Belinda Brown: Women as combat soldiers? We don’t need an equal opportunity to kill.

An interesting new piece by Belinda Brown for The Conservative Woman.

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.
  • Excellent article, but it worries me that the implication is that women can pick and choose which bits of ‘Equality’ they want. You can almost hear them saying; ‘When we said we wanted equal treatment, we didn’t mean this!’ And here’s the other thing, if females were coming home in body bags, on stretchers, minus limbs, in even a fraction of the number of male equivalents, there would be such an outcry, maybe it might wake people up to the obscenity of young people being put in harm’s way to satisfy the needs of a war-mongering, ruling political class.

  • I too think this article is a very good read. She raises an interesting point with regard to paid carers having to physically support people. Mrnotums I’m with you on the idea of equity. It seems fair to open all roles to whoever can meet the requirements. The important thing is to set standards for the job/s and then apply them. The result may be very few women pass if there are strength requirement, just as there may be few men with the dexterity to work in dressmaking. Obviously there may be qualities that men or women tend to have. But if these are important then they should be selected for. The result may be a few women reach the standard for much of the armed forces, then so be it. 
    I do agree that the high value placed on women in our society could cause problems, but as you say it may not hurt for decision makers to be more circumspect about hazarding young lives.
    So I too support the idea of women combat soldiers where they are up to a uniformly applied standard. 

    • I’m against the idea of women front-line soldiers because men are hard-wired to protect and support women, and would doubtless do so even if it means compromising their mission and putting many other lives at risk.

  • I don’t disagree Mike , but it’s that “hard wiring” that supports the White knightery of male disposability . This needs to be confronted or we will continue to see in-justice meted out to males , by males, to ” protect” females. I don’t see our society moving on without the full consequences of our current course of equality( the same outcome whatever the cost) being laid bare. When I was young one of the constant charges made against the communist world was “barbarism” evidenced by the way many communist countries had women working on roads, heavy industry etc. And communist groups had many female fighters/ terrorists. Perhaps going to these logical ends of women being in all parts of our society the ,glass cellar to vicious guerilla wars, will cause greater reflection. As it is there is “cherry picking” with men in almost every sense paying for women’s rights to pick and choose. Men still fulfill their protecting role and women do no more than dabble in the hard stuff, secure in the knowledge that the disposable sex will step in if necessary .