> The leadership is more concerned with diversity and inclusion than combat readiness.
How exactly did you reach this conclusion?
How exactly did you reach this conclusion?
If you don't have time to verify/consider something then sure, probably don't get your advice from hitler. But in an argument its a cheap and disingenuous dismissal which doesn't actually bring you any closer to truth/resolution.
In this case it's a compendium of interviews from current personnel. Maybe the implication is that the data is fabricated but the only evidence provided is in the form of "the author has opinions I don't like".
Awfully convenient to automatically class anyone with an opinion contrary to your own as "unreliable". An excellent manufactured reason to avoid content produced by anyone from outside of your bubble.
For two, consistent anecdata from personal acquaintances and forum posts. The demographics are also completely changing. The military was until recently carried primarily by white men from small town America. Now white maleness is effectively a career handicap when genitals, skin color, and sexual orientation are considered for promotion.
I think the recent army advertisements are a valid proxy for the negative value that current leadership places on white-maleness. A military which is still majority white and male is releasing recruitment videos which exclusively feature minorities, females, and a healthy sprinkling of homosexuality. Here's a nice illustration, comparing recent US ads to those from Russia and China[0]. Only two of those forces are actually interested in recruiting competent soldiers, if these ads are any indication. China is laughing.
0. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM
Edit: the sister post by jimmygrapes found one of the reports/letters I was looking for. I urge you all to read it to see, among other things, what happens to morale when demographic considerations are added to promotion evaluations. What is reported is consistent with what I've been hearing from former servicemember acquaintances.
He first started talking to me about this "perceived issue" you speak of back in the beginning of 2019.
Has repeatedly stated is the most hilariously stupid white nationalist and incel-esque shit he's ever had to hear about or deal with
Along with the fact that everybody he's observed as a marine and a Navy BN spouting off about it is typically an obnoxious douche who everybody hates and is generally incompetent at some of the easiest jobs our government provides citizens.
So, after reading what you've posted, the theme of it seems to line up with his, his families, and all of his higher ranking friends observations - just another person butthurt about females and people who aren't white, likely because you feel you've somehow been wronged by them in life or have other issues you need therapy for.
But go on about this being the issue, and not many of the clearly observered, defined, and reported on issues that the Navy/US Military in general is facing. Hint: one of them is white nationalists, and the poor quality of service/general incompetence and questions about loyalty that typically come with them.
Losers is something I can recall him repeatedly referring to them as, but I'm not sure how appropriate that is for HN.
And, since we're in the thread about the Bonhomme - I'll mention he has some very nice footage of the fire from Coronado bridge.
How do you define recent? This was not the case when I was in the military almost 30 years ago.
There seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance or just ignorance about the fact the U.S. has singular counties, essentially close to singular cities, that have the same population of 13 states combined.
And, statistically, those in the lower population 13 states are more and more unable to meet the simple physical requirements of the U.S. military. To my knowledge, the past 5 or so years, the military has had serious recruitment issues because of things as simple as obesity metrics.
The military has disproportionately been non-White for a long time (largely, because even while actively racist for most of its history, it was less racist than the rest of American society), despite the White segment of it being disproportionately small town.
Its been disproportionately male, because it has been actively sexist and, unlike its racism, more actively sexist than the rest of society.
> Now white maleness is effectively a career handicap when genitals, skin color, and sexual orientation are considered for promotion.
Genitals, skin color, sexual orientation, and conformity with social norms of alignment of sex assigned at birth with gender presentation have always been a factor in military assignment, promotion, and discipline in the US.
For most of the history of the US military being White was a commanding advantage in that, being male was a commanding advantage in some areas, and a bright-line legal requirement everywhere else, and until very recently not being a cisgender heterosexual was grounds for being excluded from the service and drummed out (and criminally prosecuted) if already in.
The idea that these factors only started to matter when they stopped being a trump card for White cishet men is...amusing.