A new report revealed hundreds of Marines are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Defense for sharing explicit photos of their female colleagues in a lewd Facebook group.
The group titled ‘Marines United’ had hundreds, possibly thousands of photos of unsuspecting servicewomen, some who were on active duty.
There were 30,000 followers of the secret Facebook group and many members made sexually aggressive comments about the victims. Some suggested in the 2,500 photo comments that the servicemen perform sexual acts with the women and film it for the other members.
Take 182,000 young people, male and female.
Get them as fit as you can.
Marvel when sex breaks out.
No, I don’t advocate gawking over nuddie pics of co-workers either but why the fuck is anyone surprised?
Again, the feminists destroyed gentlemen and derided the culture of soft sexism they represented. But they have nothing to put in its place – and mourn its passing. They can’t honestly say so but basically that is what their complaint is.
After all, in modern terms, what have these soldiers done wrong? Have they actually inflicted harm on anyone? This is a victimless crime. They did not need to seek consent for mere words. They are simply letting it all hang out by being honest about their sexual feelings. An inevitable result of the 60s sexual liberation. Only instead of these sort of comments being a cottage industry, spread by word of mouth, they have become high tech, electronic – and suitable for monitoring by the authorities.
In the end we should be honest and say this is not the way that a gentleman behaves and it is wrong to be a cad. There is no other coherent basis for criticism. However frankly, my dears, I don’t give a damn. This is the post-Christian world the feminists wanted, they can live with the consequences.
Weren’t we told there were no downsides to women joining outfits like the Marines?
Plus, what SMFS said.
As these are strong, competent highly trained service-women presumably there’s no problem tracking down the owner of the page and persuading him to close it down? Without whining to the press or senior officers?
Anyone prepared to over odds on there being a female equivalent? I’d say 10:1 on.
SMFS: “They are simply letting it all hang out by being honest about their sexual feelings. An inevitable result of the 60s sexual liberation. “
Feminist has cake, tries to eat it, finds cake unpalatable. News at eleven!
Talking of sex on the front lines, here’s the U.S. Navy:
Lots of interesting details in the article.
@BiND: You mean a website with fit young male Marines being sexually objectified? If you find it, let us know the address.
For, ummm, research purposes.
How are the male Marines getting these explicit photos?
If the males are planting hidden cameras or using periscopes or something then they can be charged under existing laws.
If the females are sexting nudie photos of themselves then whose fault is that? If they don’t want to be on show don’t send nudie photos.
The moronic “female soldier” caper will destroy the US military before its done.
Feminist has cake, tries to eat it, finds cake unpalatable
Judging by the photos accompanying articles written by many third wave feminists I find the last part of this statement implausible.
“They are simply letting it all hang out by being honest about their sexual feelings. An inevitable result of the 60s sexual liberation”
Didn’t you get the memo? Celebrating your sexuality isn’t applicable to men, its only applies to women.
“Talking of sex on the front lines, here’s the U.S. Navy:”
Let me guess w/o reading the article: anyone found with condoms will be punished since “fraternisation” is illegal. So randy young individuals engage in illicit, risky activity.
How’s that working out for them?
This is the Potemkin Military. It exists to make people feel safe in their beds and to create jobs in various states. It also has to comply with being nice.
If real war breaks out (and I doubt we’ll see it in our lifetimes), the military will look nothing like this. Ludicrous projects like the F-35 will be ditched for easy to build reliable aircraft and everyone will turn a blind eye to what fighting men get up to. Oh, and a lot of the women will get kicked out for being no fucking use.
JuliaM, ooh you are awful, but I do like you.
The logical and feminist inspired end to this will be men having sex with robots and the end of humanity.
“A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy.”
Betcha far more were getting tapped, and being paid for it. Hard to imagine a better business opportunity than being a young female on a ship at sea with hundreds of men.
Who thought that up? Seriously, a young woman could retire after 4 years in the Navy.
BraveFart. Robots eh, Well if the feminazis keep this up, I guess it will end up being the preferred option.
“BraveFart. Robots eh, Well if the feminazis keep this up, I guess it will end up being the preferred option.”
Then the robot divorces you and takes the house.
Gamecock – “Betcha far more were getting tapped, and being paid for it.”
Women have no function in the military except as Comfort Women for the men. Never have. In every military where they serve, that is more or less their purpose.
So I am in favour of this. But we should be open about it. Instead of pretending that women can serve and so putting a heavier burden on the men who have to do their work for them, we ought to introduce a special rating just for them.
I think the Navy would be improved by the obvious Chief Petite Officers. Especially if they were petite. I suspect that a lot of women in the Navy are anything but. Maybe “Able Comfort Woman”?
Then the robot divorces you and takes the house.
Perhaps they’ll be more interested in the garage?
“So Much For Subtlety
Women have no function in the military except as Comfort Women for the men. Never have”
I suspect that the 309 Germans shot by sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko in WWII would disagree with you, if they could.
Nor was she one-off as around 2,000 female snipers served in the Russian army.
Similarly the targets of the 588th Night Bomber Regiment who managed to drop 23,000 tons of bombs on the Germans in the same war would also take issue with you.
‘I suspect that the 309 Germans shot by sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko in WWII would disagree with you, if they could.’
A ridiculous fallacy.
When I was in the U.S. Air Force, I never met a Lyudmila Pavlichenko. You give us a false characterization. Just because some women have done well does not mean women in general are going to do well.
There’ll always be a handful of tough women who are reasonably well-suited to armed service: i.e. the top end of the strength bell curve. But problems arise when the armed forces compromise operational capacity to accommodate women who are less-suited to the role. As per the article I linked above, the U.S. Navy recently imposed a quota of 25% women on all ships. That can’t end well.
“the U.S. Navy recently imposed a quota of 25% women on all ships. That can’t end well.”
That’ll hurt pricing.
Depends. Is modern naval warfare more about staring at screens and pushing buttons, rather than pulling on ropes?
Not saying it’s a good idea mind, but I suspect if there has to be a role for women in the military then the Navy is probably a better choice than, say, the infantry. Physically anyway.
Gamecock
“Just because some women have done well does not mean women in general are going to do well.”
Andrew M ‘a handful’
Hmmmm. Have re-read my post and nowhere do I say ‘women in general are going to do well’.
I was replying to SMFS who said that “Women have NO function in the military except as Comfort Women for the men. NEVER HAVE.” [my emphasis]
He didn’t say ‘most women’. He said ‘women’ and ‘no function’ and ‘never have’.
So my post was a response to that.
And as I pointed out, there were 2,000 women snipers, hundreds of bomber crews, and thousands served as crews of anti-aircraft batteries, machine gun crews or tank drivers.
The fact that most women couldn’t do that is as irrelevant as the fact that most men couldn’t be in the SAS and that many men couldn’t even make front-line troops without putting every one around them at risk.
And of course women made up a significant percentage of partisans in all theatres of WWII. Not to mention spies and assassins, where they had access to the enemy that men couldn’t get.
I can’t see it as much comfort to any enemy about to die that they were killed by a soldier who represented a minority of the enemy.
“Is modern naval warfare more about staring at screens and pushing buttons, rather than pulling on ropes?”
It probably is when things are going your way. When you’re trying to put out a raging fire or seal off flooded compartments, not so much.
An acquaintance used to teach CBRNDC (chemical, nuclear, biological & radiological warfare plus damage control) down at Whale Island, the former HMS Phoenix, at a point where – the RN having allowed women to go to sea – it was fine-tuning the wheres and hows. (The usual joys of ‘decision first, details and implementation later’)
Unsurprisingly, all-male teams did better at firefighting and leak-stopping in the simulators than all-female teams: there’s a great deal of lifting and shifting to be done to shore up a hatch or acro-prop a deckhead, and it’s not that simple or easy in classroom conditions; I’m assured that being neck-deep in freezing water with intermittent or failed lighting makes it quite sporty. (I’ve only done enough of it to make “don’t touch that, sir, you’re not qualified” stick)
Surprisingly, but robustly, mixed teams in the ratio expected in practice (about 10-15%) did better than either single-sex team. We speculated on the possible reasons, but the results stood up.
One thing the Navy has done rather well (in my biased opinion) is to hold the line on standards. To get to sea you have to pass the physical and educational entry tests (and yes, the girlies get longer to run their 2.4km, but the strength test is the same 40kg over the same shuttle run in the same time for everyone) – but that’s only the entry ticket to BSSC (Basic Sea Survival Course) and a BSSC fail will keep you firmly ashore.
As a result, you can sensibly hope any Regular sailor knows what to do and be able to have a fair stab at doing it in a DC situation. If that AB or killick happens to be a small female in a job requiring lots of height and brute strength, that’s what teamwork’s for, and also an opportunity for the Reservist officer who as an unqualified spare hand is waiting for a task simple enough for him to be trusted with (my role at Action Stations on the rare occasions I’m aboard)
On the other hand, I did my Fleet Time with an Amazonian lieutenant-commander as my ‘sea daddy’, who was stronger, faster and fitter than me as well as being a qualified AAWO – an outlier on the bell curve, perhaps, but the singular of “data” is “anecdote”.
Given the continuing difficulties in retaining sufficient trained personnel, hoofing a bunch of qualified, capable and willing sailors out for gendercrime doesn’t seem to be a sensible move unless there’s some credible evidence.
@Jason Lynch
Thanks for that post- I always wondered what went on at Whale Island.
The rest of it was thoughtful and interesting as well
We keep discussing this. There is a place for women in the military – especially now you can find yourself tripping around backwards backwoods villages in the Hindu Kush or similar, where the ability to send women into buildings to talk to local women without the menfolk kicking off is extremely valuable. Of course, it has other effects and the question is whether a mitigates b or not.
Yes, it is true that you don’t want women (or weak men) in frontline infantry roles, much less SF etc. But they can fly jets etc as well as a bloke as far as I know.
Jason Lynch,
“and yes, the girlies get longer to run their 2.4km”
So, it’s not a fair test then. If there’s a standard that women meet, the male standard should also be lowered to that standard. There’s no good reason otherwise.
BiW,
It’s the baseline fitness test and calibrated against VO2 level (get into Rockport Walk territory, and it’s directly traceable) to assess basic medical (not operational) fitness.
After that, you have to do the strength test: four 20m shuttles carrying two 20kg weight bags, which have to be put down each shuttle. Can’t remember what the time is (under a minute, more than ~25s) but it’s a gender-neutral test.
This is the mandatory minimum RNFT to “not be thrown out” that covers everyone from the SBS and similar steely-eyed death dealers, to wheezy old desk-bound reservists with knackered knees and bad backs.
For any operational role, the tests are rather more focused and representative of the task at hand.
“A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy.”
If men could get out of front line duties so easily MASH would have been a very short book, film and series and we’d never have heard of Alan Alder.
Anyway, as Jason says the issue isn’t whether or not women are allowed in front line operations in any of the services it whether or not standards have been compromised in the process and put others at risk.
I don’t think anyone is surprised.
Still going to fry these guys though. And they’re going to deserved getting fried.
Andrew C – “I suspect that the 309 Germans shot by sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko in WWII would disagree with you, if they could.”
I suspect they would. If they existed. The USSR had a strong ideological commitment to feminism and an even stronger commitment to lying about everything. There is no reason to think that this woman even existed. Well, maybe that is going too far. No reason to think she shot anyone.
And it is very successful too – here you are, using their propaganda, to push a Leftist agenda decades after the USSR collapsed.
“Nor was she one-off as around 2,000 female snipers served in the Russian army.”
So when they are forced to draft every able bodied man, including even grandfathers, they had some token number of women pretending to be snipers.
“Similarly the targets of the 588th Night Bomber Regiment who managed to drop 23,000 tons of bombs on the Germans in the same war would also take issue with you.”
They might. But don’t look at what the USSR said, look at what they did. The second they did not need the lesbian support for the war, they kicked all the women out of the Soviet Air Force. Despite said strong ideological commitment to feminism. Which suggests this too was propaganda.
Andrew M – “There’ll always be a handful of tough women who are reasonably well-suited to armed service: i.e. the top end of the strength bell curve.”
This fallacy assumes that it is strength that makes a soldier. For a start it is also certainly not true. The distribution of strength is very one-sided. If you have 100 random men and 100 random women and you picked the 100 strongest of the group, 92 of them would be men. If any war in recent times has required drafting 92% of men, let me know. But more importantly, in every war the US has fought in recent times, women have sat down, cried and refused to carry out orders. Usually they refuse to drive supplies through the rear area. Starting in Panama and continuing through every Gulf War. Women helicopter pilots have refused to land to take off soldiers under fire and threatened with being over-run. None has been punished. Women lack the killer instinct. Which is why so few rapists get killed or even seriously hurt.
Andrew C – “And as I pointed out, there were 2,000 women snipers, hundreds of bomber crews, and thousands served as crews of anti-aircraft batteries, machine gun crews or tank drivers.”
Allegedly. The main role for women even in the politically correct Soviet Army was on their backs.
“Not to mention spies and assassins, where they had access to the enemy that men couldn’t get.”
By all means, women have a useful role. On their backs. The idea that many partisans were women is absurd.
Jason Lynch – “One thing the Navy has done rather well (in my biased opinion) is to hold the line on standards. To get to sea you have to pass the physical and educational entry tests (and yes, the girlies get longer to run their 2.4km, but the strength test is the same 40kg over the same shuttle run in the same time for everyone)”
Every single standard for women to join the RN is less than the men except for some of the swimming. Actually for women 18 years of age, the fitness requirements are lesser than those for a 40 year old man. It is not just the run. It is the sit ups, the pull ups, the lifting and so on too.
Look it up yourself:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/joining/get-fit-to-join/stages-and-standards/royal-navy-ratings/prnc
“As a result, you can sensibly hope any Regular sailor knows what to do and be able to have a fair stab at doing it in a DC situation.”
The evidence suggests to the contrary.
“If that AB or killick happens to be a small female in a job requiring lots of height and brute strength, that’s what teamwork’s for”
So the actual able bodied have to carry the women by doing a double duty. As we have seen in the Gulf where the male soldiers had to dig all the trenches and fox holes for the women.
“Given the continuing difficulties in retaining sufficient trained personnel, hoofing a bunch of qualified, capable and willing sailors out for gendercrime doesn’t seem to be a sensible move unless there’s some credible evidence.”
They are neither qualified in any real sense or capable. What is more you assume that by prostituting the Royal Navy into a service more concerned about feelings than about fighting, you will attract more men. I do not think there is a lot of evidence for that. Men want to do manly things. Wearing fake breasts and pregnancy suits does not fall into that category.
Interested – “There is a place for women in the military – especially now you can find yourself tripping around backwards backwoods villages in the Hindu Kush or similar, where the ability to send women into buildings to talk to local women without the menfolk kicking off is extremely valuable.”
No there isn’t. Sending the Afghan equivalent of tattooed lesbians to talk to the womenfolk is not valuable. It is an irritant. If they do not like it, we should not be doing it. It is absurd to think that what we gain from alienating their women makes up for what we lose by being degenerate.
“But they can fly jets etc as well as a bloke as far as I know.”
No they can’t. Female pilots have repeatedly failed at even the most basic tasks. Not all of them admittedly. But if I was looking for air support I would want someone who will actually attack the enemy. Not someone who refuses to do so because they might get hurt.
Incidentally, today’s double think award goes to the British Army:
What that means is that the Annual Fitness Test is irrelevant. It has been dumbed down to the point of uselessness.
SMFS,
The basic fitness test is gendered, to push candidates to demonstrate similar levels of oxygen throughput. The basic strength test is non-gendered. The basic swim test is non-gendered.
Once you’re at Raleigh or Dartmouth, the obstacles are the same height for everyone; the kit to be carried for the PLTs doesn’t come in “male” and “female” versions; the groups go around the same course and do the same tests and trials, without shortcuts for the ladies.
This continues through the more demanding training; where those (male or female) who try to shirk their share are noted, corrected, and if necessary back-classed or discarded. The genders have the same time to don their Once Only Survival Suit, the same drop into Horsea Lake, and the same distance to swim to the same liferaft, during even the absolute billy-basics EFSSC.
I know this, because I’ve done a fair bit of it and observed or helped with other parts. In fact I’m curious to know which parts other than the basic “not yet dead” run or beep test are gendered.
When HMS Nottingham discovered Wolf Rock the hard way, there were no issues identified with her female crew members failing to do their jobs adequately – though there was head-scratching at how the ship didn’t sink, since the computer models indicated she should have lost stability and capsized from such extensive damage, and it was only an unexpectedly rapid and effective response by her (mixed) crew that saved the ship.
Ditto when Endurance had a catastrophic flood during a South Atlantic storm; it was worryingly marginal for a while, especially when the ship lost all power, but it was good skills and drills to restore pumping capacity while limiting the spread of the flood (and, counter-intuitively, allowing some compartments to flood completely, to prevent lolling) that proved more important than height or brute strength.
I’m not sure where this “evidence” you speak of, might be, since your claims fly in the face of experience.
“They are neither qualified in any real sense or capable.”
Right, because passing (regular) BRNC, passing BSSC, becoming a qualified Officer of the Watch, passing the PWO course with a good grade, demonstrating good operational performance, and then qualifying as an Anti-Air Warfare Officer leaves a person entirely and completely unfit to serve at sea in the Navy if they lack the vital, irreplaceable qualification of a penis.
And your experience from which you so confidently draw this conclusion is based upon…?
“And of course women made up a significant percentage of partisans in all theatres of WWII.”
Base criminals then. Partisans were illegal combatants during World War II. Terrorists in today’s terminology. Yeah, women!
Jason Lynch
I am sorry but you are holding up as models of the smooth running of the Royal Navy incidents in which 1. a ship hit a well known and well mapped rock while the Captain was being wined and dined on shore (and incidentally a colossal sum of money was thrown away trying to get it back to sea before it was scrapped) and 2. a ship nearly sunk because someone on the crew put the wrong hoses back on the wrong parts of the water filter causing the ship to flood?
You know, an impartial observer might well ask some pointed questions about the decline of competence in the Navy and what precisely might be causing that.
But then truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon a trivial skirmish fought near Marathon, no?
Speaking of which, I notice you do not include a single actual combat incident. Like when the Iranians captured British sailors – who allegedly got lost – without a fight, only to have them cry like babies.
“Right, because passing (regular) BRNC, passing BSSC, becoming a qualified Officer of the Watch, passing the PWO course with a good grade, demonstrating good operational performance, and then qualifying as an Anti-Air Warfare Officer leaves a person entirely and completely unfit to serve at sea in the Navy if they lack the vital, irreplaceable qualification of a penis.”
Yeah, pretty much. This is a strawman argument which is hardly convincing. A lot of officers pass all the tests on paper only to fail in the real world.
SMFS,
The CO and navigator on HMS Nottingham were both male; unless you have evidence they were distracted by some totty aboard, hitting the rock is the cause of the relevant issue here, and the CO being ashore irrelevant. Unless you want to claim Form 232 went entirely unused until the advent of women at sea, the relevant matter is the reaction to the casualty.
Likewise, unless there’s evidence that whoever wrongly fitted the inlet strainer on Endurance got it wrong ‘because of da wimmin’, it’s not quite pertinent to the performance of a mixed crew during a CBRNDC live-fire.
The key point is that in two severe, ship-threatening incidents, neither ship was lost, nor was “…but the girlies all had fits of the vapours and had to go lie down while the menz did all the work” identified as an issue in the subsequent Learning Accounts.
I also recall Op DEACON, and the trivial note that the crying sailor was male, not female – poor AB Arthur Bachelor, an example of the “risk pass because we need the manpower” proving to be a very serious risk. But isn’t he an example of the proud, manly virtues that we could rely on, should we dispose of the gender criminals?
Op DEACON exposed a number of uncomfortable issues, few of which had anything to do with the presence or absence of women at sea (but which did, among other things, cost the then-Second Sea Lord his job as the man responsible for the training pipeline).
Still, the USN did much better, after much chest-pounding that no proud ‘Muricans would ever be taken so easily – http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/iran-releases-us-sailors-held-18-hours/78716802/
And I note you have no examples of combat failures, nor any actual evidence of any sort beyond “not liking women”, and no idea at all about the reality of managing and if necessary fighting a ship at sea.
Proudly, loudly and arrogantly ignorant is not really a praiseworthy position to take.
“Proudly, loudly and arrogantly ignorant is not really a praiseworthy position to take.”
You must be new here.