Army maternity wear ‘is not fit for purpose’: Bosses forced to spend thousands to improve kit after complaints from angry mums-to-be

Give me strength. Will someone please remind me of the point of having women in the military? Our nuclear submarines are being adapted at a cost of over £5 million each to accommodate female sailors. How long will it be before we have the first underwater immaculate conception, requiring the submarine to take the woman bearing the miracle foetus to shore? This country’s enemies must surely be crying with laughter at what’s going on in the military in the UK.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Mike, women are going into the military to SAVE money. Look at it this way: if a women’s brigade from one army gets into combat with a women’s brigade from another army, they won’t incur any expenses firing bullets at each other, they’ll simply spend hours scratching each other’s eyes out, and that’s cost effective!

    No, seriously, you’re absolutely correct: our country’s enemies must be crying with laughter at what is going on.

    BTW, No woman could go into combat with a bump like the one in the Daily Mail picture, and I wouldn’t want her to.

    (PC addicts please note: I have used hyperbole in the above first paragraph).

  • The US has of course gone further down this road. With some predictable effects. Most notably a surge in pregnancy prior to lengthy overseas deployments ( meaning of course the pregnant service woman avoids the deployment) . This was noted a decade ago in the US navy and probably influenced more secrecy about planned deployments . I still am uncomfortable with putting women in harms way. But equity demands women should be able to volunteer , meet equal criteria and make equal commitments . What is clearly discriminatory is that males have to meet higher standards in every way. The fact fathers can’t avoid deployment by their wifes pregnancy clearly shows there are physical differences between the sexes as fact. Yet these inconvenient facts get skirted around or sorted of “airbrushed” out. It is interesting that in interviews with service women often the exceptional women who want to fully commit are scathing of their “sisters” who clearly manipulate the situation. It is beyond me why it can’t be accepted that “hard” professions will always only attract a small number of determined and exceptional women , and simply leave it at that .Rather than some weird idea of “representative” . After all actually the same is true for men, only a small proportion of the male population is in the services, it’s just that there’s many more such men than women. A frankly I’m grateful that these people do want to face dangers, so that I and my family don’t have to.

  • Over coffee . Got to thinking; are military uniforms and fatigues generally meant to be “flattering” ?
    Seeing as the unflattering ones aren’t “fit for purpose” it would seem so. Nice to know that more is required than mere functionality.

  • Mike, there may be no point of having women in the military, but, when we’ve been bamboozled for over 40 years about ‘equal opportunities’, surely females can’t be allowed to cherry-pick all the cosier jobs/professions. It is my belief that, were more women to be killed-in-action, people would wake up to the obscenity of war generally and some conflicts in particular.