Soon you may get the right to kill another human being just the same as a man. And, of course, this means that the State will give you the right to be killed just the same as a man because we live in the twenty first century and everything must be equal, I tell you.
As such “the army is seriously considering lifting the ban on women serving in combat units to try to boost recruitment and make it look “more normal” to society.”
Truly I tell you, it is a joy to be a mother to my son and daughter. I shall now sleep easy knowing that if my daughter wanted to get into hand to hand combat just as her brother may one day desire, she will not be denied this ‘right’ ‘merely on account of her gender.
If you are a women why waste your time being an army doctor or – God forbid – a nurse when you can be in there where the action is, bayoneting and throat slitting with the rest of them. This is what the suffragettes would have wanted! It should be noted that women soldiers already “serve on the front line with the artillery as medics, engineers, intelligence officers and fighter pilots. The Royal Navy’s first female submariners are nearing the end of their training.” But this is not good enough – they need to be in combat units also.
The current reason for maintaining the ban is unit cohesion – men would lean towards protecting a female soldier to his or his fellow soldier’s detriment. If this is not evidence based then perhaps there is an argument for scrapping the rule, but the two reasons given by General Sir Peter Wall that the army should look more ‘normal to society’ and to increase the number of recruits are suspect.
It seems not even the army is immune from the politically correct (PC) brigade. Even General Wall , Chief of the General Staff, who commands the British army, is quaking at the thought he might look bad in the eyes of the equality and diversity police.
I hazard a guess that many, many people believe it would not be “normal” to put women in hand to hand combat roles with the enemy. Indeed is the army really there to look ‘normal’ or is it there to win wars?
If the powder keg in Syria explodes I do not really want the generals of the British army worried about what the box-ticking bureaucrats in Equality and Human Rights Commission think. I just want them to get on with the serious business of securing Britain’s interests.
Finally, it is interesting to know the real reasons they want to give the women the right to kill or be killed in hand to hand combat- the need for more recruits. The General adds: “This isn’t just about getting more females into the 30 per cent of roles that are combat trades but getting more of them into the army per se.” He wants “every woman in the country to know the service is open to them and we need to make sure we get that message across.”
Yes, the argument is that the combat role ban is having a chilling effect on women joining the army. Evidence for this – nothing, just bland assertion. The army could of course just advertise to get more female recruits but then without changing the existing rule they will not get approval from the PC brigade.
Little discussion was had on whether women are up the physical demands of serving in combat units. Only this year, the US Marine Corps postponed a new fitness requirement for female recruits to do three pull-ups after 55 per cent of the women who attempted the test failed. It should be noted that three pull-ups is the minimum requirement and eight is a perfect score. For men three is also the minimum requirement but they need 20 for a perfect score. But don’t expect the equality police out in force on that one.
When the said 55 per cent of women failed this bare minimum did the US Marines review whether it is worth training and recruiting women? No, they just binned the requirement completely. Finally, none of the 14 women who have attempted the US Marines’ infantry officer course has passed. But quite a lot of time and resources went in to training them for this failure.