Women Soldiers - Again !

There was little demand for lady Knights in my young day, but it seems all the rage in our modern times.  Just where the demand arises is anyone's guess but one can hardly blame the Feminists for a change. After all they have been demanding and getting all the privileges one can think of for well over half a century by protesting and taking their clothes off in public  and yet the average gal does not want to fight and die like her brother has to. But times are changing.

Pretty Robots ?

In our turbulent times we face the problem of losing our humanity along with our masculinity and femininity, especially when it comes to the Profession of Arms. 

Nevertheless there are lasses who have put away their marital urges and taken up some martial ones, and some - particularly feminists - are not very ladylike.  OK, some ordinary women could pass easily as ladies, while in fact are wenches. Heck there are real, bona fides ladies that I know who have an urge to 'have a go' or at least get a bit of martial training under her blouse. And perhaps that is not a bad idea in these turbulent times. Defending home and family is becoming an issue for both sexes.

Skirts on the parade ground are not unknown. The Scots have had them for a long time. The Greeks too. But usually they have chaps wearing them. The Greeks even wear tights and fluffy slippers !

But how are the ladies doing? The chat in the Tavern today raised a few issues. Would they be worse or better at some things than men: War for instance. How about the danger of letting loose with guns, psychopathic women who hate men enough to want them all dead? They could be quite useful in a war when men are the enemy but otherwise might cause a bit of a problem. 

Are women inherently violent?  Violent enough for war?  Are men for that matter?  There are some really nasty gals around. And men who have to be 'shaped' in order to shape-up, as has always been the case in battle-times.

Kate Medina set the ball rolling at the skittles in the UK room. I bet you didn't know we had a skittles alley in there did you. She demanded a full pint of 'heavy' in a dimple glass... and held it properly.

UK: Putting women soldiers like me on the front line is dangerous - blame our biology.

To my parents’ dismay, as a young girl I dressed in army fatigues, sported a crew cut, used to line my cuddly toys up at either end of the living toom and send them into battle. 

My favourite game was to climb over our neighbours’ fences, cutting through people’s gardens, sneaking through their open back doors and slipping out the front, unnoticed. No wonder my mother and father despaired. 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/putting-women-soldiers-like-me-on-the-front-line-is-dangerous/

When I went to university, it felt like a natural progression to join the Army Reserve. I spent two years as an officer trainee, won my unit’s award as best woman officer cadet and was selected to go to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. 

When I came out, I was given command of my own troop in the Royal Engineers and served in the Army Reserve for five years. I look back on those years with a huge sense of achievement, pride and affection.

So I’m in absolutely no doubt as to the value of women in our Armed Forces.

Women currently occupy many roles classified as ‘non-combat’ - like those in the Royal Engineers - and are routinely right in the heart of the action. They have been a huge asset; serving with expertise, valour and distinction and gaining enormous respect from their male colleagues.

But, until now, they have not been able to join combat units – those with the primary aim of killing the enemy. That includes infantry battalions, armoured regiments and the Royal Marines.

And, even as a military woman myself, I have real concerns about the government’s decision to open up these ground combat roles to women.

David Cameron is to announce, this weekend, that he’s removing the ban on women serving in infantry and armour units. His decision comes after service chiefs, last month, unanimously recommended the move – which will see tank units and infantry jobs opened up to women in phases over the next year.

Now, if you believe that, I have a bridge across the Derwent I can sell to you cheap. Well perhaps the British 'Chiefs' are being cut from a worn-out template. 

Fighting as an infantryman is the toughest job in the army. 

Most men are not mentally or physically tough enough for this role - and far fewer women will be. 

A review by the Ministry of Defence into whether women should serve in infantry and tank regiments estimated that, on current levels of recruitment, only around seven a year would pass through training to qualify for infantry units, about fourteen would qualify for the Royal Armoured Corps and just six for the Royal Marines.

So, for these numbers, centuries of tradition have to be overturned and millions of the Taxpayers' bucks have to be flushed down newly installed ladies' loos. 

We are physically different from men. It is a biological fact that the average women has a third less upper body strength and when it the comes to hand-to- hand combat - a fight to the death one-on-one; woman against a man - we will be at a physical disadvantage.  

 Hmmmm. Physically different, yes, and hooray for that. But disadvantaged eh? I am sure that not many chaps would want to kill this gorgeous young woman. 

I am not so sure about her wants regarding men though. 

I am reminded of the crusy old General who was reviewing a Parade one day which had a contingent of lady soldiers amongst the ranks. He stopped infront of one such as she. His steely eyes looked into her bright blue ones; his eyes went slowly down her very curvey frame, paused over her prominent chest, continued down past her waist, her hips and the hem of her skirt, right to her daintyish shoes. And slowly back up again.

His eyes met hers again. "Tell me, m'dear", he said. 'Could you kill a man? 

She looked him down and back up, just as slowly, then leaning forward very slightly, whispered, "Eventually".

Anyway, back to Kate....

Women are also twice as likely to get injured as men. It stands to reason, then, that women will be put in greater danger than their male colleagues purely because of their biology. 

Concerns have also been expressed by senior military figures that male soldiers would feel the need to ‘look after’ their female colleagues, thereby reducing their fighting effectiveness and in turn, putting them more at risk.

Are we really ready to see our daughters gang raped, tortured and decapitated live on the Internet by Isil fighters?

What !! Like the men? Are we really so ready to see men instead? 

Because that is exactly what will happen if a female front line soldier is captured in Syria. For terrorist or extremist organisations, any press is ‘good’ in their warped world view - and the more gruesome, disturbing and inhumane the better. A captured female soldier would be gold dust for their global radicalisation campaign.

So much for the value of men in this 'patriarchy' that feminists say is all about privileging men.  

I also think a blanket approach to opening up all ground combat roles to women is too ‘cookie-cutter’. 

I see no reason why women couldn’t serve in front line armoured regiments that aren't quite as physically demanding as, say, the infantry. These units do see direct combat, but the soldiers are 'mounted' in fighting vehicles, so there is less physical fitness required and they do not engage in hand-to-hand combat unless their vehicle is disabled and over-run by the enemy.

I’d suggest that the Prime Minister and army chiefs take a more measured approach and initially open up such regiments to women, monitoring that for a few years before making any further decisions about the infantry.

There is clearly a political imperative to proceed and a perceived need by the government to be seen to be politically correct in allowing women to serve in ground combat roles.

But the role of the Army isn’t to be PC. It’s to be an effective fighting force and any decision that could compromise that effectiveness in these very challenging global times would be a erroneous one indeed.

Right. Effectiveness. No to PC. No compromise, especially on fitness. Yet.... the drift amongst our top boss soldiers, all after political approval, with politicians all after the woman's approval, is to fall down in homage to the feminist demand for taking everything a man has.  Including his military good sense.

So, how's it going? We only have to look to that bastion of white, male privilege, the good old (aging, failing, sick unto decrepitde) U.S of A to see. The UK sees the low likeihood of significant numbers of females 'shaping-up' to make even a platoon.  The US population is 6 times larger. 

Female Soldiers Fail to Pass Phase One of Army Ranger School

All eight female soldiers participating in the first co-ed class of U.S. Army Ranger School failed to advance to the second phase of the grueling infantry course.

On the male side, 115 male students met the requirement to begin the Mountain Phase of Ranger School in Dahlonega, Ga., on Saturday, May 9, according to a Fort Benning press release.

 http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/08/female-soldiers-fail-to-pass-phase-one-of-army-ranger-school.html

The eight female candidates, along with 101 male candidates, will be recycled to repeat the Darby Phase of Ranger School.

Approximately 35 male Ranger students failed to meet the standards of Ranger School and will not be recycled, the press release said.

This is the reality. Some military roles are SO demanding that most men just will not get through. The likelihood of women getting through is, frankly, miniscule. 

"They will return to their units having learned a great deal about themselves and small unit tactics, patrolling, leadership, and team work," according to the release.

No changes have been made to the deliberate evaluation process used to determine which students are dropped, recycled or allowed to move forward to the next phase, the release states.

The eight females were among the 19 that showed up Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade's first co-ed Ranger course April 20. Three failed to pass the Ranger Physical Fitness Assessment, a requirement to enter Ranger School.

Eight out of 16 female soldiers completed the Ranger Assessment Phase, or RAP week, which consists of day and night land navigation, obstacle courses, skill tests and a 12 mile road march with a rifle, fighting load vest and rucksack weight approximately 47 pounds.

I hesitate to go on, lest we embarrass the ladies here in the Tavern. But instead turn to lesser known and understood issues that take us well past the Hollywood depictions of battle and into the minds, hearts and humanity of man. One can draw ones own conclusions about how ladies fit in.

Most men do not ordinarily want to kill.

Understand that.

There were few Knights in my day. Most who wanted to be, did not 'shape up'.

To get an ordinary chap to 'shape-up' for war takes far more than physical exercise and technical training.  It has to change his character. That character needs to be toughened-up. It has to be ploughed deep to bring aspects of person up to the surface. Courage, Tenacity, Persistence, Drive, etc. 

But there is a danger that other aspects can be damaged or buried. Thinking. assessment, moral judgement.

There is a danger that to mass produce 'effective' soldiers, one must make battalions of robots.

I shall let Lindybeige explain in some detail.

Drink up.

and Pax Dei

(for there is little chance of any human peace down here.)