Female Favouritism on Parade
The entirely predictable result of the six month review into whether or not female soldiers should be allowed (trained?) to serve alongside male soldiers in the army’s front-line infantry, has reported that it sees no reason why they should not. This is exactly the answer which the Army’s political masters, headed by former Defence Secretary Philip Hammond who set the review up, none of whom have ever served in battle in the Army, expected it (as instructed) to provide.
This conclusion is despite the known facts that females have only 70% of the muscle of men, hearts which are 20% smaller, and even in passive battlefield roles as shown in Afghanistan, are more susceptible to injury requiring medical attention than men.
Why do the top brass go along with this nonsense?
The answer is that David Cameron wants this change, and government patronage – knighthoods, lordships and prestigious appointments – is in his hands exclusively.
Before and during his premiership Cameron has demonstrated an obsession with pushing women forward, irrespective of the effect on the performance of an organisation, or on male employees’ sense of injustice or indeed on females who have truly earned their positions. In turn, Cameron is particularly susceptible to the feminist lobby which doesn’t so much want to do unpleasant or demanding jobs done currently by men, or actually to earn promotion as to want the BADGES which go with prestigious jobs often under the boastful slogan: “anything a man can do, a woman can do better”.
This is seen in the constant demand for fixed quotas of women to be appointed to boards of public companies[1]; but not for the managerial jobs which might, one in a hundred, lead to a Board position; illegal all-women shortlists for the selection of parliamentary candidates, public sector appointments where women are parachuted in over the heads of qualified men[2]; the constant whine about how few women engineers there are, and so on. An exact illustration of this pressure for outrageous favouritism is demonstrated in an article circulated by the Daily Telegraph’s Business Reporter on 14th December 2014 quoting Amanda van Dyke[3], chairman of “Women in Mining”.
Women in the front-line of an attack
Women in the front-line of an attack on an enemy post will not merely be useless, but a liability. It’s the sheer unlimited violence of such an action when machine-gun nests are stormed for instance, when 220 lbs of body and kit are thrust against others of similar weight and muscle, while being exposed to flying bullets and red hot shrapnel from mortar and artillery fire, which has to be imagined[4]. You have only to see CCTV footage of barely violent demonstrations of relatively weedy British male students to see any policewomen present thrust aside in the mêlée, reduced to impotent scrabbling and pulling on clothing.
All this forcing young women into roles they are unsuited for, all the attendant organisational upheaval, putting men’s lives and careers at risk, not to speak of the inevitable, destructive sexual relationships which occur[5], is a sop yet again to feminist pride and vanity, aided by acquiescent males in senior (i.e. non-combatant) roles, fearful of their careers at the mercy of transient politicians.
Standards will not be maintained
In recent years, the only modern army with actual experience of females in infantry roles – the Israeli army – has now withdrawn them. In its operations, the Israeli army is always deployed in overwhelming superiority, not at all like fighting a comparably armed opponent, like on Mount Longdon for instance. In the early desperate years of fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II, the Soviets did deploy women in front-line roles, but these were swiftly withdrawn, or killed, and not replaced by women.
In Britain, as in the other Anglo countries: US, Canada and Australia, we have obsessive feminist groups opposed only by feeble males in authority roles. When women were admitted to the British police, the barely adequate minimum height requirement 5 feet 8 inches for men, was immediately dropped to 5 feet 4 inches to accommodate women recruits. In the army, the Royal Marine assault course requirement was softened for one particular female officer, so she was allowed three goes at just scraping a pass, when one failure for men is the finish.
We can therefore safely assume that should women be allowed into the Army’s teeth arms, standards will be “redefined” (i.e. dropped) to allow this, despite the assurances from Philip Hammond – transient Defence Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, that “there would be no compromise on physical fitness”. Actually, physical fitness, defined by carrying weights, running, climbing is not the whole point. Violent aggression in the face of the enemy, the combination of speed and strength, is what really counts and this can only be tested in actual battle, or a physical simulation so realistic as is likely to damage any female taking part.
What should men do?
Ambitious British males should recognise that in many key roles they may be up against not just ordinary competition from other qualified males and females, but an institutional bias coming from the top of their organisation in favour of promoting women at any cost. If any should fall victim to this bias, in their view, they should take their case to an industrial tribunal. The mere implied threat of this will usually deter most top managers, even generals, from not doing their duty to appoint the best qualified individual to any given job.
End Notes
[1] Feminists never demand that female Board candidates should have served as sales representatives in out-of-the-way places like Ulan Bator or Phnom Penh for instance, or even had working experience as a sales or factory manager.
[2] The latest example is the appointment to the telecoms regulator job of a female with no discernible knowledge of, or even past interest in, telecoms technology or its businesses, except as a user like the rest of the population.
[3] The said Amanda van Dyke is quoted there as saying: “The reality is diverse boards (i.e. ones with women at unspecified levels of representation, but usually 30% is quoted as a minimum) perform better on almost all metrics” and “the volume of evidence that supports diverse boards is overwhelming”. (Recent evidence of trying this in Norway has not proved her point.) She added: “The idea that only operational mining experience can lead to board level governance in the mining industry is false and completely unhelpful” (to whom? Ambitious women with no mining experience, doubtless.) The boastful arrogance of these remarks and the ignorant assumption that the prime function of boards is “governance” may be dismissed as ludicrous – but men should realise these women are deadly serious.
[4] It is entirely predictable that a foreign lady with no military, let alone battlefield experience, is “researching” the issue for the Royal United Services Institute. She readily pronounces that women have already served in ground combat roles in Afghanistan with the implication that the issue is settled. These however were passive, accidental happenings in terrorist conditions, by-products of their roles as medical orderlies and signals officers in HQ posts. Why does the RUSI pay good money for this futile “research”.
[5] E.g. an over-promoted female, a Royal Navy Lt. Commander, has had to be removed from her ship for engaging in just such a relationship with a junior officer in her crew.
