Good points, well made. The end of the article:
Is it really worth the risk of undermining what is, and has always been, the best infantry in the world – and, this critical element of our national defence – for the sake of a social engineering exercise imposed by politicians with absolutely no experience of war?
I know not one serving or retired infantryman who supports such a move – except for those who do so as a means of career advancement or of proving their politically correct credentials. All, however, know in their hearts that it is wrong.
Despite that, I fear this policy will undoubtedly happen. Politicians will exploit our generals’ innate ‘can-do’ attitude to make it work.
In parallel, infantry selection and training standards will be surreptitiously reduced to ensure women succeed.
At the end of this process, government ministers will be happy, the generals involved will get promotion and the nation’s feminists will claim a victory over the last bastion of male chauvinism.
But, more importantly, our nation’s defences will have been weakened.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Colonel Richard Kemp is a brave man to stand up to the PC politicians who really have no concern and no respect for the men that do the fighting in our military units. This decision will cost lives, but won’t be the politician’s or feminist’s.
What planet are you on? There is little scope on any battlefield for women to connect with other women, however rewarding that exchange may be, and the disruptive effect of women on the male group dynamic is so well documented as to preclude women from membership of male groups where the latter are crucial.
‘ … except for those who do so as a means of career advancement or of proving their politically correct credentials. All, however, know in their hearts that it is wrong.‘
While I would agree with him in private, he cannot possibly know that and so cannot offer it as an argument.
Some months ago, a fireman left a comment to that effect on a post of yours. Do you have a link to it?
I think it not unreasonable to suspect that weakening our armed forces may actually be the point. When they cannot function as anything other than a ridiculous pantomime parade they will be useless and the case can be made for some supranational military or naval force, such as the EU or NATO. Something similar is already being done with the NHS, in the interests of privatisation.
Why not form all-female fighting units, then, given your logic? Simple. They’d soon be massacred. Female soldiers’ only hope of survival is to be a small proportion of a fighting unit, knowing men’s chivalry will disproportionately protect them, albeit at the cost of combat effectiveness. But what feminist ever worried about combat effectiveness? Their ideology trumps such considerations every time, as it does with ‘more women in boardrooms’ (corporate financial decline), ‘more women doctors’ (NHS in a long-term crisis) etc. Never ‘more women sewage workers’, ‘more women long-distance lorry drivers’…
From the article:
“In parallel, infantry selection and training standards will be surreptitiously reduced to ensure women succeed.”
This has happened with firefighters, police etc. So women are portrayed as having ‘succeeded’, they get paid the same as the men, but perform less well. They are a danger to their male (and female) colleagues, and it won’t be long before we see female soldiers’ compensation claims, as the article also points out. So we’ll get a more costly, less efficient service. For what compensating benefits? None.
I disagree that allowing women in combat roles will hurt the military. In fact, I think it will make the military stronger as long as the standards are not lowered for women. If certain women, no matter how few, can pass the same standards men pass then why should they be banned from the front lines based on their sex?
The USA is opening up combat roles to women and I support that decision under the condition the standards aren’t lowered. If only 1% of the women can pass the current standards, that means there will be over 200,000 women in the USA eligible for front line combat. Allowing women into combat roles also means that women should have to sign up for military draft registration, and that will greatly increase the numbers the military has to draw from, not to mention it will mean that women will be forced to bear some of the burdens men currently face. I would also like to point out that men and women do have different strengths and weaknesses and diversity can be great for the battlefield to find specialists to fill different roles. A woman, for instance, may be able to connect with other women to get them to talk for information better, where women might be too scared of men to talk. Overall, the key is to keep the standards the same, but I see no reason why women who can pass those standards should be banned from combat roles.
My husband would agree entirely.
When he was serving women were restricted to home based support roles. They were considered a danger in front line roles other than as nurses in casualty clearing stations, but that was in the days when both sides respected the medical services.
Pregnancy also meant automatic discharge. These days they have to be accommodated and it costs a fortune to casevac them home. In one case extensively reported as both news and as law involved a pregnant servicewoman – no husband, etc – who expected the British taxpayer to import a relative from her home country to care for the child.
They did offer her an office based role which she refused, no doubt in a unit led by an older woman as we are the only ones who dare be hard on problem mothers, (which is why we don’t get hired), and as a result she didn’t get anything like the payoff she wanted.
What I do remember is the leader of her community back home, on one of the smaller West Indian islands, saying that they were all ashamed of her.