3 thoughts on “Kathy Gyngell: The British Army has triumphed since Waterloo. But now it quails before the feminists.”
In response to William Gruff: just one little correction-not all military conflicts are fought without the need of physical force and bravery. Just look at Afghanistan,Iraq,etc.. Not all soldiers are drone or jet pilots. There are still real physical soldiers doing the beats in every conflict.Now that we even invited female soldiers to those duties the issue becomes all the more valid.
And it can happen that female soldiers will be made to conform to male standards.But only if men leave their chivalry at the entrance gate of the army camp. If men insist on dragging chivalry into the military and into the workplace,then it can not. It is entirely up to men.And if western men can not get over the chivalry issue,then we all will go down,including our women. The game we now play is nothing short of foolishness.In the entire western world. It CAN change.it is entirely up to men and their inability to part with chivalry in the professional world..It is men’s foolishenss and weakness for which we all will pay a high price if not corrected.
‘ … either our female soldiers conform to the same rigogous standards our male soldiers have had to … ‘
That hasn’t happened yet anywhere in the Anglophone / Western European world.
‘ … or they need to leave or be expelled.‘
That won’t happen anywhere in the Anglophone / European world and we should all think about why that is so, bearing in mind that conflicts as we have known them are a thing of the past, and military intervention is now part of global ‘policing’, with remotely controlled technology increasingly used.
Women in the armed services cannot but reduce their traditional effectiveness, which may well be the intention. Another aspect that should be borne in mind is that professions in which women come to predominate lose status and become less attractive to capable men (teaching and veterinary medicine are cases in point). That is not to say that women in those professions are necessarily incapable, merely that capable men tend not to enter those professions. If so, we can expect a reduction in numbers and a decline in the calibre of men volunteering for the armed forces.
Years ago I read that during the war the British government commissioned an assessment of the likelihood of collaboration with the Germans in the event of an invasion, considered by class, occupation, sex etc. The group deemed most likely to collaborate with the enemy occupiers was police officers. Naturally the army, and the Home Guard (mostly first war veterans),
were least likely and most likely to resist. I have often wondered whether that assessment is known to those who have trained police officers to use machine guns and kept our troops abroad while running down the armed forces to the point that they are of no use in defending the country from an outside attack, an attack that is, we can infer from the degraded state of our forces, known to be extremely unlikely.
Military operations have become global policing while domestic policing has become security, and security has become a privatised corporate activity. Policemen, and women, now look like crack assault troops, and are at elast as well equipped, if not better, and private security guards behave as though they are policemen. That ought to worry the liberty minded citizen, if it does not already, especially since we cannot rely on the historical mix of unshakeable loyalty and independent thought of the average serviceman, which is no fault of theirs. Servicemen owing allegiance to a monarch who owes allegiance to her people might well decide that their oaths take precedence over global corporate interests. How much more controllable it would be to replace ineffective feminised national armies with privatised ‘security’ forces stuffed with unthinking, over-wound people trained to use heavy weapons and known to be predisposed to fire on their own kind if ordered to.
Just a thought.
The British Army does not have the luxury,let alone the need, to observe gentleman’s code of conduct towards female recruits on the battlefield or in training. The enemy will not extend such nicities to our military or our female soldiers.Therefore,either our female soldiers conform to the same rigogous standards our male soldiers have had to conform for the longest time or they need to leave or be expelled. Anything else is bad for Britain,bad for the military,bad for the male soldiers,not to mention the female soldiers themselves. Our potential enemies do not observe chivalry on the battlefield.Neither should we.
In response to William Gruff: just one little correction-not all military conflicts are fought without the need of physical force and bravery. Just look at Afghanistan,Iraq,etc.. Not all soldiers are drone or jet pilots. There are still real physical soldiers doing the beats in every conflict.Now that we even invited female soldiers to those duties the issue becomes all the more valid.
And it can happen that female soldiers will be made to conform to male standards.But only if men leave their chivalry at the entrance gate of the army camp. If men insist on dragging chivalry into the military and into the workplace,then it can not. It is entirely up to men.And if western men can not get over the chivalry issue,then we all will go down,including our women. The game we now play is nothing short of foolishness.In the entire western world. It CAN change.it is entirely up to men and their inability to part with chivalry in the professional world..It is men’s foolishenss and weakness for which we all will pay a high price if not corrected.
‘ … either our female soldiers conform to the same rigogous standards our male soldiers have had to … ‘
That hasn’t happened yet anywhere in the Anglophone / Western European world.
‘ … or they need to leave or be expelled.‘
That won’t happen anywhere in the Anglophone / European world and we should all think about why that is so, bearing in mind that conflicts as we have known them are a thing of the past, and military intervention is now part of global ‘policing’, with remotely controlled technology increasingly used.
Women in the armed services cannot but reduce their traditional effectiveness, which may well be the intention. Another aspect that should be borne in mind is that professions in which women come to predominate lose status and become less attractive to capable men (teaching and veterinary medicine are cases in point). That is not to say that women in those professions are necessarily incapable, merely that capable men tend not to enter those professions. If so, we can expect a reduction in numbers and a decline in the calibre of men volunteering for the armed forces.
Years ago I read that during the war the British government commissioned an assessment of the likelihood of collaboration with the Germans in the event of an invasion, considered by class, occupation, sex etc. The group deemed most likely to collaborate with the enemy occupiers was police officers. Naturally the army, and the Home Guard (mostly first war veterans),
were least likely and most likely to resist. I have often wondered whether that assessment is known to those who have trained police officers to use machine guns and kept our troops abroad while running down the armed forces to the point that they are of no use in defending the country from an outside attack, an attack that is, we can infer from the degraded state of our forces, known to be extremely unlikely.
Military operations have become global policing while domestic policing has become security, and security has become a privatised corporate activity. Policemen, and women, now look like crack assault troops, and are at elast as well equipped, if not better, and private security guards behave as though they are policemen. That ought to worry the liberty minded citizen, if it does not already, especially since we cannot rely on the historical mix of unshakeable loyalty and independent thought of the average serviceman, which is no fault of theirs. Servicemen owing allegiance to a monarch who owes allegiance to her people might well decide that their oaths take precedence over global corporate interests. How much more controllable it would be to replace ineffective feminised national armies with privatised ‘security’ forces stuffed with unthinking, over-wound people trained to use heavy weapons and known to be predisposed to fire on their own kind if ordered to.
Just a thought.
The British Army does not have the luxury,let alone the need, to observe gentleman’s code of conduct towards female recruits on the battlefield or in training. The enemy will not extend such nicities to our military or our female soldiers.Therefore,either our female soldiers conform to the same rigogous standards our male soldiers have had to conform for the longest time or they need to leave or be expelled. Anything else is bad for Britain,bad for the military,bad for the male soldiers,not to mention the female soldiers themselves. Our potential enemies do not observe chivalry on the battlefield.Neither should we.