Illuminati War on Gender- Obama Coerces Women into Combat
January 6, 2015
In response to the article, "Is Rape a Reaction to Women in Military?"
Jessica, a veteran, writes that women don't want combat roles. " I was forced into an all male infantry unit against my will. Recruiters lied to me and not just me. Read Elaine Donnelly's latest article. Over 92% of active duty women said they would refuse a combat assignment if offered."
Elaine Donnelly says women simply are not up for combat. I say this is a form of heterophobia far more vicious than any homophobia I've seen. The denial of gender differences is occult, more evidence we are satanically possessed- in the talons of the Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish satanic cult.
By Elaine Donnelly
Washington Times
(abridged by henrymakow.com)
Now that voters have disposed of the phony "war on women," can we talk about real women fighting future wars?
More than 92 percent of active-duty Army women said in a recent official survey that they do not want and would not take direct ground combat (infantry) assignments. Nevertheless, President Obama plans to order women into the combat arms by January 2016...
The Center for Military Readiness has independently obtained and analyzed major research findings so far, and published a 64-page interim report titled "Where's the Case for Co-Ed Combat?" Respect for military women who have served with courage "in harm's way" is greater than ever. However, nothing in research findings so far supports the theory that women should be considered interchangeable with men in direct ground combat.
Upper-body strength and endurance are not the only issues of concern, but both are essential for survival and mission accomplishment. In the most physically demanding environments imaginable, it matters that in timed proxy tests simulating ordnance-stowing with 95-pound artillery rounds, less than 1 percent of the men failed, compared with 28 percent of the women.
In another test with progressively heavier weights lifted over the head, 80 percent of men could lift 115 pounds, but less than 9 percent of the women could do the same.
In a timed tank-loading simulation with 55-pound weights lifted five times, less than 1 percent of the men failed, compared with 18.6 percent of the women. Researchers noted that failure rates would increase in a more confined space such as a tank.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel should know better than most how important individual strength and speed can be. In Vietnam, Mr. Hagel saved his own brother by pulling him unconscious from a burning armored personnel carrier just before it blew up. No one's brother or son should die because of unrealistic theories about the equality of the sexes.
Some women score well in controlled tests, but survival and mission accomplishment also involve endurance over time. This lesson is being learned in tests of female volunteers on the Marines' Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va.
Since fall 2012, 24 female officers have attempted the grueling infantry test. All deserve credit for trying, but only four survived the deliberately difficult first day. Of those, none endured through the entire 13-week course, which involves 20-mile marches and carrying loads of up to 120 pounds.
Some activists have criticized the infantry officer training, noting that more than 40 women have completed the less-demanding course for enlisted infantrymen. There are major differences, however, because infantry officers must be prepared to lead others into battle.
In 2013, the Marines tried to make three pull-ups mandatory for female basic trainees, but had to suspend the requirement when 55 percent could not meet it. Recent tests have found that on average, men could do almost 16 pull-ups -- more than four times as many as the women.Extra training can strengthen women, but physiology makes men even stronger. Experts know that unchanging androgenic characteristics in men account for greater muscle power and aerobic capabilities that are essential for endurance in land combat operations.
LOWERING STANDARDS
"Gender-neutral standards" are supposed to screen out individuals who cannot perform heavy tasks. The expectation is not realistic, however, in view of relentless Pentagon-endorsed demands for "gender diversity metrics," another name for quotas. In January 2013, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey admitted that high standards beyond the abilities of women would be questioned.
Training programs deemed inconsistent with "gender diversity" goals eventually will be eliminated, modified or scored differently in the process of "validating" standards that are "equal" but lower than before. This is the only way to achieve what Gen. Dempsey has called a "critical mass" of women in the combat arms.
In theory, three percent of women might meet male minimum standards, but going from the top of their fields to lower status in land combat units would set them up for career disadvantages and disproportionate, debilitating injuries. None of this is necessary, since women always have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.
In 2015, gender-integrated Marine task forces will conduct simulated combat with "collective" efforts that are likely to obscure individual shortcomings. Academic consultants, like-minded think tanks and Defense Department contractors have been hired to "validate" predetermined goals, leaving major issues unaddressed from an independent perspective.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have the option to ask for exceptions to the administration's mandate to integrate the combat arms. Sufficient research data justifying exceptions already exist, but members of Congress need to honor military women by conducting responsible oversight that takes this issue seriously. If officials intend to "go where the numbers take us," the way ahead should be clear.
--------
Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness.
Related- Should Women Also Play Pro Football?
First Comment by Dan:
I noticed all but two of the women in that photograph are white. It just seems unusual, considered the government is obsessed with 'diversity' in everything else.
We've figured out that the 20th century world wars took the best young men out of the European gene pool. I wouldn't put it past them to think of combat as a way of shrinking the fertile middle class American population even faster.
Sounds like something a racist would think, right? I know, I know. But I didn't make that photo, which is what made me wonder why they're going to put women in combat. It's not necessary, its endangers male combat units as well as the women, and finally - 90% of enlisted women don't want it. *
Still, I checked for statistics, and what I found right way will surprise you. It surprised me. Source: Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division.
"Percentages of total female or male deaths, divided by ethnicity. For instance, in the Persian Gulf War, 20% of female deaths were Black or African American and 80% of female deaths were White."
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/RACE-OMB-WC.pdf.
* Survey: Less than 10 percent of Army women want to join combat units
Women in combat a dangerous experiment
Bob writes:
I was at the personnel officer (S1) for an intelligence battalion stationed in Germany. We had lots of women in the unit. The battalion commander called me into his office and told me: We have to get all the women with children in the unit to put in writing what they will do with their children in time of war. Here is the list. Get them to put in writing who will take care of their children if this becomes a war zone.
I called them one by one into my office. Without exception they all said: "I am not legally obliged, as a woman, to stay in a combat zone. My first duty is to my child or children. I am serving primarily to help support them and myself. I intend to avail myself of my legal right to leave a war zone and take my child/children with me." Without exception. I went back to the commander and told him what they had all said. I added: That makes sense to me. I have no intention of attempting to get them to commit to anything other than this position. He just sat there and said nothing. The matter went no further.
Ed T said (January 8, 2015):
Henry, Undoubtedly, when the deliberately Illuminati-instigated and orchestrated "hot war" with Russia and China, whether proxy or direct, comes to pass (probably by 2016 coincidentally, if the Illuminists have their way), the employment of women in combat will serve the dual Illuminist goals of "population control" (by eliminating breeders directly via combat, rather than merely being civilian casualties, who may be harder to hit as they are hiding in bomb shelters) and ritualistic blood sacrifice (as they love to sacrifice the defenseless, such as aborting fetuses and preying on children). Placing women in combat is a particularly demonic and evil thing to do, and these Satanists revel in the wickedness of it. Those women who survive combat will invariably suffer PTSD, making them less effective mothers should they breed after the war, being emotionally damaged, assuming they are not maimed beyond the ability to procreate. Motherhood requires emotional stability, and the emotional destabilization of women is one of the key elements of the Illuminist plan, as you well know.
BTW, it's worthy to note that the cabal appears to have an Anglo-Zionist-Masonic-Jesuit nexus. Who among them is the dominant power is unclear, and possible a greater power controls them all. Some folks have wondered, such as the comment about diversity in the military, why the Anglo arm would push multi-culturalism to dilute the white race, as it would seem contrary to their own good. But one must remember the Anglo elite are not loyal to race, and look upon anyone not of the elite class, including their own race, as scum. See the treatment of the poor in Dickens and Victorian England. Moreover, see how the English tried to genocide the Boers in South Africa. The Anglo arm in the US would be more than happy to destroy the white race in America, as it would make the population all that more controllable.