Our thanks to Mike P for this. In response to the headline, he wrote, ‘No, really?’ An extract:
Winning the right to have combat roles in the elite unit was celebrated as a triumph for equality. [By Britian’s enemies, presumably.]
Top brass offered volunteers a personalised training programme [my emphasis] to ensure they were fully equipped to cope with the famous Green Beret endurance tests they would have to pass to take up arms alongside men in the Royal Marines.
So, no women passed the ‘gruelling course’. Never mind, there’s a nice photo in the piece of women pretending to be commandos, which is almost the same thing.
In the interest of equality, should men have been offered ‘personalised training programmes’? If not, why the double standard?
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
It’s worth remarking that no women volunteered, despite being described as such by the writer of the report. Three women were approached by the MOD and one was persuaded to ‘volunteer’. It will be interesting to follow the young woman’s subsequent career progression to see whether or not, and how quickly, she obtains promotion.
LikeLike
The most charitable explaination as far as the army goes is that they were put under irresistable political pressure to give it a try, and did so knowing full well what the outcome would be, so they could say at least say
“…well, we tried it but…”
The article goes on to say;
“…and followed former Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision last July to lift the ban on women in…”
Ah, so that’s it!
Old Chubby Chops (call me Dave) Cameron.
And from the lady herself;
“….I received nothing but support and admiration from all ranks at the Commando Training Centre….”
So, that lets the soldiers off the hook then.
She continues;
”I wish any female attempting to enter the General Service the best of luck….’’
ie, they’ll need it.
The article further explains;
“…this trial was part of a Government study into whether women should serve in frontline combat units…”
Hmm, tricky one…
I really can’t make up my mind — what do you think?
LikeLike
And they are surprised by this?
LikeLike
Like some comments in that article, the obvious suspicion is that standards will be lowered. The US Marines comparison seems to be oft quoted. I suppose comparisons with what has happened in our emergency services would also be valid.
“should men have been offered ‘personalised training ” is something that appears to be missing from the ‘equality agenda’ in that there are programmes throughout industry/services/education to support women but sod all for the man desert areas
LikeLike
I read somewhere that the female candidates for recruitment into the US Marines were given personal coaches and courses of preparation before the selection process and the women still failed. Only after they had taken the tests several times and the sergeants had been ordered to pass them did some of them make it. That is bound to happen here. The money squandered on the fruitless exercise of trying to make effective front-line soldiers out of women who can only ever be as good as men who might themselves not be good enough is bound to be taken from other vital areas, leading to deficiencies all round. The process is not about finding the best candidates for the job but pandering to the childish and unreasonable resentments of a minority of mentally disturbed women who know they are not able to do what we can do and aren’t able to live with the fact.
Lets hope that sanity kicks in before we find ourselves facing annihilation.
LikeLike
PS: It wasn’t the US Marines, it was the US Rangers (I plead the usual memory problems suffered by men of sixty and older). Two women graduated from the selection course, to considerable fanfare, but there have been consistent allegations of the efforts to get them through that I alluded to. Here’s an article that I haven’t read before, although it makes exactly the same claims as the one I did read:
LikeLike
This follow up may interest you as it suggests that the reports of special treatment for the first two women may be true.
LikeLike
wouldn’t it be just better for everyone, women, men, society, not to mention the military, if we let go of the gentleman pretense that women are equal to men in terns of performance and simply admitted that they are not ? I know it is hard for a gentleman to say this openly to a lady, but not only is it true,but also necessary. There are times when certain outdated modes of conduct need to be either abandoned or at least suspended, until the society returns to a similar state in which such traditions were conceived. Should we insist on riding in trains pulled by steam engines just because we are fond of them and they were once the mainstay of our transport system ? Same goes for insisting on being gentlemen in a society where everything has changed, the steam engines have been replaced by electric ones and the lady manners have been replaced by arrogant, unfriendly, even hostile feminist ones. So too men’s attitudes to women need to change to correspond to this new, (if unfortunate) reality.
LikeLike
Mike, as you can see, the vast majority of women are not interested in the extreme ‘equality’ feminist agenda being promoted by this ‘equality of opportunity’ in the armed forces campaign, or more than one woman would have responded. So clearly this is not demand driven in any way but rather agenda driven. Question is by whom and why?
LikeLike
The answer is, ‘by feminists who are driven by the idiotic notion that gender is a social construct, and in denial of the observable fact that in areas requiring physical strength, able men will hugely outnumber able women’. Not a snappy answer, I grant you. These are the same geniuses who demand 50% of engineers be female, while themselves taking Gender Studies courses.
LikeLike