confirmed that women will be allowed into Ranger units), but the mere fact that training was rigged to such a point that you could be a huge fuck-up and not get dropped will cause a greater rift between the male-female partnership.

And do not twist my words here, I am all for women getting their shot at becoming members of the military's elite special ops units, but only when they are held to the same training standards as their male counterparts. The other thing is that there seems to be a disconnect. These women are "volunteers", but the Head-Shed seems to have it set that they are picking the personnel out as the women who don't want to go have to present sound reasoning to their Command, which can be turned down. That makes me feel sad for the women who are there and don't want to be because of that exact reason of male-female discontent.

I also do firmly believe that any woman who supports her right to be there, knowing the fact that she is pretty much being forced to be there, should probably never have been given the opportunity to go to Ranger School at all. The reason is simply because they're going to overstep their bounds and something is going to go wrong. A clusterfuck in the ranks. Male or female, it makes no difference, it is a serious breach of military command structuring.

Eh. Anyway, we'll see how all of this goes.

Out.