Richard Williams, a former commander of the SAS, can, I assume, kill up to ten ISIS barbarians with his bare hands, but there is one group he has surrendered to – the feminists.
Williams thinks it is just spiffing that at last, at long last, women can join the frontline and we will be sending female soldiers into battle. Pass the champagne.
As a gift to wimmin kind everywhere – which Call me Dave is expected to announce on International Woman’s Day – this is his big change to the military.
This is just another reason why we at The Conservative Woman believe International Moaning Day should be abolished. In justifying this dangerous, stupid decision, Williams in The Times is high on ludicrous comparisons but low on logic.
Throughout the piece he compares the ban on frontline combat to previous bans on homosexuals and people of Caribbean background from entering the military. But homosexual men and black men are not different physically to ‘traditional’ white men.
As I have said before: “Some things have changed for sure, but not the difference between the male and female body. This has not changed. The greater physical strength, the muscle mass, the far superior upper body strength (and all round awesomeness) that belongs to the male body has not changed.”
Surely Williams of all men knows this, mind you the feminists have powerful brainwashing tools at their disposal – such as the entire mainstream media.
Williams asserts that “courage, conviction in uncertainty, the capacity to kill and to keep going when others are killed, as well as the ability to make the right decision under extreme pressure are all martial qualities that are demonstrably gender-agnostic.”
Are they demonstrably ‘gender-agnostic'? There is no evidence for this. And what on earth does this highfaluting phrase gender-agnostic mean, anyway? It is meaningless twaddle. He cites no evidence for such an assertion.
The usual justificatory phrase, 'women should be eligible as long as the standards are not diluted’, is always trotted out. But tests in the Canadian army have been diluted to suit women. Also, even if women pass the rigorous test they are only ever equal to the bottom groups of men. A year-long study in the US found that, "gender-integrated units were slower, less lethal and more prone to injury than all-male units".
The other issue is that even if a tiny minority of women were to pass the test, the question is can they maintain this level of fitness in strength? It has been found that women suffer more fractures in the long term. Training such women is a waste of resources and time.
The Israeli Defence Force is also relied upon by Williams for his argument. But the role of women is restricted in the IDF: “.. a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in frontline combat brigades mobilised to engage in direct heavy combat.
In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel.”
Also, Israel is in a different position to Britain. Its very existence is under threat each and every day and it is required to maintain an active large army. As such it probably makes sense to keep to women up to fitness, but for less threatening roles. The decision to recruit women to the IDF was made in the interests of Israel’s continued existence. It was not made to further extreme feminist ideology.
Women have a role in the military and can, on a case-by-case basis, be crucial in winning over the locals – as Williams says. But this does not mean we should put them into hand-to-hand combat roles that are the preserve of men.
Hand-to-hand combat roles that the Marines excel at is one of the last areas where men’s greater physical strength means they are better suited to the role than women. No doubt this annoys the feminists greatly – this cold-hard reality of the difference between men and women. But the British army is there to defend Britain. It is not there is appease the feminazis.
Williams thinks it is hard to argue that women cannot serve in tank or attack-helicopter units. But here, too, Israel has taken a different route. Ynetnews, the Israeli news service, reported that the IDF studied the idea of women in tanks and rejected it - because of women’s physical shortcomings compared with men. Ynetnews also said the study found putting men and women in the intimate close quarters of a tank for days at a time was problematic. Finally, Ynetnews quoted a defence official as saying: “Integrating female soldiers into tanks was harmful” and: “The decision not to assign Israeli women to armored tanks in the IDF is based on reality, not myths that often surround these discussions”.
So, digging a little deeper, it is not the case that women can serve in the same way as men. In short it is not effectively militarily.
In addition, having women present in such a close unit will impact on men. Men are attracted to all male units and professions such as the army as a means of proving themselves and their masculinity. They may not answer this in some wretched questionnaire given to them by the feminazis but there is a deep desire to prove oneself both physically and morally – in that they are worthy of defending women and children and sparing them this burden.
There is something wretched about a country that puts their women on the frontline. I don’t know what happened to Williams that he could possible buy this feminist propaganda but this is a dangerous proposal by a desperate country.
We already know Call me Dave cares nothing for Britain’s future by his continued insistence that we should stay in the EU. Putting Britain’s military wellbeing at risk like this is nothing short of criminal.