THE blogger Weapons Man analyzes the recent graduation of two women from the grueling Army Ranger School:

The two women who were nurtured through Ranger School recently (and who, we must say, showed incredible grit and determination to hang in there through multiple recycles) were so much more impressive than the 136 who fell by the wayside that the Army has decided, after long deliberation a pause to provide a Decent Interval® and look like long deliberation of orders that came from Ash Carter and John McHugh, to open all future Ranger classes to women. Who will graduate. Remember, we called it back in November 2014, as the first 31 women for the Corps of Commissars were selected (out of 36 volunteers… now that’s real selectivity): Lower Standards, Commissars, to Guarantee Graduation. The distaff Ranger graduation is also being used as a wedge to crack open the rest of combat arms, because the Maslovian self-actualization of a couple of career women who want to play Army, and a victory for the lesbo-wiccan coven that is DACOWITS, are more important than whether units can fight and actually beat anybody. “Since they’re only ever going to play Little League, we might as well get ’em used to participation trophies.” [cont.]

— Comments —

Josh F. writes:

It seems that the “cost” of “women” in combat is a loss of womanhood and thus a self-revocating appropriation of the title “woman” for each and all female so inclined to make it all the way to the war zone AS combat soldiers. Furthermore, you, with all due respect, are invoking what I call “cultural correctness.” Similar to political correctness, it is the traditionalist’s “liberalism.” By using the phrase “women in combat,” you are unwittingly helping to manufacture a false liberal reality. It seems that a female who volunteers to war void a motivating existential crisis is VOLUNTARILY QUITTING any viable path to womanhood. Ergo, there is no such thing as a “woman” soldier in the U.S. military. To be a soldier is to be a paid and trained killer and women cannot be paid and trained killers AND STILL BE women any more than a woman can be sexually averse to man and be known as a lesbian “woman.” In this subtle imposition of cultural correctness, you are, in fact, exalting the liberationist, ie., the female/dyke/de facto dyke at the expense of the essence of woman. In the inverted realm of radical liberation, it is in the “dyke” “soldier” where one finds something “more” than just “woman.” In the perverted realm of radical autonomy, “we” are to believe the “dyke” “soldier” is MORE THAN just a woman. Of course, “ours” is the absolute opposite reality. Woman CANNOT be a soldier and woman CANNOT be a dyke UNLESS there is simply no womanly essence to speak of. To be these things… Soldiers and dykes and female autonomists… Is to not be women, period.

Laura writes:

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Please follow and like us: