Mum’s Army

We recently learned teenage cannon-fodder taking selfies with Tommy Robinson at a motorway service station is beyond the pale according to the Army top brass, who wheeled out an Imam to scold everyone.

According to this paper (pdf), which is published by a Major Tim Towler in a branch of the military calling itself The Centre for Army Leadership, what is needed in the British Army is – you guessed it – more feminism:

Last year the Army was in the Times newspaper’s Top 50 Employers for Women and won a Workplace Gender Equality Award from Business in the Community.

Who knew the Army was eligible for Business in the Community awards?

And yet, a few weeks ago, I had an eye-opening, embarrassing, and worrying discussion on the challenges still being faced by women in the Army. Eye-opening, as I was not aware how unpleasant and discriminatory we can be; embarrassing, as I had naively hoped that our Army might be better; and, worrying, as we have a long way to go. The final remark, ‘there’s not much we can do’, irritated me, and spurred me to write this Insight. I felt ashamed, and I wholeheartedly disagreed.

I’m unsure of this chap’s regiment, so I’m going to go with the Royal Army Handwringing Corps.

One example of this opportunity is shared parental leave which was introduced in the UK in April 2015. Sadly, Morrissey highlights that ‘just 3,000 couples took shared leave in the first three months of 2016, compared with 155,000 mothers taking old-style maternity leave (and 52,000 fathers opting for shorter paternity leave)’. Men and women both want to play an active role in their children’s lives, but is taking parental leave for a few months seen as consistent with having a great career? How many women’s careers currently suffer from taking maternity leave? As leaders we can change this. But this goes beyond just career progression. UK childcare is the most expensive in the world.

When you have Army officers parroting The Guardian over maternity pay, we can safely assume the Army’s not what it was.

In 2010 Helena Morrissey founded The 30% Club, a UK business initiative aimed at achieving better gender-balanced company boards. Its goal was to reach 30% women on UK company boards. Ambitious noting that in 2008, ‘fewer than 12% of the directors at the UK’s top 100 listed companies were women.’ At the start, they struggled, acknowledging ‘that leaving those in the diverse or under-represented groups in charge of solving the problem of their own underrepresentation is an impossible task.’ They needed to ‘involve men with the ability to change things’.

What’s this got to do with the Army?

Noting that women make up 9.2% of our Army (and only 6.4% of the General Staff), men need to step forward.

I’ve noticed that, of the men who are always saying we need more women in senior positions, none are prepared to resign from their own posts to hand them the opportunity they deserve. What are you waiting for, major?

It is in our interest: greater diversity of thought, increased collaboration, greater personal and professional flexibility, and the encouragement to attain a better system that will enable us all to succeed both in and out of work.

Just don’t get caught taking selfies with Tommy Robinson. We don’t want that kind of diversity of thought.

The biggest short-term effect we can all have is through challenging everyday sexism.

Okay, that’s enough for today, I think. As I’m fond of saying, it’s quite obvious that the purpose of the modern British military is to further the socio-political aims of demented progressives. It sure as hell isn’t to fight and win wars or defend the nation against foreign aggression. If this paper is any guide, they might as well turn the Army over to the sociology department at the nearest poly.

And this amused:

The views expressed in Leadership Insights are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official thinking of the British Army or the Ministry of Defence.

No? Somehow I don’t think they’d publish an article which said feminism is the biggest threat to the British Army since the Third Reich.


20 thoughts on “Mum’s Army

  1. Via a reader, this is how the Chinese recruit for the military. They appear to be a little more serious about things, don’t they?

  2. Hi Tim, we have our own version in Australia – Lieutenant General David Morrison, Australian of the year 2016. Morrison listed his three priorities as Australian of the year: “action on a republic, domestic violence and gender equality”.
    In 2013 the then Chief of Army “Morrison, in supporting diversity, authorised the combining of a rainbow flag with the Rising Sun badge. In that year, Morrison also permitted defence personnel to march in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.”

    In June 2014 “Morrison formed part of the Australian delegation to the Global Summit To End Sexual Violence in Conflict in London, to which he delivered a speech arguing that armies that separate themselves from civil society, value men over women and celebrate violence “do nothing to distinguish the soldier from the brute”.”

    In Australia, he is probably most famous for his speech at the United Nations International Women’s Day Conference (2013).


  3. Jeez – He’s from the Black Watch? WTF?

    This is one of the toughest infantry regiments there is. He should know that this is never going to wash with the Jocks.

  4. @David Bishop on October 22, 2018 at 1:59 pm

    You beat me. Going by Arrse comments, Tim Collins was liked by those who served under him. Firm, fair and a good bloke. Similarly liked was Dick Strawbridge.

  5. Defence – TR Lawyer/Barrister

    Prosecution – Judge Hilliard who has added two further charges

    Judge – Judge Hilliard

    Jury – No

    A fair trial?

    Diplock Courts in NI were for good reason; no excuse for this hugely worse than Diplock kangaroo court

  6. Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that all men are evil and want to harm women , followed by pleas to men to fix all of women’s ptoblems.

  7. I’m reposting (without explicit permission, but it was posted in open forum so I’m calling Chatham House Rule) this from a Regular Army ackwai- akquai – person I know. The author’s more clued on this stuff than I am, hence the long quote, but I see nothing to particularly disagree with.

    This is a pretty good demonstration of the bind the Army is getting itself into by relentlessly catering to a political constituency that it is never going to satisfy (with a dash of media incompetence, as standard).

    As has been said on here plenty of times, you can pander to a minority, but it doesn’t make the majority go away. They are still there – or at motorway stations – and still have a voice. Sooner or later that is going to appear, and if nothing else, it will have the benefit of numbers.

    I think most people looking at this would think “They’re kids” (whether or not they know how to ID rank slides or cadet capbadges). This is probably what a fair section of the Army look like and how they think. They are also clearly not speaking for “the Army” as an organisation.

    Some people would have looked at that and thought: well on. Others will have looked at that and thought: not for me. But none of them are mistaking a smartphone video with a bunch of kids for official policy. Aside from anything else, nobody mentioned BELONGING.

    That’s also undoubtedly what the MOD comms department thought when it landed on their desk. They will have also thought a couple of other things. They have to disown it, obviously. But they also have to steer away from the likelihood that some of those kids are under-18, and so the story could quickly become: CHILD SOLDIERS. So they can’t simply say: kids will be kids.

    Also, they can’t say: we don’t regulate soldiers’ political opinions since they aren’t old enough to vote, and that leads back to CHILD SOLDIERS. Since they are likely recruits, they also can’t simply say: not trained soldiers yet, because then the question becomes: what are you training them? At the same time, the message they have to reinforce (because BELONGING) is: we are minority friendly. The obvious concerned minority here, given Robinson’s record, is Muslims.

    In other words, they are already substantially constrained in what they can say. They can’t just shrug, tell the truth and deal with reality (usually the best response), because one interest group (the child soldiers one) will hammer them. Equally they have to reinforce a line to a second interest group, that, at heart, everyone knows is much more “this is what the generals say” than “this is what the soldiers think”. Finally, they have to try and do this in a way that doesn’t overtly piss off everyone else, i.e. most of the Armed Forces and their recruitment pool. Not as easy as it looks.

    Admittedly, going straight to the MCB and Armed Forces Imam (zero chance those two quotes appeared without having been cued up by MOD communications first) makes it even worse, because it adds a degree of actively alienating the majority and reeks of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD, while probably not convincing their target population (when will UK officialdom learn that Muslim kids dislike the MCB as much as anyone!). But this kind of thing will keep happening while the Army / MOD try to play to a tiny, politically motivated gallery of ‘swing voters’ that has been traditionally opposed to them, while ignoring and implicitly pissing off their base.

    It’s just a losing strategy, and always has been. Appeal to new groups = good. But only if you can do so without alienating your traditional base.

  8. We shouldn’t really be surprised, this is the same politically led MOD that threw Brian Wood MC and others to the political dogs of Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers. If you listen to Brian in the linked podcast you’ll find that the MoD didn’t even give him the courtesy of presumed innocence and support him and his family.

    There’s also an epidemic of soldiers who served in NI, Iraq and Afghanistan commiting that is being all but ignored by the MoD:

    Five men who served their country on the front line have died suddenly in tragic circumstances over six days, exposing the scale of a mental health crisis gripping Britain’s military veterans.

    An investigation by The Sunday Times found that four veterans and one serving soldier died between September 26 and October 1. They had served in campaigns from Northern Ireland to Bosnia, Iraq to Afghanistan. We also found that 42 former or current servicemen and women are believed to have taken their lives since January.

    And the hounding of dying, old men who served in Ireland during the troubles:

    Theresa May has faced demands to assure MPs about her personal efforts to end the “completely abhorrent” investigations of Northern Ireland military veterans.

    Conservative former Army officer Johnny Mercer warned the “vast majority” of the country is against seeing former soldiers being “dragged through the courts” over events linked to the Troubles.

    He later said Mrs May’s response was “not good enough” after she acknowledged the concerns and labelled the investigation process in Northern Ireland as “flawed” due to its “disproportionate focus” on former members of the armed forces and police.

    We have never been good at looking after veterans but this shower in Parliament (with a few noble exceptions) are almost vindictive in their complacency.

  9. Well, why not? We’ve seen what relentless feminisation has done for our police farce, why not extend it to the Armed Services too? Think of the bright new world we’re building!

  10. “Sadly, Morrissey highlights that ‘just 3,000 couples took shared leave in the first three months of 2016, compared with 155,000 mothers taking old-style maternity leave (and 52,000 fathers opting for shorter paternity leave)”

    What the fuck is up with those numbers?

    Total UK forces strength is around 150/- plus volunteer reserves. So 155/- mothers? There must still be some blokes left in there somewhere, surely?

    And 3,000 couples in 3 months gives 12/- over a year. Or about 8% of the force strength. Or about an entire division.


  11. I’m surprised that some White Knights from the other thread (“Women in the Military”, 14 Sep 2018) are now complaining (if mildly). Isn’t this what you wanted? This is what you so assiduously defend and promote. Be happy, you’ve won.

    Wrt Col Tim Collins’ article (linked by David B. above), I wrote in the earlier thread how there is hardly an argument for recruiting women not equally valid for recruiting elderly, disabled, midgets and children; the ‘morbidly obese’ can be added to that list.

    We’re now redesigning new and retrofitting old submarines around the midget hands and midget legs of the dainty little women expected to be manning personning them. As long as we’re doing that in pursuit of the Holy Grail of Diversiddee, I can’t see any reason not to also redesign and retrofit subs (and tanks and everything else) around the morbidly obese as well. Widen the corridors, bunks, seats and whatnot, and ensure floors are kept clear for those motorised scooter things that fat gravitationally-challenged Yanks are notorious for trundling around on. We’ll be forced to at some point anyway as we recruit more women—they’re not all midgets after all, plenty are landwhales.

    Remember guys genderfluid otherkins, there is no s**tlib-created problem that we cannot find an insanely expensive and plainly insane s**tlib solution to.

  12. @ScotchedEarth on October 24, 2018 at 8:41 pm


    BBC Celebrates Fat Autumn Harvest From The Ugly Tree

    Back in Time to The Factory Whales

    One of the “Stars”: Chelsea, 17 – maybe NSFW

Comments are closed.