I told you so. Barely a few months have passed since it was announced women could be eligible for all combat roles in the British military, it is clear that fitness standards will be lowered to accommodate this seismic and suicidal change.
The Sunday Times has confirmed, what I warned of only a few weeks ago, that this is a disastrous and unnecessary change for the army and Britain.
Although there were the usual ‘assurances’ in an official army study that fitness tests will not be diluted and lowered for female recruits, we all know that if this were the case then very few would pass and crucially remain on the front line. As the new aim has nothing to do with creating an effective and efficient fighting force, but instead a ‘diverse’ one, it was inevitable that standards would be lowered.
We must remember that feminists neither care for the defence of Britain or indeed the recruits themselves. They only care about one thing and that is the equality spreadsheet.
The Sunday Times report tells us: “This summer the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, is expected to lift a ban on women joining close combat units, including infantry and armoured regiments, after months of research into the impact of frontline duty on the female body. The research found women were twice as likely to suffer musculoskeletal injuries during initial military training.”
The line being spun is that current standards are simply not necessary for the modern army. What a load of old codswallop. This excuse has merely been dreamed up, and at exactly the same time coincidently, as the great revolutionaries, some of whom are in the army themselves (heaven help us) demand all combat units be open to women, despite their vastly inferior physical fitness levels. Further, what usually happens is the minimum standards are in fact minimum or baseline for men, but the maximum for female recruits.
“The research team is questioning the relevance of some tests, including an annual assessment that requires women under the age of 30 to be able to do 21 press-ups, 50 sit-ups and run 1.5 miles in 13 minutes or less. Another key test being reviewed is the requirement for infantry to complete an eight-mile march carrying a 55lb rucksack within two hours. Pull-ups are seen as particularly difficult for women — tests by the US marines two years ago found that 55 per cent of female recruits were unable to do at least three.” Three by the way is the absolute minimum for men, most of which can do well over ten.
We are also told: “Altering the army’s physical training, however, will prove controversial, with Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British commander in Afghanistan, warning that standards will fall. “You will have infantry soldiers who are less capable than they are today. I have spoken to people who are serving in the infantry who said that if women are allowed in, they will leave.”
Not only this, but it is the very best soldiers that will leave. These are the ones that will be most offended at standards being lowered to accommodate women, and for good or for ill I suspect these are the soldiers that are most attracted to an all-male unit that only a tiny number of even men can qualify for.
These soldiers want to be the physical elite and to prove their masculinity by joining these units after such tough physical challenges. This runs counter to our new fandangled feminised society where many men cry at the mere thought of their cashmere sweater going through an ordinary wash, but of the few remaining man-men out there – we need them in the army.
So there we have it. Nothing, absolutely nothing must stand in the way of the great feminist gender parity goal – not the needs of children (currently looking at being locked up in nursery for 12 hours a day), not family life, not the private sphere and not even the defence of the Realm itself can stop the march.
(Image: Resolute Support Media)