War Against Human Nature: 100% Failure
Instead of training to fight America’s enemies, the United States Army has been ordered to engage in a war against human nature:
All eight female soldiers who survived the initial days of the first-ever Army Ranger School course to include women failed to make it to the second phase, but can still try again and pass, Army officials said Friday.
The women were attempting the famously difficult 62-day course as the Pentagon weighs which combat jobs women will be allowed to hold in the future. Army officials at Fort Benning, Ga., said that 115 men in the class had moved on to Ranger School’s second phase — mountaineering at Camp Merrill, Ga. — but that eight women and 101 men will be left behind at Fort Benning, Ga., to attempt Phase One again.
Top Pentagon leaders dropped a longtime ban on women in combat units in January 2013, but gave the services until later this year to seek exceptions and provide justification. . . .
About 35 male soldiers who attempted Phase One with the women failed to meet standards that would allow them to repeat, and will be sent back to their units, Army officials said. . . .
The Ranger class began April 20 with 19 women and 380 men. They were whittled down to eight women and 184 men after the initial, grueling four-day Ranger Assessment Phase, known as “RAP Week.”
Doing the math here: Of the 380 men who entered, 48% completed RAP Week. Of the 19 women who entered, 42% finished RAP Week. Of those who survived RAP Week, 63% of males advanced to Phase Two, whereas the failure rate of females was 100%
To repeat: ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FAILURE.
Believe it or not, that statistic is actually inadequate to describe how badly this social engineering experiment failed. It’s worse than 100% failure, as will be explained, but first permit me to quote the introduction to Sex Trouble:
Feminists have . . . undermined customs of courtesy and decency, fostering a climate where there are no commonly recognized rules to prevent or mediate conflicts between men and women. The destruction of civilized restraints has unleashed savage impulses, so that sexual relations at times approach the “war of all against all” of which Thomas Hobbes once warned.
The natural (and biologically necessary) relation between men and women is one of voluntary cooperation — as husband and wife, mother and father — to provide for themselves and their offspring. However, feminists reject this natural cooperation, condemning it as a system of male supremacy that oppresses women; feminists instead insist on viewing men and women as collective groups with antagonistic interests, engaged in hostile competition.
In this zero-sum game mentality, human beings are not viewed as individuals but as members of collective groups. Any observable inequality between groups is automatically assumed to be a result of social injustice. Ergo, the all-male status of elite combat outfits is evidence of sexist discrimination.
Army Rangers are the patriarchy, and the patriarchy must be smashed!
How could the failure rate of females in Ranger School be worse than 100%? Because these 19 women were handpicked as human guinea pigs in this experiment, and some were given special preparation, as an anonymous Army lieutenant explained in an online military forum:
I’m gathering that you are trying to make a point against the people who disagree with GI [gender integration] and ranger school. So, here’s my personal response.
I honestly know that some (not all) of the females who are going through right now were treated favorably in order to be better prepared for Ranger School.
And “favorably” is a very conservative way of putting it.
For example: multiple opportunities to pass RTAC; training in-between RTAC cycles to get better prepared to complete RTAC; training by an RI (not from RTB or RTAC) to get better prepared for Ranger School; PT plans focused on RAP week events and weapons training. All of this took place on the the governments dime at Ft. Banning and they did not have duty obligations back at their units.
I’m sure all Ranger students would love to be put on active duty orders (if guard or reserve) or separated from their daily duties to strictly prepare for Ranger school. At the end of the day, they needed this preparation in order to have a good shot at passing rap week in ranger school.
Saying that… if they went straight to Ranger School (like the vast majority Ranger Students do) and did not get trained in preparation to go, how would they [fare]? I personally know that the several needed time to recover and get the extra training to potential pass RTAC. Not all, but several. (it was a significant number when you’re talking about 19 total)
I have seen the [gender integration] from the very beginning until now. My personal opinion, based on what I have seen first hand, is that all females ‘collectively’ will not be able to walk on to Ranger school and be successful. They need extensive training, physically and tactically (at the one on one level) in order to have a slim chance of being successful.
And by training I mean separation from duty to do nothing but train and improve physical fitness.
My reasoning behind this: the females who came to attempt ranger school are the most elite, physically fit, and top .17% of all females in the Army (130 out of 74000). So if they need all of this training, how will the other 99.83% of females [fare]?
If the 16 make it, how does that reflect all females? Over 130 (approximately) attempted, and 16 are left (12%). .02% of ALL females that were allowed to attempt still have a chance. If these were males, this would be deemed an epic failure.
Do the math on the money the government spent on this, and tell me this is worth the tax payers dime. It’s [borderline] criminal. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, literally, from the pay, tdy, salary of the personal instructor, time away from their unit (other people doing double duty), salaries for O/As for several months, and the actual cost of sending a soldier to ranger school.
Everything about this experiment is wrong — an insult to common sense — because it is inspired by radical feminist gender theory.
Understand this: Because of budget cuts — thanks, President Obama! — the Army is currently planning to eliminate 10 brigades.
I repeat: TEN BRIGADES are being eliminated from the Army and yet, somehow, the Pentagon manages to find enough money in its budget to provide special training for female soldiers for use in this bizarre “gender integration” experiment at Fort Benning.
Even if you are not disturbed (as you should be) by the weirdness of this Island of Doctor Moreau project, even if the idea of trying to turn women into androgynous Death Machines doesn’t give you nightmares, what about the costs in terms of dollars and human resources to conduct this experiment at taxpayer expense?
Only a government under the control of fanatical ideologues would attempt to do this unnatural and unholy thing in the name of “gender integration,” and yet no member of Obama’s Army can be permitted to criticize it.
“Feminism is fundamentally inhumane. It is a totalitarian belief system, intolerant of dissent. It is a rationalization of hate, and therefore feminism can justify telling any lie, so long as men are hurt (and feminists are empowered) by the lie. . . .
“All that is necessary, in feminist rhetoric and belief, is to blame men for everything bad. . . .
“To be a feminist in good standing, therefore, requires a woman to ignore the basic errors of her fellow feminists, to cooperate in feminism’s totalitarian project of silencing critics who call attention to that which feminism must ignore.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature, pp. 81, 84
So it is that the U.S. Army, which is supposed to protect American freedom, is being used to destroy American freedom.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.