The United States steps down as a military superpower, after surrendering to feminists

More evidence from M that the US military is stepping down as a military superpower, after surrendering to feminists – here. The US military is increasingly becoming an enormous job creation scheme for women.

A few excerpts from the article, starting with one about the US Air Force:

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said last fall during a stop at Pearl Harbor that the Air Force is made up of about 20 percent women but said she wanted to increase that number, possibly to 30 percent.

Admiral Michelle Howard:

Howard said women make up about 46 percent of the civilian workforce, and studies by the Department of Labor have found that an organization achieves optimal performance when its workforce maintains at least 25 percent of whatever the minority sex might be.

‘Studies’ show that, do they? If anyone could direct me towards them, I’d be very grateful. My hunch is the ‘studies’ will relate to role modelling exercises carried out by ideologically-driven social psychologists. The idea that any conclusions could be applied to the military (or business, or any other field of activity) is patently ridiculous.

Admiral Michelle Howard:

Because the Navy is globally distributed, a higher percentage of women is needed overall if they are to be represented in greater numbers in ships around the world, she said.

“We’re going back and looking at the ships — all of them — and what percentage of women are on the ships. Over time we’ll modernize them to make sure we get to about 25 percent on each ship.”

Who’ll be paying the bulk of the huge bill for ‘modernizing’ the ships, increasing the female crew members at the cost of male crew members? American male taxpayers, of course.

Admiral Michelle Howard:

Historically, women in the service have filled more positions in particular occupations than others, she said.

“So, for example, if you look at the nurse corps officer community, it’s the men who are a minority in that community,” she said.

“What we want to do is make sure women are aware that there’s more out there than traditional jobs. There’s growth and opportunity across all the communities.

“We need women leadership just as we need male leadership in some of these communities.”

Hmm, Admiral Howard seems not to believe the Navy ‘needs’ more men in the nurse corps officer community. An oversight, I’m sure. She was then asked about women possibly entering the elite organisation Naval Special Warfare (NSW), including the SEALS.

Asked about overcoming a belief among some men that women aren’t physically up to the task of filling these elite combat positions, Howard said, “I can’t speak to the male perspective. I’m not a guy.”

‘I can’t speak to the male perspective. I’m not a guy.’ It’s worrying that the US Navy is promoting such ideologically-driven idiots to the rank of Admiral. The Russian and Chinese military staffs must be delighted.

It’s long been known that when a major conflict looms, pregnancy rates among women serving in the military rises sharply. And doubtless there will be many immaculate conceptions on board the ships. The ships will have to have midwives, maternity wards, creches… and when ships are hit by torpedoes or shells and are sinking, we can be sure the old cry will ring out:

Women and children first!

This lunacy is not, of course, confined to the US. British nuclear submarines are being modified at a cost of over £5 million apiece (£3.6 million paid by male taxpayers) to accommodate female sailors. Presumably when some of them become pregnant, they’ll be dropped off at a port at enormous cost and inconvenience to the military operation, flown back to the UK…

The supporter who pointed me to the US Navy story has long been very agitated about the problems which result from chivalry and gentlemanly behaviour, as well he might be. As we all should be. On this particular story, he comments:

Since apparently we assume that women’s peformance in the military is equal to men, why are they not aiming for 50% then?  Why then doesn’t David Cameron make a target of 50% women in the military? If the government really believes in equality, it should aim for 50% across the board.

The problem is they all know it is baloney and they know such a Navy could not fight effectively, so they come up with cowardly percentages, where this will only put more stress on the 75% of male servicemen.

I am sick to my stomach of the gentlemanly perks extended to females in professional life.

The gentleman is unwittingly sinking the entire West with his confusion about what it means to be a gentleman. Men need to be told that a gentleman should treat women exceptionally, but only in private life, not in the workplace, because a workplace or the armed forces need fully capable individuals, not half baked losers who need a lesser burden, and then wait for the real workers to pick up the pieces for them. That is not what the word ”gentleman” means. That is what the word ”fool” means.

Good points, well made…

2 thoughts on “The United States steps down as a military superpower, after surrendering to feminists

  1. Recently (a week or two ago) I read a news item regarding the number of women ‘sailors’ that have to be airlifted by helicopter, at very great expense, from Royal Naval ships because they are pregnant. My father is ‘ex RN’ and kept in touch with things Royal Navy for many years, hearing, from friends who were still serving at the time, as well as stories from relatives serving on ships more recently, that wrens are a very serious liability and not at all up to the job of crewing a fighting vessel.

    I recall reading decades ago, when the matter of women on warships was being considered, and contested, letters to the papers from wrens that showed their understanding of shipboard life to be away with the fairies and up there in cloud cuckoo land, seemingly believing that they were bound for one long and glorious, tax payer funded pleasure cruise. One wrote of leaning over the ship’s rail and watching dolphins gambolling in the bow wave (I swear it’s true), another wanted to assure the readers that if she was sitting at a radar screen and she saw a dot and she knew that dot was going to attack her ship she would have no hesitation in pressing a button and destroying it. That’s what they think manning a ship and fighting a battle is like – quick, clean and efficient, with no risk to themselves.

    The reality is that they fail at even the simplest tasks and have to be cosseted and assisted constantly. I heard, a long time ago, shortly after women were first posted to ships’ companies, a chief petty officer say that if he had to send a wren to handle a mooring line he had to send two, because one was not strong enough to handle the rope, and a man to supervise and prevent them from making a mess of things (presumably by stepping in just before it all went completely tits up, although not so soon as to undermine the women’s unrealistically inflated self-esteem). Far more serious was the report, not too long ago, of a wren who was one of a damage control party sent to fight a fire that was raging in a compartment. This was not a training exercise. The wren became hysterical as they prepared to enter the compartment and flatly refused to do her duty (*), on the grounds that her boyfriend was inside and she couldn’t bear to see him dead or mutilated. Then there is the case of the navy’s first female ship’s captain, quietly relieved of her command after just a few weeks because she had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.

    The issue is not just that men on warships are having to do far more than their fair share to compensate for the inadequacies of their female shipmates, while being paid no more, nor that they they must do it under a regime that officially regards them as historically enjoying unfair advantages and privileges (and compels them, through ‘awareness’ courses, to say so), nor is it that they must compensate for their female shipmates’ inadequacies while complimenting them on their vital contribution to the efficient running of the ship; it is that ships with a large female component to the ship’s company are, effectively, seriously undermanned and therefore highly likely to fail in action. In the current political climate, the women are highly unlikely to be held responsible so the men, in addition to doing a disproportionate and unfair share of the work, will be made to bear a disproportionate and unfair share of the blame, even where it is known that they acted heroically to overcome the deficiencies of the women but, because of those deficiencies, could not possibly have prevailed.

    One other consideration that should be borne in mind is that the only way to increase the proportion of female officers when, as with engineering post-graduates, female recruitment remains below some arbitrarily determined official target is to promote unsuitable wrens, which cannot but create a situation in which men who do know what they are doing must obey potentially dangerous orders from women who do not and cannot function in a leadership role under the stress of battle. That could easily lead to a situation in which it is necessary for the men effectively to mutiny in order to carry out their orders properly. We can take for granted that should, by such action, they actually save the situation, the women will be given a disproportionate and unfair share of the credit.

    There must come a time when all but the most insane and misandrous of feminists, and those effete and effeminate men who serve them, accept that there are things women cannot do and therefore should not be doing, in the best interests of everyone, mustn’t there?

    (*) This incident, reported in the national press, seems identical in pattern to one described by a fireman in a comment to a post on this blog a few months ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.