Leftie Lunacy: The Special Hairspray Service

The Special Air Service and Special Boat Service are said to be thinking of adapting their gruelling physical selection tests to give women a better chance. They would have lighter backpacks to carry over rough terrain and be given extra time to complete the process.
Why stop there? Why not arrange airlifts of essentials such as make-up, lip balm, hairspray, spare pantie-hose, prosecco and Belgian chocolate at key points along the assault course?
And of course change the SAS motto from ‘Who dares wins’ to ‘Who wins? Who cares, sweetie?’



The Conservative Woman

  • Owen_Morgan

    The SAS and SBS are supposed to be the best of the best and the toughest of the toughest. Lowering the standards will make them less effective. What can be the benefit from that? Women are not as strong as men and most men could never hope to be accepted by the SAS. There are some things most people can’t do. Changing the rules, to give an advantage to female candidates, would be the worst, most counter-productive form of “affirmative action”.

    I doubt if it is really the organisations themselves that are “thinking of adapting their gruelling selection tests.” This directive will have come down from some desk bound admiral, who, in the absence of any ships, commands a “diversity” task force.

    • gs_schweik

      It doesn’t matter whether it’s the SF, the driving test, or school exams.
      The effect is the same, lower standards, lower outcomes, and loss of all value.
      The perverse opposite of human instinct.

  • Nick Booth

    The new motto is How Very Dare You?

    or possibly, Who’s Put Out The Bins?

  • KilowattTyler

    I’ve often thought that “Special Hair Service” would be a good name for a salon, especially one located in Hereford (SAS base).

  • Thomtids

    Those whom the Gods would destroy, first they make mad. It won’t ge long before the Special Forces have a BAME and handicapped recruitment obligation foisted upon them. “Ayup, Gunga Din, get that wheel chair up that cliff, over the 3,00 metres of marsh and mek sure t’tea’s ready for when we get back!”

  • Ravenscar

    And they new SAS girlies will have to do a risk assessment before they drop in, it’s all in elf and safety and diversity handbook de noo rools innit and btw no drops onto the efniks.

  • martianonlooker

    “carry over rough terrain”.
    With 35,000 jihadi types roaming the streets there will be no rough terrain. They can take the Circle line or the motorways to the various future hotspots. The gay’ly painted police cars will allow the most feeble of map readers to stop and ask for directions. Any foreign power won’t want to invade because of the hassle of trying to govern the ungovernable.

  • Coniston

    Many years ago, when I was doing the Pennine Way, I several times met up with a guy doing the same. He was mainly sleeping rough, with occasional nights in Youth Hostels. He told me that he was in the army, had applied to join the SAS, but had failed some of the tests. So he was doing the Pennine Way (presumably to get fitter) before re-applying. When you think of the soldiers doing the yomp across the Falklands carrying heavy equipment, which very few men could do, one wonders what foreign power(s) have infiltrated our forces’ recruitment policy.

    • Partridge

      The enemies within: political correctness, feminism, cultural Marxism, etc..

      • Colonel Mustard

        All wrapped up in a Common Purpose.

        • KilowattTyler

          The ‘common purpose’ being the promotion of intellectual nonentities, dreary bureaucrats and noisy obsessives over entrepreneurs, real independent thinkers* and people of genuine moral principle.
          There are a lot of sausages emerging from the academic sausage machine and these need a world shaped to their requirements. The ideologies mentioned by Partridge provide the necessary ‘narratives’ (fantasies) to justify this process.

          *To be a real thinker a person has to think independently. ‘Real’ and ‘independent’ are necessarily linked.

    • JabbaPapa

      When I was younger, I had probably the stamina but nothing else that these SAS soldiers need — I feel a curious affinity with this man whom I guess had all that he needed except the stamina.

      Many men can handle their own kit over whichever terrain ; handling your own kit plus someone else’s whole kit without being diminished physically is another kettle of fish.

      Only some freakishly strong and physically powerful women are capable of the same, but to be fair they do exist.

      That is why the French Fire Brigade (still technically military) has allowed women to apply, but without changing in the slightest the physical and athletic criteria for a successful application to the service.

      • grrlpower

        “Only some freakishly strong and physically powerful women are capable of the same, but to be fair they do exist.”

        Are you calling me a freak?

        • JabbaPapa

          Frankly, you cretin, given your descriptions of yourself and even supposing that your exaggerations were in any way truthful, any attempts that you might make to control me physically would be like those of a little old woman. Last time someone who knows how to fight hit me, repeatedly, I just looked down at his efforts with disdain and disinterest.

          Some very rare women are as strong as a burly man ; given your perpetual whining and whingeing, you aren’t one of them.

          This is because they are about one in a million ; you’re just one more pretentious moron in the crowd.

        • KilowattTyler

          Interesting reaction.
          Why do you take an impersonal generalisation as a personal insult? JP has not met you, does not know what you look like, did not reply to one of your postings and did not mention you.

          • Sargv

            That is because she lacks any femininity. She only has some bits of masculinity, and as we all know, masculinity is exceptionally fragile. So she’s insecure, sees attacks everywhere and on a mission to prove herself to others all the time.

            Now, proving oneself in real life is hard. So what she does is, she plays the image of what she’d want to be on the Internet, anonymously, with other strangers.

          • JabbaPapa

            Kilowatt, she’s a complete pole-dancing S&M misandrist whackjob.

            Her notions that she might somehow be “stronger” than the bigger or burlier members of the forum are just part and parcel of her unintelligent delusional fantasy life.

          • Sargv

            Oh, come on. (S)he works as “throw the bate and laugh”. (S)he gets twenty replies to every post (s)he makes. It’s no delusion. It’s trolling.

            So treat her/him like a piñata! Have your fun. It shouldn’t raise your heart rate.

          • JabbaPapa

            It shouldn’t raise your heart rate

            It doesn’t, and nor would this sad excuse for a “woman” were I to encounter it in person …

        • Royinsouthwest

          He is saying that if you are fit enough for the special forces you must be freakishly strong for a woman. That would be a compliment.

  • Colonel Mustard

    So in order to promote an absolute “equality” they are prepared to facilitate a form of cheating which demonstrates that said “equality” does not actually extend to physical ability.

    Priceless. There should be no grounds, therefore, not to extend the concessions to any weaker men applying to join. If physically weaker women are considered fit for special forces then to bar physically weaker men from the same concession would be sexual discrimination would it not?

    • That is pretty much what always happens. Must be fair, after all.

    • Sargv

      Why, they are promoting equality. They just lowering the standards. “Equally weak” is equal all right, and so is “equally incompetent”.

      It’s hard to make weak stronger and dumb smarter. The only real way to equality is to push the talent back into crowd. That’s THE WORST side of socialism, worse even then the economy. It penalises for strive to be better. Therefore, it eventually turns people into schmucks.

      • grrlpower

        You sad little man. I work out and do Crossfit. I am probably fitter and stronger than you or the average man.

        • brownowl

          Members of the SAS and SBS are emphatically not “average men”. That’s the whole point. Fidiot.

        • Sargv

          Cool story sis!

          I can do 20 pull-ups with 12kg dum bell attached, 50 dips with extra 15 kg weight, benchpress x1.5 of my weight/110kg, squat and deadlift double my weight/150kg, and then jog 20 km – all in one set (though my knee will hurt like hell the next day).

          My week is:
          Monday – weights
          Tuesday – boxing
          Wednesday – HIIT
          Thursday – weights
          Friday – HIIT
          Saturday – HIIT/running
          Sunday – boxing

          The worst part of it? Eating 3.5k calories a day to maintain weight.

          Of course there is a possibility you are fitter and stronger than me. But then I am not a SAS fighter, merely a middle-aged Russian with a full-time management job.

        • KilowattTyler

          So you’re against adjusting recruitment standards to accommodate female applicants then?

        • JabbaPapa

          I work out and do Crossfit

          Do you also eat cereal bars and waste your money on the feminist literature of the clinically insane ?

        • James60498 .

          You may well be fitter and stronger than me too.

          You may also be better at sport than me.

          In fact I believe that the best should be picked for the SAS/ England Cricket team regardless of sex. Do you?

    • KilowattTyler

      It is of course only legitimate organisations such as the Army and police that will be affected by “equality” obsessions.

      I could be wrong but somehow I don’t think that the Mafia, the Continuity IRA, the Yakuza, Daesh, Boko Haram, ETA and the like have ‘diversity and inclusion’ officers to monitor recruitment and promotion.

      Box-ticking bureaucracy and the pushing down of standards to accommodate Guardianesque obsessions will result in illegal organisations having an advantage over legal ones.

    • brownowl

      QV the Police Force. Sorry, Service.

      • norman’s nonsense

        Reminds me of the potential police dog handler who failed the male tests. He complained he would have past the female tests, therefore it was discrimination as both male and female were expected to do the same dog handling job. The police lowered the male standards to that of the women. Chumpy policeman was than passed fit for doggy stuff

  • paul parmenter

    Hopefully there will also be a mobile creche that can follow the SAS and SBS around wherever they go.

    • JabbaPapa

      The Special English Nanny Service — combat-trained to enforce appropriate prim and proper battlefield etiquette towards the young offspring of all special forces walking death machines, friend or foe !!

    • Royinsouthwest

      And the working hours will have to be family friendly too.

      The proposed reforms do not go far enough. There are many men in their 60s who would like the glamour of being in the SAS but what chance do they have of passing the physical tests? How long will we have to tolerate such outrageous ageism?

  • Shaunr19

    All very well, but will they be able to parallel-park the 4-tonner?

    • grrlpower

      Women are less likely to have car accidents than men.

      • Sargv

        Men are significantly less likely to traumatise infants while breast feeding. Obviously this is due to men being much better at nurturing.

      • JabbaPapa

        grrrrrllllpowah !!!! is less likely to use reason than other ConWoman posters

      • gs_schweik

        F##k off, Kate

  • Sargv

    ‘Who dares wins’ is a primer of discriminative and non-inclusive language. It must be changed to “We all win”.

  • Royinsouthwest

    During the Second World War women working for SOE in occupied Europe displayed outstanding courage. I assume that our secret services still employ women agents and that they might have to undertake dangerous missions.

    Obviously it is very desirable that such agents in addition to being clever, brave and resourceful should be physically fit. It is conceivable that such agents might need to liaise with special forces and if that necessitated accompanying them, even if only for a short period, it would be important that they did not slow them up or become a liability in other ways.

    However that is not the same as having two classes of special forces personnel – those who passed the real tests and those who passed the diversity tests.

    • JabbaPapa

      That’s a good point, but then why not simply create a new elite force of these women ?

      We have a SAS and SBS, so SCS maybe ? Special Counterdeception Service or something ?