Over 200 British soldiers have just been sent home from the Afghanistan frontline, and not because they were no longer needed for operational reasons.
They weren’t wounded. They weren’t shell-shocked. They hadn’t experienced the deep emotional trauma our soldiers are encouraged to experience at the very thought of having to murder fellow human beings, especially those who have a multi-culti value.
They were, well, pregnant. And no, our government hasn’t yet managed to override physiology and take homomarriage to the next logical stage.
No physiology had been overridden. The 200 were all women who had got impregnated the old-fashioned way (details available on request), most of them by their fellow (male) soldiers.
At the risk of incurring some predictable wrath, one has to believe that such a result wasn’t entirely unexpected. Thrust a few fit young women among a group of young, physical, hormonally active men and chances are not all of them will treat the women as just comrades-in-arms.
One begins to see why the Romans didn’t allow women anywhere near their frontline troops: they didn’t want the soldiers to be burdened with emotional attachments, especially of the reproductive kind. What the soldiers did for sex is a different matter, and we shan’t go into it now.
But forget the ancient Romans. The interesting question is why on earth we today invite women to join the army, especially its combat units. Actually, the question isn’t all that interesting because the answer is altogether predictable.
Modern piety demands that women be regarded as not just equal to men but identical to them. Anything a man can do, a woman can do as well, if not always better. This applies to absolutely everything: operating heavy machinery, loading ships with 200-pound bags, digging ditches, boxing, high-altitude welding – and leading bayonet charges against entrenched enemy positions.
The sheer idiocy of it all should be plain for all to see. It’s indeed seen by all, except that it might as well not be. When modern PC piety speaks, reason flees and sight loses acuity.
Traditionally men rode off to fight wars while their women stayed behind to make sure our civilisation kept ticking along. Not only did they look after the men’s houses, finances and children, but they also ran schools, hospital, parishes – life.
They also tried to civilise their men when they staggered home from the battlefield, to make sure that perhaps next time the warriors would think twice before deciding to kill others, often for no good reason. That effort typically failed to avert subsequent disasters completely, but it must have reduced their numbers.
In short, men and women have their own roles to play in life, and it takes much ideological fog on the brain not to see that these roles, while always being equally important, aren’t always the same. Women think differently, feel differently, react differently – and thank God for that.
They’re also created to perform sexual roles that are different from men’s, both as far as the actual sex act is concerned and also in terms of its consequences. This observation is neither original nor perspicacious, and I only make it for the sake of our rulers whom it seems to escape.
Religious people have to believe that any extramarital sex (fornication, as it’s known in some quarters) is a deadly sin, and this is an unassailable belief. However, as I don’t feel my biography entitles me to claim high moral ground on the issue, I’d merely suggest that, morality aside, sexual intercourse may have different consequences for men and women fighting in the trenches.
They both may enjoy the experience, and they may both burn in hell as a result, although Christ did talk about those without sin casting the first stone. But while still on earth, men can have their fun and then go on fighting. Women, on the other hand, may get pregnant, and morning nausea isn’t a condition that makes people particularly bellicose.
This, along with many other physical, physiological and psychological considerations, means that having women anywhere near the frontline in any other than auxiliary capacity is frankly idiotic. Actually, it’s even worse than that because the decision was driven not just by stupidity but, which is worse, also by ideological fervour.
Some of the young ladies involved were already pregnant when they were shipped to Afghanistan. This condition could easily have been ascertained by a simple test or, provided the expecting mums were honest, by a three-word question. Either of those options, however, would have violated the soldiers’ human rights, as defined by modern morons. So no tests were done and no questions were asked.
In a parallel development, two WPCs have successfully sued the police for having been removed from the firearms unit guarding a nuclear installation. They suffered that awful injustice because their hands were too small to grip the butt of a Glock 17 pistol and still reach the trigger.
One would think that this would somewhat compromise their ability to defend the installation from, say, a terrorist attack. The young ladies were nonetheless awarded £35,000 each for having been exposed to this blatant act of discrimination.
The reports of the trial didn’t mention why neither the women nor their commanders had thought of switching them to the smaller Glock 19, specially designed for what used to be known as the weaker sex. Perhaps neither were sufficiently familiar with firearms. More likely, the bosses were uneasy about having women in harm’s way, while the young ladies grabbed their chance to turn a quick profit.
On the plus side, neither WPC was pregnant. Maybe neither had much time for men. There were too busy trying to get their hands around a pistol grip.