18 March 2014

A MARINE SPEAKS FRANKLY - SHE SURE DOES

A MARINE SPEAKS FRANKLY - SHE SURE DOES
by Andy Weddington
Tuesday, 18 March 2013



"The only source of knowledge is experience." Albert Einstein
 


The following, written a couple of months ago, was sent to me last night.

The author's experience and insight is consistent with, and supports, the couple of handfuls of articles, at least, written on the topic - women in combat - for this forum.

She has some knowledge.

More truth.

Moral compass.

Courage.

And more.

Never mind politics, one question came to mind after reading...

"Why is this not coming from the Commandant of the Marine Corps and other senior Marines?"

Apparently, Einsteins they're not.



 
Women Fail to Achieve Male Marines' Lowest Standard
by Jude Eden
January 17, 2014
 
 
 
                     Jude Eden




Earlier this year, the Marine Corps decided to delay the low 3 pull-up requirement for women that they had hoped to apply in 2014. The measure was set in preparation for compliance with the Pentagon’s intent to open combat units to women in 2016. Since less than half of female recruits could make the minimum requirement by the end of 2013, this implementation is being delayed.

Advocates for women in combat have mouthed the words: If women can make the standards, they should be able to serve in the combat units and special operations. If they are telling the truth, why don’t they insist women be tested on the men’s unaltered standards? Three pull-ups is the bare minimum; it would put a man at the bottom of his unit. Women get 100% for eight pull-ups where men have to do twenty for 100%. Is that equality?

The tiny cabal of feminist officers and NCOs who sued to be able to join the combat units and their far-left backers like DACOWITS and SWAN have been telling America not only that women can do anything men can do, but that they already are. “Women are fighting and dying with men in the combat zone,” they claim. This is lying by omission: dying in the combat zone does not mean one qualified for the combat units or Special Forces, whose standards are now being “re-evaluated” to justify why they are so high that women can’t achieve them. For women, dying in the combat zone doesn’t even mean they qualified in their support (non-combat) units to the standards their brothers have to meet.

If, as these advocates say, women can do everything men can do, why can’t women succeed by the men’s standard naturally, or even with result-specific training? This is where WIC advocates cut to commercial and cry discrimination. That’s their playbook. The feminists and their lackeys have been doing it since women were fully integrated into the military branches and academies, resulting in overall lower standards and reduced combat readiness. Doing the same to put women into the combat units on a false narrative of equality will have even more disastrous results.

If they were serious about equality, they would demand that no standards be “re-evaluated” and insist that women perform on the men’s standard. That will never happen because on those standards, most women wouldn’t be qualified for the military in the first place. Women already have an equal opportunity to compete against men in the military; but every time they are tested, they fail to measure up. It is Nature herself who discriminates. Women were built for something more important than combat.

Even on the lower standard, women have a much higher rate of injury, non-availability, non-deployability, and attrition (separating from the military before fulfilling their contract) than men. These are among the plethora of eternal truths making it impractical to put women into combat, even if they do train like Cross-fitters to improve their performance. When women were integrated fully into the forces and the academies, the same type of feminist cadre said that exposing these facts would hurt morale. Indeed. “Equalizing” standards, “leveling the playing field,” even “providing women the best opportunity to succeed” actually means lowering the standards and discriminating against more capable men.

This issue is not about equality or even equal opportunity. The WIC advocates don’t care about equality, let alone combat readiness. They don’t care that they are subjecting the entire population of able-bodied young women to the possibility of the draft. They care about themselves and their own power; and they don’t care if they have to destroy women, men, the military, and, by extension, the country, to get it.

Jude Eden, Jane of Trades, is a Hillsdale College grad, a Jewish Marine Corps Iraq War Veteran, cancer survivor, musician, conservative activist and the wife of a legal immigrant. For more of her writing visit: www.politicalanimalblog.com


Note: On Google I found Jude Eden's website. The article above is at it appears. In last evening's email, the following paragraphs were atop the above article but not so on her site as part of the article (nor anywhere else I could find). However, the writing, in content and tone, fits with the above and may well be written by Eden (as part of the topic). Thus, since germane, provided. 


It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)

When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”

Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle.  A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.

Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed.  She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.

I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I’m glad I got to deploy.  It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.

Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

Post Script

Another Marine Spoke Frankly (23 years ago) - He Sure Did 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk

And it's worth listening to him - again and again and again. Per Einstein's opening thought, this Marine's knowledge, vast it is, came from experience. Few are his peer.



4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What would happen under current standards if a women tests 100% under female standards and a man 90%? Even though the 90% man would be much stronger overall?

I am 6'2" 235lbs and have seen a 5'2' 110lbs women do more pull-ups then me but guess what I was way more physically stronger in everything else by a huge margin. Yet based on her pull ups she would 'test' better so would she get the infantry or SP slot over me?

Anonymous said...

Full on there should never be women in combat zones at all. They can't help, they're a hinderance.

Don't get me started on gay males, of the 14,000 sexual assaults reported in the last 2 years more than 12,000 were male on male.

Time to either give up our military or someone with some sense take over. This has been happening for a while now, but Obama has certainly sped things up.

I can honestly say as a former soldier, I'm ashamed of our military today.

Mark Syms said...

A Royal Marines perspective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14892/Five-women-female-Marines.html

There is an 8 week course open to the rest of the forces, the all arm commando course;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Arms_Commando_Course

To the personal that pass this, well done, you are commando trained, but there the comparison ends. Royal Marine training is vastly different both in endurance, length and intensity. Every Royal Marine and Royal Marine officer do a minimum of 32 weeks training, before the specialisation training, which can be, as in my case, another 6 months.

The All Arms Commando course is open to females and i welcome and fully back successful applicants , to date there have been 1;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2017213.stm
and from knowing personnel in her training team i know the inside story.

As to MOD policy with females on the front line. It may be about to be reviewed;

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/10/women-british-army-fighting-front-line-hammond-combat-sexist

Anonymous said...

This could be viewed as women trying to get out of equal contribution. Why should men fight and die for a country that heavily favors women? I am by no means pro-military. "Military Industrial Complex" and all, but if it's going to exist it shouldn't be men who only are expected to sacrifice