Blogs Coffee House

Women should not fight on the frontline

10 April 2014

10 April 2014

Writing in the Spectator Diary some time ago, the evergreen Peregrine Worsthorne, observed that one of the things about getting on was that you ended up forgetting the reason why you believed things and ended up having to think things out all over again. I know what he means. A little while ago I was invited to be interviewed on Sky about my opposition to women having close combat roles in the Army. And you know how it is; you’re busy beforehand, you don’t have the chance to do research, you don’t have time to look up your original thoughts on the subject. And it dawned on me en route to Milbank that I couldn’t for the life of me remember why I was opposed to women fighting.

When I got on air, I found I was pitted against a serving woman officer from a studio in Bristol. Adam Boulton, who had read my thoughts more recently than I had, duly asked what the problem was about women in combat roles. ‘It’s not what feminism should be about,’ I said weakly. ‘For early feminists, equality was not about replicating men’s roles; they were anti-war.’ Well that didn’t quite do it. ‘But you don’t believe killing is feminine?’ said Mr Boulton. ‘I don’t think equality is about the sexes being the same,’ I said, possibly even less coherently. He swivelled back to the woman in Bristol. ‘So it’s not feminine, not something women should do?’ he asked. She gave that one short shrift. ‘Killing’s not very nice for men either,’ she said. ‘There are all sorts of things that might seem unfeminine. Probably wearing army boots doesn’t look feminine either.’ Far from it! I wanted to say. A slightly built woman in army gear is terrifically feminine…the contrast, don’t you see? But alas, I didn’t get the time. It was not my finest moment; I have avoided Adam Boulton ever since.

Subscribe from £1 per week


Anyway, all this came to mind when Sir Peter Wall, chief of the general staff, observed to Soldier magazine that ‘allowing women to be combat troops would make us look more normal in society but there will always be people who say the close battle is no place for female soldiers.’ For those who like to see Europe in everything we do, well this is an issue that’ll be right up their street: European law requires the army to revise its practice in this area once every eight years.

So, apropos Sir Peter’s remarks, I have considered the matter all over again and decided that I’m not quite there with Lara Prendergast who, in a recent blog, wrote that women should be allowed to undertake any army role on the basis that they undertake exactly the same tests as men do. That’s rational. My own objection is pure repugnance to women killing people. Except on special occasions – during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, I interviewed several women soldiers in the Serbian and Croatian forces who were in the line of fire, including a waiflike Croatian girl who was her unit’s top sniper and worried what the long term effects of the job would be on her. So in times of crisis, I’d say anything goes. Plus, I don’t think promotion in the army should be linked to combat experience; they also serve who do other things.

But in the normal way of business, I think it’s hateful for women to take life – though, inconsistently I’m fine about women serving in the armed forces in areas which may quite possibly involve killing (the military police, say)
– but not doing it upfront, as it were. There are subsidiary reasons too, like the disruption to the cohesiveness of a unit featuring both sexes and the unwavering gallantry that would mean men soldiers taking extra risks to protect their female counterparts. But that’s not really what it’s about, not if I’m honest. It’s not even about the selfish wish to preserve the principle of women and children first in crisis situations, which might be compromised if women were on the front line. It’s because I think women should, in general, nurture life, not take it. Irrational, I know, but there it is.


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • lili

    So its hateful for women to take life…but not for men?

  • StephanieJCW

    At least you’re you upfront about your belief being irrational so fair play to you.

    I wouldn’t want to be in the army. But if some other woman wants to fight, kill and die for her country – well so be it. I don’t agree with saying women “should” do/be anything. I can’t thing if any good reason to demand women are more nurturing of life than men. But that’s just my opinion.

  • Jonathan Burns

    Actually the best person for G force resistance is a male weightlifter, short and muscular.
    The reason why sport hasn’t fallen for political correctness is because they are expected to WIN and BEAT their opponent in plain view of loads of witnesses.
    While the police, fire brigade and military are subject to lowering of standards to appease the PC crowd.
    The US Navy was finally forced to sack a nightmare of a female captain who had been able to get away with abuse of her crew for so long because she was female.

  • Jonathan Burns

    Oh dear Liz typical feminist anything males are better at can be ignored while anything women are better at is so important.
    If you check the Olympics the only events women can compete against men involve horses.
    So we have a situation that women can’t compete against men in sport but can in war.
    If women are allowed in combat roles only around 1% of female recruits would qualify and even then these women would then suffer higher injury rates. But we all know standards will be lowered for women and quotas will be introduced.

  • Liz

    Allowing women to join all areas of the army and removing the conscious and unconscious obstacles to their advancement to its decision-making ranks will be the most effective move towards peace we’re ever likely to get.

    • saffrin

      We know. But is surrendering at all costs really the best option?
      The army is about more than the smart uniform and shiny buttons dear.

      • Liz

        Surrendering to whom, sweety bum?

        If the other armies are staffed by women too, they won’t be invading us!

        That’s a man’s game.

        As, incidentally, are all the shiny medals and awards. Men, never ones to just do a job without getting something special to wear.

  • Liz

    “I’m not quite there with Lara Prendergast who, in a recent blog, wrote that women should be allowed to undertake any army role on the basis that they undertake exactly the same tests as men do. That’s rational. ”

    I’m afraid that isn’t rational at all. Quite irrational in fact.

    The current tests have been arbitrarily set to match an above-averagely fit, Caucasian male. The tests don’t encompass the different mental and physical and emotional abilities of the above-averagely fit non-Caucasian or female. E.g. The ability to withstand exposure to the sun, the ability to survive longer in cold water, the ability to hear a larger range of pitches, the ability to remain conscious in g-forces, the ability to recognise a wider range of emotions more quickly, the ability to build consensus, the ability to recognise patterns, language and verbal abilities, ability to gain intelligence from other women and children and so on.

    Women and men have different abilities in certain areas, but rather than siphon them off into entirely different roles, or worse, entirely different castes, wouldn’t it be rational to bring those abilities to bear on every role?

    • saffrin

      No. If wimin aren’t up to the job they shouldn’t be doing it.
      If wimin want equality they should man-up to the idea they have to hump the same kit around as everybody else.

      • Liz

        If men want equality they need to withstand cold water and g-forces and be capable of emotional intelligence like everyone else.

      • armyclk

        I hate to burst your bubble. I spent 20 years of my life in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I can assure you, I humped the same the same kit around for those 20 years including for 4 tours overseas, as every man, in every unit, be it infantry, armoured, communications, support, that I was posted to. Our Army allows females in combat, and we have one of the most highly effective and respected Forces in the world, for it’s size. Maybe that’s because we’ve progressed beyond the caveman mentality, and work together as a cohesive team and unit. Well, for the most part. There are still some misogynistne draggers similar as I’ve witnessed here around, but they are a dying breed as better educated soldiers are getting recruited…

  • Smithersjones2013

    I look forward to demands from feminists at the UN for “All women front lines” in the coming years. If women want the privilege and entitlement of exclusive access to the boardroom they should also have the privilege and entitlement of the exclusive right to be sent by their nation to kill each other……..

    Amazons of the world unite………

  • Tom Tom

    Women should fight in all-female units on the front line. There are more women than men and therefore more easily replaced. It is time to stop support roles needed for disabled and wounded combat soldiers being taken by women and disabled combat soldiers being ejected from the military.

    The Red Army had women in combat on The Eastern Front in an era of total war, and it is prissy to pretend women should not face death and dismemberment when they exceed the supply of men in society. ALL should be drafted at 18 anyway, men and women

    • Liz

      Only when women make up 52% of all the decision making bodies that will be sending them to war.

      • saffrin

        What happens to your ‘equality’ problems if wimin make up 52%?

        • Liz

          The problem will only be 48%. Bonus!

  • transponder

    This IS irrational: ‘hateful for women to take life’: GROW UP! Ch******! I am

  • Liberty

    They tried it in the Israeli army and found that men were overprotective, women more vulnerable, innapropriately dependent on lighter weapons besides the obvious factor of possible sexual relations before and during action. Women soldiers are now rare in the front line and focus on backroom stuff, managing drones, etc. Almost all those controlling Iron Domes in the latest barrage from Hamas were young women.

    • Smithersjones2013

      “All women front lines” are the answer to that . Don’t involve the blokes at all

    • StephanieJCW

      They still have women in the Israeli army. The men being ‘over protective’ nonsense is just that, nonsense. Never been evidenced and a similar risk would arise, in fact a greater risk from the friendships built amongst men in the army when they go out on the field together.

  • OldNosey

    There are a lot of comments on here indicating that if women can pass the tests then they should be allowed to do as they wish. I would point you towards the steady decline of the police in this country as a warning against that line of thought.
    The police started with the same precept. If they pass the test their in, and this particularly related to the specialist teams such as firearms and crowd control. But the reality is that due to the physical strength required the majority of women could not pass the tests – so they lowered, and lowered and lowered again the standards until they became laughably ineffective, and the specialist teams could then fill their ranks with women
    We now have a hopelessly ineffective, PC obsessed police service (your not allowed to say force anymore), and that’s what will happen in the army.

    • transponder

      That’s not to do with women, any more than men marrying men is the fault of women. It’s the decline of the West, and men are to blame for that, too (perhaps the most).

    • Jabez Foodbotham

      This argument probably holds for any field of human activity including education where standards once imposed to deliberately weed out those who did not meet them are lowered in the interests of inclusiveness or equality. A lowest common denominator by definition can always be found.

    • Liz

      Except the police are much more effective now than when they were an all male force. You can say thank you if you like.

      • Jairzinho

        The police are highly ineffective and poor value for money which is one of the reasons their budgets are now so squeezed.
        Perhaps we can have all female crowd control at sporting events.
        See how ‘effective’ they are then!

        • StephanieJCW

          It would be just as effective. I have frequently seen female security officers and bouncers.

          • Jairzinho

            Anecdotally OK. The validity of your comment can only be measured when it accepts proportionality. Lots of males could d job; only a small number of females.

    • StephanieJCW

      So they didn’t pass the same tests.

      Also is this myth or do you have evidence?

  • HookesLaw

    I do not think the issue is women in ‘combar roles’ as in going over the top, but more being put in situations close up the line where they may come under fire and have to shoot back. In the type of counter insurgency we have been involved in the ‘ftont line’ is vague.
    We have female pilots and females onboard ships all of whom have their lives at risk and are involved in killing people.

  • Frank

    I seem to recall that the Russians had female fighter pilots and all female crews for tanks in WW2.
    I agree that they may not be right for riot control, but then we probably don’t use water cannon enough.
    The key thing is that they look and smell nice in the trench!! Mind you, they may object to the “lavatories”.

    • HookesLaw

      Women in the kipper army would have tko make sure they cleaned behind the jerry cans otherwise they would be on a charge.

      • saffrin

        Too right. The lads wouldn’t want to come back to a dirty camp now would they.
        They’d have better have the tea ready too…and done the bleeding washing & ironing.

  • Vlad

    The point in this article couldn’t be more wrong. Genetically women are not equal to men when it comes to fitness and muscle mass. That’s as plain as day light. So they should be allowed to fill whatever role they want to as long as they can pass the tests necessary for that particular role. If there’s one though lady out there that can hold her own against any other trained soldier, male or female then, by all means, she should be allowed to do the job SHE WANTS to do.

    But you wanting her to nurture instead of fight it’s as a selfish view as it can get. You basically want to preserve the image YOU want to have about women, not what that woman on the front line wants. Why should men be the killing machines? They don’t want to hurt people more than women do (except for psychos who can be either male or female). Just because they aren’t genetically made to host children (and I use host here because the child actually grows from an independent embryo and only receives shelter and nourishment from a mother) doesn’t mean they don’t want to nurture or protect life. As soon as the child is born both parents can take care of the child equally and some men even do it better than some women.

    You just have an opinion about how you want things to be not a fact. Bottom line everyone should be allowed to choose what they want to do as long as they are capable of doing it properly, regardless of how they were born. And we should have less killing and more peace. No one should be on the front line killing their kindred.

    • transponder

      Wrong: they are equal in terms of fitness; they are not equal (sod Nature!) with respect to bigness, height, muscle mass, and the capacity to do without sleep. Nature gives men all the advantages (did I say ‘sod Nature’? Then let me say it again!).

    • Liz

      Genetically men are not equal to women when it comes to surviving cold temperatures and negotiating with people.

    • StephanieJCW

      Why do people like you not understand AVERAGES? Men on AVERAGE are stronger than women – this is not true for all men.

      If women pass the tests why should they not fight. Of course the overall number would be much smaller, so what?

      • StephanieJCW

        I mis read want to delete and I can’t!

  • Jez

    If you look at Russia toward the back end of WW2, they used extensively Women in combat roles due to manpower issues.

    Would the specific task at hand be compromised if a woman was utilized for the job at hand?

    Its the CO’s call.

    • HookesLaw

      Yes. Why would there be a moral reason not to have a woman as a sniper?

      • Jez

        None to the person on the other end of the contact. It would be the same moral outcome if scooby doo was pulling the trigger.

        Whether holding a sniper rifle, flying a Yak or on the opposite side, aiming and firing a Panzerfaust at a wave of tanks, then history has proven women can actually fight effectively in specific situations.

        • balance_and_reason

          OKeedoke Jez…you can be the specific situation man for the light infantry brigade no2 3rd battalion no4 sub section 44…now we only got to employ an extra 2000 useless twats to do a job that didn’t need doing before…no body armour lads…PC comes first….pretty much the outcome under Blair

          • Jez

            Shut up mate.

            In specific jobs women should not be able to get out of something because they are not men. If the job is suitable for a women to do then let them do it. If it is not- e.g. entails carrying 20+Kg with gat, helmet body Armour for prolonged periods of time then they can’t do it. Simples.

            REME, RLC, Army air core they could do it without compromising effectiveness.

      • saffrin

        Too dangerous. All that expensive kit lost just because the silly bi…ch couldn’t put the mirror down and forget about the eye shadow.

        • armyclk

          Pick up a history book. Assuming you can read. Some of the most “successful” snipers in the world have been women. It’s a fact that women are better marks”men” than men.

    • balance_and_reason

      Yes, they were called mattress brigades by the front line troops and treated horrifically.
      Having read all the above it seems to me that the following is clear;
      1/ About 1-5% of women could, and would probably opt to join and fight on the front line and hold their end up with the average of the 40 % (approx) of the male population that would suit a similar role.
      2/ Since we are not short of males to do that job but we are short of cash…always……we should do the most cost effective thing…which is just to have males. The joint configuring of training, dormitories, kit, issues with pregnancy, monthly hormonal blips, sexual conflict, rape would all impose extra cost and hamper maximum efficiency. Sure women would bring some extra skills to the party but it doesn’t outweigh, not even close.

      end of.

      • Jez

        No it’s not. I don’t agree with you.

  • Gelert

    There are two issues here – women in close combat i.e. on “the front line” and women in close combat roles i.e. in the infantry. Nobody in the British Army should have any problem at all with women in the front line. They have been on the “front line” on a daily basis in Afghanistan and Iraq and in my experience have done their jobs to the equal of their male colleagues. Indeed a fair few of them have been decorated in recognition of their actions in combat and deservedly so. But “front line” and combat infantry are not synonymous.

    The British army has ALWAYS assumed that any soldier regardless of their trade
    or gender, could end up in close combat. That is the nature of our industry and
    it is why everyone who joins the army completes phase one training in order to
    give them the basic knowledge and skills to do precisely that – fight.

    But, most people quite ignorant of the role and function of the BRITISH
    infantry soldier. In order for the British army to adopt dual gender combat
    infantry there will have to be a seismic change in our doctrine and in our
    equipment. This change will inevitably have a negative impact on our
    capability. Lighter loads = less kit & less ammo = less capability &
    sustainability. The only people that will benefit will be our enemies as we’ll
    be easier to beat.

    The MINIMUM combat load (i.e. what he has to fight with) of a BRITISH* infantry
    soldier is over 35kgs. Lets put that in armchair warrior terms shall we? A can
    of beer weighs 460g, thus 35kg = 76 cans of beer, a litle over three cases.
    Next time you’re in Tesco, pick up three cases of beer and see how it feels.
    Now try to imagine having that weight on all the time. Now imagine adding
    another couple of cases of beer to that load when you pick up your bergan
    rucksack with the rest of your kit.

    *Please do not bring up examples of other nations having women in the Infantry.
    No other nation carries anything like the amount of kit that we do. That’s why
    we’re more effective. We’re fitter, stronger, carry more firepower, and have
    better protection.

    • StephanieJCW

      So if they are able to carry that kit why should they be prevented from doing so? While on average women may not be as physically strong as men, on a case by case basis this will vary.

  • Gareth Milner

    False assumption that the prime role of armed forces is to kill, which it is not.

    • @PhilKean1

      .
      You are right.

      Tea needs to be made and food must be cooked.

      Horses for courses.
      .

      • Kitty MLB

        Phil, you know you tempt the fiery wrath of feminists with that view.
        Its strange really, Feminism was supposed to be about respect and
        intellectual equality not about Women trying to become Men
        and forgetting their femininity. You forgot polishing machine guns.
        Hope they are unloaded– we wouldn’t want the little lady to
        be shouting everywhere, would we? not with her sense of direction
        and all that. And do not let her see any blood or she’ll faint 😉

        • @PhilKean1

          LOL. Best comment of the day.

          Love a woman who understands her role in life and who has a sense of humour.

          Hi, Kitty.
          .

          • transponder

            The average woman has seen more blood from her period each month than most men have seen in a lifetime. And men claim to be the stalwart ones! Give me a break. My dad faints at the sight of anyone’s blood, fercrissake.

          • Kitty MLB

            Phil ,my old knuckle dragger, you may find yourself another
            Tarpapershack/ Alice if you are not careful, throwing snowballs
            into an icy blizzard will do you no good.
            I forgot to say- Ladies driving tanks- al least we will ask for directions when lost in the desert- but best not reverse.
            I had better get on with scrubbing that doorstep, and
            cleaning out the fire 😉

          • StephanieJCW

            Women don’t game any particular role in life.

        • Liz

          Yes it was supposed to be about men not making women’s decisions for them like they can’t make their own.

        • StephanieJCW

          What on earth is this ” women trying to be men”. Women wishing to fight in a combat role isn’t trying to be a man. She wishes to fight on the front line for her country. Feminism was about respecting the right of women to do what they wish to do an freeing them from gender role prisons.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Shouldn`t that be “fodder for horses”?

      • transponder

        And your shirts need ironing of course. What did your last slave die of?

        • Kitty MLB

          Phil, is a wind up merchant, he does this all the time, elsewhere. Get himself in all manner of pickles with women
          you have no idea.

    • alabenn

      The prime role is to kill, if they did not need to kill, you would send the Salvation Army or like the Germans, a social worker who has to be back before its dark.

      • saffrin

        I would imagine just the threat of sending in the social workers would sort them out.
        Scary bunch that they are.

      • Gareth Milner

        So a social worker is good at escape and evasion and can survive in the field for days and weeks at a time?

        • alabenn

          What planet are you on, is that the uniform you wear at paint balling, even a pretend squaddie would realise I was being sarcastic about the Wehrmacht.

      • StephanieJCW

        No it’s not. Poor understanding of military and their work in war zones.

  • @PhilKean1

    .
    We would have the same situation as we have with the police.

    The men scale the walls and chase the criminals while the women do crowd control and talk to witnesses. Have you seen the TV police programs?

    And what about all the compensation claims – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305077/WPC-Kelly-Jones-tripped-999-collect-sues-force-prang-panda-car.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10046648/WPcs-cut-thumb-will-cost-force-100000.html
    .

  • RavenRandom

    You’re right Melanie, your opposition to women in combat roles is as you admit “irrational”. You’ve lost the argument.
    If women want to fight and are as good as their male counterparts then it would be sexist to prevent them.

    • @PhilKean1

      .
      What planet do you live on where it is possible to believe that a woman can match the physical strength and capabilities of a man?

      Don’t forget that war is a nasty business. A hardened male adversary is unlikely to kill a lone female soldier. Rather, he would subdue her, have his way with her, and THEN kill her.

      I would never be so irresponsible as to put British women at such risk.
      .

      • RavenRandom

        Did you not read the section where I said “If women want to fight and are as good as their male counterparts”? If they are as good as, if not then they don’t get into regular combat roles, therefore your point is irrelevant.
        You know some women want to be in combat roles and some of them are very fit indeed.
        Your other point is an assumption and also any women joining will be aware of the risks they take.
        Women have a right to make the choice. You do not have the right to prevent them.

        • @PhilKean1

          .
          But women don’t have the right to put my nation’s security at risk by weakening our already understrength army.

          They can never be as good, in terms of physical ability – which is the main requirement. Let us please grow up.

          When a woman is selected for the national male rugby team, a woman is contracted to drive for a Formula 1 team, and a woman is chosen as Man U’s main striker – I might start listening.
          .

          • RavenRandom

            If they are as good as men… which is what I keep saying and you keep refusing to hear, they will not be weakening our army.
            Further this comment “They can never be as good” is an assertion. There will be women, certainly a smaller percentage than men, who can complete infantry training on the same terms as men.
            I know you want to ignore the factual realities of both my statements and the strength distribution curves of men and women, (they overlap, men are on average stronger), but ignoring facts and advising people to grow up makes a weak argument.

            • @PhilKean1

              I don’t buy into all this “as good as men” bilge.

              They can be as good as men playing computer games. Well, some games. As good as men designing clothes. And as good as men teaching maths. But they can never be as good as men being a man.

              It doesn’t matter if they can complete infantry training on the same terms as men. Though I suspect they’d have to weaken the course for them. It isn’t possible for a female to match the strength and natural aggression of a male soldier.
              .

              • RavenRandom

                Of course it’s possible. 1+1=3 is impossible. A woman being strong and aggressive enough to get into the infantry is easily possible. Now you’re just in denial and wearing your prejudice on your sleeve.

                • @PhilKean1

                  Yeah?

                  Would you let your daughter, your wife or, if you are female, your lesbian lover join up for front-line duty? I would not.

                  But I don’t think you have taken a blind bit of notice of my reasoning.
                  .

                • HookesLaw

                  But your son, its OK for him to get himseldf killed? What is it about the brains of women that prevent them from being in your view ‘normal’?

                • @PhilKean1

                  A son is a male. He would be matched against males. Of course I wouldn’t want him harmed.

                  It will be hard to find a sillier comment than yours in this blog.

                • HookesLaw

                  You were plainly treating women as ‘different’. Modern war is not like the Battle of Waterloo. It involves a wide variety of roles which require having a gun and being willing on occasion to use it.

                • Sks_55557

                  He’s “dug in” with a simplistic thinking, PhilKean1. RavenRandom seems to see testing for a combat role no different from securing a job with an all-male road crew. Ever notice how the female road crew members are given the traffic flag to wave….? It is required to hire some women, and they have to give them something to do; but what is the “flag waver” equivalent in the field of combat?

                • RavenRandom

                  No I’m afraid I’m infected with a sad case of equality, freedom, choice and democracy. In contrast your ailment might be thinking it’s 1840.

                • Sks_55557

                  No, I’m thinking it’s the 21st Century, well past the 1970’s, when you sort of yammering was revolutionary and hip, — and eventually dismissed. I wondered at first why the others here on this site were so rude to you, but I confess in my own exasperation that I see it a bit now. (I know that’s rude, but it’s how I’ve come to feel too.)

                • RavenRandom

                  So equality, choice and democracy were dismissed in the 1970s as hip? I must have missed that. Now they’ve been abolished in favour of what… your brand of ill informed paternalism?

                • Sks_55557

                  You wave the word “equality” around as one would
                  hold up a crucifix to ward off werewolves and vampires. But equality is a guiding idealism that has limitations in the real world. I direct you to “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal” by Capt. Katie Petronio and “The Myth of Equality” by Rebecca Bynum; — not as proof of anything, but to illustrate the translation of an ideal into real-life needs, demands, and human nature.

                  One treads on volatile ground when he seems irreverent toward sacred things such as equality, life, the Bible, democracy, “my rights!”, and so on. We expect such indignation from idealist, categorical thinking when we attempt depart from the emotionalism and discuss
                  the effects of these things rationally.

                • RavenRandom

                  No we are not all created physically or intellectually equal. As I have said on numerous occasions in this thread, if a woman wants to and passes the tests then let them join a combat regiment. You are as usual so fixated on your own ideology that you refuse to listen
                  Fewer women than men would pass those tests. Nevertheless some will.
                  Equality is equality of opportunity.
                  Do think anybody understands your second paragraph?

                • RavenRandom

                  That’s because you haven’t reasoned. And yes if a female relative or friend of mine wanted to exercise her democratic rights and free will of course I would “let” her. How would you stop her?

                • @PhilKean1

                  Err, you stop her by not giving your consent.
                  .

                • Kitty MLB

                  Indeed Phil, ladies must always remember that we were
                  made from the rib of man. You are the hunter, gatherer’s
                  and we cook and remain fragrant . Always meant to ask, do lovely chaps feel redundant due to the advent of farming
                  and supermarkets. You do not even have to chop
                  down trees now, there are saws. Always wondered you see 😉

                • @PhilKean1

                  Women sort of like to have their man as the one who takes responsibility for major decisions. My experience observing other relationships tells me that a woman ends up not respecting a weak man; the majority of break-up is, IMO, because of this one important factor.

                  However, in answer to your question. I do the gardening, trim the trees, the renovations, the decorating, the car cleaning and checking and taking out the bins, among other masculine tasks.
                  Surely it isn’t much to expect a woman to make the tea and coffee, cook the food, wash & iron and share responsibility for doing the cleaning? :-)
                  .

                • Kitty MLB

                  Phil, you are a good egg.
                  A husband who clearly respects his wife and who is not
                  lazy. Someone strong, reliable and there is nothing wrong with traditional roles. You should not have to defend them-
                  and I am sure if your wife hated ironing and you hated
                  gardening- you both could swap. ( and both like cooking)
                  You are right, Someone whom is a alpha woman will
                  not respect a beta male, some men chose that role
                  because they are weak and lazy but others are forced into
                  it by women and circumstances.

                • dmitri the impostor

                  I do not think women should be in the front line because they cannot drive, take ages to get ready and would insist on time out for Downton Abbey and other stuff.

                  Not that I am a misogynist. Credit where it’s due. That Rainer Maria Rilke was a damn fine poet.

                • Liz

                  Yes, I guess that’s why men had to get the courts to stop car insurance companies from treating them as a higher risk.

                • transponder

                  I’m a fabulous driver: see far ahead, anticipate situations, put on speed when I need it (e.g. on-ramps, and sometimes exits, as well as crossing highways such as we have in the United States) while being cautious and slow/responsive on residential streets. And I’m female. So get stuffed.

                • Liz

                  Gatherers always brought in the majority of the calories to the tribe. Hunters were under performers.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Just amusing myself with my old comrade
                  Phil, who in public pretends to be still
                  at the pulling woman around by the hair
                  stage of evolution.Yet I am sure as a devoted
                  husband , he always makes her a cup
                  of tea first thing on a Sunday morning..

                • @PhilKean1

                  LOL.

                  No tea or food gets made when there isn’t a woman in the house.

                  I eat pre-prepared meals or takeaways when she is away at conferences and meetings.
                  .

                • Kitty MLB

                  You poor old thing, even struggling to
                  make beans on toast or a teabag in a cup.
                  Watch Nigella Lawson on TV, she will teach you
                  a thing or two.Its a pity wives cannot place
                  husbands in kennels whilst away, atleast
                  we’d know they were being cared for :)

                • RavenRandom

                  An adult female doesn’t need your consent. What century are you in?

                • @PhilKean1

                  Women who love and respect their men become emotionally obligated to seek their wisdom and consent. And they do this happily.
                  .

                • RavenRandom

                  Right. If I had not read the rest of your thoughts, I would assume you are joking.

                • Liz

                  And women who are married to pillocks just put up with them.

                • Liz

                  Does your wife or adult daughter need your permission to do things?

                • @PhilKean1

                  .
                  There always has to be a Captain of a ship.
                  .

                • RavenRandom

                  Captain Caveman?

                • Liz

                  Yes and she’s looking for the life raft.

                • StephanieJCW

                  You wouldn’t be able to stop them.

                • Sks_55557

                  Wrong, RavenRandom. Tests are only approximations; passing a series of tests does not translate into actual performance for anyone, and it certainly does not turn a woman into a man.

                • RavenRandom

                  Wrong is such an absolute statement. You’re telling me no woman could be a good combat soldier? You don’t need to turn a woman into a man, just into a soldier.

            • Sks_55557

              RavenRandom…. “as good as” is an elusive concept. In that real-world the example I offered about women in police work and prisons, they all passed the tests to get the job. That satisfies the legal requirements for “as good as.” But consistently they were not able to perform the complex, nuanced elements of the job itself.

              Even in, say, NFL football (I’m writing from the United States), promising candidates perform glowingly stepping through obstacles, leaping and turning and hitting — passing the test; yet that too often does not translate into effectiveness in the game itself. The only real test is performance, — in the game, on the job, and on the battle field, and that is where women who are “as good as” consistently fail.

              It’s one thing to put up with it in the work-world, but quite another to entrust one’s own safety, that of the team, and that of the nation to an ideal that has proven not connected to real-world performance.

              Gender is manifested most conspicuously physically, but it influences us in so many other ways that we do not measure: physiologically, mentally, emotionally, psychosocially, … on and on. Combat is humankind at its most base and primitive; and high-minded flash-in-the-pan PC policies are more dangerous to our troops than any enemy combatant.

              • RavenRandom

                Once again I can only assume some sort of wilful denial. If a woman passes the tests then she gets a combat role if she wants one.
                Do you have any proof that trained women fail more than men in a combat situation? Blind prejudice is still out there I see.

          • Liz

            Does it occur to you that women might bring skills to the table that men lack? Because men lack a great many skills.

          • StephanieJCW

            If she passes the same tests there is no risk.

      • Smithersjones2013

        Hideous as you might find it in this world:

        http://tinyurl.com/lyaqmjp

      • Liz

        You do know male rape in combat and during imprisonment is quite common too?

        • @PhilKean1

          Men are forced to play 5 sets at Wimbledon.

          Women are SPARED having to struggle to complete 5 sets and play only 3. Though illogical feminist logic dictates that they think they should be paid the same as the men for doing less. No changing them :-)

          Just an example of how we try to shield our women from hardship. War is no different.
          .

          • Kitty MLB

            Phil you are being unreasonable now, We do not have big strong wrists like you chaps, we are delicate little flowers. You
            cannot have it both ways. Five sets during the tennis world
            tour, that asking too much- Now you did realise they don’t
            just play tennis at Wimbledon. Its excellent within the EU-
            your favourite place- good food as well.

            • @PhilKean1

              But you want the same money :-)
              .

              • Liz

                It’s not a salary, it’s sponsorship you nitwit. Sports people aren’t paid by the hour.

          • Liz

            Yes and sprinters don’t run as far as long distance runners and feather weights don’t fight heavy weights. Your point?

      • StephanieJCW

        You do not own British women.

        If a British woman wishes to take that risk, that is her choice to make.

    • Sks_55557

      Irrational is not a weak point. Rationale can take us only so far, and we easily become over dependent upon it. That is why human beings, not computers, make decisions, relying on rationale for only guidance.

      Teenage boys and older men have long fought alongside the troops in wars (e.g. the US Civil War); in fact, some exceptional boys and older men could probably pass the rigorous tests for inclusion in combat in today’s military. Rational thinking would tell us we the role of hand-to-hand combat should include, women, children and the elderly.

      In that same vein, there are certainly some specialized roles aboard modern warships or aircraft that do not require sight or hearing or use of all four limbs. Again, rationale tells us we could simply make them handicap accessible.

      One entirely rational point I would follow: we cannot turn a woman into a man simply by giving her training and equipment and physically strengthening her.

      • RavenRandom

        We assume children cannot reason correctly. That’s why we no longer allow them to choose certain things. Adults on the other hand in a free society get to choose. Nobody is talking about forcing women to join a combat regiment. But if they want to and are able to, then let them. Did you read “able”, that means if they complete equivalent training.
        If disabled people are able, without hindrance to function in a military capacity and want to, then they too should get to choose.
        Choice and freedom is the modern humane, equal and democratic way to go.

        • Sks_55557

          Well, if sexism is such so unsavory, allowing women to choose but not men is indeed sexist. It seems men have responsibilities; women have choices. What you describe is “equality a la carte.”

          • RavenRandom

            “It seems men have responsibilities; women have choices” in what way? You can’t just pop out a meaningless phrase and expect people to accept your assertions.
            Focus on the subject in hand: should women be in combat roles? If they are able then yes, they should have the same choice as men. How is that not equality?

    • HookesLaw

      I would agree, although from the strict well being of the nation it would seeem counter productive to me to put ‘prime women’ of child bearing age into zones where they may well be killed or maimed.
      I am not sure but when the Nimrod crashed with 13 crew then some of them may have been women. if not there was no reason why there could not have been women on the crew.
      Being in the armed forces is inherently dangerous both from menemy action and plain accident.

      • transponder

        Women dislike being regarded as society’s incubators. Just a tip.

      • Kitty MLB

        With advent of a different type of warfare due to the menace
        of those who wish to destroy the West, and the use of chemical attacks, we do need to be on our guard. Mind, you we do have quite a few hulking, tattooed Labour
        voting woman, that we could send if we wanted too, they are as strong
        as men.. and you would not want to cross their path on a Friday night,
        I can assure you.

    • Sks_55557

      Yes, — it would indeed be sexist to prevent them; and that is precisely what is called for. Sexist is not necessarily bad or wrong. — it’s simply a word. It’s sexist to have separate leagues for men and women too, as it is for a man to defend his wife from an assailant.

      RavenRandom, you allow words like “irrational” and “sexist” to disqualify clear humane thinking.

      • RavenRandom

        In what way? Women should be allowed to choose. Sounds rational and humane. Would you restrict their choice? Is that not inhumane?

        • Sks_55557

          Choice….? Soldiers depend upon one another; the nation depends upon them. Going into combat isn’t some sort of a “personal journey” or a career path or an opportunity to prove one’s self; it’s a dire responsibility.

          Somewhere we’ve gotten lost in the terminology “women’s right to choose,” — as though it’s sacred. Men have responsibilities; women have choices.

          • RavenRandom

            We have a volunteer army. Men choose to join, women choose to join. If they choose combat and are able then let them.

        • Sks_55557

          What would be inhumane would be sending a fighting unit of, say, 70 women and 30 men against an all-male enemy contingent of 100 that is not similarly encumbered by political correctness. I can observe from experience that this happens in prisons and on police forces, — where the male-female ratio has left us under-manned to respond to an emergency and we had to wait for additional resources before acting. (Ironically, it is frequently the women, not the men, who will object to such an unbalance of too few men on the team.)

          • RavenRandom

            Right once more… what I am still saying is women should be allowed to be in combat regiments… if they pass the same training as a man. So the 100 above would have all passed the same training requirements. So no problem.

      • Smithersjones2013

        But underneath the word are the privilege and entitlement that is entailed within such discrimination and women (politicians primarily) seem to want all the benefits of equality and none of the disadvantage.

        Equality cannot be selective………

  • @PhilKean1

    .
    The madness of excessively PC, Liberal-left Britain.

    Allowing women into possible hand-to-hand combat situations where it would need at least three women to stand any chance of defeating a hardened male adversary.

    The madness of putting women on the front line at the same time this Coalition is handing out redundancy notices to young, experienced male soldiers.

    The madness that, if we assume it would need 3 women to match the physical capabilities of just one male, and then speculate that Britain could one day have 30,000 front line female soldiers – it would represent a de-facto further cut to Britain’s already under-strength army of 20,000.
    .

    • Smithersjones2013

      Allowing females into possible hand-to-hand combat situations
      where it would need at least three women to stand any chance of
      defeating a hardened male adversary

      Really?

      http://tinyurl.com/lyaqmjp

      • Jairzinho

        No need anyway with ‘intelligence led’ policing. You let an ‘intelligent WPC near a felon and she talks a confession out of him…he’s bound to give in after a very short period of feminist whining in his ear.
        Should work every time.

    • Jairzinho

      Allowing females into possible hand-to-hand combat situations where it would need at least three women to stand any chance of defeating a hardened male adversary.

  • swatnan

    Some women have a propensity to kill.

    • alabenn

      Murderous men and women are not suited to military life, soldiers kill as a means to an end, the murderous type do it because of cowardice and pleasure, the pleasure seems to be initiated by torture, frontline action precludes that.
      Most war crimes are committed behind the lines with captives by the rear echelon soldiers who almost never do the actual fighting, having said that those of a murderous inclination joining support regiments would satisfy the two requirements, no real instant danger and the time to carry out your will.
      The soldier who the army convicted of murder because he disposed of a prisoner was neither of these, different types of killers should be treated in context.
      Other than that women can never be as efficient as men at soldiering because of their limited physical and possible mental strengths.

      • swatnan

        Mentally women are reputed to be much stronger than men, and they are reputed to be more tolerant to mpain and discomfort.
        Some people are not disposed to killing and are pacifists.
        These days technology has improved weapons, its easier to pull triggers as easy as it is to press a button to send off a drone, behind lines, or even from Whitehall Ministry of Defence.
        So physical strength doesn’t really come into; you’re not required to lug around heavy equipment these days.

        • alabenn

          You say,
          So physical strength doesn’t really come into

          Do not write such utter tosh, the sheer grind of getting into position for an attack would leave women floundering, it is not anything like the paintball rubbish, nor does it bear any resemblance to computer games, the equipment is heavy and neither drones or fighter aircraft have ever won a war, that can only be done with troops on the ground and women would make it harder if not impossible, regardless of the fantasist feminists group think.

          • transponder

            No need to be quite so disrespectful, old boy. Women have given birth since humanity began, and a Dutch doctor of the 1600s called them ‘martyrs’ for doing so. The ancient Greeks, reputedly, were glad that they could enter battle rather than go through the terror of childbirth.

            Button your tunic and look to your front.

      • transponder

        Depends what you mean by mental strengths. A man is confronted by 115 choices of wallpaper. A woman is confronted by 138. Which one has the breakdown?

  • telemachus

    Is it not hateful for anyone to take life, Melanie?

    • SimonToo

      My butcher has a clear conscience.

      • transponder

        He shouldn’t. I don’t eat lambs, pigs, or cows these days, because they are animals I could care about as individuals and name. Fish and poultry and no higher is my rule.

        • telemachus

          My grandchildren have goldfish with names

          • Kitty MLB

            Good for them Telemachus, I wonder what they are called ,
            Rasputin, Lenin and Karl- have they got little red flags floating
            around in the water. I bet you have a dog called Ed..
            you must have.
            My husband doesn’t like me naming pheasants before cooking
            them.. he gets quite upset about it. Which I find funny so I
            do it even more..

          • transponder

            Uh-huh. And presumably you don’t eat them.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here