Looks and sound sounds good on paper and is fine, unless there’s ever actually a real war.
Women want ‘equality’ yet they want special treatment.
They want lower physical requirements in order join some services.
They want all women shortlists for parliamentary candidates. I thought the idea was equality here?
You’d never get away with all male or all ‘black’ shortlists. They want to work on a building site (allegedly) but they don’t want the bad language or bloke talk.
It’s still ‘women and children first’ to the lifeboats.
I suspect a lot of women don’t mind a door being opened for them and I’ve never met a man yet who would let a woman walk home on her own at night.
There were some 456 British servicemen killed in Afghanistan. I say servicemen, as apart I think one female, they were just that, all men.
I don’t see any women protesting for equality in the casualty figures or campaigning for more women to be killed in order to make these figures more representative.
I mean, if it were figures that showed out of a hundred firemen only one was a female, there would be an outcry and they would demand to have more women.
So, using their logic and the way they interpret figures, we should be saying there’s far too many men that have been killed and the figures show it.
The figures do not reflect the number of women in the army who need to be represented in a more equal way.
Subsequently, we need to campaign for more women in the army, to be killed.
The equality brigade force this in parliament by saying that 50% of the cabinet and MP’s should be female, so as to be more ‘representative’ of the population make up, so why not apply to everything else.
Again though, I thought the idea here was equality?
How about getting a position on merit for an idea, instead of synthetic tokenism.
Too many people fail to differentiate between equality and nature.
It is nature that makes men stronger than women, not inequality; a fact the ‘burn your bra’ brigade hate.
The fact a woman has a baby is nature, not inequality.
From the days of Roman invasion and marauding Vikings to the Second World War, men have always done the fighting, for good and obvious reasons.
Mind you, having said that I'm not entirely sure I'd want to face an army of women with P.M.T.
Comfortable In their sanctimonious ivory towers, the self-righteous, self-appointed liberal Gaurdianista scoff at the likes of the Taliban.
They view their, or at least what they perceive and consider to be, ‘uncivilized’ ways with disdain.
This is in large part due to what is seen as the Taliban' oppressive treatment of women.
How ironic then, that the Taliban actually look down on us.
They may seem primitive, but even they deem it shameful that we would send our women in to battle.
They scorn and laugh at us.
The fact we would send our wives and daughters to slaughter on the battlefield; how do you defend that.
No matter how low or backward you think the Taliban and Co. are, even they don’t send their women kindred to fight.
Guess what would happen, as soon as any female soldiers were captured.
Do they not think that the enemy would rape them?
It’s a sure bet they won’t be fighting women and that’s the first thing that would happen.
And as soon as a large number of female soldiers were raped and/or murdered, there would be uproar.
Paradoxically, most likely of which the loudest outcry would be from women.