A couple of days ago, an article was posted by Aaron MacLean entitled “Pressure Grows for Marines to Lower Standards for Women.”
Naturally, I was intrigued and concerned. Heck, anyone who understands the job of our military should be concerned by that headline. One doesn’t have to have served to get that the military has high standards for a reason.
The article has to do with the Marine IOC (Infantry Officer Course) and its initial CET (Combat Endurance Test). Actually, the article has more to do with military being increasingly run as a social experiment rather than a fighting force.
MacLean reports the 24 women had attempted the CET and none made it all the way through.
The Marines, along with the other branches, are being pushed to introduce women into combat roles, so when three women (not part of the original 24) made it through the initial stage, the news was widely reported and heralded. Yet, when all three of the women were dropped for not meeting later physical requirements, MacLean found but one report – the Christian Science Monitor.
The three women, as well as three men, failed on a 9 mile hike. They had, according to the Monitor report, three hours to move 9 miles caring 124 pound packs. After falling behind for a second time, they were out.
The military does not discriminate. If you can’t do the job – you’re out. It’s that simple.
But, in today’s feminized society, that’s not good enough. MacLean writes that groups from Washington are pressuring the Marines into lowering their standards.
Sound familiar? Over the years we’ve all heard reports of police and fire departments standards being lowered to recruit more women.
Within the military ranks, no one is complaining—or those who are number very few. It is, as it always is, outside agitators like the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) trying to stir things up.
MacLean adds that the SWAN activists’ complaints about the procedures of the school indicate that they are perfectly happy to alter and lower the quality of training to achieve their goal.
But this nonsense didn’t happen overnight. In fact, in 1999, Phyllis Schlafly penned a column entitled, “The Feminization of the US Military.” She wrote: “For 25 years, the feminists have been demanding a gender-neutral military. What they really want is for feminists to give the orders, with the men cowed into submission, and Bill Clinton is helping them to pursue their goal.”
One example she cited was, “At Minot Air Force Base, N.D., the practice is to send two officers down to the base of the missile silo, where they spent 24 to 48 hours secluded in a space about the size of a school bus, with one bed and one bathroom behind a curtain. The Minot missile force has 250 men and 83 women, resulting in the high probability of mixed gender two-person crews. Lieut. Ryan Berry, a Catholic and married, objected to being so cozy for so long with a woman not his wife. He was punished by his commanding officer, who spouted the feminist mantra that ‘equal opportunity’ is the Air Force’s top priority.”
Really? That’s the mission? And here I thought it was to kill the enemy and break things. Guess I’d better get “in step.” Schlafly put it a bit more eloquently, saying that, “The purpose of the military is to defend Americans against the bad guys of the world. The warrior culture, with tough, all-male training, is what attracts young men into the armed services and motivates them to sacrifice personal comfort and safety while serving their country in uniform.”
Her conclusion is even more applicable today than it was in 1999. “Most of this destructive social experimentation to create a gender-neutral military has been implemented, not by law, but by executive orders and regulations.” Sound familiar?
“We need a real man in the White House with the courage to stand up against the radical feminists. Which of our aspiring Commanders-in-Chief will promise to overturn the feminist agenda and rebuild our once great military into what it used to be: a fighting force that can defend America?”
I couldn’t have put it better myself, and with the 2016 presidential election season beginning the day after the midterms, we should start asking our prospects now.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.