United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: U.S. Army FORCES Cadets to Wear High Heels to Promote Feminist Campaign
Source:
Prison Planet
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/u-s-arm ... promote-feminist-campaign.html
Published: Apr 21, 2015
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2015-04-23 13:17:42 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 20259
Comments: 95
Cadets at Temple University were threatened that their careers would be finished if they refused to participate in a feminist campaign to promote the completely debunked college rape culture myth by wearing red spray painted high heels. Imagine what ISIS or the Russian military is thinking when they see these images. Third wave feminism has poisoned EVERYTHING, even the U.S. Military. UPDATE: Infowars was contacted by a former US Army servicemember who told us that his unit – Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade – was also FORCED to participate in the ‘Walk a Mile in Her Shoes’ event in 2011. “I was deployed in Afghanistan during this time, but my comrades in the rear told me this event was a MANDATORY,” he writes. “As a former medic, I know that the only way out of this was to lie about injuries or pull some form of guard duty at this time.” CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#14. To: Deckard, liberator, GarySpFc, sneakypete, BobCeleste, CZ82 (#0)
An unlawful order for a few reasons: First such foot attire while performing military duties is harmful to a Soldier's feet, knees, and back. Second a commander cannot force a Soldier to wear clothing attire of the opposite sex. A commander CAN have a policy describing what 'proper attire' includes on his/her military installation (like no halter tops, cutoff jeans etc.) in public places like the PX or post bank. But he/she cannot prescribe the attire of the opposite sex as mandatory 'uniform' for an official event. If the Soldier, Airmen, Marine or Sailor voluntarily does so, then there is no foul other than destroying over two centuries of military tradition and good order and discipline. Lastly, and most important of the three reasons....This is just plain STUPID. Patton is rolling in his grave. Now I can see most of the Navy doing this voluntarily:)
No "order" was given. Don't believe things you read from Infowars.
It was mandatory for the U of Arizona.
Thanks....I did not see that. Edit: from your post: The whole thing is STUPID for whatever reason given. What is this modern day military coming to?
This has been coming in the AF since the 70s when they changed the testing system (for E5-E7) and added the (PME) Professional Military Education test. When they did this they made the PME test count as much as your career field test (100 points for each). This allowed some people to be promoted even though they weren't that knowledgeable in their career field. For the SRNCO promotion process they did away with the career field test, kept the PME test and would send you records before a review board. This board would look at your records and if you had the appropriate "brown noser" blocks filled (I.E. Base Commanders and Wing Commanders endorsement on your annual performance reports) you would get a higher board score than someone who knew/did their job better than you but didn't have the time to fill the "brown noser" blocks. So as you can see this lead to unqualified people being put in places of authority they shouldn't have been in. Reminds me of a lot of your typical run of the mill civilian government employee/politician. Now I'm not that familiar with the Army, Navy and Marine promotion processes so not sure if they are the same or slightly different.
We had a problem too in the Army until we went back to war as an Army. NCO (and officer)reports were highlighted with combat tour time AND how many Soldiers a leader actually leads. Before this change, you had supply NCOs and Corps Staff NCOs with no Soldiers under them rehearsing for every NCO of the month/quarter/year board and SGT Audie Murphy board that came up. As long as they looked good in uniform and had a bunch of education points and enrolled in college they did well. That tapered off after 9/11 when boards starting looking at 'fruit salad' of the combat variant and the number of Soldiers an NCO actually led and how that unit did in combat and training center rotations.
#63. To: redleghunter (#41)
Good, sounds like you guys wised up. But I'm curious as to how much resistance this met from those political creatures outside of the Army, those wanting to protect/reward their favorite "brown noser"?
You know all of this reminds me of the movie Heartbreak Ridge where that supply Major came in and was changing things all for the worse just because he hated the "Old Guard guys".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#19. To: redleghunter (#14)
An unlawful order for a few reasons...
The event was not mandatory for Temple cadets....
no command pressure had been applied to convince members to participate....
105 of the brigade's 120 members ignored it.
#25. To: Gatlin (#19)
#30. To: redleghunter (#25)
(Edited)
It was mandatory for the U of Arizona.
I will go back and dig further. ... but now it appears as though ROTC candidates at ASU were faced with a volunteer event that became mandatory.
#34. To: Gatlin, redleghunter, nolu chan and whoever was a Marine (#30)
What is this modern day military coming to?
#41. To: CZ82 (#34)
Now I'm not that familiar with the Army, Navy and Marine promotion processes so not sure if they are the same or slightly different.
Replies to Comment # 41. That tapered off after 9/11 when boards starting looking at 'fruit salad' of the combat variant and the number of Soldiers an NCO actually led and how that unit did in combat and training center rotations.
#80. To: redleghunter (#41)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]