Earlier today we posted a piece about the surrender of the US military to feminists. The US has evidently decided not to remain a military superpower, but to use taxpayer’s money – mainly male taxpayers’ money, needless to say – to convert the military into an ever larger job creation scheme for women. Military efficiency and effectiveness are no longer the big issues.
William Gruff, a supporter, posted a response that we thought so good, it deserved a blog piece of its own. It takes up the remainder of this piece:
Recently (a week or two ago) I read a news item regarding the number of women ‘sailors’ that have to be airlifted by helicopter, at very great expense, from Royal Naval ships because they are pregnant. My father is ‘ex RN’ and kept in touch with things Royal Navy for many years, hearing, from friends who were still serving at the time, as well as stories from relatives serving on ships more recently, that wrens are a very serious liability and not at all up to the job of crewing a fighting vessel.
I recall reading decades ago, when the matter of women on warships was being considered, and contested, letters to the papers from wrens that showed their understanding of shipboard life to be away with the fairies and up there in cloud cuckoo land, seemingly believing that they were bound for one long and glorious, tax payer funded pleasure cruise. One wrote of leaning over the ship’s rail and watching dolphins gambolling in the bow wave (I swear it’s true), another wanted to assure the readers that if she was sitting at a radar screen and she saw a dot and she knew that dot was going to attack her ship she would have no hesitation in pressing a button and destroying it. That’s what they think manning a ship and fighting a battle is like – quick, clean and efficient, with no risk to themselves.
The reality is that they fail at even the simplest tasks and have to be cosseted and assisted constantly. I heard, a long time ago, shortly after women were first posted to ships’ companies, a chief petty officer say that if he had to send a wren to handle a mooring line he had to send two, because one was not strong enough to handle the rope, and a man to supervise and prevent them from making a mess of things (presumably by stepping in just before it all went completely tits up, although not so soon as to undermine the women’s unrealistically inflated self-esteem). Far more serious was the report, not too long ago, of a wren who was one of a damage control party sent to fight a fire that was raging in a compartment. This was not a training exercise. The wren became hysterical as they prepared to enter the compartment and flatly refused to do her duty (*), on the grounds that her boyfriend was inside and she couldn’t bear to see him dead or mutilated. Then there is the case of the navy’s first female ship’s captain, quietly relieved of her command after just a few weeks because she had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
The issue is not just that men on warships are having to do far more than their fair share to compensate for the inadequacies of their female shipmates, while being paid no more, nor that they they must do it under a regime that officially regards them as historically enjoying unfair advantages and privileges (and compels them, through ‘awareness’ courses, to say so), nor is it that they must compensate for their female shipmates’ inadequacies while complimenting them on their vital contribution to the efficient running of the ship; it is that ships with a large female component to the ship’s company are, effectively, seriously undermanned and therefore highly likely to fail in action. In the current political climate, the women are highly unlikely to be held responsible so the men, in addition to doing a disproportionate and unfair share of the work, will be made to bear a disproportionate and unfair share of the blame, even where it is known that they acted heroically to overcome the deficiencies of the women but, because of those deficiencies, could not possibly have prevailed.
One other consideration that should be borne in mind is that the only way to increase the proportion of female officers when, as with engineering post-graduates, female recruitment remains below some arbitrarily determined official target is to promote unsuitable wrens, which cannot but create a situation in which men who do know what they are doing must obey potentially dangerous orders from women who do not and cannot function in a leadership role under the stress of battle. That could easily lead to a situation in which it is necessary for the men effectively to mutiny in order to carry out their orders properly. We can take for granted that should, by such action, they actually save the situation, the women will be given a disproportionate and unfair share of the credit.
There must come a time when all but the most insane and misandrous of feminists, and those effete and effeminate men who serve them, accept that there are things women cannot do and therefore should not be doing, in the best interests of everyone, mustn’t there?
____________________
(*) This incident, reported in the national press, seems identical in pattern to one described by a fireman in a comment to a post on this blog a few months ago.
My husband is ex Regular Army. In his earlier days in the service, pregnancy meant automatic discharge. We need to go back to that.
The behaviour of these women is on a par with pleading their belly to avoid execution.
Btw, if you read the odd pregnancy discrimination case that hits the Law Reports, it’s always other women whose behaviour is complained of. A case involving a hairdressing salon led to expressions of outrage from the judge. Nobody wants to cover for them before and during their year’s taxpayer funded holiday, but for obvious reasons only other women can attempt to force a resignation by conduct.
Some years ago there was a series of reports about the “wrens” of the US Navy. To the effect that any planned long deployment of major capital ships was preceded by a huge increase in reported pregnancy in crew. Meaning ships departed significantly short of crew. This surfaced as commitments in the Gulf , Eastern Mediteranean and western pacific have meant frequent and longer deployments. Maternity leave as a means to avoid long overseas deployments.
excellent article.
all of this is the result of the actions of those men,who think they,as gentlemen, have to treat women in a preferential manner not only in the train station or a ballroom,but also in the office,the factory or the military. They are actually doing harm to the company,the business,to other men.They jeopardise a military mission and contribute to our socio-economic decline in the process. So please,when you are at a public transport and a female traveller needs your help,by all means give a helping hand. But a place of employment needs all workers to be equally capable in order to prosper and succeed.Those workers who do not measure up need to find an alternative,suitable type of work and not be endlessly assisted by male employees who mistakenly believe they need to do this for being gentlemen….nothing could be further from the truth !