Dressed to kill. In the US women have been eligible for all military jobs since 2016

In another great leapforward for female equality, women in Britain are now able to apply for all military roles in the armed forces, including in frontline infantry units and the Royal Marines, the government has announced.

Those already serving in the forces will be able to apply to join the SAS and other elite formations within 12 months, while new recruits will be eligible to take the arduous selection after three years of service.

This completes the process that began with the lifting of the ban on women in close combat units in 2016. They may now “close and kill the enemy.”  (‘Female soldiers allowed to fight on the front line and join SAS’, Telegraph, October 26, 2018).

Since the recruitment of women to these fighting roles will depend on fitness, it could be that no women will qualify – unless in due course a legal challenge is brought by an aggrieved female complaining that the fitness tests discriminate against women.

However, none of this addresses the fact that we are going to train women to kill. Asked if women had the “killer instinct,” Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, responded: “I am the father of two wonderful daughters [aged 11 and 13]. They can achieve anything. If they want to join the army, navy or air force I want them to have every opportunity to take any role in any of those services.”

And yet this is not just another “job opportunity.” Would he be happy to see his grandchildren brought up by servicewomen trained to respond violently to threats, woken in the night by a crying baby for the umpteenth time? If men need training to kill other men – and, since so many armies now include women in combat roles, women – why should we think that it will come naturally to women? 

Reportedly, this new development “comes after MoD research recommended ways to limit the risk to women of musculoskeletal injury and psychological and reproductive health issues.” We can only speculate whether this means that allowances must be made for women nurturing their children in between killing – or perhaps the provision of abortion pills to ensure that they do not become mothers while they are engaged in killing.

Unsurprisingly, in an age seemingly obsessed with a “woman’s right to abortion,” the “right to kill” is just a short step away. But if women can suffer from mental trauma after having an abortion, they will also have to deal with the PTSD already suffered by male soldiers. 

This is the kind of “equality” that equality campaigners ignore, and an MOD spokesperson made clear: “By making all branches and trades of the military open to everyone, regardless of their gender, the armed forces are building on their reputation of being a leading equal opportunities employer.”

It is typical of the present Government that they are anxious to “send a signal” that they “care about women’s rights,” and no doubt they believe that our example will be gratefully copied by the nations of the world. But they are also sending a signal to potential enemies that we are no longer to be considered a serious opponent. As retired officer Colonel Richard Kemp observes, the new policy would “cost lives” as it would “lead to divisiveness” and undermine teamwork.

It should be obvious that the concern men would feel for the safety of female comrades is a weak link in their defences that could be exploited by potential enemies indeed, men who did not feel such concern would be unsuitable candidates for the armed forces -- like the kind of women who are eager to kill men.

No doubt this is yet another EU compliance issue -- even though we are supposed to be leaving that august institution -- designed to avoid a legal challenge from some aggrieved female who feels excluded from armed service. But it also fits with the steady decline of our armed forces, which are already under strength.

Equality’ advocates insist that recruiting women will make up the shortfall, but for every woman who joins up, several men will be put off by the perception that the armed forces are not for them. Thus, numbers will continue to dwindle, because, contrary to the equality campaigners, there are not enough women dying to kill someone; this fact should be something to celebrate, but it says something about our ruling elites that, instead, it is seen as a problem to be fixed.

It is significant, too, that this announcement coincides with the forthcoming commemoration of the end of the Great War, since it lines up with the “new history” in which (unbeknown to those living at the time) women won both World Wars. Initially an interesting though neglected corner of history, the contribution of women has become mainstream orthodox history, although even the most blinkered professor of grievance studies can scarcely claim that women officially participated in direct fighting.

Now all that is changed, but even if no women volunteer to participate in front-line fighting, the message has been sent that a woman’s place is in the trench. As to the men who actually died in the trenches, it only serves to minimise their sacrifice. Even as we prepare to commemorate that sacrifice, this must be regarded as the mark of a forgetful nation.

Ann Farmer lives in the UK. She is the author of By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (CUAP, 2008); The Language of Life: Christians Facing the Abortion Challenge (St Pauls, 1995), and Prophets & Priests: the Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (St Austin Press, 2002).