Boeing Exec Resigns Over 1987 Article Arguing Against Women in Combat

In woke corporate America, there's no statute of limitations on wrongthink.


Against a backdrop of cancel culture, what is the statute of limitations on being canceled for having once held opinions shared by a large majority of Americans? Boeing's top communications officer has resigned over an article he wrote for a military publication over 30 years ago. The piece argued against women fighting in combat, a position shared by 56 percent of Americans as recently as 1991.

In 1987, Niel Golightly was a 29-year-old Navy pilot. In an article for the U.S. Naval Institute's publication Proceedings, he took pains to come out in favor of workplace equality in civilian life. "A woman may have as much or more to offer in mental and manual skills as her male competitor; her uniquely feminine emotional qualities are largely irrelevent [sic], if not assets," he wrote. "Legislating equal access to those roles is imperative in a society dedicated to the free pursuit of happiness." But after running through a series of cultural and biological arguments against women serving in combat, Golightly concluded:

On a 5,000-man aircraft carrier where 19-year-old sailors are working 12, 15, sometimes even 20 hours a day on a blistering, howling flight deck where a simple mistake can kill even during routine peacetime operations, there is simply no room for the problem of sexual harassment, rape, prostitution, pregnancy, love triangles, and adolescent emotional crises that have plagued most Navy supply ships and tenders since the Navy began its experiment in coeducation in the 1970s.

Golightly had been at Boeing for six months when he tendered his resignation. He told The New York Times that he no longer opposed women serving in combat, a position reached by a majority of Americans in 1992, according to Gallup. A colleague of Golightly at his previous company, Royal Dutch Shell, told the Times that he "promoted female talent within the team and was an exemplary employee. … 'This is just astounding that something someone wrote 33 years ago should lead to termination like this.'"

The Times notes that Boeing has been rocked by "fallout" from crashes of two of its 737 Max jets in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people, as well as the downturn in air travel. Additionally, the company has recently dismissed "several employees" for making racist comments. David Calhoun, the CEO of Boeing, told the Times that he valued Golightly's contributions but also readily accepted his resignation. "I want to emphasize our company's unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel," Calhoun said.

Even in a world where art curators are forced out for saying they would continue to collect work by "white men," opinion writers leave plum posts complaining of hostile workplaces borne out of ideological zealotry, and leading liberal academics are attacked for being insufficiently woke, Golightly's case staggers the imagination. He no longer holds the views that led to his resignation, which can only be seen as forced. His expression of those views back during the second Reagan administration are starkly out of step with contemporary sensibilities but betray none of the rhetorical excesses one might associate with irredeemable misogyny. He has, apparently, a track record of promoting women under his supervision. Yet out of the C-suite he must go.

"Cancel culture" doesn't exist, we're told, yet we see its manifestations everywhere around us. If every thought and word ever uttered is open for reinvestigation, the present will be unlivable. Last fall, in discussing "wokeness" and politics, former President Barack Obama cautioned against creating impossible purity tests. "People who do really good stuff have flaws," he noted. Such basic wisdom has sadly gone missing, it seems.

NEXT: Cash Remains Healthy as the Pandemic Rages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why do people keep just going along with this shit? I guess maybe they gave him a bunch of money to just go quietly.
    Force them to fire you and make a stink in public. I'm pretty confident most people would still find this ridiculous.

    1. HR departments are chalk full of intersectional commies so this is what you get.

      1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website.GCe if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online..

        ===============►Home Profit System

    2. How many good people have left Boeing because of this kind of toxic atmosphere? The Boeing 737 Max has had two crashes due to coding errors in the plane killing 346 people. I think the various idiots in HR that Idle Hands mentions deserve a large share of the blame for those deaths for their creation of such a toxic culture in what was once one of the great corporations in the world and a national treasure.

      1. This also shows that companies are every bit as oppressive and vile as the government is.

        1. They absolutely are. My father spent his entire career in corporate America. I can see no difference in the culture of a big corporation from the culture in government. A bureaucracy is a bureaucracy.

          1. I am glad you were able to avoid the toxic corporate environment, John 🙂

          2. A corporation cannot compel it's customers to pay.

            1. It would if it could. It is every bit as inefficient and nasty. Bureaucracies are all the same.

              1. Yes and no. I deal with both. One is more focused upon fixing the problem while the other is more focused upon pointing blame.

                1. Because no one in corporate ever pinned blame or anything? Come on.

                  The only difference between the two is that the government has to show it's work in a way the private sector does not. In the private sector no one questions a decision that turns out to be correct. Steve Jobs could have said that the idea for the IPod was given to him by aliens and no one would have given a shit after the product made the shareholders billions. In government, the why matters in a way it never can or should in the private sector.

                  In government, any decision that isn't transparent and doesn't follow procedures, no matter how correct, looks arbitrary to the public. To give an extreme example, convicted a guilty man by a crooked trial may be justice but it is not acceptable government. Every decision in government is like that to some degree or another since any decision that someone doesn't like looks like tyranny if it is made outside of the process and not done in a transparent way.

                  The private sector has a little bit of that in the form of SEC regulations and such but it is the exception not the rule. This is why people who come into government thinking it can be run like a business always fail. It can't be run like a business because the process is as important as the end result. And that means government can never be as efficient as the private sector. The answer to that is not to try and make government more efficient. You won't without sacrificing its legitimacy. The answer to that is to understand the government is by its nature always going to be less efficient and limit what you expect the government to do accordingly.

                  1. I think we might be in agreement.

                    As I see it the difference between government bureaucracy and corporate bureaucracy is that the corporation can go out of business if it fucks up. When faced with a revenue shortfall, government can send out sheriffs of Nottingham to collect more. Corporations depend upon voluntary customers.

                    That creates a different bureaucratic climate.

                    1. Yes they can. But it takes a lot. A small business can go out of business because of bad luck or one bad decision. A big corporation can go on for decades of bad management before it finally goes tits up.

                      The business world is sort of like nature. Nature doesn't produce perfect animals. It produces animals who are just good enough to survive in their environment. The same is true of corporations. They don't have to be ideal, just good enough. And often not even that. It takes a lot of just good enough to sink a really big one.

                    2. No disagreement. Government however, as in the people who point guns at their customers and kill them if they refuse to pay for services that they neither need nor want, doesn't follow those rules.

                  2. No, the most important difference is that the private sector ultimately has to convince people to voluntarily pay for something--and then provide that thing efficiently enough to make a profit. That provides a check on bureaucracy and useless behavior.

                    Government has no such check, and merrily expands both bureaucracy and ineffective process, knowing they can mandate financial support and never have to prove a profitable outcome.

              2. It's true. It's just important to point out (for the trolls) that there is a distinct difference between a bureaucracy and a bureaucracy backed by the threat of force.

            2. A corporation cannot compel it’s customers to pay.

              I think you can agree that what you might see as a clear line can sometimes get fuzzy. There are Google "customers" all over rural counties and states paying for high(er) speed internet for urban and poor urban areas against their will.

              1. You can say "Bullshit, fuck you, up yours, get laid, eat shit, drop dead, jack me off, suck this. I don't need parts that badly, I'm not that sick." to a corporation.

                Try saying that to the government.

                1. You can say “Bullshit, fuck you, up yours, get laid, eat shit, drop dead, jack me off, suck this. I don’t need parts that badly, I’m not that sick.” to a corporation.

                  Told the local building inspector, "What are you going to do if I don't?" yesterday morning.

                  How about a bet/competition? I'll go find police officers, politicians, and various other state agents and employees and tell them to "eat shit and drop dead" to their face. You, on the other hand, have to go to retail and commercial outlets/stores and, to no one in particular but loud enough that people can hear, and say, "The white race is the best race. Minorities are scum."

                  Now, despite the fact that my utterances are more equivocal to commands or threats, we can use equal metrics. Something like every person within earshot counts as one point but every arrest or beating subtracts 10. Whomever gets the highest score wins. Sounds pretty fair, right?

                  So, sure in your corporation's regard for free speech and their reluctance to resort to violence, this contest should be a slam dunk for you, right?

                  1. The retail outlets will call the cops. Indubitably. I think your scenario is dumb. Sorry.

                    1. The retail outlets will call the cops.

                      Depending on the outlet. Plenty of them, especially entertainment outlets will forcibly remove you from the premises themselves. That's if their customers don't do it for them.

              2. "A corporation cannot compel it's customers to pay".

                The Trump rescinded mandate in Obamacare is exhibit "A". Shit, Obamacare in its entirety is the perfect example. A collusion of healthcare corporations and private equity so deep that an individual customer cannot purchase a catastrophic insurance plan to prevent bankruptcy. The Ds are going the Obamacare path towards housing, technology, energy and water/sewer. Just wait until your 500k condo presents you with a special assessment on maintenance and your water bill triples or more. 30 or 50% of the subsidized residents will pay nothing for the new roof or water/sewer. Equal outcomes!

                1. Yes, you get some fuzzy cases when corporations are that deeply entwined with government.

            3. They can make it so you're nearly impossible to actually pay anybody or accept payment.

              Ask the Gab founder how fun that is.

        2. This also shows that companies are every bit as oppressive and vile as the government is.

          Some are, some aren't. Boeing is so deep in the government's ass there is no practical difference.

          1. This.

      2. It's a sad (and common) situation when it's easier to get fired for some bullshit like this than for actually being bad at your job.

        1. Priorities; right now it's much more Kafka than Rand. Gotta bone of on that doublespeak and down on the wrong-think.

          Some other minion will do the work, until they are found out by the committee.

          1. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy.....ReadMore.

    3. "Why do people keep just going along with this shit?"

      They're not being rejected from the hive, are they? Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like they are admitting their sin to the church, taking their punishment, and continuing with their lives who share their faith in EQUALITY.

      To fight or question the accusations would result in banishment.

      1. I suppose that's probably the thinking. Or, as I suggested, they just pay them a lot of money to go quietly.

        1. Could be an inclusive or.

          1. For sure. My "or"s are usually inclusive.

        2. I pinged you on email, you get it?

          1. Yeah, I did. I've been terrible at responding to people lately.

      2. You are not wrong, you are mostly right. I had similar discussion with the girls on sex kontakte and I must say that we share a lot. All the best

    4. A shadowy stranger came to talk to him the night before, and then poof! He just up and resigned. Great premise for a novel.

    5. Obviously he was paid off or there would not have been an article about it. He was there 6 months as a senior VP…”If you go quietly you get a year’s pay”, I would take that deal not to mention if he was in the Navy in the 80’s probably close to retirement age anyway. Probably gave him extra to let them boast about it in the Times.

      1. FTA, he was 29 in '87. He is 62.

    6. HR is full of intersectional Karens.

  2. Don't worry. It will stop once we get all the offenders out of their jobs.

    1. That's quite funny there K-nut.

  3. 99 percent of the public was against women in combat back then. Stop caving in.

    1. Is anyone begging woman to serve in combat roles?

      1. Just Feminists who would never lift a rifle. They just want other women to do it.

        I only had one combat experience with women. They were shit. Even though they could pass the physical male standards, they lacked the stamina that the rest of us had for a basic foot patrol. We ended up Medevacing them half way through the mission. Affirmative action didn't feel good when we were told we'd have to wait out in the open because a few of our soldiers couldn't keep up.

      2. Some of the best mma fights recently have been women fights. Some women can scrap.

        1. Against other women. In a cage. At 75% speed.

    2. Actually 44% minus the fence sitters, according to TFA.

      1. Huh?

        The piece argued against women fighting in combat, a position shared by 56 percent of Americans as recently as 1991.

        1. Eh, got the question backawards. At any rate, not 99%.

    3. How can women be in combat roles when they can't even take 30 year old criticism objecting to women in combat? Waa Waa.

    4. There's also the underlying issue that women in combat roles is/was a proxy for social, cultural, and (for lack of a better concept) physical Marxism. If it's all rolled up in general scope creep, all the better.

      There were plenty of people who were leery of the "equality two-step":
      1. Admit women under equal standards.
      2. Root out inefficiencies per normal practices.
      3. Discover standards set for men lead to inefficiencies in co-ed groups.
      4. Adopt new standards based on co-ed groups that eliminate inefficiencies (and create others).
      5. Repeat.

  4. Is this even wrong think?

    1. Yeah, I didn't really think the debate was settled. There are still combat roles that women are not allowed in, are there not?

      1. With females graduating from SF, and serving on subs, it's hard to think of any large areas they're barred from these days.

  5. feelz > planes that stay airborne

  6. Meanwhile, Boeing can't even produce a safe reliable commercial passenger jet anymore. It also can't produce a space capsule that works.

    Those stories and this one are related. One of the reasons why the old Soviet Union and tribal societies in general (and politics is just a modern form of tribalism and tribal thought) was so incompetent is that people were promoted, hired and fired based first on politics and then maybe on competence. If you didn't hold the right politics, it didn't matter how competent you were, you would lose your job and likely end up in jail. Needless to say, an enormous amount of intellectual capital and competence were wasted as a result.

    Boeing and in other large corporations we are seeing the same thing. Sure, fire this guy for something he said 20 years ago and someone else for holding a view that offends some millennial animal in the HR department. Your planes will crash and no one will want your product, but everyone will be up to date on their Transgender awareness training.

    1. Have you watched "Chernobyl?" I thought it was historical, but perhaps prescient is a better description.

      1. I have. And yes. It seems like a large part of this country sees it as an instruction manual.

  7. "The piece argued against women fighting in combat, "

    So was Admiral Grace Hopper. She was against women being assigned to ships at sea. Her position was that the basic job of a sailor in combat was damage control, and women couldn't cut it.
    She was asked "Should women be allowed to serve in combat ships", and replied "Of course, not. Don't be ridiculous. They don't have the upper body strength necessary.".
    But everybody probably remembers her anti-woman history.

    1. Imagine being a 210 lbs guy who is on station with a 120lb woman when the ship is hit. You are knocked out and she has to carry you out of the section before they flood it and close the bulkheads as part of damage control. Doesn't give you a warm fuzzy does it?

      1. There are 150 pound men in the services.

        1. There are 210 lb women as well. Just because no men will have sex with them doesn't negate their existence.

        2. But a 150 pound man is much stronger on average than a similarly sized woman. Women cannot pass the fireman's carry tests at anything like the same rate as men.

          1. In high school the person kicked everyone's ass on the leg press was a chick with thick (an strong) thighs. Upper body vs lower body.

            1. I was on the weight lifting team in High School and I don't buy that for a second especially based on what I leg pressed and squatted.

              1. He's propagating the "women have better lower body strength" myth that actual records prove is nonsense.

              2. I don't care. She was a big girl and she could push some serious iron with those quads. Believe it or don't. It's true regardless.

                1. It’s true regardless.

                  No. It's not.

                  She beat you.

                  She did not beat "everyone"

                  But here's an FYI for you, that 'lower body strength' thing you hear about with regards to women--biowomen, at least, is literal. It refers to the lower body. Because of the muscles arranged to carry and birth a child.

                  It doesn't mean 'legs'. If it did, women would outstrip men in track and field events. They hold top spots in weightlifting.

                  And they don't.

                  So no, it's not true.

                1. Why would I lie? Seriously. I've got nothing to gain. There were like six people in the class. My graduating class was less than fifty. School served grades 7-12 with less than five hundred students.

                  How big was your class?

            2. In high school the person kicked everyone’s ass on the leg press was a chick with thick (an strong) thighs. Upper body vs lower body.

              Our women's HS track coach had unbelievable calves even by female bodybuilder standards. I mean she was average height for a female and it looked like she had two knotted fists on the back of each leg, it was astounding. She never worked calves directly except, about once a year, she'd come in to the gym and just shame everyone on the calf machine.

              Of course, despite being 10 yrs. her junior, more than half the guys and probably a couple of girls in the gym could easily move more weight further than she could, but she was queen of the calf machine. If you ever needed a couple hundred lbs. moved 4 in. by someone who could only use the lower half of their legs, she had your back.

              I'm sure if there's ever a bulkhead that's caved in and we need someone to get on their back underneath it and press it back out 16, or whatever, in. under a strictly linear ROM, we can call your girl friend.

          2. Shit, I would be happy with anybody strong enough to lift their carry-on bag into the Boeing overhead compartment. And then to take it down without dropping it on my head.

      2. Not to mention she may be in a snit about the shirt you chose to wear.

        1. Or not talking to the other related department on the ship, because two of the leading officers were in a passive-aggressive bitchfest between each other. Like exactly what had happened between the OOD and TAO on USS Fitzgerald right before the collision.

          1. And I see John got to that already, downthread. Oh well.

  8. Premise: Progressives don't believe misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, or racists should be allowed to hold positions of influence or authority in either the public or the private sector.

    Premise: Progressives consider opposition to abortion and women in combat to be misogynistic, support for a border wall to be xenophobic, opposition to gay marriage to be homophobic, and opposition to affirmative action and reparations to be racist.

    Conclusion: Because almost every conservative or Republican holds at least one of those views, progressives are utilizing cancel culture to purge conservatives and Republicans from all positions of influence and authority in both the private and public sector.

    Progressives are working to create a world where no one with opposing viewpoints will be allowed to hold positions of influence or authority, and for this reason alone, it is entirely appropriate for free thinking libertarians to vote for President Trump in 2020, not only as a rebuke to their intolerance for opposing viewpoints but also as a means to prevent progressives from using the government to further and enforce their goal of a world free of opposing viewpoints.

    1. I agree on all points Ken; so, if I may indulge my "wildest dreams in the hope that they will all come true" [to paraphrase a very silly independent movie from around '05] what will happen if The Donald does get to stay in office? I mean beyond the barrage of inquisitions related to paying off whores as might be found in his NY tax returns [as long as he replaces Ginsberg I don't much care]? Will the progs just double down and try all the harder to cancel everyone that falls short of their creed? Will the media go even more all out in their quest to communicate to us plebs what the elite wants us to believe and fully commit themselves to an open warfare or words? Will there be non stop rioting in various urban "free zones" bereft of police precincts?

      I have to say it makes it worth sticking around for a bit. Meanwhile I shall remain barricaded in my rural redoubt.

      1. When an army of Muslim religious fanatics overran their Persian neighbors, they found themselves in possession of an empire filled people who were not "people of the book". They weren't Christians. They weren't Jews. They didn't believe in the Old Testament. That wasn't supposed to be acceptable. Wiping them out turned out to be impractical, however. They were law abiding tax payers, and somebody has to feed this army. So, they declared that the Zoroastrians may not be people of the book but they had a book! So, the religious fanatics had to come to terms with reality--and they declared them "people of a book" and told them to pay taxes like the Jews and Christians under their rule. Over time, more and more of the Zoroastrians started to convert to Islam, which meant fewer and fewer of them were paying taxes. At one point, the fanatics passed a law that made it illegal for Zoroastrians to convert to Islam! They needed that revenue.

        My point is that the fanatical social justice warriors of today are pushing a view of humanity and their support that is far beyond the scope of what is practical and realistic. Just like the religious fanatics of old, they will need to come to terms with reality. Reality eventually reasserts itself and has its way with us. That's what happened in the Soviet Union. That's what happened to the Muslim fanatics who overran Persia. That's what happened to the Cultural Revolution in China. That's what will happen to the social justice warriors and their purges. Let's hope we can avoid some of the excesses, but if the social justice warriors can't drum up enough support to win national elections, then they'll just have to deal with the reality of a lack of legitimacy. And one of the consequences of that is a loss of influence.

        If they do manage to win a national election and implement their program, the reaction against them will be severe.

  9. This is just astounding that something someone wrote 33 years ago should lead to termination like this.

    Someone hasn't been paying attention lately.

  10. "starkly out of step with contemporary sensibilities but betray none of the rhetorical excesses one might associate with irredeemable misogyny"

    I know this is Gillespie, but he's doing a Soavian "to be sure." What sort of rhetoric would have been out of bounds, or served as an indication that his misogyny either didn't exist or was "redeemable"?

    "Imposing a social experiment on the military? Are you crazy?"

    And out of step with contemporary sensibilities or not, has the position opposed to women in combat been authoritatively refuted? Or has it merely been shouted down? (which under the modern scientific method seems to be the way arguments are refuted)

    "Last fall, in discussing "wokeness" and politics, former President Barack Obama cautioned against creating impossible purity tests. "People who do really good stuff have flaws," he noted."

    People simply have to redeem themselves by embracing Democratic politics. Like Robert Byrd.

    1. Here's the key part of Obama's speech:

      'If we are launching purity tests and say "You can't be a part of us," we'll have such a small party, we won't be able to win.'

      I sure hope that's true - assuming he's speaking about the Democrats - but who knows?

      There's certain political benefit to boldness and aggression, especially against opponents who are disorganized and vulnerable. Maybe the SJW crowd is relying on this.

    2. "Or has it merely been shouted down? (which under the modern scientific method seems to be the way arguments are refuted)?"

      As was the study recently published by MSU academics that found no racial disparity among people shot by police? Peer reviewed and respectable journal, but that shit just can't fly nowadays.

      1. You just don't understand. In modern day "truth" and "facts" have no correlation to each other. Truth is absolute and facts only exist to either support or undermine the truth.

  11. So how is Biden the Democratic nominee after things he said 40 years ago?

    1. That's different.

    2. The actual candidate will be the woman anointed by the party elite to run for VP. Ol' Joe will be lucky to have time to order Presidential stationery before the amendment 25 articles hit his desk.

      1. Count on it. Madame President Stacy Abrams; way better than a mere governorship.

        I will then have to decide how far I am able and willing to go off the grid, once the BOR is suspended due to declaration of climate/ racial/ gender or whatever emergency gives them the screen they want.

      2. I'm betting that the script for the inaugural ceremonies on January 20 will provide for invocation of the 25th Amendment, right after Joe and his VP are sworn in.

        1. They might have to swap out a couple of cabinet officials, but yeah.

          Also please note that article 4 allows for designating an "other body" by law. Given ol' Joe won't get in unless the democrats sweep the legislature as well as the White House, you could see a law designating the DNC as the group that determines if any given President is fit for office. Cool.

          1. And after the new VP takes over, they get an article 25, and Nancy moves in.

  12. It's a Monty Python skit on the Spanish Revolution, except it's fucking for fucking real.

    1. Inquisition I meant.

      1. Coming soon, to a venue near, very near, you.

        Meanwhile thoughtful, sensible, and seemingly educated and concerned Americans are delighted with the developments. We can so do better than this.

  13. Semi OT ... I was on a carrier before women were allowed on combat ships, and from what I have heard, now about 10% of the crews are women. I must be out of step; I simply can't image the daily drama of 9 guys chasing every women. If one carrier had half men, half women, things would go a lot smoother -- says my instinct. But 10% is just begging for trouble.

    I'm curious as to how it works out in practice.

    1. I've read about pregnancies on carriers, but not on smaller vessels. Maybe the difference between a crew of a couple hundred, a village where everyone knows each other, vs a few thousand on an aircraft carrier, might make a difference.

      Just a thought.

      1. Listen we get that you're trying to post a lot because you're upset your name was stolen, but try to save your energy and post quality.

        1. You can stop sucking my dick now.

            1. Before that article I'd never heard that expression.

              +10 points for using it.

    2. I simply can’t image the daily drama of 9 guys chasing every women.

      Bingo. Women set themselves up as queen bees and manipulate the men to no end. And they also fight with each other. It is nearly impossible to maintain a professional environment and military discipline in such circumstances.

      To give an example, a few years ago a US Navy destroyer collided with a cargo ship off of Japan. It turned out that one of the reasons for the collisions was that the officer in charge that night on the bridge was not speaking to the tactical action officer who was in charge of the radars and the tactical control center of the ship. It was two women who were in some kind of personal beef over a guy. There were a lot of other things wrong with that ship, but that was one of the main things that caused the collision.

      1. Women drivers.

      2. Got a cite for that? a quick search yields little detail

          1. McCain was off Singapore; Fitzgerald was off Japan. It wasn't a good few months for Seventh Fleet...

    3. When I was in Iraq with an armored Cav squadron we had over 600 guys and less than 10 females (four from a signal company for support, two from a ROWPU unit and a couple from Charlie Med assigned to supplement the medical platoon). I would say that 90 percent of the discipline problems on the FOB originated from that handful of females.

      1. Let's put a bunch of young men out in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do when they are not working and introduce ten women into the equation. What could possibly go wrong?

    4. Easy, the women are all lesbians.

      1. You're telling me you've never met a lesbo who didn't like dick now and again?

      2. 'Course I've never met a homo who liked pussy now and again, so maybe they weren't lesbos. Think before posting, sarc.

        1. I literally just told you that.

          1. I literally thank you and simultaneously don't care.

            1. Yes you sound like you dont care. A lot.

              1. At this point I assume you are Tulpa, and I lay a steaming turd on your doorstep. Until I have reason to believe different, you're nothing but a worm.

                1. You know what they say about assuming.

                  It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

                2. Yes, he is the “ The White Knight”. I’m the real deal, and I’m just getting around to looking at what silliness Tulpa has posted in my name.

                  Reason hasn’t fixed the spoofing bug, by the way. I just tried it and I was easily able to spoof JesseAz’s handle.

                  If you really have pull with Reason management, tell them they need to check handles for unusual Unicode white space characters such as HAIR SPACE. Also, capital I and lower case L look the same in the font they use on the site.

                  Tulpa probably has lots of other tricks.

                3. One way of knowing that it’s Tulpa: I never use obscenity or personally insult anyone.

    5. Well, its not 9 men to 1 woman. Some of the guys are gay and some of the girls are lesbians. Hard to predict what the math would turn out to be though.

      1. Despite SCOTUS's best intentions gay/straight doesn't actually change the male:female ratio.

        I haven't known a lot of rapists, I've never heard of one asking if their victim was of the 'correct' orientation first.

  14. Let he who is without sin cancel the first misogynist, homophobe, racist, or just plain person.

    1. Doesn't seem to work that way, at least not much; but I am reminded of some dip shit who tried to call out a company for something similar decades ago and someone found pics of him in front of a cooler with a confederate flag on it.

      You have to dig, like they do.

  15. I would add that this is not simply about whether women *could* efficiently fight in combat, but...gasp...whether they *should.*

    1. I am still hoping for the movie theatre chains (AMC, Cinemark, Regal) to reopen in time for Unhinged, HERE►...ReadMore.

  16. I am a crazy liberal who is in favor of the cancel culture, but even I think this is too far. People do change over 30 years and we need to judge people on their more recent statements and actions.

    1. The real members of the Thought Police, like Molly O'Brien here, know that you have to reintroduce the converted back into the collective as an example to their peers. Freedom is Slavery.

    2. Welcome to your revolution. Hope this happens to someone you love and rely on.

      1. It did: Al Franken, a true voice in the Senate for the common person. He will be greatly missed.

        1. Help me out here. Are you fucking for real, or just trolling here?

          As if OBL doesn't already have enough competition.

          1. Every one here is a troll; why else would they be on a 'libertarian site for trolls'?

            Yes, including me.
            Welcome to the revolution.

        2. LOL! Fantastic trolling! Right up until Al Franken, I was biting. That doofus was castrated and his balls were probably fed to Pelosi's cats.

          I think that hook is gonna leave a scar...

    3. People do change over 30 years and we need to judge people on their more recent statements and actions.

      Do we do so in an equal fashion or is David Duke still a horrible person while Roger Ayers and BLM rioters are just misunderstood?

      1. Joe Biden, General, don't forget Joe Biden.

  17. Um, just a minor point of order...

    The article says numerous times that he "resigned". An unnamed source says it was "termination". In another place, his resignation "can only be seen as forced".

    So, which is it? I think that's pretty important before we grind these pearls down much more.

    1. I feel like it's safe to assume in situations like this that a resignation is the more lucrative or dignified alternative to just getting sacked.

  18. Senate Republicans and the Donald need to cut the Boeing bank off today! We'll see.

  19. I wonder if former presidents Clinton and Obama have ever had a lucrative speaking engagement cancelled due to there old views opposing gay marriage?

  20. He said that in '87? I'm surprised he survived the Tailhook scandal.

    And even Navy pilots are going down without a fight.

  21. I ate a burrito without hot sauce in 1985.
    Does this mean I won't get promoted at my job?

    1. You culture appropriating piece of shit....
      Better not let anyone at your work know.

  22. Live on your feet or die on your knees. To paraphrase the Office, the fallacy is that it's up to the steamroller - it's up to the one being steamrolled if they will comply. If you won't hire a lawyer and sue the company and teach the fuckers a lesson then what can anyone say after.

    The internet makes a convenient vehicle to trash people's reputations. It is time to end section 230 and make those internet companies completely responsible. That will end the trash talk, trolling, virtue signaling, and abuse that is rampant. When the company has real liability they will have no choice. Companies that advertise there should do what FedEx just did to the lousy DC football team.

    TwitFakeBook can go back to being a place for cat memes and family pictures.

  23. Wow he didn't think women should die for the military industrial complex. What a monster!


  24. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click For Full Details.

  25. The original reason for this article, women in combat, still needs debating. Women on navy ships keep getting pregnant. Women in infantry can't carry a wounded soldier to safety or pick up artillery shells. In the Gulf War, a single woman (jessica something?) captured essentially held our whole country hostage and required a commando raid.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.