The US Navy overturned 241 years of tradition recently when it officially abolished all job titles for enlisted personnel.  The decision has turned out to be extremely unpopular, and by the time you’ve finished with this article, you’ll understand why.  The change was ultimately ordered by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, but the original idea came from the top enlisted man Master Chief Petty Officer Mike Stevens.

For those who don’t know, the US Navy uses descriptive titles to describe specific job functions:  e.g., aviation ordnanceman, hospitalman, legalman, naval aircrewman, aircrew survival equipmentman, etc.  The “problem” with these job titles is that many of them have the letters “man” in them. And that, of course, is deeply offensive to the guardians against political incorrect heresy.  Therefore—in Secretary Mabus’s world—the job descriptions have to go.  And just like that, 241 years of tradition are consigned to oblivion.

To those tempted to say, “So what?” or “What’s the big deal?,” I would remind them that these job titles are part of naval and maritime traditions that date back many centuries.  Naval warships are their own self-contained world, and these job titles become part of each sailor’s identity.  Tradition matters in this world—despite the fact that this is not understood by the pencil-necked geeks in Washington—and to tamper with it without any advance warning shows just how little respect the civilians who run the Navy really have for it.

And beyond that, it shows a deliberate attempt to erase masculinity from naval tradition.  Words matter, and they matter more than people think.  Language is being used to elevate women at the expense of men in an area that has always been—and will continue to be—a masculine world.  Mabus himself only served in the Navy for twenty-four months.  He was also the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.  He authorized the naming of naval ships after gay rights leader Harvey Milk and US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, neither of which were military heroes.  It’s difficult to imagine inspiring a sailor’s fighting spirit being inspired by serving on a vessel named after either of these two people. Mabus, as I see it, has insufficient respect for naval tradition and never should have been made Secretary of the Navy.

mabus3

Mabus actually named a naval ship after Gabrielle Giffords. She is neither a naval nor military hero, but someone who was shot by a lunatic

Promoting “gender neutrality” has been a big focus of Mabus’s tenure as Secretary, and he’s made no secret about it.  This change was announced quietly on September 29, and the reaction has been near-universal outrage and disgust.  And justifiably so.  Stevens—now safely retired with his own fat pension, of course—says he was supported fully by the top admirals.

Of course he was.  Everyone at the top knows the way the political winds are blowing, and will not hesitate to throw their men and their traditions under the bus when it suits their own career advancement.  It’s an old story, about which more will be written when the United States loses its next major war.  Until then, all we can do is stew in our rage.  Sailors in the fleet feel angry and betrayed; a petition to reverse the decision was begun in early October and has already gained 66,000 signatures.  Once that number rises to 100,000, the decision must be reviewed by the commander-in-chief.

The timing of the decision lends itself to speculation.  This year is an election year, and Mabus is likely to be out of his current office no matter who wins in November.  Why was this done now?  Of course Mabus and the top brass have trotted out all the usual diplomatic palaver to explain their decision:  it was done to help sailors “cross-train” and “improve their job performance” and even, incredibly, to “help them transition to civilian life.” As if the point of the military is not to fight wars, but to prepare enlistees and officers for “civilian life.”  Unbelievable.

mabus2

Mabus also tripled maternity leave for women in the Navy and Marines

But for the men who are affected by this decision—and make no mistake, it is men, not women, who fight wars—the message couldn’t be clearer.  That message is this: you don’t matter.  We don’t value you.  You exist as props for our social engineering agenda.  But it doesn’t just stop there.  Despite all the bending of the rules of nature and biology, and despite all the legislation and game-rigging that has been going on for years now about the gender issue in the military, some people say that men still need to do more to help legislate themselves out of existence.

One recent LA Times article entitled “If We Really Want Women In Combat, Men Must Do More,” writer John Spencer asserts that men still aren’t doing enough to help women step on their heads and walk over them.  Spencer at least is willing to acknowledge reality:

All close combat units have high entry standards. Infantry troops, for example, have to be able to carry heavy weights on their backs over long distances. The physical and mental demands of close combat are extreme. The job is not for the average soldier. A year-long Marine Corps study found that all-male infantry units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate wounded soldiers in less time than mixed-gender test groups. Simply put, the study found that the average man was stronger than the average woman.

Despite this, however, Spencer is unwilling to draw the necessary and logical conclusions.  Instead, he retreats safely into the gender-neutral, politically-correct fantasy world of the US military in 2016.  He sternly lectures us that

Because it’s crucial to maintain the same physical standards for men and women in close combat assignments, the military should put into place long-term physical training programs to help women develop the abilities to meet those requirements.

So now men are supposed to “help women” overcome the limitations of their biology.  And then we are treated to the boilerplate admonition that we as men must “step up,” take the initiative, and participate in our own marginalization and obsolescence:

The military must identify the best female candidates in high schools, colleges and military academies, sell them on the importance of their presence in the newly opened combat roles and get them proper training. Military men — husbands, bosses, coaches and friends — can help on all those counts.

If men don’t step up, we risk that so few women will apply for close combat jobs that their value will be little felt on the battlefield, or worse, that the women who are accepted will only just make the cut. That could confirm the biases of those who think that women never should have been on the battlefield in the first place.

I’ve always believed that the most dangerous forces operating against the modern man are the careerist delusions and willful treachery of other men.  These men are all the same:  they parrot and enforce the party line, and it’s all done for reasons of narrow self-interest.  And make no mistake:  social engineering is fully underway, and it’s being done quietly, in the hope that most people won’t notice.  But you can see it, if you know where and how to look.

To those pushing this gender-neutral agenda, nothing men do is ever good enough.  More sacrifices by men always need to be made.  More hand-holding of women always needs to be done.  Of course, there is never any reciprocal obligation intoned on the part of women:  that would be heresy.  The modern women has no gender responsibilities, as any Western man of dating age quickly finds out.  The needs of men are irrelevant.

The US military has not really fought a war of survival since the Second World War.  All this social engineering nonsense, I have argued before in these pages, is a luxury of peace.  It will go out the window once the first real fight comes along.  That is, unless we’re not so hollowed out and gender-neutralized that we can’t even fight back against a determined enemy.  And in the meantime, many people will die unnecessarily, and a great deal of money will be wasted in misguided efforts to change biology and human nature.

I was just reading this weekend, for example, that the US Marine Corps is going to be phasing out it’s  time-honored slogan “The Few, The Proud.”  Some may think this means nothing.  But it does:  it very much does.  Wait till you see what they replace it with.  I can only imagine.  I’m sure it’s going to be some gender-neutral, aseptic, chickenshit mantra.

Yet one day men will wake up and find that they’ve been marginalized right out of the military, the workforce, and almost everywhere else.

Read More: 4 Gender-Swapped Fair Tales For the 21st Century