The Army’s Walk of Shame

Posted in Politics
Mon, Apr 27 - 11:21 am EDT | 3 years ago by
Comments: 186
Be Sociable, Share!
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Lines of Departure - Army's Walk of Shame

Once again, “We interrupt our regularly scheduled program…”1

This just in: In a stunning blow against international terrorism, US Army Cadet Command has recently unleashed its latest martial innovation, the comedy bomb. It is reported that Islamic terrorists from Thailand to Central Africa were incapacitated for hours and a few have even laughed themselves to death. The bomb was delivered via the Internet after a rapid development initiative at Headquarters, Cadet Command, Fort Knox, KY. Cadet Command is treating the name of the developer of the comedy bomb as top secret, but has released several photos of the bomb…”

Army Cadet Command - Red Heels

Al Qaeda, when contacted, said, in between guffaws, “No comment.”

ISIS, however, was more forthcoming, with their spokesman asking, “What are those bints2 doing without burkas.” When that mistaken impression was corrected, Sheik Kareem Adbul Mohammad, ISIS Minister for Islamic Culture, said, shortly before collapsing with laughter, “Oh, c’mon; you’re shitting me. So what’s next, half uniformed slut walks with males in makeup, miniskirts, heels, and knit stockings, over Army Combat Uniforms cut into halter tops, all surmounted by patrol caps with flowers sewn on? Now admit it; you’re just shitting me.”


But you can’t make this shit up, you just can’t. You see, fiction has to make sense. This next comment, passed to me, was not fiction, but came from a friend of mine, a retired British Army WO2:

“…a no doubt well-intentioned, but naïve, foolish, and pointless gesture which can only have a negative impact on morale, reputation, and discipline.”

He had some other, more pungent, words, but I’ll spare you.


I contacted the Public Affairs Office at Cadet Command shortly after being apprised of this.3 Along with that conversation – which was, by the way, very cordial and polite, on both sides – I sent the following email to the Professor of Military Science (in ROTC terms that’s the head of a given school’s ROTC program), at Temple U, the following missive:

LTC N___:

I am Thomas P. Kratman, LTC, Ret. My branch was infantry. I hold a JD from W&L. I am a former IG. I am an (occasional) bestselling author (per Wall Street Journal; I am told I am blacklisted by NYT).

I also write a weekly column (the most read weekly column) for an online magazine with a lot of readers. So before I unfairly screw anyone’s figurative lights out, in a very public way, would you care to make a statement and answer a few questions? Please, in the answering, if you choose to answer, do not insult my intelligence or experience by claiming that AR 670-1 authorizes red high heels and ACUs. It does not. Please don’t waste my time with claiming that the high heels event was for morale building. That kind of nonsense will just piss me off and do terrible things to the objectivity to which I, of course, aspire.

I have been in contact with PAO, Cadet Command. You may wish to coordinate your answers, if you choose to answer, with them.

1. Were you ordered by higher to do this/have your cadets do this? Yes, “I wish” or “I would like” still carries the weight of “I order.”

2. If you were acting under orders, from whom did the order originate, at what level, again with the understanding that “I wish” equals “I order.”

3. Do you know whence it originated, at brigade or at Cadet Command?

4. What were the precise words given to your cadets to set this in motion.

5. Were cadets required to buy the shoes? And, again, I wish = I order.

6. Which ROTC Brigade does Temple fall under?

7. Did any cadets object vocally or in writing?

8. Did any cadets threaten to go their legislative representation or the IG over this?

9. Are you familiar with 10 USC 1034?

10. Did you, personally, really think this was a good idea? Really?

I won’t ask if you can give me the contact information for each of the cadets who took part. I will try to find it on my own if the questions above are unanswered or if the answers smell. If I have to drive to Temple and wait for someone in uniform to pass by so I can ask them, so be it; the drive is tax deductible for me.

A slightly different version was sent to the PMS of Arizona State. N___ had the good grace to answer that he would not answer. B____, the PMS for ASU simply didn’t respond. I also sent the message to the PAO of Cadet Command, inviting that office to answer. This offer was declined in favor of some fairly uninformative boilerplate I’d been given earlier.

Since nobody concerned on the Army’s side would answer, I trust they and you will understand when I try to reason my way to the answers for such of these as I am able. To take the last first, I am pretty sure that, by this point in time, N____ and Cadet Command have figured out that, why no, this idea was down there with getting involved in a land war in Asia for sheer box-o-rocks stupidity.

Item 8 and 9 I tossed in to protect the cadets, since B____, the PMS at ASU, had the poor grace and judgment to ask for the names of informants:

“I saw a comment posted by someone who made a false statement regarding Arizona State University Army ROTC. I am the Professor of Military Science for that program. We are having a “Walk a mile in her shoe” event tomorrow in support of the Chief of Staff of the Army guidance to support efforts to stand against sexual violence. This event is not mandatory and we are not wearing our uniforms. There is no retribution for someone choosing not to participate.

I would like to know the name of the individual that posted that information. They truly are misinformed and are clearly not representing our program or the Army in the way that a future officer should.”4

I mentioned that Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code, because that is the section that offers a truly painful fine and not inconsiderable jail time for interfering with or retaliating against someone’s contacting the IG or their legislative representative. I trust B____ took the hint, even if she wouldn’t answer.

The same source that provided the question from B____ also provided a couple of quotes from unnamed cadets. Since they are unnamed, one may be skeptical, and yet, to me, the quotes have the ring of truth about them:

“Regarding the ASU army ROTC incident. Our Commander is threatening to kick us out of program and take away our scholarships if we get caught, liking, sharing, commenting or sharing with you guys.”5


“Regarding walk a mile in her shoes: I go to another school that has an ROTC program, we are in the same BDE as ASU and we were mandated to be at the event as well that was held at our school. Our cadre did not impose any threats though. But I can say that the event was made mandatory from higher than the school leadership. Any threats came from the school level.”6

That’s pretty much how the Army works. Without experience of it, looking from the outside, inward, I am sure it seems like a rigid dictatorship, where everything imaginable is covered by a set of regulations that may well exceed the tax code for sheer volume and complexity.

Forget it; it isn’t like that. It’s as much anarchy as order, or more of the former than the latter. Half or more of everything is done informally, with an informal understanding that, “Do this or I’ll fuck your lights out on some pretext or other.” So I don’t feel like I’m going very far out on a limb in suspecting that the schools have made threats, open or tacit, to the cadets, but did so under threatening prodding from higher.

Again, too, remember that, as per my missive to Lieutenant Colonel N____, “I wish,” “I would like,” “I suggest that you…,” and “you should” have all the weight of “I order.” The Army is going to try to hide behind that as if there were a distinction. There is not, and they should not be permitted to hide. Short version: “Call ‘bullshit’ when you see bullshit.”

Going back to that “higher,” which higher? Two battalions, in different brigades,7 come up with very similar programs? The odds of this happening independently are poor. That suggests to me very strongly that the idiotic idea didn’t originate with the battalions or the brigades, but either originated from or was passed through the next higher common headquarters, Cadet Command, itself. Passed through? Yes, this brain dead notion didn’t necessarily originate with Cadet Command. There’s at least one reference to it happening in Germany, with the Regular Army, last year.8

But, still, it passed through Cadet Command. Thus, it passed through the command headed by a female major general, one Peggy Combs.

Is Combs, therefore, responsible? Clearly, she has command responsibility for it, so she is responsible as a commander. But is she still responsible, not in the sense of command responsibility but in the sense of moral and intellectual responsibility. That’s a much harder question. Not being a mind reader, I asked about her from some contacts I have (who, by the way, Army, shall remain nameless). This is what I got from one of them:

“BG Combs9 apparently made this her initiative since she’s now in charge of Cadet Command. When she was here at Fort Leonard Wood recently as the Chemical Commandant she was the senior rater for the Basic Training battalion commanders (something that has since then been rectified) and she made it a policy during her tenure that Drill Sergeants were not to yell at privates. She has been actively trying to destroy the ‘Warrior Ethos’ throughout her career.”

Adding in that she hasn’t, so to speak, “manned up” and taken responsibility lends more credibility to the claim, supporting what my informant, above, said of her. That’s fairly damning but, even so, the most I can claim is that she definitely has command responsibility for this nonsense and only may have moral and intellectual responsibility, as well. I think the first, alone, is sufficient for her to be shown the door, whether or not she’s been actively trying to destroy the Army’s warrior ethos.


So what this whole “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” nonsense about? I can’t imagine that anyone not a total frigging moron can believe it is remotely effective in combating any real distress inflicted on women, anywhere, at any time. Donning a purely optional item of female footwear and walking in it prevents rape? Puh-fucking-leeze!

But it is about rape, I suspect.

One of the chief aspects of feminist orthodoxy, analogous to a devout Moslem’s attitude toward the Quran or a fundamentalist Christian’s approach to Genesis, is that rape is not a sexual crime so much as a crime of violence, and exercise of power, domination, and humiliation, by those evilwickedbadnaughtybadbadbaddoubleplusungoodcrimethinking straight men.10 That silly notion has been debunked by such luminaries as Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate. Dr. Trayce Hansen, too, has shown how nonsensical it is.11 My own, rather simpler, take is, “Imagine a world in which orgasm and reproduction are impossible. How much rape takes place then? Maybe a very little, but little, indeed.”

Still, it is holy writ of feminist orthodoxy. They do think that way. So how is a woman, lacking a penis or testicles, going to get even with those evil males? How is she going to rape them back? Well, she could humiliate them by having them wear woman’s shoes. She can make the humiliation more complete by making them dye or paint the shoes bright red. She can exercise her dominance through wicked and evil orders. She can show her power by showing them they have none.

So, General Combs, how would you like wearing that scarlet “Rapist” sign around your own neck?


1To be sure, I’ll get back to the inherent fraud in the taxation system directly, but this is too timely to pass on without comment.

2 Arabic patronymic for daughter, hence for girls, generally.

3 Among other sources to which my attention was directed, this:


5 Id.

6 Id.


8 as long as we’re talking about men in miniskirts.

9 Now major general, it seems, perhaps because a single star just wasn’t shiny enough to display her all around goodness.



Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through

Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.

Social Justice

Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

Women in the Military

Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

Photo by Getty Images

The Kurds

Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Sorry Rodney

Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

Service Guarantees Citizenship

Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images


Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

Gun-Free Zones

Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

Dear Germany

Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

Sanctuary Cities

Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

Gun-Free Zones

Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

Price in Blood

Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.


Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

Jade Helm 15

Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

Does China Really Want War?

Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

Breakup of the United States

Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

The Bergdahl Case

If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

U.S. Navy

No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

Military Chow

Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

The Soldier's Load

Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

The Left and the Military

Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

Defining Terrorism

Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

Humanitarian Assistance

Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

Why War Games Fail

It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

Military Integrity

Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

Arab Armies

Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

The Purpose of War

A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

  • KenWats

    My ROTC time was 20 years ago, but I would not put this stupidity out of the realm of something that Cadet Command could originate. I saw lots of idiocy- and not all of it from the Cadets :)

  • Bordeaux Vixen

    could you direct me to the paragraph where you make you point? thanks.

    • Tom Kratman

      Nah. Try on your own.

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      I tried. Couldn’t find it. I don’t think it exists.

    • Tom Kratman

      Okay, you can think it if you like.

    • Marissa

      Reading is hard! – Barbie

    • Tom Kratman

      I think what may be confusing her is that there are three points, at least three, united by a common event. One is that this makes us look ridiculous to the world, some of the people of which are our enemies, who will be encouraged by this, while others are our friends and will be disheartened. A second is that the idea was generally useless, pointless, bad and illegal. The third is that it is a kind of moral rape, in lieu of physical rape.

    • Justin$Man

      moral rape?

    • BCS

      Moral rape is something that American conservatwits have made up. It’s basically a new way to say “WAAA I’m being persecuted.”

    • Tom Kratman


    • Tom Kratman

      In fact, you’re not just an idiot, you’re a cowardly idiot, which is worse.

    • BCS

      Evidence of cowardice?

    • Jono

      Maybe you should be more careful of revealing your need for a remedial reading class.

    • James

      Here is the point dipshit. Take you average male in the US who isn’t gay or some such and make him wear womens cloths. This humiliates him and shits on his social standing.

      Thats what this was about. Some sick sad womens obsession with social justice. She is simply using the Army to force people to do it.

      Basically she says it isn’t about sex. OK neither was this.

      It was about humiliation and hatred of those she hates. Men.

      So basically if she believes what she is spouting that means she basically ordered what is very close to the humiliation and degredation of the cadets under her command.

      So that.

      Also it make the US look like a bunch of fucking idiots.

      That a good enough walk through for ya?

    • Bordeaux Vixen


    • James

      #Freedom of speech

      Plus I direct no hate at women in general but upon the actions of one women who deserves it.

      You can’t just label everything that you don’t like to hear hate speech. Or rather you can but it is unwise.

      When you silence someone you simply increase the anger and distrust.

      Plus it just makes you look weak and vindictive. Using the Law to enforce your opinions upon others just makes them hate you and the law in general. Over time you weaken that which you depend upon.

      Also you reinforce the point I was making.

      You don’t agree with what I said so you try and direct societal hatred against me to silence me. Now this is ok for communist and such but should never be accepted in a free society.

    • Edward

      I do not know about Cadet Com but I am currently a member of an Active Duty Military unit in a different command than Cadet Command. Soldiers were notified previously that an event similar to this was going to take place during non duty hours in civilian clothers which was non mandatory but encouraged. Given the fee and my lack of pumps, I did not attend. (Incidentally, my suggestion that I do it barefoot was also strongly discouraged.) I think this program is one being encouraged at high levels as part of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

      Also, I would encourage you to look into Denim Day and Army views on that as well as I expect pictures will be available of soldiers being permitted/encouraged to take part in that as well. Hopefully, only involving civilian clothes during duty hours as in my unit’s case and not a uniform/civvie mishmash.

    • James

      Will they ban men wearing skinny jeans. This is all i really need to know. When did this travesty that is the mens skinny jeans and their makers come about!

    • Edward

      It has not been specified. I will note that based on the history, wearing skinny jeans would be appropriate. Based on aesthetics, it should be grounds for the Hague to intervene.

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      your direct hate speech was about gay men actually…

    • James

      “Take you average male in the US who isn’t gay or some such and make him wear womens cloths. This humiliates him and shits on his social standing.”

      That’s what I wrote. It in no way insults gay people. I Doubt most gay men like to where womens cloths. Why because they are men. Some do ok but remember that its their CHOICE.

      They were not ordered to do so and there in lies the greatest point.

      If you wish for me to take your views seriously please give me them. So far you have just said your wrong then insulted people with meme’s.

    • Rick Randall

      The claim of “hate speech” these days is *invariably* the sign of someone so ignorant of the facts at hand and so devoid of any cogent argument, that the childish and cavalier tossing out of a false claim is an act of desperaration intended to shut down discussion.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “This humiliates him and shits on his social standing.”

      Quick clue: This is part of the problem right here.
      Ask yourself if having a woman wearing man’s clothes does the same thing.

      If not, then what you’ve got is being a woman is inferior — because it’s humiliating to be treated as one when you’re a man, but not the reverse.

      And you wonder why people might object to the statement “Women are inferior”?

      “It was about humiliation and hatred of those she hates. Men.”

      If I followed this logic, you do realize that by your statements above, it’s pretty clear that you hate women. All of them. Makes one wonder about your relationship with your mother/(theoretical)partner/etc.

      “Also it make the US look like a bunch of fucking idiots.”

      If the U.S.’s image is so fragile that a group of men walking in women’s shoes can damage it — while *decades* of photographs of military men performing in drag shows, for example, has left it untainted — we have a serious (and confusing) problem here.

    • Rick Randall

      You do realize that *forcing* someone to wear particular clothes thy find humiliating is different from people choosing to wear those same clothes?

      I can think of several “male” outfits I would be humiliated to wear in public that others proudly choose to wear.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “You do realize that *forcing* someone to wear particular clothes thy find humiliating is different from people choosing to wear those same clothes?”

      If the soldiers are such hopelessly insecure misogynists that they can’t bear the humiliation of having to wear women’s shoes, they need help anyway.

      You don’t address my core point: it is the very fact that it’s supposedly “humiliating” that is part of the problem.

    • Tom Kratman

      That’s not the point, and of all people with no ground to judge soldiers, you stand pretty near the front ranks.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “That’s not the point”

      That was the point I was making to the person I was responding to. You may not find it *your* main point, but that is irrelevant.

      “and of all people with no ground to judge soldiers, you stand pretty near the front ranks.”

      I’m curious on what you base this conclusion, since you barely know me at all, save for the fact that we disagree on a large number of political points.

      And if agreeing with you on political points is required to be in a position to judge soldiers, then the “politicization” of the military you claim to call doubleplusungood has already happened, save that you don’t notice it because it’s in your direction?

    • Tom Kratman

      Because your military judgment, wherever you have expressed it or something like it, is so completely box-o-rocks ignorant that you couldn’t possibly have served in a real army.

      So tell me, do you think they had a right to violate AR 670-1?
      Do you think a general has the right to order young men to humiliate themselves?
      Do you understand what makes men actually fight?
      Do you understand that the incidence of women fighting is, at best, so trivial that no sensible country would stake its existence on it?
      Do you undertand that, therefore, is it on men that you must stake your defense?
      Do you understand that humiliatiing them, and especially for so spurious an objective, undermines their self respect, and hence their ability to fight?

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Because your military judgment, wherever you have expressed it or something like it, is so completely box-o-rocks ignorant that you couldn’t possibly have served in a real army.”

      In other words, “Because I disagree with you”.

      See previous post.

      As for the rest of your questions — I repeat: If their sense of masculinity and pride is *so* fragile that this is seriously damaging to it, we should not be depending on them in the first place.

      When it comes to wars of survival, women have often fought in them — and some of them to great distinction.

      As to “what makes men actually fight” — there are many different reasons, many different answers. If you’ve got just one, you’re doing it wrong.

    • Tom Kratman

      No, Steven, because it is simply ignorant. For example, your comment on it being humiliating for them that is the problem displays such a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of a military that ignorant is the best word I can come up with, that doesn’t partake of the other explanation, which is that you are simply evil.

      Evil, is, of course, possible, since you’re a radical lefty and they are the platonic essence of evil.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “or example, your comment on it being humiliating for them that is the problem ”

      The idea that we are treating “having something to do with being a woman” as this huge humiliation, that impairs soldier’s ability to do their jobs, is a problem. If you don’t see that, it is either because you are willfully blind, or lying.

      I suspect the former, but the latter is becoming an increasingly probable choice — that you know it’s a problem, but because it suits your political aims/opinions not to, you are lying about it.

      Disagreement with you, Mr. Kratman, is not a sign of evil. Or even of ignorance.

    • Tom Kratman

      Steven, in all the world there is no one so predictable doctrinaire and frankly stupid as you. Please accept this profound expression of my deepest sympathy. Understand that I have tried to help you, but your impenetrable skull has simply defeated my best efforts. I am truly sorry.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “simply defeated my best efforts.”

      If your best efforts don’t involve any evidence, any logical observation, but instead going straight to insults and dismissal, repeating it until you give up, I am sorry for you that they are so weak.

    • Tom Kratman

      That’s because insults and dismissal is all you deserve, Steven.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “That’s because insults and dismissal is all you deserve, Steven.”

      As always, I leave it to the readers to decide — and welcome, BTW, to the classic argument ad hominem, in its purest form: “You’re stupid, so I don’t have to discuss your arguments/positions”.

      One side has arguments; the other side has insults, dismissal, and logical fallacies. Take your pick, folks.

    • Tom Kratman

      Indeed, take your pick, folks.

    • Rick Randall

      Just because *you* wouldn’t find it humiliating is irrelevant. Just because people.who *choose* to wear those items wouldn’t find it humiliating.

      Nor does it display misogyny. I would feel equally humiliated if *forced* to wear many articles of clothing wholly unrelated to female fashions. Such as a Speedo and a Tapout wife beater.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Nor does it display misogyny.”

      Look around the comments on this very thread — the number of people who insist it’s humiliating *because* it’s “pussification”, or making them “womanly” or any such thing.

      “Such as a Speedo and a Tapout wife beater.”

      So, you’re saying that the U.S. army should take into account what each soldier would or would not find humiliating, before giving any orders?

      That’s what you’re asking for, here, in effect, by saying “some people might, and some people mightn’t”.”

    • Rick Randall

      It would be humiliating and a slam dunk sexual harassment chargecharge, carrying *criminal* penalties in a military setting, to order *female* (whether in uniform or in civilian clothes, with thr *very rare* exception of an undercover operation like a CID vice sting) to wear red stilettos (or, in fact, stiletto heels of any sort).

      And any rational, Western adult understands why.

    • James

      You have no clue how those around you actually thing do you?

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      god, you’re rad.

  • Ming the Merciless

    Questions… are cadets under military discipline? If they said, “forget this, I’m not doing it” what would happen (other than potentially loss of scholarship and ejection from the program)? Court martialed and sent to Leavenworth? Would any “disobedience”, even if it wasn’t overt (for example, not showing up for this fiasco), go on their “permanent record” and thus harm their future Army career? In short what would be the potential price for them of showing some pride in this situation?

    I could certainly understand them resigning en masse. Who wants to be in an Army that does this to you?

    • KenWats

      When I was a cadet, we were technically civilians- no UCMJ (with the exception of the guys who were in the guard as well as ROTC). Disobedience would hurt your army career in the sense of possibly losing your chance at a commission; possibly losing your scholarship, best case you’re ticking off your military science dept- which means less opportunity to shine, less chance of getting the branch you want (best case).

      My freshman year, two seniors got rowdy and were photographed in the middle of a brawl at a football game- making a good accounting of themselves wielding part of a goalpost vs. the police. They were shown the door and that’s about it- no UCMJ. They may have had to pay back their scholarships if they had them.

    • James Cochrane

      It all depends on whether the cadets were contracted or not, freshmen and sophomores in ROTC are only contracted if they are on scholarship, juniors and seniors must be contracted. If contracted, there ARE circumstances under which they could be subject to the UCMJ. When I was dropped from Army ROTC for academic reasons after the end of the Cold War, the paperwork I received from the investigating officer included a checkbox for whether the investigating officer felt I had willfully violated my enlistment contract and should be referred for an Article 32 hearing. A contracted cadet IS enlisted in the Army Reserves in the grade of “E1/Cadet” and must fulfill their contract by being commissioned, serving enlisted time, or paying back any benefits received. I don’t know how they handle non-scholarship cadets who fail to complete the program

    • Iron Spartan

      As a young and not so young buck Sergeant, I managed to beat some NJP by demanding a court-martial. Senior NCOs and officers involved did not want to have to justify their actions, as they weren’t exactly on the up and up, in an official inquiry so things were quietly dismissed with no official paper work.

      I doubt that a Cadet would have the understanding of the UCMJ to attempt such a high risk maneuver.

    • Tom Kratman

      Almost every cadet program has some prior service in it, so they should have.

    • Iron Spartan

      The difference may be that was willing to go down as long as I could drag them with me. I did not care. There were plenty of threats and bullying, but rather than cowing me they pissed me off worse.

      Kids who are just starting their careers are far easier to intimidate and do have a lot more to lose than I did at that time.

    • Tom Kratman

      It _is_ easier with them, yes. But I can’t accept that as a blanket excuse for their lack of virtu. If these kids are going to be officers, they should have demonstrated precisely that will and integrity and said, “We’re going to the mat on this.”

    • Iron Spartan

      While I agree with you, that is not the sort of traits the Army cultivates in its leadership any more, officer or enlisted.

  • Mark Andrew Edwards

    I swear there is some kind of institutionalized hate towards the Military or violence in general. A pathological fear of roughness, harshness and, yes, killing. Hate for men, hate for strength, hate for aggression.

    When I was a cadet (back in late 80′s, early 90′s) things weren’t quite this bad. Yeah I know, the eternal lament of the old man. But things are starting to spin out of control here. This is madness or stupidity.

    • Tom Kratman

      Or sheer wickedness

    • BCS

      Better than Kratman’s fantasizing and obsession with it.

    • Tom Kratman

      Tsk, projecting is one thing, but when the perfect idiot (you) as he exists in the mind of God projects, it is particularly disgusting.

    • BCS

      You write a column with comments dreaming about the extermination of millions of people who disagree with you. Anyone with a brain stem knows you’re the one wallowing in moral filth, he-bitch. Go wash out your jockey shorts, we can all see your war-boner.

    • Tom Kratman

      Wrong service, idiot.

  • George Kelley

    They’re out of uniform. Where is the SGM?

    • Tom Kratman

      Probably inspecting to make sure the red shines nicely.

    • KenWats

      Where’s the PT belts? Who knows what can happen if they aren’t wearing them!

    • Jack Withrow

      Knowing most CSM’s these days, they probably didn’t bother even with that. If that commander made a sudden turn, the SGM is probably having a broken nose attended to.

  • Scott Klette

    This idiocy is part of why I no longer encourage people to join the military. Even now, after having been out for over 14 years, this is personally embarrassing.

    • James

      I see it more and more. Fathers now try and make sure their sons and daughters won’t follow them. And even then if they do they emphasize the training and education so when they leave they have something.

  • Ori Pomerantz

    I was expecting you to point out that there IS a way to march to reduce rape, one that arguably would be improved by stiletto heels. Pounding somebody into the pavement might not be impalement as implemented by the Balboans, but it is still a way to visibly deter future rapists and reduce recidivism.

    • Tom Kratman

      If you catch them. None of this nonsense has the slightest bearing on catching them.

    • BCS

      Or the brass’ tendency to not investigate accusations, mistreat victims, let offenders off easy, etc.

    • Tom Kratman

      You don’t know much about the UCMJ, do you? And about as little about the armed forces, also?

      Explain, would you, the mechanism by which the brass lets offenders off easy? Please cite to specific instances.

    • BCS
    • Tom Kratman

      That’s not what i asked you for, though it is, at least, another increment of evidence that you are an idiot.

    • BCS

      “Instead of Helmer’s attacker being prosecuted, she became the subject of investigation and prosecution. She was ultimately forced to leave the Marine Corps. Her rapist remains a Marine in good standing.”
      Oops, like like I got a quote, he-bitch.

    • Tom Kratman

      So if a charge appears to be spurious, and about 3/5ths to 2/3ds of claims or rape and sexual harrassment in the armed forces are purely spurious, we have to let those who make the spurious claims off scot free?

      And you still haven’t answered the question, you idiot.

    • BCS

      You know, in football, you’re supposed to move the ball, not the goalposts.

  • Jack Withrow

    Col, Baring some miracle, I don’t expect anything to happen. No Congress Critter than I know of has picked up on this, so those Whores with Stars are going to be convinced they can get away with much worse. I predict within 6 months there will be an incident where much worse happens, and no one in power will think twice about it.
    Our society is rotten at its core and now our military is starting to give off that foul odor as well.

    • Anonymous

      You may well be right.

      My prediction is that when Hillary or Fauxcahontas Warren gets elected, we’ll see not only ROTC cadets, but active-duty service members forced to far greater depths of degradation–partially in support of the politically correct cause of the day, partly just out of sheer glee at knowing that they can do whatever they want. Maybe a full tranny march in high heels and makeup, to “raise consciousness” about the “crisis” of “transgender youth suicide.”

      We are, after all, living in an age where it becomes more difficult with each passing year to tell the difference between real news stories and gags from The Onion.

    • Tom Kratman

      No shit.

    • BCS

      Like the fact the you are like a less talented Clancy with rayguns?

    • Tom Kratman

      Best you can do? What an idiot.

  • Lawrence F. Greenwood

    Seriously? They were made to ear red pumps and then the TPTB try to deny it and say it wasn’t mandatory when it clearly was? The Left grows bolder every day. There feminizing the military!

    • Tom Kratman

      Maybe more castrating than feminizing.

    • Pugmak

      Cultural Destructionism.

    • Ciarog


    • Tom Kratman

      I’d be at least a little surprised if there weren’t some of that in there, too.

    • BCS

      Death threats and sexual fantasizing in one thread? Classy.

    • Tom Kratman


    • BCS

      Let’s see, implied death threats against Mr Schwartz and fantasizing about lesbians in the military.

      Never mind, I forgot you were the reason people want to kill Americans.

    • Tom Kratman

      You may daydream about lesbians in the military. I merely observe they exist.


    • BCS

      Then what’s the problem with “lesbianizing,” he-bitch?

    • Tom Kratman

      What the problem with your brain, idiot?

    • James

      This is in line with the over arching trend in the country. The pussification of America.

      Basically take the masculinity out of the country by destroying the idea of the masculine male. Make everyone obedient in the end.

    • Steven Schwartz

      If wearing red pumps is enough to feminize you, you weren’t terribly masculine to begin with.

      I find it interesting that we often hear about fragile femininity, but it’s so often masculinity that needs to be so stringently protected from being impugned/damaged/besmirched/etc.

    • Tom Kratman

      More humiliate than feminize.

      Tell me, Steven, if, in a gesture of solidarity with those poor defeated Nazis, some general said, “You will all, tomorrow, wear hakenkreutz armbands on your left sleeves, and replace your boots with jackboots,” would you be cool with that?

      You do realize, right, that politicizing the military is one of those really bad, doubleplusungood ideas?

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Tell me, Steven, if, in a gesture of solidarity with those poor defeated Nazis”

      Wow. It took you all of two posts to Godwinate. I’m impressed.

      The mere fact that you can draw a metaphorical connection between “women” and “Nazis” is…

      I’m almost at a lack for words.

      I mean, look at what you’re doing here, and *think* about it for a second.

      Oh, and BTW — if doing anything other than “what we have always done” is “politicizing”, then you’re going to have a problem no matter what you do — because that very “We have always done it this way, and to change it is political” stance *is* a political stance.

      And no: I would not expect the U.S. Army to display “solidarity” with a defeated evil ideology. I leave it to people like you to try and rehabilitate those who massacred U.S. soliders.

    • Tom Kratman

      Good, You should be at a lack for words. I predict the collective IQ of the world will rise as long as you are at a lack for words.

      The point there is that when you politicize them they become dangerous.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “The point there is that when you politicize them they become dangerous.”

      And the point, which you appear to be missing (perhaps deliberately), is that by establishing them as a fixed, unchanging point when the world around them changes, you are also politicizing them.

      You seem to think there’s some “apolitical” position in all of this. If there is, we need to figure it out from research, not presume that “Where we are” is the apolitical one.

    • Tom Kratman

      You have, then, a theory, on how being made to wear ill-fitting and unhealthy shoes that women impose on themselves, but which no one forces on them, somehow will add to combat performance?

      You have a theory on how illegally mixing items of civilian wear with uniform adds to their combat ability?

      I’d be just fascinated to read those.

    • Steven Schwartz

      ” somehow will add to combat performance?”

      “how illegally mixing items of civilian wear with uniform adds to their combat ability?”

      Because everything, every last little thing, has to improve combat performance or ability. There is no room, not a scintilla, for trying to, say, produce empathy for one’s fellow soldiers — or even for a percentage of the population.

      Or is it the empathy you object to, Mr. Kratman? Should we be spending every waking minute in honing soldiers into ideal killing machines, no matter what the results when we release them back into the civilian population?

      (On the other hand, perhaps this does explain you rather well.)

    • Tom Kratman

      Steven, as mentioned elsewhere here, nothing can fix you. You have your filters, they’re all in place, well fitted, and perfectly impenetrable. At least they’re impenetrable from the outside; you still have that clever valve arrangement that allows you to spew irrelevancies and logical atrocities. I cannot waste time or energy on you; you’re simply hopeless.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “I cannot waste time or energy on you; you’re simply hopeless.”

      I simply invite people to look at which of us is presenting arguments, and which one of us is presenting nothing but insults.

    • Tom Kratman

      Steven, you’re not presenting any arguments, you’re displayuing boilerplate dogma and utter ignorance. In your fantasies, perhaps those seem like arguments, but they’re really not. They’re just ignorance put on display.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Steven, you’re not presenting any arguments, you’re displayuing boilerplate dogma and utter ignorance.”

      It’s “boilerplate dogma” to say there’s a problem when marching in women’s shoes is so catastrophically humiliating that it affects the nation’s defense? I mean, come on — I see people from the right constantly going on about how the left is full of crybabies who can’t take a joke and ahve no sense of humor and should just “man up” and cope.

      But this — this is unacceptable. Either a) the idea of being associated with something female is *that* terrible, in which case we have a huge problem, or b) their masculinity and pride is so fragile that we have a huge problem, or c) a group of people are blowing something minor up into a huge deal to score political points with the military, all the while crying about how terrible it is to politicize the military.

      Those are your choices.

    • Tom Kratman

      That’s almost clever intellectual slight of hand. Almost.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Would that I could say that was almost a clever retort, but I’m afraid it falls far short.

      So that would be (c), then.

    • Tom Kratman

      See edit, above

    • Steven Schwartz

      Here’s the thing, Tom. You’re still just using the argument ad hominem.

      And when you do it to avoid being presented a choice, well, that just looks like you’re dodging the question. I’m perfectly willing to hear your (d), but don’t expect it to go unchallenged.

      But until you do, I’ll have to judge on my own merits, and I have a higher opinion of soldiers in the U.S. Army than either a) or b) admits; certainly a higher opinion of them than I have of your judgment or integrity, which makes option c) the choice that makes the most sense to me.

      As I said, I’m willing to hear your d), but if you don’t present one, I can’t base anything on it.

    • Tom Kratman

      As mentioned, you’re not really worth my time, even if I thought it was possible to educate you, which I do not.

      Question my integrity to my face, cocksucker.

    • Steven Schwartz

      I do not say anything here I would not say were we in person. When you present a statement about the U.S. army where the choices are “We have to treat our soldiers as if they are all misogynist bastards”, “Our soldiers are all fragile flowers”, or “Tom Kratman is politicizing something for his own ends”, I know which I’d pick.

    • Tom Kratman

      That would be most unfortunate, Steven. I mean _most_ unfortunate. I know you’re a lefty and therefore completely unfamiliar with truth or integrity, but you’re still arguably human so entitled to the warning. If, should we meet, you opt not to take the warning; it’s on your head.

      But you’re still an idiot, so perhaps you deserve a modicum of understanding.

    • Steven Schwartz

      And, Mr. Kratman, I assure you the consequences would be worse for you than they will be for me, unless you are the sort of utter lunatic who feels the right to kill someone for questioning your integrity.

      And if your integrity is so fragile that someone you feel deserves only insults and dismissal can damage it, I recommend that you either get a grip, some Valium, some ego armor, or a healthy dose of perspective.

    • Tom Kratman

      It’s not a question of fragility – that’s just more of your lefty rhetoric – it’s a question of importance. It’s not important to you because you’re a lefty and have no integrity, nor even an understanding that there is such a thing.

      As to whether I feel the right…morally you’re a cockroach. I really don’t care if you walk on two legs or not; you’re an adherent of a political philosophy so vile and murderous that blood still drips from your fingertips. The only reason not to step on you is that the law doesn’t agree that you’re just a cockroach; for the life of me I cannot understand why. So of course I feel I have the right. It would ordinarily just be too legally inconvenient.

      However, there are certain – oh, shall we say, “triggers”? – yes, triggers, that you are not bright or insightful enough to understand. If you trip one of my triggers – there are only two of which I am aware, it’s on your head.

    • Tom Kratman

      And that’s all I’m going to say about that, except that, if you have the courage of your convictions, find me – it’s easy enough – and trip a trigger.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “except that, if you have the courage of your convictions, find me – it’s easy enough – and trip a trigger.”

      I have no reason to. I don’t particularly want a physical confrontation; I will simply call you out when I feel you are being dishonest. If that happens in person, so be it. If not, so be it.

      You are the one who is trying to make this into “Oh, don’t you push me, don’t you push me.”

      I care very little about *you*, Mr. Kratman. I care about your arguments and your influence.

    • Tom Kratman

      Your choice.

    • BCS

      Your threats are adorable.

    • Tom Kratman

      Not a threat.


    • BCS

      “However, there are certain – oh, shall we say, “triggers”? – yes, triggers, that you are not bright or insightful enough to understand. If you trip one of my triggers – there are only two of which I am aware, it’s on your head.”

      Then what is this, he-bitch?

    • Tom Kratman

      Explanation and warning, as anyone who wasn’t an idiot would know. But then you _are_ an idiot, so I suppose one has to make certain allowances.

    • Tom Kratman

      By the way, Steven, _do_ you have any military experience?

    • Steven Schwartz


      And that’s all the detail you’re going to get; because I am not interested in playing Military Dick Size Wars with you.

      You see, Mr. Kratman, the fact that you have a rank doesn’t mean you’re not playing politics with soldiers. It doesn’t mean your judgment is correct about anything in particular. It means you have a rank.

      And when you get to the point of dismissing people as “ignorant” before you even ask that question — well, then on your own head be it.

      Funny — I thought all I deserved was “dismissal and insult” and yet you’re still engaging — indeed, trying to engage harder.

      What’s up, Tom?

    • Tom Kratman

      Yeah…I find it really hard to believe. Really hard.

    • Steven Schwartz

      As I suspected; you would only accept an answer you wanted.

      I don’t have to prove anything to you, Mr. Kratman. I will let people judge on their own.

    • Tom Kratman

      I’m happy with that, too, since they will, almost to a man and woman, say, “No way.”

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      i bet yours is bigger ;)

    • Steven Schwartz

      “It’s not important to you because you’re a lefty and have no integrity, nor even an understanding that there is such a thing.”

      I have it; that you are unaware of it, or do not believe in it, does not affect its existence.

      “As to whether I feel the right…morally you’re a cockroach.”

      The feeling is roughly mutual, at this point.

      “you’re an adherent of a political philosophy so vile and murderous that blood still drips from your fingertips.”

      So says the defender of fascism.

      You don’t know my politics, Mr. Kratman — only what you project onto me.

      “The only reason not to step on you is that the law doesn’t agree that you’re just a cockroach; for the life of me I cannot understand why.”

      Because the law, as do many people who follow it, understand things like differences of opinion, freedom of conscience, etc. Things which are in the Constitution you took an oath to uphold; apparently misunderstanding its nature — at least, that is the charitable interpretation.

      “So of course I feel I have the right. It would ordinarily just be too legally inconvenient.”

      Duly noted: Tom Kratman feels he has the right to kill someone who insults his integrity. Or believes in a political philosophy he disagrees with. And it is only “inconvenience” that prevents him from acting upon this.

      Rest assured, I’ll be sure to cite this the next time you attempt to present a front as a moral, responsible citizen.

      “If you trip one of my triggers – there are only two of which I am aware, it’s on your head.”

      No; if you have those triggers, and they are dangerous enough to be a serious threat to others, it’s your job to cope with them. I recommend therapy — it might help.

      Otherwise, you are just a dangerous animal, like people you’ve decried in other posts, waiting to trip over the line into being put down.

    • James

      Steven you aren’t presenting arguments. None. Your looping back around on the same claim.

      Not only that you never defend it.

    • Justin$Man

      you seem a little cray, like bvixen

    • Tom Kratman

      You need a new keyboard, that or to go back to school. I will leave it to you to determine which.

    • Justin$Man

      what do you even mean brother?

    • David Burkhead

      “produce empathy for one’s fellow soldiers — or even for a percentage of the population.”

      I’m a little unclear on what exactly, they’re supposed to be having “empathy” with? Is there someone of which I am unaware pointing large guns at women saying “wear these shoes or die”? Women choose to wear those shoes. If there’s any “competition” or “pressure” forcing them to do so, it’s with each other.

      So, what’s the message these cadets are going to be learning? “How stupid must the people who choose to wear these things be”? (Note: in reality I wouldn’t make that claim. It’s more about different priorities. “Looking good” as they see it is simply taken as more important than “comfort”. Fine. But when you actually force someone? That sends an entirely different message.)

    • Steven Schwartz

      “I’m a little unclear on what exactly, they’re supposed to be having “empathy” with?”

      Hm. The idea of concretizing a metaphor is clearly lost here.

      As evidenced by some of the people on this thread, and by the frighteningly high sexual assault rates in the military, there is a thread of significant misogyny within the Armed Forces.*

      Trying to break down this mindset, by doing things like trying to *reduce* the “OMG, it’s so humiliating to wear women’s shoes!”, or by giving people the experience of knowing what it can be like — some people would consider that a good thing.

      *I am aware that some people’s solution to the problem of sexual assault in the military is to remove all the women. This doesn’t help women around the bases, it doesn’t help the women soldiers will interact with after serving, etc., etc., and so forth. it’s rather like trying to solve the lynching problem with “if only *those people* would stay in their place, we wouldn’t have this problem.”

    • David Burkhead

      “OMG, it’s so humiliating to wear women’s shoes!”

      Forced. To be forced to wear.

      Nobody forces women to wear them. I know plenty of women who wear (my wife for one) who wear flats. No “fashion police” come along threatening to beat them with clubs (or destroy their careers) if they don’t wear heels. They choose to wear heels.

      On the one hand we have choice. On the other force. That pretty much destroys any “what it can be like”.

      But Leftists are so very much about force–so long as they’re the ones doing the forcing. So I can see how you might be oblivious to the distinction.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Forced. To be forced to wear.”

      So, is it humiliating to be forced to wear a uniform?

      Or is it OK because the uniform is manly and honorable?

    • David Burkhead

      One of the things I disagree with the good Colonel on is conscription. In any case, conscription in the US is a thing of the past. Perhaps a thing of the future as well–I hope not, but I do not completely exclude the possibility–in either case, it’s not a thing of the present.

      People choose to join the military and the wearing of uniforms that comes with it. Is there anybody who can pass the ASVAB and yet is so incredibly stupid as to think that when they sign on the dotted line and that does not include wearing uniforms on duty?

      People choose to wear military uniforms. Just like women choose to wear heels. Nobody forces them to sign on that dotted line.

    • Steven Schwartz

      And when they sign on the dotted line, they agree to wear *what they are told to wear*. Not “Oh, yes, I agree to wear those uniforms in particular”, but what they’re told.

      Which brings us back to the original point.

    • Tom Kratman

      What they are told to wear, as someone who served would know, is contained in AR 670-1. That regulation does not permit mixing.

    • Steven Schwartz

      ” as someone who served”

      I hate to break it to you, Tom, but there are many military services not covered by U.S. Army regulations. A few moment’s thought might bring a few of them to mind.

    • Tom Kratman

      Indeed? Quote me from your service’s regulations where they permit mixing civilian wear and uniforms and then explain how you, knowing that there are regulations, could be ignorant that they just might not permit the mixing.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Tom, you’re the one who seemed to think that citing one service’s recommendation covered everything. I’m just pointing out your provincialism and literalism.

      I’ll further point out that when someone joins up, a) I doubt many of them go look up the regulations on uniforms, and b) such things do, on occasion, *change*. When you join up, you’re choosing not to wear “those specific uniforms” but “What I am told to wear”. What that is may vary — it’s the surrender of control that was my original point.

    • Tom Kratman

      Steven, you are either aware that such regulations exist, in which case your posting was yet another exercise in left wing intellectually dishonest rhetoric, or you were not, in which case that “yes I served” line is revealed as bullshit.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Or c) I was mocking the fact that you conflated, probably out of simple lack of thought, “anyone who served” with “People who would know a specific U.S. Army regulation.”

    • Tom Kratman

      This is one of those odd cases where c) could be true, without making a) or b) untrue. You could indeed be mocking, but that wouldn’t change in the slightest that you were bullshitting about one or the other.

    • David Burkhead

      Military uniforms as defined by regulation not just whatever fetish apparel their commander or some random officer thinks up for them. You do know what the oath of enlistment has to say about obedience to orders don’t you?

    • Rick Randall

      No one is forced to wear the uniform
      The draft ended decades ago.

    • Anonymous

      If you don’t think that being forced to wear high heels and parade around in public like a bunch of AIDS-dripping tranny whores is humiliating, well… that explains a lot, actually. Never mind.

    • Steven Schwartz

      ” around in public like a bunch of AIDS-dripping tranny whores”

      And there we go. Enough said, when this is the reaction they get.

    • James

      LOL thats the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

      So tell me when the girl in that picture was laughing at them and they spent that money to buy those shoes and all the men around then smirked at them and called them who knows what…

      Yes I am sure that made them empathetic. I mean I am sure women face hatred at their choice in wearing heels all the time. It must be terrible.

      Now I am sure this won’t resent and anger them. I mean I am sure they will feel much more empathetic to the people who made them do such a thing. The women who made them do such a thing…..?

      But wait its about dominance and hatred so I mean making them resent women and…..

      Oh wait it would just make everything worse wouldn’t it?

      In fact I bet if you look you’ll find that work places where “don’t rape people you disgusting menmonkeys!” speeches are given there is a rise in distrust and unease among the troops of different sexes.

      I am sure that doesn’t affect anything for the worse does it?

    • David Burkhead

      “as long as you are at a lack for words”

      Unfortunately, he said “almost”.

    • Tom Kratman

      These things are always relative.

    • Allston

      He “Godwinated,” because it’s an exact and fair comparison.

      Sorry, Buddy, but elements of historical comparison are *not* “off the table” because you don’t like them.

    • Steven Schwartz

      DO, please, explain how “requiring soldiers to wear the uniforms of enemies of the United States” and “requiring cadets to wear women’s shoes” are exactly and fairly alike?

      (I’m not going to get into whether it was “required” or not; I’m more concerned with the larger issue here.)

    • Allston

      Both are in violation of uniform code; both would appear to be designed to demean and humiliate.

      Or did you never wonder why it’s referred to as a “Uniform?”

    • Steven Schwartz

      “both would appear to be designed to demean and humiliate.”

      Appear to you, perhaps. Why the generation of empathy (which certainly appears to me to be a far more likely motivation than “demeaning and humiliating” — remember, this is an order supposedly coming from a female officer; why they would find someone being treated like a woman “demeaning and humiliating” is beyond me.

      The fact that you seem intent on diminishing the difference between “wearing women’s shoes” and “dressing in insignia of enemies of the United States” is, to put it mildly, disturbing. If I said that the author of this post, who clearly finds women inferior (for some purposes) was exactly the same as Marc Lépine, I would expect people to (rightly) object.

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      I mean honestly, when I put on red pumps I feel remarkably like a Nazi! Wow! Thanks for explaining it Tom!

    • Tom Kratman

      Have we yet plumbed the full depth of your lack of understanding and insight? If so, good; now try this: it’s not that “heels = nazi;” only a total moron could make that connection. It’s that heels = politicization, in this context, and there is no principled difference, and equal danger, of politicizing the military as lefties as as nazis.”

      People, especially brain dead lefties, tend to forget that it was the Chilean Legislature and Supreme Court that asked the Chilean Army to get rid of Allende. Prior to that, Chile’s Army was about as apolitical as ours. Or as ours is supposed to be.

      So don’t fuck with what you don’t understand and cannot control. Does that help?

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      I love when you toss around irrelevant references! It really does make your IQ dick look huge. Great job!

    • Tom Kratman

      And now you can see why I don’t generally bother with you; you’re not just an idiot but an egregious idiot.

    • Bordeaux Vixen


    • Tom Kratman

      Oh, you’re so _devastating_, sweetie.

      Truth: I find it devastating that you were allowed to grow to adulthood. Maturity, of course, was never in the cards.

    • Justin$Man

      she seems a little cra

    • James

      Bordeaux, You really should read up on the world and its history.

      The US military is supposed to be apolitical for a reason. Take a look around the mordern world. Where ever the military is political thousands if not more die. They are constant coups, civil wars, etc.

      That’s why you don’t politicise the militarys

    • Bordeaux Vixen

      Oh, I found your prickture on the web! @tom_kratman:disqus, it’s a perfect likeness.

    • TimP

      Nazis can work, but a better comparison would be if the US forced the members of the Afghan Army to wear US flags instead of Afghani flags. There would be a LOT of complaints about that I imagine. And yes, some of it would be motivated by misoamericanism, but I’m _pretty_ sure that Col. Kratman would be arguing against it as well.

    • Tom Kratman

      As a PSYOP blunder of the first water, as, as a matter of fact, this little foray into feminist fascism was.

    • Lawrence F. Greenwood

      The issue is that these troops were essentially forced to wear them and take part with the cost possibly being a loss of there potential careers. Then the people who force it use semantics to say “We didn’t ORDER them to do it, they CHOOSE to do it.” while there is a threat behind there attending or not. Get tossed out of school or do it I think it came down too.

  • Rick Derris

    John Scalzi is REALLY excited by this development and now he wants to go back to college and seek an ROTC scholarship! He’ll likely fail the push-up standards, though, because (by his own admission) his daughter can lift more than he can. Guess we’re stuck with him staying in his writing career and putting out sh*tty books while wearing dresses and losing his hair.

    • J. C. Salomon

      More than just excited: he’s pumped.

      (Yes, that joke was the sole reason I posted on this thread. I kinda feel like a heel making jokes like that, but I was strapped for anything better.)

  • Randy Beck

    Important article! It needed to be said.

    I wonder how the heels thing would have played if they were trying to make a different point of some kind, and decided instead that it was the female cadets who needed to wear heels with their uniforms that day. (Okay, I don’t really wonder so much as know how it would have played.)

    • BCS

      Because it is highly unlikely that female military members are committing the bulk of the assaults.

    • Tom Kratman

      Ever since overhearing a half dozen Air Force females comparing notes on how best to set up a make boss for a charge of sexual harassment or sexual assault, in Eskan Village, KSA, in 1990, I have been very skeptical that the bulk of the alleged assaults even take place.

    • BCS

      Anecdote trumps statistics if you’re Kratman.

    • Tom Kratman

      It can when the statistics are rather spurious, yes.

    • BCS

      Yes, yes, leftist conspiracy, we can fake anything. Yadda yadda.
      Hypothetical: Would anything convince you that sexual assault in the military is a problem?

    • Tom Kratman

      Not successfully, you can’t, You can, however, and generally do, lie through your teeth, more or less continuously.

    • BCS

      Find a lie and quote it, he-bitch.

    • Tom Kratman

      That’s a collective “you,” aka second person, plural,. Idiot.

    • Randy Beck

      Claims against women: 10,400
      Claims against men: 8,500

      Source: Defense Secretary: 10,400 Male Troops Subjected to ‘Unwanted Sexual Contact’ Last Year

      And men are probably less willing to lie about such a thing (in filing legal charges, anyway).

    • BCS

      Love that your post and your link contradict each other, followed by a blatant misogynist claim.
      A lot of it is probably passed off as hazing or “boys being boys.”

    • Tom Kratman

      You’re too perfect an idiot to identify contradictions. The most you can hope for is to demonstrate that you’re an idiot.

    • BCS

      Sorry, he-bitch. Randy’s post said that there are 10,400 claims against women. The link said that there are 10,400 claims against men.
      So no accounting for hazing, huh? You’re probably just getting your panties in a bunch from this reminding you of the 1st time you crossed the equator.

    • Tom Kratman

      Doesn’t change that you’re an idiot.

    • BCS

      Willing to be called an idiot if I’m right, which I am.

  • BCS

    Got any other ideas for how to reduce sexual assault among military service members, which is at least twice what it is in the general population?

    Because it looks like you’re just being whiny here again…

    • Tom Kratman

      Actually, I’ve seen where it’s less common in the military, per capita, than, say, on campus. If it’s that widespread on campus, then it would seem the problem is America, not the military. If you don’t see that then you’re an idiot. Are you suggesting, however, that putting young cadets in optional items of female footwear will do something about rape? If so, you’re not just any idiot, but an idiot of the first water, the very Platonic essence of idiot, what Huxley had in mind with the Epsilon Double Minus.

      I do have a solution, however; hang rapists per Article 120, UCMJ. Note, however, that if we’re going to invoke the full power of the law, then proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, which, by the way, it rarely is with rape.

    • BCS

      Statistics of military vs. schools? Whether that’s true or not, aren’t the military supposed to represent us?

      Oh hey, you actually have a solution to the problem. Of course, you then caveat it about the supposed epidemic of false accusations.
      You never heard of DNA evidence? Jurisdictions everywhere have a years-long backlog of evidence; it wouldn’t surprise me if the military just threw their rape kits out, given how they tend to treat the accused.

    • Tom Kratman

      What would that have to do with where the problem lies?

      You’re not a lawyer, are you? Try this; how does DNA evidence tell the difference between sex with and without consent?

    • BCS

      DNA evidence+injuries+interviewing people involved = A pretty good way to determine guilt.

      Nah, only lived with them.

    • Tom Kratman

      No, DNA evidence is evidence only of intercourse. Injuries are not all that common, since that whole “death before dishonor” thing’s been cast aside. And interviews don’t work.

      You know where I said you were an Epsilon Double Minus? Yeah. I’ve revised my estimation of you downward. You are, in fact, the perfect idiot as he exists in the mind of God.

    • BCS

      You’ve never heard of interior injuries? It happens a lot when stuff gets shoved in holes that don’t want things shoved in them.
      Of course interviews don’t work for you; you’ve already stated your belief that accusers are probably liars.

      Aw, poor baby cannot handle proper procedure of argument. You should probably stop doing lines of gunpowder.

    • Tom Kratman

      And you still haven’t answered the question, you idiot.

Be Sociable, Share!