Last night the allegedly ‘conservative’ Turnbull government completely lost its marbles (again).
It put forward legislation making it illegal for the Australian Defence Force to discriminate against women in combat roles. Worse than that, Defence will also consequently be required to meet other standard ‘workplace’ requirements in relation to pregnancy and breastfeeding.
It’s one thing for your local Coles checkout chick to be given flexi-time and maternity leave. It’s another thing entirely to expect the enemy to coordinate his attacks between gestational cycles.
Our infantry training programs are about to factor in the lactation requirements of Private Jane’s bouncing baby and Lieutenant Trailblazer’s obstetrician appointment.
Actually, if this is what a menopausal woman can do to a local cricket game (as reported by news.com.au), maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all:
When all you wanna do is a few sit up at deep square ?? pic.twitter.com/CMq8b8CvLn
— Ollie Pope (@OPope32) February 4, 2018
The video shows only one part of the woman’s epic spray, according to former Eastern Suburbs club captain Matt Coles — the man in the video trying to persuade the woman to leave the ground.
Coles, who was keeping score during Easts first innings, said the match was around 40 overs into Easts innings when the woman bizarrely wandered onto the field and began doing sit-ups around 5m in from the fence.
The woman was not able to hear the cries of players and umpires telling her to move on because she was wearing head phones…
…“She just saw red,” Coles said.
“She didn’t really know what to say. She just kept repeating herself. She just kept saying, ‘I’m a rate payer. Why can’t I use it? You’re ganging up on me, a menopausal woman’. It was just ridiculous.”
This is the kind of lunacy (both the cricketing capers and the Defence do-goodering) that you would expect from Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens. But it is coming from the Liberals (at least the latter is, although the woman above does strike me as a Turnbull supporter too).
I’ll get to the political shenanigans in parliament in a second, but first let me state this clearly: putting females into combat roles will kill people.
And not the right kind of people. It won’t kill the enemy but it will harm our people. Our daughters. And our sons as well.
It will kill our own because females are simply not as strong as males. And warfare – even the modern type – is all about strength.
Strength of mind and body. And if you don’t have the strength of mind to understand basic biology then we are setting ourselves up for a painful lesson.
Take this example faced by British soldiers in Afghanistan:
Caught in the killing zone and unable to advance into the hail of fire, the soldiers withdrew to the relative safety of the water-filled ditch to return fire but were trapped as the insurgents moved in to try to overwhelm their position.
“We had to react quickly,” said Cpl Jones.
“There was something different about this. It was obviously a well-planned ambush and they overwhelmed us with fire from three points initially.”
Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, Cpl Jones ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across 80 metres of open ground raked by enemy fire.
There is always the exception that results from bizarre unforeseen circumstances, but when two people go at it with a bayonet, 99 times out of 100 the blade that belongs to the strongest, fittest and fastest combatant will spill the guts of the other.
It’s game over, in a big way, for the weaker of the contestants.
Given the Australian Army’s basic fitness test only requires females to punch out half as many push ups as males and gives them approximately 20% more time to run 2.4 km, it is fair to conclude that when it comes to combat, blokes stand more chance than sheilas.
And don’t just wave the above example away as irrelevant because it is British rather than Australian.
An exhaustive Australian study has found that Aussie Diggers in the Middle East were shouldering average loads of over 56 kg. It also found that females suffered the same injury risk as men – but this was reached when they were carrying loads equal only to 66% of those carried by males.
In other words, if you put females on the front line you reduce your carrying capacity by one third.
That’s the practical ‘progress’ of ‘progressive’ thought bubbles.
Like I said, this insanity will kill Australians.
When an Australian soldier dies because a female gun-slinger can’t carry enough ammunition, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
When an Australian soldier dies because a female turret-head can’t pull her mate out of a burning hull, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
And when a female combat engineer is captured, raped and forced to mother the enemy’s children, the Liberals supporting this new law should hang their heads in shame.
Eventually this madness will be seen for what it is. I can only hope that it is not after an entirely predictable and preventable tragedy. Here’s praying for miracle number one.
Unfortunately, thanks to Turnbull, when that happens the government will need to change the law again before common sense is actually lawful.
So here’s praying for a second miracle. Let’s hope Labor and the Greens don’t control the Senate at that point because our nation’s ability to defend itself will rest entirely on the judgement of Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale and Sarah Hanson Young.
There are those who claim that this idea shows that our modern society respects and loves women.
This line of thought is akin to arguing that legalised prostitution demonstrates respect and love for women too. Maybe that’s why the new-age Australian Army thought it fit to discuss sending taxpayer-funded prostitutes to combat zones late last year as well.
And now we get to Canberra.
This all blew up last night because Senator Cory Bernardi had the courage to call this madness out.
And then the predictable froth-a-thon began. We can’t have a bloke actually state the truth that men and women are physically different. So, instead, we’ll twist ourselves into morally bankrupt and hypocritical contortions in a vain attempt to appear sane and virtuous.
However, all it does is highlight the absolutely ridiculous state of affairs we find ourselves in.
Thus it is entirely unsurprising that Bernardi was able to easily hone in on the absurd.
The government wants to remove section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows the Defence Force to reject females in combat roles.
But it wants to keep section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows the Wagga Wagga Wombats Division 3 rugby club to reject female players because of their ‘strength, stamina and physique’.
There’s only 106 words between these two legal clauses but they contain everything you need to write a thesis about the insanity of our age.
If the Nar Nar Goon Numbats Darts Association or the Weipa Tug-a-War team or the Mittagong Boot Throwing Club think that discriminating against women will help them win, under this law they can.
Of course, the legal hum-drum is not what the Davos and Maccas of every footy club in Australia care about. They just want to win and they know that Mrs Macca can help them do that by handing out oranges at quarter-time rather than by getting walloped on the half-back flank by the 100 kg dude with tattoos who turned up to play on a Harley.
Unfortunately, this common-sense approach to winning at the local sporting club is not replicated in Canberra.
When it comes to the world stage, next time Australia takes on the Taliban Tornados inside the death cage where two enter and but only one leaves, the government says it will be unlawful for us (but only us) to put forward contestants if there has been any discrimination on the basis of their gender.
I know Australians love their sport but, on the whole, I do think it is rather more important that our laws help us win the main game rather than just helping the Wagga Wagga Wombats win theirs.
Cory Bernardi pointed out all of this in far more Senatorial language last night:
Let me get that point across: where stamina, strength or physique of competitors is relevant, you are allowed to discriminate and exclude individuals, for sport. But we are not allowed to do that in our armed forces.
It’s okay to say, ‘Yes, women should play three sets of a grand slam tennis match instead of, potentially, five sets.’ Or that, ‘AFL women players are not to be in the AFL draft because they’re women.’ It’s okay to say, ‘You can’t have a transgender person trying to get into the AFL women’s competition, because physically they are a male.’ The list goes on and on and on, because there is deemed to be an unfair advantage.
So, I wonder why we are imposing lower standards in order to achieve this goal of equality that is going to put women, potentially, at the front line of war and combat.
It’s a good question that no one seems to be able to answer.
Liberal Senator David Fawcett tried. He started with this:
…for those who have missed this point, that around half of Australia’s population is made of men and around half is made of women, and if you limit the ability of one-half of your population to do a certain role then you potentially limit the efficacy of your force.
I’m not sure if David got the memo (maybe he just missed the point), but no one Canberra is limiting the ability of one half of the population to do anything.
Nature does that all by itself and without any help from that hill of knowledge in the Australian Capital Territory.
Nature limits one half of the population from giving birth and limits the other half from producing testosterone. I know they have big heads in the nation’s capital but to assume that the federal parliament has the power to pass laws overriding those of nature seems slightly more than arrogant.
And then he went on with this:
I come back to the basic premise, which I apply to politics and any sphere of life: if somebody is willing and capable, without lowering the standards, and able to meet the competence requirements then I don’t have a problem…However, if somebody is capable, willing and able to do the task to the required standard with the same amount of training and support that any other person has, then I don’t think their gender necessarily should disqualify them.
That sounds wise. But considering that Senator Fawcett actually served in the military, these words are entirely shallow. They do nothing more than demonstrate that he has no idea what he is talking about when he should, in fact, know more than most.
A little earlier in this article I made reference to the Army’s basic fitness assessment. You can see the requirements below:
As Senator Fawcett should well know, this test discriminates against men and requires women to pass a far lower physical standard than them.
He has done this test. And now he has the front to stand up in parliament and defend a law that will require the Army to place women in the front line by talking rubbish about equal ‘standards’ and training times when there is no such thing.
Interestingly, when it comes to the ‘same amount of training’, as Senator Fawcett put it, you will be pleased to know that females have a special course designed just for them. It is known as the Army Pre-Conditioning Program. It is a seven week course to help them reach a standard of fitness where they can complete a grand total of 8 push ups and commence basic training at Kapooka.
And if, after seven weeks, they fail? Well they get to do it again. And even again after that.
So if Senator Fawcett walked his talk, he would not speak of equal training times to promote female combat roles. There are longer training times for females and he knows it. And he also knows that at the other side of it they are still not required to meet the same standards as men.
Senator Fawcett is doing nothing more than hiding behind empty clichés to promote this vacuous absurdity.
Then came Senator James Patterson. Unlike Fawcett, he did not even bother trying to answer Bernardi’s question and instead claimed it was irrelevant:
But it seems to me that a very important Liberal principle is at stake here, and that is that no-one should be discriminated against on the basis of totally irrelevant considerations.
Who could ever have predicted that the bunch of clowns in Canberra would pass laws making strength and stamina relevant to football contests but unlawful considerations for our nation’s military?
Actually, let me rephrase that. Put your hand up if you didn’t see this coming. Now beat yourself around the head for your sheer stupidity.
Finally came Senator Linda Reynolds. If Fawcett tried to answer Bernardi’s question and Patterson attempted to deflect it, she just ignored it altogether and launched straight into hector-mode:
I want to say to Senator Bernardi: shame on you! Shame on you for your comments this evening. To come into this place in this day and age, when we have over 400 women serving overseas, and say what you did shames us all, and it is certainly not in line with our fundamental principle of equality of opportunity. For a senator and somebody who was a member of the Liberal Party to come in here and argue for keeping entrenched discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act, simply for the fact of someone’s gender, is a complete and utter disgrace.
It’s not surprising. If Senator Reynolds ventured into answering the question she might have had to detail how, throughout her entire military career, she did not have to reach the same physical standards as men.
And then she would have to explain how that correlated with the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’.
Good luck with that.
I did hear somewhere recently that Australia faced growing threats of conventional military conflict.
That does not seem to be a concern to those in Canberra, nor those running the military who have already plunged headfirst into this world of gender equality.
By the way, what does a female-friendly military spend its time on?
Cartoons about sexual consent, that’s what:
This video is part of the new 2018 training program for the Royal Australian Navy.
So good luck to Australia too. We’re gonna need it far more than we’re gonna need the modern military…