Archive for the 'Feminist Buffoonery' Category

Mar 31 2016

Just in under the wire

It is the end of March. The end of that oh so wonderful time of the year known as women's history month. Long time readers know that I don't like Women's History month although I do like women a lot. There are a lot of past posts that you can read here. I like them-some other readers did not.

There is a lot to talk about this year. We could talk to this. Or this.

But instead I want to just quickly talk about the law of unintended consequences.

As you may be aware, the military changed its retirement scheme this year affecting folks entering the military in 2018.

In contrast to the longstanding current system that reserves pension payouts for troops who serve at least 20 years in uniform, the new, “blended” plan would give troops who serve as little as two years some retirement benefits through vested 401(k)-style investments in their Thrift Savings Plan accounts.

Today, only about one in five service members sees any retirement pay. Under the new plan, officials estimate, about four in five will leave the military with some level of retirement savings.

The plan follows a recommendation from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission in February, which found most younger Americans “change jobs frequently and tend to favor flexible retirement options.”

The concept has been discussed among military advocates for years. Commissioner Steve Buyer, who served as a Republican representative from Indiana for 18 years, said lawmakers envisioned the shift from military pensions to investment accounts when they first approved the Thrift Savings Plan in 1999.

Not everyone will shift to the new model; it will cover all troops who enter service after Jan. 1, 2018, but anyone already in the ranks or who signs up in the next 24 months will be grandfathered into the traditional, 20-year retirement system

However guess what the Congress forgot to address in this  rather stupid poorly thought out change.( Lets be clear. I do not support this change to the retirement program and I think it incentivizes people to leave the service at mid career if not before. The retirement system was not what needed to be changed. DOPMA did) The Congress did nothing to change that incredibly horrid piece of legislation, the abomination known as the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act. You can read more about it here.

Fast forward to 2038. A Commander, who got divorced at the 10 year point is now opening his mail, 30 days before his retirement,  to find that his worthless shrew of an ex wife is suing him for 35% of his now diminished retirement pay. That, by the way on top of the 50% of his 10 years of TSP savings at the time of the divorce. So now, thanks to Congress' lack of due diligence and concern, our new job seeker gets screwed at the drive through not just once, but twice. And you are kidding yourself if you don't think some sleazy lawyer won't try it.

"But he could have stopped that when he got divorced by having it written into the decree".

Perhaps, but it could be just as likely, if not moreso that the fucking bitch, pushed to get both travesties in the divorce decree. That happens.

And not one Congressman is having the courage to take up this part of the law or better yet advocate for its repeal entirely.

And that dear friends, is a bit of feminist future history, brought to you here in 2016. Because remember:

vOozw3Z

2 responses so far

Mar 08 2016

April cannot come soon enough.

I was going to post something funny about International Women's day coming as it does in March, that oh so holy time of the year when the world should be devoting more time to celebrating the anniversary of my birth-than celebrating women's history month; that not so special time of the year when we get to celebrate the history that women want us to know about, while white washing the details they would rather just not see printed in the paper.

And then I saw this picture on my Facebook feed this evening.

Under the category of "You have to be fucking kidding me!", I present:

12821571_10209043228102905_1121665112816445295_n

 

I feel rather ill, now.

asshole-kitty

 

 

4 responses so far

Jan 13 2016

Now it’s just getting ridiculous.

Published by under Feminist Buffoonery,Navy

It is January and I am traveling again. Not without some trepidation, since my last voyage to points beyond put me in the hospital. But this trip is back to the whining States of America, so I am hoping O.D.'ing on Krystal burgers will be safe. ( I love Krystal burgers-they just don't love me.surprise).

But I had to take a moment while I sit here drinking in the lounge to comment on this:

The Marine Corps has been ordered to come up with a plan to make its enlisted entry-level training coed, and to make its job titles more gender-neutral following the recent move to open all military combat roles to women.

In a Jan. 1 memo to Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus requested a "detailed plan" on how the service will fully integrate its boot camp and Officer Candidate School. The plan is due Jan. 15 and will be implemented by April 1, the memo states.

"The Department of the Navy's implementation plan must include gender integration of Marine Corps enlisted recruit training and officer candidate school," Mabus wrote. "In this submission, identify where, if anywhere, this training is already integrated, where it is separate, and specific steps that you will take to fully integrate these trainings."

In a second memo from Mabus to Neller on the same day, the SecNav directed the Marine Corps to conduct a full review of its military occupational specialty titles in an effort to ensure that they are gender neutral.

 

 

WTF? Can we have a nice round of head shakes and swear words please?

Since January is usually the month I piss off feminists, I guess I should put the usual disclaimers here. I really don't give a fuck about your ideas on diversity or how your need to live your dreams. I really don't. I do acknowledge that the world is changing, but good God-it doesn't need to change that much. Thanks for proving me right though, it was never about just "being like the men". 

I mean really. How the hell does it limit your so called opportunities if your title is that of Airman, Seaman, or Fireman? For 200 years, better men ( and women) than you Mr. Mabus,  have worn the title with pride-and provided service to their nation without this level of whining.

And if you just think this is a politician being mis-informed, well, clearly you have not been paying attention. The agenda goes deeper than just words.

Go here and look at the slide presentation at the bottom. Then go here and look at this.

The Navy proposes to "enrich culture". How do they do that?

Evidently it has something to do with child care.

Oh, and "increasing female accessions to 25%"

Remember those words-they get repeated a lot.

It's not about "best qualified regardless of race, creed or gender", evidently.

Oh and this too:"implement a plan to increase USNA and NROTC female accessions".

And since experience has shown that these types of things increase the level of  fraternization inter service marriages, more guaranteed incentivizing of such relationships through co-location policies is in order. And child care, lots of child care.

Never, ever, in all of this discussion of opening up combat opportunities for women, are the words "improving combat readiness" ever used. In external reporting such as a recent report on APM's Marketplace, the central focus was on "improved career opportunity". I generally like Marketplace-but that story sucked.

The Navy is betraying itself by these ideas. I don't care if you think I am a dinosaur and whatever version of the "m" word you choose to use. The Navy is not, has never been, and can never be-a family friendly employer.

I am old enough and experienced enough to point this out. These ideas are going to blow up in the unit commander's face. He ( or she) is being set up to fail, and he or she is powerless to do anything about it.

The whole thing has gotten insanely stupid. Thanks feminists, thanks a lot.

Thank God for Scotch and beer. Can anyone give me directions to the Las Vegas Hilton?

13409907-glass-of-whiskey-and-ice-isolated-on-white-background-486x520

Gotta run to the plane. This is not the last you have heard me rant on this subject………….   Women at the Nana Plaza have more "honor, courage, and commitment" than the CNO's women's policy office. Yes, I said that.

 

No responses yet

Jun 05 2015

The pre-determined script

About a week ago, I had the chance to read an article in the New York Times about Fleet Week in New York. Fleet Week, for those who don't know, is supposed to be a week where the Navy sends ships into town and they host tours and the city hosts special events. Done properly a good time is had by all and I have fond memories of a couple of fleet weeks where the libations and the scenery ( if you get my drift) were just fine.

Well, good old mother Navy wants you to know that is all changed:

The High Line.

Shake Shack.

The ballet.

Fleet Week is not what it used to be. Once upon a time, sailors on leave on New York’s streets after months at sea went a little wild — liquor and female companionship were the priorities, with barstool-tossing brawls often the unintended result. Now, not so much. “I spent way too much money at the American Girl store,” said Chief Petty Officer Justin Brown, a member of the Navy for 17 years who said he came to the city with a detailed shopping list from his daughters, ages 4 and 7, in Virginia. “I got a bunch of clothes for the dolls, and accessories.” The turn from those drunken sailors of shore leaves past to the American Girl doll-toting sailors of today has been long in coming, with cultural tourism slowly edging out more earthy pursuits.

To see this week’s white-clad visitors exploring New York is to understand not just how sailors have changed, but how significantly the city that welcomes them has changed. Shopping bags, iced coffee, restaurant recommendations, a photo beneath a selfie stick. The writers of “On the Town” would surely have scratched their heads in wonderment.

Complete and utter rubbish.

If judging by any numbers of recent covers of Navy times as a benchmark, there is still plenty of lechery going on in today's Navy. This article, however,  represents the Navy's PAO machine at work trying to convince us all that the great experiment was a complete success and that there were absolutely no costs involved to either the service or American society as a whole in the unleashing the great diversity monster.

I as I pointed out clearly , three years ago, the Navy PAO machine is always on the march trying to peddle this message. It would not surprise me one bit if the Navy paid the NYT to print that article.

Of course there were a few parts they conveniently left out.  Such as: Getting breathalyzed crossing the quarterdeck returning. Being forced to go ashore with a buddy and making sure you actually named that buddy before you left the ship. or the curfews and liberty limits, expressly illegal in the US I might add.

They also neglected to point out the significant percentage of that 1800 Sailors who at some point in the evening probably ended up in a hotel or bathroom stall f*cking their fellow Sailors.

A deeper and more insightful article would have pointed out the higher adminstrative burden the Navy bears for this "kindler and gentler" Naval Service. But that's not the objective here.

Look, I understand the way the tide of history has turned. I get it. But what still makes me angry is the utter dishonesty that the diversity mafia wants to foist on us in "proving" how essential women are to the service.

Try getting them to release overall pregnancy statistics sometime. Or how many dual service couples there are-and the difficulties in colocation detailing. ( We'll not even point out that the fraternization barriers were inevitably crossed somewhere on the way to the altar.) I won't even try to get into the utter hypocrisy of the whole TIP nonsense.

There is no free lunch. Everything comes at a cost.

They should at least be honest about it.

Are the processes welcome? That depends on your point of view. If the reason for having armed forces is to guarantee national security, then the answer is clearly no. …………

One may also look at the problem in a different way. Over the last few decades people have become accustomed to think of the feminization of the military as if it were some great and mighty step towards women’s liberation. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. For thousands, probably tens of thousands of years, we men have laid down our lives so that the women we love might live. To quote the Trojan hero Hector on this, he preferred going to hell a thousand times to seeing his wife, Andromache, weeping as she was led into captivity by one of the “copper-wearing Greeks.”-Martin Van Creveld.

 

5 responses so far

Mar 20 2015

In yet another sign of an impending apocalypse………

And here you were thinking I had forgotten Women's History Month. Yes, that oh so special time of the year when we get to celebrate the history that women want us to know about, while white washing the details they would rather just not see printed in the paper.

And its a cold day in hell when I find myself in agreement with certain papers- by and large not known for their standards-but since this is women's history month, I find myself falling back on the time tested rules of the hunt:

Go Ugly Early

And if they don't meet your standards, lower your standards.

 

So yes, while it is the Washington Times, they nonetheless had this little tidbit that caught my attention. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all:

Integrating women into combat reduces effectiveness, harms unit cohesion

As the American military prepares to open all combat positions to women by 2016, a British report found that integrating women into combat would reduce effectiveness in battle and could harm unit cohesion.

The British report, released in December, found that physiological differences put women at a disadvantage in both strength-based and aerobic fitness tests. Even women who are able to overcome the physiological disadvantage will likely get injured more easily or get tired quicker, making them easier targets and poorer marksmen in combat.

“These are about biology rather than character,” the report states.


My hero and idol, Elaine Donnelly, pointed out why this is-despite what our feminist friends would have you believe-a big deal.

The Center for Military Readiness said Thursday, however, that even the report’s solutions to problems of women serving in combat were just attempts to “soft-peddle inconvenient facts.”

“Every use of the word ‘mitigate’ in the [Ministry of Defence] report pinpoints a problem, not an advantage,” said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. “There are no benefits balancing the weight of costs and risks that detract from combat readiness and effectiveness.”

Besides, since the world is ending ( after all, its a cold day in hell when I like the Washington Times), who needs an army anyway? The world is ending-everything else is moot………              cool

Not to worry though, the report and its conclusions will get fairly well buried and quickly. After all, when it comes to DOD, rule number 1 always applies.

After all:

 040713

 

19 responses so far

Oct 29 2014

Going too far……..

The S.O. and I had a marvelous time in Austria-and for what it is worth, October is a great time to visit. The mountains are still glorious, there is a little early snow, but for us at least-the weather was nice and we did a lot of hiking. A good extra long weekend for all. Too bad I had to come back and read about this.

SEOUL, South Korea — U.S. Forces Korea has banned servicemembers from buying drinks for workers in “juicy bars,” which have long been suspected of involvement in prostitution and human trafficking.

While the military has maintained a zero-tolerance policy toward prostitution, buying drinks in exchange for female company was not strictly prohibited by USFK. That changed with a new policy letter released to troops on Oct. 15.

“Paying for companionship directly supports human trafficking and is a precursor to prostitution,” USFK commander Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti wrote in announcing the change. “This practice encourages the objectification of women, reinforces sexist attitudes, and is demeaning to all human beings.”

Oh really? What part of, "this is beyond your authority you pompous, moralistic, hypocritical, piece of shit", do you not seem to understand?

On the plus side, SATO travel is expected to be experiencing a record uptick in travel bookings to Thailand and the Philippines, while at the same time, the Army is training more SAVI counselors to deal with expected upsurge in sexual harassment, fraternization and fighting on base that is expected to ensue.

But hey, it makes the feminists happy, so what else really matters?

Give……..me……….a……….fucking…….break.

So, paying a girl for companionship is a sin, eh? I take it that applies also to stateside bars where you buy girls drinks in the hopes of taking her home later.  So, how exactly are they going to enforce this? If a GI is drinking with a girl in the bar are there going to be people looking over his shoulder to see how much he paid and how much change he gets back? Some GIs run a tab on their credit card. Will there be someone inspecting his receipt when he pays up?

I will reiterate a key point I have made time and time again over the years. The law of unintended consequences can be brutal. And this rule will be full of unintended consequences. I expect the bar owners will come up with some alternative business practices, they always do-like buying your drinks at the door and receiving a "receipt good for "X" number of drinks. Or better yet, having you buy songs on the juke box instead-and then get drinks as a "bonus".

This is a continuation of a really disturbing trend among the flag leadership of America's military today. Namely, that they think they can legislate morality with the stroke of a pen-even when the conduct is perfectly legal. ( Even if it is not necessarily advisable). This, quite simply and bluntly, is none of the General's fucking business.

There have to be limits. The idea that one gives up all legal and common sense rights, just because some prick does not want to piss off a bunch of feminist lackeys is astounding. Especially in a world were a guy can suck off another guy in the barracks with impunity, but a straight Airman or Soldier cannot buy a girl a drink or 4 and let her stroke his thigh while she pretends to like him? Jesus H. Christ! One may be concerned about it, sure. But the idea that you have to regulate every thing a guy does off duty is just fucking ridiculous.

And illegal.

As one wag pointed out, "This practice encourages the objectification of women, reinforces sexist attitudes, and is demeaning to all human beings.”-"Is he talking about buying drinks for the juicys or the annual visits by NFL cheerleaders? "

Its a good point. So too is the rather pertinent question of, are you going to ban women buying men drinks in bars? Or stateside going to a Chippendales bars?

The military is not a "moral profession".  I'm sorry, but that is the truth. Regulations should make sense and avoid creating incentives to break them. This stupid rule does not pass that test. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 responses so far

Jul 14 2014

Submitted without comment-but worth your time

Published by under Feminist Buffoonery,Navy

This appeared at  Phib's place a week ago. It is so good and so much a commentary on what is wrong with my once beloved Navy, I had to post it here in it's entirety. Its worth a read-especially where it calls out the survivors of the Uncle Vern's purges during the last decade for their failures. Naval Aviation culture is dying-and when it is gone, people will never know how much fun it once was.

Here now is the post:

"When the Tailhook investigation began, and certain political elements used the incident to bring discredit on Naval Aviation as a whole, and then on the Navy writ large, one is entitled to ask, on behalf of those magnificent performers who have never failed their leaders, where were their leaders?" As Naval Aviation leadership begins to face one of the worst retention crises in its history, readdressing this question, originally posed by former Secretary of the Navy James Webb at the Naval Institute's 122nd Annual Meeting and sixth Annapolis Seminar in 1996, may help explain why some of aviation's best and brightest have decided to leave. 

Naval Aviation leadership is currently struggling with the real threat of not having enough pilots to fly the aircraft on its flight lines, and it's not solely due to cyclic and predictable factors (economy, OPTEMPO). The more insidious problem, going largely unaddressed, is one of trust and confidence; more accurately, the fleet's loss of trust and confidence in its senior leadership. This breakdown in trust has spread well beyond junior officers reaching their first "stay or go" milestones. Large numbers of post-command Commanders are electing to retire, instead of pursuing further promotion and increased retirement benefits. In both cases, officers are saying "no thanks" to generous amounts of money (for some, as much as $125,000), choosing instead to part ways with an organization they competed fiercely to join; one that, at some point, provided tremendous satisfaction.

  The Naval Personnel, Research, Studies and Technology (NPRS&T) group recently conducted a survey of Naval Aviators from the ranks of Lieutenant to Commander. All groups suggested availability of resources and workplace climate should be top priorities for senior leadership. These two factors go a long way towards explaining the larger problem of lost trust. 

The NPRS&T survey solicited open-ended responses and provided selected examples in their summary. With respect to availability of resources, the underlying theme was, "stop asking us to doing more with less." Whether the "less" applies to flight hours, qualified Sailors, or materiel support, squadrons are routinely asked to meet increasingly demanding operational requirements with less of each. Worse, they're being told to do so by flag officers who wear flight jackets adorned with multiple 1000-hour tabs and Centurion patches, symbolizing aviation milestones which have become almost entirely unattainable to today's aviators. Squadrons are regularly sent on 10-month deployments with just-in-time parts delivery, artificial readiness, and aircraft that saw their best days when our flag officers were using them for a BAGEX.

NPRS&T also accepted open-ended responses pertaining to workplace climate.

Many of the ill effects described above spill into this arena, but there are additional issues that must be addressed. Not surprisingly, some of the key words provided in the responses include race, gender, SAPR, micro-management, and GMT. It is also no surprise that the manner in which our leadership has chosen to address these issues also serves to erode trust. 

Many of the cultural and climate issues that are alleged to plague our current force were accepted – nay, fostered – by today's admirals when they were swashbuckling junior officers. We're being asked to undo and "fix" the problems they watched develop.  

We're told to de-glamorize alcohol even as we hear legendary stories about the Miramar O'Club. We're required to complete mind-numbing Trafficking in Persons training, yet hear frequent reminiscences about Subic Bay and Pattaya. We watch good officers publicly shamed and relieved for offenses that the relieving flag officers themselves were guilty of, but in an era absent Facebook and Twitter. We see the fervor surrounding the military's alleged sexual assault crisis, while time and again, our flag officers fail to recognize the 99% of us who find such crimes equally reprehensible. Instead, we're subjected to yet another NKO training to make sure we remember that rape is wrong. And we're conducting this training at the expense of executing our primary mission – flying our aircraft and preparing for war. With this description of our "workplace climate," is it any wonder that Lieutenants and Commanders alike sense an ever-decreasing amount of trust from our leaders? Is it any surprise that talented and highly competitive officers are turning down bonuses and voting with their feet?

 So what's an admiral to do? First, our leadership must stop talking to us like we're suits at an annual shareholder's meeting. Speak to us honestly, frankly, and with words that don't betray your brown shoes. Don't speak to us about best-practices, enterprises, or stake-holders. Remember that we're a sharp and incredibly discerning audience who knows a bad deal when we see it. Stand up and own the problems that you've charged us with fixing. Accountability still matters in this profession. Second, stand up and serve as advocates for the over-whelming majority of us who are doing it right. There is very little faith among us that our leadership will stand up in the face of outside scrutiny to defend any officer who is unfortunate enough to end up on the wrong end of an investigation – for anything. We don't believe you have the ability, or the willingness, to pump the brakes before pulling the trigger.

For many, the professional satisfaction that may come with command at sea just doesn't seem worth the risk of having our careers, reputations, and families drug through the bilges on the basis of allegations. Our leaders are seeing the effects of their "do as I say, not as I did" message manifested in decreased retention, lost trust, and waning esprit de corps. James Webb asked, "Where were their leaders?" Today they are scrambling to piece together financial solutions to problems that can't be monetized – at least not until they can figure out how much our trust is worth."

The survey is here.

 

No responses yet

Jun 07 2014

Because I like beating a dead horse.

This will be my second and hopefully last post on the abomination that is the Harry Harris sponsored assrape investigation into the Blue Angels "command climate". Also known as its more common name, assassination by IG.

There have been wonderful comments made that , "since the events were substantiated as occurring", all objections to the way the investigation was handled and the timing of the complaint are irrelevant. And by implication it is perfectly fine to destroy a good officer's career as a result of one set of time.

I thoroughly reject that contention. And you Navy folks who are voicing it-may rest secure in the knowledge that you have completely sold your souls to Satan. Enjoy life in this brave new world you are creating with its protected classes and diversity bullies run amok.

If you have not read the investigation report, I think you should. It can be found here or here. Sadly, it is clear that the investigation team failed to look at some of the background issues that are also at play in a command like the Blue Angels or for that matter TOPGUN. They are not "normal" commands say that the Captain's VFA squadron was, a tour he did exceptionally well at.

Now perhaps it is because both the Blues and TOPGUN believe their own hype, about having the best of the best, that it sets folks up for the kind of dramas that ultimately created this vendetta by a butthurt subordinate and the subsequent with hunt. Personally, I think Maurice is right and this is a case of someone trying to get even when a selection board did not go her way, and now in the brave new world, the Navy is quite accommodating of this particular type of character assassination. But I think there is insufficient understanding of the group dynamics that are in play in an organization such as the Blue Angels or TOPGUN.

Some history. I was at NSAWC when the three weapons schools, CAEWWS, Topgun, and Strike were brought together in the ultimate "shotgun marriage".  The Topgun guys were our "neighbors" so to speak so we got to observe them up close. TOPGUN very much resented the merger and went out of its way to avoid integrating into the rest of the NSAWC organization. Like the Blues, they had their own set of traditions and rituals. They also like the Blues, have a huge set of powerful "alumni". You tinker with the organizations at great peril. The flag officers who ran the larger organization of NSAWC understood this. I remember having a conversation with one, who really felt that his efforts to reign in the outfit was having a direct impact on the way the rest of big Navy worked with him.

In the Blues, how the 8 aviators get along is more than just important, its a foundation on which their life is built. Thus I categorically reject the assumptions made by the investigators that the support officers were shunned. Anybody who has spent any time in Carrier Aviation knows there is a pecking order in the world, and learns to deal with it. After all in the Blues there are still plenty of good deals to be had.

But you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think a new CO can go in there and be an authoritarian from the gitgo. They have had people who tried to do that. They got run out of town on a rail. So the wise person is going to be very mindful of that and try to shape the change he wants subtly and carefully. Also the squadron is on the road a lot-and that creates its own unique challenges. I personally think CAPT McWherter was mindful of that and thus was trying his best to be collegial with his wardroom and foster camaraderie. Remember that? Much of Naval Aviation tradition is  (or was) built on it-and the best squadrons I served in were where the camaraderie was high and so was the interaction between the wardroom.  During my 20 years of flying, based on this criteria outlined in the CPF report, everyone of my CO's, including myself would have been fired. That alone should tell you it's an unreasonable standard.

Does that mean that there were things in hindsight, that could have been done differently? Of course there could have been. But a simple course correction would have sufficed-not a public shaming. I also don't think the incidents that are discussed are as numerous and non-stop as the report makes out. Seems to me there was also a lot of emphasis on the squadron's primary mission of good demonstration flying. And when you have a lot of young men together, the talk will turn to women and girls. And calling someone gay is still a accepted pejorative. It is a fact of life.

It may not have been right, but the Blues will be a unique organization.  It is not, just another squadron. And it never will be. And in making judgments on this case you should keep that in mind.

And for the record. Maxim style shots of women are not pornography-and people who say they are should be horsewhipped. As should subordinates who think it is their duty to "mentor" people of their gender. ( A key warning flag that this was a withchunt, mentioned in the investigation).

For those people, Professor Van Kreveld would like a chat with you.

3 responses so far

Feb 12 2014

Mandatory Training…..

Over at Esquire's political blog, LTC Robert Bateman has been buying into the entire-"all military men are rapists" theme.  Now, I, for one, am sick of hearing it. A) Because its not true and B) its disguising yet another hidden feminist agenda. Fortunately for us all- ROK Drop is still on the case. 

This just confirms to me how these AP writers are interested in sensationalism and not journalism.  Each case stands on its own facts which leads to its own outcome.  Just because a person is accused of sexual assault does not mean that they should automatically be convicted and receive the same sentence as someone else who was convicted.  You have to look at the facts of each case that was presented at trial which the AP writers did not provide.  Did the first case come down to just a he said said case where the accuser was drunk and changed her story multiple times?  While the second case the accuser never changed his story and maybe even had a witness to help confirm the crime?  I don’t know, but it is facts like this that help the legal system get convictions while other cases do not lead to convictions.

The AP writers also suggest in the article that the fact that accusers are not cooperating with authorities shows that they do not have confidence in the system.  They make this statement with no evidence of course.  I could just as easily make the claim that these were false rape accusations that were made with no evidence.  And if anyone thinks that servicemembers do not make false rape accusations think again:

After which, in his usual thorough style-he proceeds to debunk the AP myths.

Additionally the AP writers make a big deal about how few cases in Japan are tried by court martials and instead handled with non-judicial punishment.  Could that be because of the heavy alcohol consumption and people piled together in the barracks on Okinawa leads to a lot of the drunken he said, she said cases that are notoriously difficult to prosecute?  So instead of going to court martial with little chance to convict due to lack of evidence are the commanders offering the non-judicial punishment route to convict them on something?  Could that be why a high number of people are supposedly convicted of sex in the barracks and adultery?  Once again I do not know and the AP writers do not provide evidence otherwise.  However, McClatchy already looked into this issue and found that the military if anything is over prosecuting service members for sexual assault.

Follow the links and read the rest for yourself. I stand by the statement I made a long time ago. THE MILITARY DOES NOT HAVE A SEXUAL ASSAULT epidemic. It has a rate that is probably lower than that of a comparably sized and aged segment of the civilian population.  It has a buyer's remorse problem and a political correctness problem-by not sticking to its standards and demanding that everyone live by them, male or female. And it has a huge problem with creating policies that place men and women together, encouraging service members to date each other-with the usual hilarity that subsequently ensues. This is the world you said you wanted when began the great experiment-well, welcome to it.

Unfortunately however, we here at Far East Cynic HQ have been notified that we are required, because of failure to understand the gravity of the problem, to take some required training-and they are taking attendance. This has been de riguer since that fun little party at the Vegas Hilton some 20+ years ago. So sit down and make sure you get your name on the sign in sheet.

Now get trained!

 

Danger Zone!

No responses yet

Jan 14 2014

Who needs a sabbatical?

Well it’s been two years since I have right royally pissed off the feminist lobby, and it is January and I am cold. So it is probably a good time to jump back into the pool and piss them off again.

Navy Times had a recent article up discussing the idea of sabbaticals, and how they could “help retain women in ranks”. After all, a military career is hard and all, and it is increasingly getting in the way of having it all:

Across the military services, leaders are experimenting with programs that will give valued officers and enlisted troops, men and women, the incentive to stay. Also, as the Pentagon moves to bring women into more jobs closer to the combat zone, military officials believe it is crucial to keep mid-career female officers in the services so they can mentor those on the front lines.

 

“We have innovative things we’re trying to retain women in the service,” said Vice Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations. “It’s about creating the personnel policies that enable someone to say it’s Navy and family, instead of Navy or family.”

 

In other words, the Navy wants to create a “mommy track”. For what reason, I have no real idea, but it appears they do.

I’ll pause a moment so that you can throw up, and then, scratch your head and utter a cheery, “WTF?!?!”

It seems to me they are not getting the point here.  But I will explain why in a minute. For now, lets remember how hard it is for a service woman to “have it all” shall we?

In October, Katherine left the service and moved from Camp Lejeune to California to be with her fiancé. It was a difficult decision, but in the end, she said, she chose stability.

“For women to have a family and a career, it’s just extremely difficult. And, being in the military, it is extra sacrifice, you have deployments, you have workups, and it just makes it that much more challenging,” she said. “The Marine Corps is a lifestyle, it’s not a job. You dress it, you eat it, you breathe it, you live it. For me, I want to focus on getting married.”

So far, Sarah has chosen to stay in. “I love being a Marine, I love the people I work with,” she said. But not long ago, Rachel said she also is weighing similar issues.

It’s not an uncommon dilemma. More often than men in the military, women choose their family over service.

 

Here is a news flash madam, yes it is about choices, and when you chose to enter the service you made a choice to deal with these complexities. It’s pretty lousy to get in, decide you don’t like the rules of the game and then instead of coping with them, decide it’s better to change the rules and the playing field.

At the risk of being branded with the “M” word-I will remind you that there were reasons that society evolved into the roles for men and women to play in it. Now I will grant you that those roles are changing and society has to change too-but it seems to me that this goes a bit too far.

First of all, its rather discriminatory towards those men (and women) who are not a part of a dual service couple. (Which is a whole another bad trend that is going on-the service has incentives that encourage Sailors to marry Sailors, but we will set that aside for this discussion). A lot of people cannot afford to lose one year’s earnings (or two) especially if there is a stay at home spouse-or young children to raise. They would probably like a year off too-but they can’t afford one.

Second, the logic here is completely faulty.  Especially this idea that you have to have women to mentor women. I thought the services were supposed to be gender neutral. So isn’t that what you have a chain of command for? Isn’t that what you have standards of professional conduct for? Is that not why the Navy is firing so many men?

As it is, there is far too much of this “women networking with other women“ going on with results that are predictably geared to undermine the chain of command. I’ve written about it before-and we have seen far too many Navy Times headlines that have been predicated by mentors “encouraging” actions that have resulted in disaster.

Furthermore the hand of time stops for no one-and the DOPMA wall is still out there, and you can’t tell me that there are not some tradeoffs that get made in the advancement world when you elect this course. For one thing you are changing year groups-and the dynamics of who you are competing with may change dramatically and not for the better.

The Navy is not, and cannot be, a “family friendly” employer. That does not mean, however, that men and women cannot find a balance and raise a family. But it does involve choices and these choices are sometimes hard ones. I hate to remind folks this-but having to make those choices is not the Navy’s fault. When one chooses to enter a Navy career, you are making a statement as either a man or a woman: You want to do something hard and career worthy. That women are the only ones who can have children is a biological fact-not a hindrance the Navy created. If later on downstream a woman decides that she would rather get out and have a family, that’s a choice for her to make. Literally millions of women make it every year. But please, spare me the flack about the idea that the Navy somehow needs to make “accommodations” for the increasing numbers of women in its ranks. It belies the original reason the women said they wanted to serve-to have the same opportunities as men. Well making choices about family and career is an opportunity.

But it’s unfair, men with a stay at home wife don’t have to make that choice!” BS.  I would remind you that there are choices that are being made by the other family-not the least of which is getting by on a lot less money than the dual service couple. “You make choices and you live with them”.

Well, there is nothing wrong with a sabbatical.” No, there probably isn’t-except when you frame it as a way to “retain women”-and allow them to not have to make hard choices, then you are laying bare the hypocrisy behind the idea –and providing an clear inkling of the double standard that will be enforced in its execution. Why not fix the root problem, which is the Navy’s trying to shove 100lbs into a 50lb career bag, and revise DOPMA, to slow down promotion flow points, and allow officers to serve longer . Maybe give every officer a good 2 year break when he or she attends a civilian university to get a Masters Degree. (It could also have the added benefit of exposing these folks to parts of America that don’t normally see military folks). Bring back some of the “good deal" tours as well.

To pay Phibian a compliment for a change, he’s right when he says, “Again, this isn't harmless. In the zero sum game that is selection, support, promotion, and award – special treatment based on [Gender] is discrimination. It also puts in a perverse incentive to lie, cheat, steal, and to tolerate those among you who do.” In essence you are getting to the heart of what all us nay-sayers said many years ago when we began the great experiment, you will fundamentally change the institution in ways that will ultimately destroy the things that made it worth serving in. The PAO hoopla about these sabbaticals and the idea that somehow the Navy has to get to a 50-50 gender split is just crazy. This is not a corporation-it’s a fighting force. You don't always get everything you want-and you cannot have it all. "You make choices and you live with them." We would do well to remember that.

I used to give dual service couples advice, that I thought at the time made sense and I still do. The powers that be did not like it very much and told me not to pass it on. I ignored them. Basically for a dual service couple-you have to decide who will be CNO and who won't be. In other words you have to decide whose career will come first-and then stick to that strategy. If you both want to be successful you will be childless and or lonely. It does not matter if its the man or the woman-but you have to choose. I still think its a useful thing to ponder-and I've met many dual service couples who follow exactly that course. It works-but evidently CDR Steinem doesn't want to hear it.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

2 responses so far

Next »