Laura Perrins: Frontline women soldiers will put us all at risk

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.

Laura Perrins

  • weirdvisions

    Perhaps there is method in the madness. Perhaps it’s all a sinister plot to rid us of the future Greers, Toynbees and Harmans. Or at least those feminists stupid enough to sign up for it.

  • Shaunr19

    Don’t worry, it’ll all go swimmingly – right up until we are in an actual war.

  • justsomebody

    I’m a former police officer who served some years in an English constabulary. I can tell you that this move puts us in danger not just from an external threat, but socially too.

    When enrolling in the police force, having left university, I was convinced that women could do anything a man could do. In other words I had a similar mindset as those who have pushed this agenda. I was gradually faced with a reality that challenged all of these beliefs and many more besides.

    That’s not to say that I and other women didn’t work hard, nor that I or they weren’t physically and emotionally brave. I’ve been in my own at shift changeovers, confronted with no real back up and a drunk and violent man whom I managed to detain on the ground and arrest on my own. I’ve policed riots where the lack of manpower due to political reasons was so bad that, following the arrests of violent suspects, there was myself and five other officers left police a few hundred people. I’ve gone into bars when there’s been fighting, dealt with horrific deaths and with some incredibly nasty men who had beaten women to the point they were unable to be recognised by their family as well as victims of rape.

    The reason I tell you all this isn’t to blow my own trumpet. It’s, firstly, to acknowledge that women do have a place in forces that demand physical strength. Secondly though it’s to note from experience that when it came to brute strength and more importantly physical presence we do not bring the same attributes to the table our male counterparts.

    An example of the former is when I’ve entered situations where a confrontation is very possible between heavily drinking, young men in public and myself and colleagues. I’ve been able to use my size and womanhood to diffuse such situations, providing an opportunity for one side to step back down whilst saving face providing a more peaceful resolution.

    However, the opposite can also be said to be true. We were taught in the police, and it’s true, that on the hazard continuum the first level of force is just the physical presence of the police; a threat of force. However, when the boot that hits the ground as the officer gets out of the car is a size 4; well, you see where I’m going with this.

    Suffice to say that when I was once in a holding area with a chatty male colleague who made statements about how many women there were on the shift and that, whilst they were good officers, he was worried there were getting to be too many of them I wasn’t offended. He’d looked at me suddenly, slightly panicked by what he’d said, but after 1 1/2 years service by then I knew what he’d meant. I wouldn’t be comfortable with a majority female shift either.

    In England we police by consent, it’s why we have a thin, not thick, blue line. Presence is not just a threat, most of the time it can be a reminder of the laws we consent to, a sort of wake up call for people behaving out of character. I’m trying to remember ever being verbally or physically threatened not because I was a police officer, but because I was a woman. I can’t. I can remember though, clearly, where a man has physically restrained himself from acting against me as he would towards a male colleague. You see, our culture is one where it’s wrong to hit a woman and men have been expected to defend them. Our culture is one where it is wrong to inflict violence on women, and men are expected to defend women from any man that would.

    Note again that last line; defend from any man that would. It doesn’t mean these things don’t happen here but that our norms are that they shouldn’t. This is why, I believe, even in the most highly charged situations I’ve never faced overt, physical violence directed at me because I was smaller and weaker, or an easy target. I only ever met struggle from people trying to evade arrest. Even the drunk man I mentioned detaining on my own in my previous paragraph didn’t fight, but kept mentioning I was a woman so he couldn’t. In his severely drunken state I couldn’t fight him on my own, his lack of overt resistance and inability to stand helped me (although he’d happily hit other men prior to, and was threatening to hit more, upon my arrival).

    My point? As women continue to be encouraged into roles that demand physical strength and are hailed as being the equivalent of men the moral consensus about violence towards women will diminish as a whole. It will not be sufficient, either, to suggest that it is only in the home where violence towards women is wrong either as, even if this restricted moral understanding where to hold, it would still be the case that the reasoning of violence towards women was the same as violence towards men.

    As with the liberation of women into careers, what will be touted as an opportunity will eventually become a necessity; in this case for each woman to be able to defend herself physically.

    • weirdvisions

      Been there, done that, back in the 70s when the only weapon a WPC had to defend herself with was a shoulder bag or a torch if you were on night duty. I know exactly where you are coming from. I think that today’s forces are radically different from those of my time. There’s a lot more violence now. I’ve taken down drunks in my time but never really felt threatened by gun or knife crime because it was relatively rare.outside of cities. I wouldn’t join now if they gave me a million pounds.

      • justsomebody

        :D. This all really struck following the events in Cologne. Their talking about front line soldiers – front line female policing is going to get radically different when dealing wi issues like that.

        • weirdvisions

          It’s crossed my mind too. It doesn’t help when German police turn water cannons on protesters of mass assault and rape rather than the perpetrators. What is that all about? Policemen and women are supposed to uphold the law and keep the peace, not put down a protest against an outrageous series of criminal acts that embarrasses a government.

          Shakes head is disbelief.

          • justsomebody

            Look at the protests against gay marriage and adoption in France. All peaceful – water cannon. Liberal press – silence. Wrong views you see. The 60s radicals are now the establishment and they won’t suffer a challenge to their power base.

    • Het Russ

      The outside experience/expectation is that a mixed pair of coppers on the beat will tend to have a very large male copper paired with the female. I think that may actually be a better combination than a male-male pairing in some situations, though not always possible.

      • justsomebody

        Yes, I’d acknowledge that. However when brute strength is needed, and it is, it’s a distinct disadvantage.

    • Dougie

      A very well-reasoned and thoughtful post. Of course, the societal norms that largely protect female police officers from violence in the UK do not exist in many of the locations that British forces can expect to be used. Special Forces are intended to be deployed covertly, in small numbers, and are thus at greater risk of capture than other troops. When that happens to a female soldier there will inevitably be a media frenzy leading to great pressure on the Government to order a rescue mission regardless of its practicality, thus putting more (male) lives at risk.
      I’ve yet to see any cogent argument that this will make our forces more effective, so it is only being done to satisfy the equality lobby. Will anyone from the equality lobby have the courage and common sense to condemn it?

      • justsomebody

        Exactly right. They also can’t be expected to be maintained when those societal norms are overwhelmed – think of Cologne.

    • Jen The Blue

      Nobody is arguing there no place for women at all in the armed forces. To be fair, though occasionally the police do find themselves in very dangerous situations, it cannot really be compared to front line warfare.

      • justsomebody

        If you can point out where I’ve argued that there shouldn’t be a place for women at all in the armed forces I’d appreciate it. However, I think you’ll find I haven’t.
        in relation to your other comments the fact that police work doesn’t have the increased danger of the armed forces actually makes my argument more relevant; if there are issues with one there will be issues with the other.
        My overall point though, which you seemed to have missed, is that asserting the fallacy that women are equal in strength and skill to men will eventually lead to an erosion of the understanding that men should not be violent to women and as a result will endanger women.

        • Jen The Blue

          Apologies justsomebody. You are correct. Serves me right for speed reading your post……..I am crap at it! Always end up proving I am an idiot!

          • justsomebody

            But wonderfully humble ?

  • sfin

    I know, from personal experience, that women do well in the more individualistic front line roles like pilots, for example (I’m a retired military pilot) – although, even having said this, the thought of one of our captured pilots being female, raises some uncomfortable questions, especially given the nature of the enemy we face today.

    In the collective arms (typically infantry and tank units), it is also my experience that the introduction of one female in a platoon of, say, 30 men will have a totally negative impact on the cohesiveness of that platoon as a fighting unit – regardless of whether the female in question is physically up to the task or not.

    I heard anecdotal evidence from the Israeli Defence Force, when they were trialling the introduction of women into the infantry, back in the 1960’s. There is an anti-ambush drill called the “fight through” which involves attacking those that have ambushed you with maximum aggression. You don’t stop for anything until you have cleared through to the other side of the position, where you can “reorg” (stop, take stock, reassess). If your mate goes down beside you during the fight through, you ignore it until the reorg. The Israelis discovered that if the female went down during the fight through, then half of the platoon would stop to protect her, resulting in the annihilation of the whole platoon.

    The male instinct to protect the female was stronger than the military drill – even in well disciplined troops.

    This is a spectacularly bad idea. I expect it from today’s politicians, but the Chiefs of Staff should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Even male military psychology is not what it once was. Having seen actual examples of it I’m not sure an all male platoon wouldn’t break down in the event of a single male casualty.

      • sfin

        It’s a good point, in most military situations. But I would argue, when discussing this particular issue, not in the case of the fight through – it’s the most ‘banzai’ small unit, or section, drill in the pamphlet.

        The ambush really contains only two options to the commander on the receiving end – tactical withdrawal (run away) or fight through. I know that many decorations have been awarded to soldiers who have “single handedly taken on an enemy position” when, in reality, the individual thought that he should be fighting through, when his comrades had already decided to take the more prudent option! (the problem with ambushes being that you don’t know the size or disposition of the forces against you).

        All of that, of course, is part and parcel of the ‘fog of war’. Trained soldiers react with drills when confronted with different situations (the old anecdote of soldiers preferring to face certain death, than the wrath of the Sgt Major). The, anecdotal, Israeli experiment showed that some male instincts are stronger than ingrained drills and even other male instincts – pulling for the team, for example.

        Protection of the female is very high on the list.

    • Ned Costello

      Somehow I doubt that the Chiefs of Staff have had any say in the matter, this is Dave pandering to the politicaly correct.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Er, I thought the political consensus is that all women are vulnerable? Come on then, what is it? Vulnerable or fit to fight tooth and nail as infantry soldiers? Wouldn’t the latter promote, by exposing them, to violence against women on a government orchestrated scale?

    Or is it one those many modern silo issues where girls of 16 are adult enough to vote but suddenly become vulnerable children when they go off to become jihadis?

    And if the argument is “it depends on the woman” then surely the whole notion of so called gender equality is undermined?

    But, really, trust Dave to say and do something stupid from a bandwagon.

    • Jen The Blue

      They are vulnerable when it suits their agenda, but not when it doesn’t. The little dears need safe spaces on campus where they won’t hear anyone say that abortion is murder, but they are perfectly capable of strangling the enemy with his own intestines.

      They need protection from men (who are all potential rapists) and they need women’s refuges to protect them, but they are more than capable of facing down a 6ft 6 inch Jihadi in a suicide vest firing an AK47

  • rbw152

    Before a feminist has a go at me again about this subject (my daughter was ‘girlie’ from the time she was a baby by the way. We tried not to buy her dolls but it was futile. So there.) I’d just like to make something clear: we are proposing to downgrade the physical effectiveness of our military for politically correct reasons yes?

    Sure I agree that there are few (very few) women who have the same physical strength as some men but special forces training for example is so brutal that only the very best physical and mental specimens get in. I know this through one or two friends who have been on – and completed – this training.

    Unless the standards are lowered for this training only one or two women, at most, are going to get in. What then? Do feminists still complain about ‘equality’? Do we lower the standards to let them in? If so why exactly? How will it help in a war situation? Precisely how will we be more likely to win simply because we’ve let women in to the military? After all, each change we make to our armed forces, including this change, should only be about making them a more effective killing machine. Nothing else matters.

    At the end of the day, women getting killed because they’re not bloody strong or tough enough are a waste of time, money and effort. And men who get killed because they’re hampered by women’s lack of physicality will be wasted lives.

    I’m sure there are feminists out there who think they’re pretty tough and if you’re reading this then bully for you but with respect, you haven’t been on an SAS training course – and passed. Only when you’ve done something like that will you have the right to whinge about equality. Until then, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Dropbear
    • lojolondon

      Exactly – I watched the video and thought – if I have to be attacked by terrorists with assault rifles and grenades, please Lord, let it be these two!

  • Neil2

    Write out 100 times “Women are the equal of men in EVERY respect, except in areas where they are better” and report for re-education immediately.

  • Jeff Evans

    An idle thought arises: if martial skills are “gender agnostic”, can there be such a category as “Violence against Women”?

  • foto2021

    Am I the only person to find it ironic when women (or, at least one woman) stoutly defend a bastion of male supremacy against the involvement of other women?

    All across the employment spectrum, women show daily that they are every bit the equals of men and in many ways superior. Women are capable of thinking and operating in distinctly different ways that can give them a significant edge over male colleagues and competitors.

    Why exclude women’s ability from the front line? It is perfectly possible that they would bring a new dimension – new and better approaches to defence and, if necessary, offence.

    It won’t suit every woman, just as being in the armed forces does not suit every man. But new ways of thinking and operating may be just what the armed forces need.

    • Jen The Blue

      Because “front-line” refers to the sharp end of combat where physical strength is paramount. Nobody is suggesting women cannot perform as well as men in many service roles, but they are not as strong and this has been demonstrated by the damage done to the backs of servicewomen who were yomping with the same weight back-packs as men.

      The services are there, in the end, to FIGHT for the country, not provide equal opportunities employment. In war, every slight advantage is a matter of life and death. To the combatants themselves and potentially every one of us in the country.

  • Jen The Blue

    Yes. I agree 100%

  • Otto Crum

    Many many years ago I worked with a man who was truly frightening. An ex WW2 veteran he had become a mercenary because as he told me- I love killing. He was huge and nobody but nobody dared cross him.
    Not that many years ago , as chance would have it ,I met a woman whose family and friends had been saved by this man during a rebellion in an African state . She said he fought singlehandedly for hours and so terrified the enemy that eventually they fled. He killed ,she said ,many of them without mercy.
    The point of this is that natural soldiers who make the best and most effective warriors are rare and they are different to the rest of us.
    Maybe some women are like this but maybe not. I really hope not.
    We sometimes need men like the one I have described and always have. That a culture should even propose that it’s women do such dreadful work is a measure of how far it is deteriorating.

  • Jolly Roger

    Gender-agnostic? What is an agnostic? Someone who doesn’t know if God exists. So to be gender-agnostic is not to recognise the existence of gender. This appears to be a significant step beyond unisex. The elimination of the recognition of gender might finally remove any possibility of relationships, married or otherwise.

    Just how many women will eventually occupy positions as front line soldiers in Britain today? It’s not likely that a major war will happen where we will see a wimmins-only version of the Somme; heaps of corpses tossed in stale mutilation from crater to crater, all female. But if women serve as front line soldiers in opposing armies then there will be a situation where women have to kill women, perhaps at the point of a bayonet.

  • Bogbrush

    This doesn’t bother me, so long as standards aren’t dropped.

    Same weight packs, same physical standards, same endurance capability and same resilience and I can’t object.
    Now if pretty girls like the one in the picture are chosen, who looks about 8 1/2 stone, it’s a farce.

    • Ned Costello

      Standards WILL drop, make no mistake about it, as Laura poionts out above that’s exactly what happened in the Canadian Army and it will happen in the British Army too, adn quickly. I couldn’t agree more with this article and I thought that Col. Williams, SAS officer or not, was talking through his hat in that article yesterday.

      • Bogbrush

        I agree, I’d just say that accepting the principle subject to this provision means it’s not an anti-female thing, it’s just common sense.

  • Ned Costello

    I look forward to seeing the first women joining the England Rugby team, now that is has evidently been declared that they are no different than men.

  • franknowzad

    It’s really sad that the only contributions made by women to the armed forces, that people talk about, are the ones where they are third class blokes. What about making a fuss about QAARANC, intelligence and AG Corps and the mincefest known as the RAF?
    If Col WILLIAMS had enjoyed the chlamydia fest in a certain TF in 2008 his views on mixing sexes in war zones would be changed.

  • David davis

    Couldn’t have expressed it better myself, Laura. I have nothing to add.