Another Reason Why Women Are Incompatible with the Marine Corps

As if there weren’t already an adequate amount of subject matter to conclude that women are incompatible with the military, politicians have presented one more token of incongruity. They’re calling it the MOMS Leave Act. It’s a hypothetical bill that, if passed, would grant military mothers an entire year of paid maternity leave.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger has commented on the bill saying, “We should never ask our Marines to choose between being the best parent possible and the best Marine possible.”

My only comment would be “If being the best parent is more important than being the best Marine, then why don’t you give the father a year of paid paternity leave, considering he is also a parent, and considering this bill is undergirded by the premise of equality?”

However, I don’t really mean that. Giving a year of paid maternity leave already depletes the lethality and readiness of the military enough. Handing out that same privilege to men would only cause more unnecessary damage.

I may be wrong about all of this entirely. However, after serving five years in the Marine Corps myself, I’ve witnessed firsthand the abhorrent level of inequality that exists in the Marine Corps. I’m not talking about the inequality that is directed at women. I’m talking about the uncanny amount of inequality that is dealt to men.

As the record stands, of the 26,000 Marines deployed during the war with Iraq, 0 women died compared to the 195 men who died. Just an unassuming inequality statistic. Moreover, women are required to pass a physical fitness test (PFT) and a combat fitness test (CFT) at a standard that is lower than that of a man, for the same score.

Want proof? Click here

If you evaluate the charts, you will find this: Males ages 21-25 are required to perform 23 pull ups, 115 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 18 minutes in order to receive a 100 on their PFT. On the contrary, women of the same age demographic are required to do 11 pull ups, 110 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 21 minutes in order to also receive a perfect score. In other words, women are required to perform 75.6% of the male’s standard in order to receive the same score. If you calculate the comparison for the CFT, you will find that number to be 69.7%.

What does this mean? Well it certainly means that women can feel comfortable enjoying a low risk of death and a high chance of promotion compared to their male counterparts. Female Marines also report having worse shooting scores and higher rates of injury than male Marines.

This is an attack on men for its inequality. I digress. This is an attack on women. It’s an attack on women because it does nothing to prepare them for the legitimate threat that is out there. The Marine Corps has created a standard for the sake of combat effectiveness and survival. By lowering that standard for women, you set them up for failure.

This is also an assault on the military itself by producing Marines that are less combat effective. However, if that were not already enough, now women are going to be incentivized to take a hiatus from active duty to have children. Why? Because an entire year of paid off time is certainly more preferable than preparing for war.

Once again, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. Perhaps I’m a misogynist and I just won’t admit it; a bigot who shouldn’t be allowed to spew such hatred.

Or maybe I’m a former Marine who is concerned about the lethality and effectiveness of our military.

Currently women are permitted a standardized 42-day period of paid maternity leave. I’m an advocate of the current standard. However, if there is a job willing to give women an entire year of absenteeism, it shouldn’t be a job that is dependent upon an actively engaged and lethal fighting force, ready to defend the American people from a foreign threat.

Last I checked, the military was not about individuals receiving special privileges. It was about a body of men possessing the lethality to effectively neutralize a threat.

If you’re really concerned about equality, then make the physical standards the same. If you’re really concerned about equality, then regard a “parent” as both the mother and the father. If you’re really concerned about equality, then stop setting the bar low for women. You’re doing them a disservice.

Bottom line: Politicians claim to fight for equality. Yet, their actions towards women in the military are unequal than that of their actions towards men, proving that they don’t really believe in equality. Men and women are an entirely different breed, and all human history is aware of it.

Assimilating Native Americans Is Genocide

It has been impossible to ignore the trending, refashioning of American history that is incessantly circulating in the media. One article I was unfortunate enough to stumble upon left me completely inundated at the audacious display of partiality and ignorance that the author willfully espoused, during their retelling of American history.

The article can be found here, ranked among a list of genocidal atrocities that have taken place in human history.

I really hate to bash this article since supports a good cause, however a one-sided history of the North American conquest doesn’t quite appertain to a website aimed at ending genocide.

Hell, I was so confused when I found ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans’ on a website titled ‘End Genocide’, that I thought I was reading satire. The article is simply out of place; it would be suiting to be published on The Onion, because this article is a stunt.

Anyhow, after reading I couldn’t help but criticize the author’s blatant attempt at delivering a message construing American history to be abounding with racist white men, committing deliberate acts of genocide on docile, peaceful, kumbaya-singing Native Americans.

Here are some of the outlandish, partial, and ignorant remarks:

  • “Even today, Native Americans face … ongoing cases of discrimination.”
  • “Several wars broke out between tribes and American settlers which led to large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism.”
  • “Ultimately, while Columbus is remembered as a daring adventurer, he was also a perpetrator of atrocities and his legacy is viewed as the starting point that sparked hundreds of years of exploration and exploitation of the Americas.”
  • “By the time Christopher Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492, historians estimate that there were 10 million indigenous peoples living in U.S. territory. But by 1900, the number had reduced to less than 300,000.”
  • The author cites that early settlers distributed smallpox blankets to the natives and proclamations for “redskins” (scalps) were given, which is a “a major indicator of genocidal acts.”
  • This publisher also couldn’t help but refer to the Hoover Commission’s urge to assimilate the Native Americans as a “modern atrocity.”

Okay, now I’m required to chime in on these claims.

My first question is “what form of discrimination are Native Americans currently facing and where is this taking place?” I’ve been unsuccessful at locating systematic cases of discrimination against Native Americans in the 21st century. Could it be that there aren’t any?

To mention that war resulted in “large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism” is to simply speak of war. In the context of war, land dispossession is a common goal, oppression of the enemy is necessary, and racism is unfortunately a customary occurrence in the context of war. Just read any memoir on any war where the opposing forces were of different ethnicities. It wasn’t a racist, systematic form of genocide. It was the hatred of the enemy that resulted in hatred of the race (on both sides), not vice versa.

Also, why must Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas be so quickly discredited due to the wars that were inevitably to come? Are we really signaled to believe that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 in search of an undiscovered, underdeveloped civilization that he intended to commit acts of genocide on? Or was he sent out in search of a trade route to India?

Also, the author’s claim to 10 million Native Americans is a frequently debated numerical claim, however 10 million is quite eccentric. Anthropologists have estimated a mere 800,000.

In regards to the distribution of smallpox blankets, this atrocity happened on maybe three occurrences, only one of which can be confirmed. And once again, the settlers were engaged in war.

In regards to incidents of scalping, this strategy was utilized by both sides. To suggest that it was merely settlers who engaged in scalping is obtuse. Where do you think they adopted this idea from? Yeah, the Native Americans. This practice was common well before any settlers landed at Jamestown, and it was recurrent among many Native American tribes, who by the way, were commonly engaged in civil wars with one another. If scalping is supposedly considered a “major indicator of genocide”, then you ought to paint the entire picture.

Also, can someone explain to me how President Truman’s urge to assimilate should be considered a “modern atrocity”?

This article, ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans‘, is found among a listing of genocidal atrocities throughout human history, to include the Holocaust, the Armenian extermination, and Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide. Are we really hellbent on listing Columbus and Truman alongside Pol Pot? Are individuals earnestly willing to rewrite the conquest of North America as an act of systematic genocide?

The founding of America was simply that, a conquest.

The motivation wasn’t racism, and the reduction of the Native American population wasn’t a deliberate act of genocide.

Just pause for a moment and ponder what the world would look like had America never been founded by Europeans with Judeo-Christian values. The technologically underdeveloped communities that once roamed this land were bound to be conquered. Would the world be a better place if the Soviet Union owned this land? How about Imperial Japan? The Third Reich? We mustn’t dare to assume this that land would still be occupied by indigenous people.

If the proponents of identity politics are truly convinced that American History is riddled with angry white men committing acts of genocide on Native Americans, and that these acts merit reparations, then once again, you must use that paint brush of yours to paint the entire picture.

Essentially every square mile of currently owned land on Earth was previously owned by someone else. So, in regard to reparations, where do we even begin?


Good Riddance to Another ‘LGBTQ’ Month

After thirty long days of the LGBTQ community gallivanting in the streets and shouting “Me, Me, Me,” it’s finally over.

I realize I already sound like a homophobe, since as the politically, polarizing argument would assume, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

But imagine how that argument would play out if there were a straight pride parade or a white pride parade or a male pride parade? A straight pride parade would seem like an insult to the homosexual community, and a white pride parade would construe the message that all attendees are white supremacists, and a male pride parade would seemingly promote misogyny.  

So, is there a possibility that I’m not against the LGBTQ community, and that I’m instead against any movement that promotes pride?

For when has pride ever been considered a virtue? The fundamental apex of all virtues is humility, and as we know, pride is the opposite of humility. So, why would anyone celebrate something as egregious as pride?

If white pride or heterosexual pride or male pride only has the potential of causing dissension, then why should anyone expect gay pride or trans pride or queer pride to be any different?

The answer revolves around the issue of oppression.

The political left purports pride to be a virtue as long as the community has faced oppression, and pride parades to be acceptable for the purpose of liberating the oppressed community.

However, the fight for gay rights is over.

It’s not 1960. It’s 2019. Gays currently have the same rights as everyone else. Gay marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court in 2015, and discrimination against employees is virtually impossible without the EEOC tying a noose around your neck.  

Are there still bigoted meanie pants out there willing to throw out a discriminatory epithet? Of course, but a parade won’t save you. A hate speech bill might, but then we’d all be truly oppressed.  

The political oppression of the LGBTQ community is ancient history. If there’s an argument for oppression, it is the oppression that this community has brought upon themselves.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 92% of HIV diagnoses for teenage boys and men in their early twenties are directly linked to homosexual sex, and congenital syphilis infection rates among homosexual men have been on the increase every single year since the turn of the millennium.

Are these matters of oppression? Or are they, as LGBTQ Pride Month would insinuate, matters to be proud of?

What about the 41.8 percent of transgender youths that have attempted suicide? What about the epidemic of handing out hormone blockers to children who are not old enough to have sex or have a vote in political matters?

This is most certainly oppression.

Instead of approaching the issue of gender dysphoria as a psychological issue, the LGBTQ community incites mayhem by promoting it as a point of pride. Once again, celebrating pride only results in conflict.

It’s hard to tell what LGBTQ History Month is truly about. If it’s about celebrating the freedom from oppression, then the community should reevaluate where the majority of the “oppression” is coming from. If it’s simply about celebrating that you’re prideful, then that’s fundamentally obtuse.

It’s nonsense to be proud of something arguably inherent.

If you want to be proud of something, be proud of the 7,000 military members that have died fighting the War on Terror, so that you can keep your freedom here, granting you the abundant liberty to throw a silly pride parade.

Political oppression against the LGBTQ community is a non-issue. If the LGBTQ community wants freedom over their private lives, then how about not throwing a massive, public parade that revolves around your private lives.