Some jokers are real
“Daddy, why is that Army man wearing lipstick?”
It’s the kind of question that every parent dreads from their children. It’s impossible to give any positive, truthful explanation for such a ridiculous situation. So it’s best to try and avoid circumstances that may lead to these awkward but innocent inquires in the first place.
Consequently, when the ABC decided to televise an interview with a cross-dressing Army officer wearing makeup like he was the Joker about three weeks ago, normal parents across the country would have switched the box off.
A good thing too. Kids should not be exposed to that kind of utter rubbish.
I mean, even I found it a little scary. And I kind of liked the Joker. And I’ve been off to war too.
Apparently the purpose of this interview was to get to know the man behind the Chief of Army’s famous speech regarding sexism in the Army: M. McGregor. And boy, did it all come out.
Firstly, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, M does not stand for Malcolm, as Lieutenant Colonel McGregor was previously called. I’m just being politically correct. M is non-gender specific and means either Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs or maybe even Madame, depending on how you feel at any given point in time or space.
Furthermore, for all those feel-good types who have experienced some kind of painful shock at the fact that I referred to Malc, I mean M. McGregor, as a man, please take a deep breath and calm down.
Yes, he has long hair, wears make-up and answers to a girls name, but he also stated in this interview that he didn’t consider himself to be a woman. Jolly good for him, I say. And, as he surely has some idea about these things, it’s fair to bet that he’s right.
Moreover, unless this world is now something that resembles the nonsense of Alice’s psychedelic adventure in the land beyond the mirror, if you are not a girl then you are a boy.
At least, I’d imagine that little fact is taught somewhere in Sex Education 101, unless there’s serious problems in the curriculum.
Plus, in another ABC interview in April this year, McGregor confirmed that he still has all his bits and pieces and will keep them for a while to come.
Luckily for McGregor, who has also told the ABC in yet another interview that he has a history of mental instability and is still attracted to women, new-age Army policies mean he can’t be stopped from showering in the ladies bathroom, even though dangly bits are not normally granted entry. Hey, it’s a good life for some.
By the way, isn’t it weird that the ABC keeps asking about genitalia and sexual preferences?
Anyway, I digress – back to Malcolm (oops, I’ve gone and used the ‘M’ word). He claims he’s the man behind the Chief of Army’s famous speech regarding sexism.
In fact, Malcolm was so proud of his interview about this speech that he logged on to my website and emailed me a link. At the same time, he also called me a girls name and had a go at my physical appearance. Now, I’m prepared to admit that I’m no Adonis, but really Malcolm? C’mon – have you looked in the mirror lately?
Yet, when I thanked Malcolm for his message, he told me that he wanted no contact from me. It’s a little strange, but I guess it’s not that odd considering everything else about him.
So I watched his interview and was struck by a few things.
Firstly, after I finished choking on my weeties when I heard him start talking, I choked on them again when he said that he had refrained from contacting me. It was in the part where he was going on and on and on and on about how he is a role model, needs to behave with decorum and won’t allow himself to become obsessed by his critics. As they say, words and actions are two different things.
And considering that Malcolm actually went out of his way to contact me about his little interview in which he said that he wouldn’t contact me, I can only assume he has serious problems with self-control or that he is a self-delusional liar.
It gets weirder too. Malcolm claimed this site is scatological. Now, I’m not very smart and while this word rolled off his tongue, I had to go and look it up. Apparently it means obsessed with, well, human waste.
Such a claim is really an unfair slight on Malcolm’s character. And as no one else is riding to rescue the fair damsel’s honour, I’ll do it for him. He might be a cross-dressing Army officer that no soldier would want to serve under, but he’s not human waste. And he doesn’t feature prominently in a site devoted to it, but in a site that aims to promote decency, morality and goodness.
True, he’s kind of the poster boy for what not to do, but at least he’s made the cut. So he should breathe a little easier.
Then he had the guts to call me a coward. On national television and in program where he knew I would get no right of reply. And he wasn’t actually brave enough to use my name. He just referred to my ‘tenuous link with the Army’. By that, I suppose he means my 15 plus years of service, three operational tours and United States Meritorious Service Medal.
He also indicated that two websites had been making his life miserable by refusing to accept that he was a lady. Then, as mentioned above, he duly admitted that he’s not a woman.
Now, it’s obvious Malcolm is referring to this site and the Bundarrah Days blog, where he seems to like posting expletive-laden comments.
As I wrote in my reply to Malcolm, I respect that he has courage. It takes guts to dress up like a woman when you are actually a man. It’s just completely perverted and wasted. So I hope he would respect the courage I have shown by having the proverbials to speak my mind when the cards are so stacked against me.
It’s usually called a career-ending move when a major takes on the Defence hierarchy. But I’ve done it because it is the right thing to do.
Finally, in this interview about the Chief of Army’s speechwriter, prompted by the Chief of Army’s response to the latest sex-scandal, it is interesting to note that Malcolm didn’t really talk about the sex-scandal at all. In fact, he spent far more time whinging about me and how our little battle has affected him.
Given Malcolm’s role, I guess it’s not really surprising that the Chief of Army has had some pretty offensive things to say. Like blaming the Anzacs for today’s sexual problems.
Or that he completely ignored the root cause of the problem of sexual offences in the ADF.
So, instead of telling soldiers and officers in the Army that they should not be sleeping around with all and sundry, the Chief of Army just got hot under the collar about the post-consensual sexual boasting that circulated on his computer systems.
I understand his frustration at this second, minor issue, but it’s like putting a golden bandaid on an arterial bleed. It won’t do much at all, but it will look good for a bit.
Unfortunately for the Chief, nothing will change while he hypocritically allows standards to remain at all time lows in the ADF.
Like calling for respect and a non-discriminatory Army while allowing uniformed personnel to join in events that mock and ridicule Christianity.
Like expecting respect for the fairer sex while allowing males to hang around in women’s bathrooms.
Like declaring that the standard walked-past is the standard accepted while allowing uniformed personnel to march past children brought along to watch almost completely naked, self-confessed sexual-perverts grope each other at this year’s Mardi Gras.
Like stating opposition to discrimination while permitting certain commanding officers to call Catholic beliefs offensive and deny parade opportunities to those who hold them.
Or even like pretending to act against sexual misconduct when the personnel involved in the latest scandal are still in the Army after three years, while it has taken all of three months for me to be charged, investigated umpteen times and issued a notice to show cause personally signed by the Chief of Army himself. My crime: criticising the sexual depravity of the Mardi Gras, the prudence of front-line combat roles for women, the wisdom of using taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations and for daring to suggest that Islam might be a tad violent at times.
You know, I accept that not everyone agrees with my views. But surely I am not more of an embarrassment to the Army than the members of the Jedi Council.
That is why the Chief of Army needs to ask himself a serious question about this whole situation, that appears more and more like some surreal joke, in which the bad guys with the bad make-up get to run the show.
Why is an Army man wearing lipstick?
And if the Chief can’t answer it to a three year old, and if he can’t answer it to a soldier heading overseas or his wife hoping for his safe return, and if he can’t answer it to the taxpayer, then he should man up and admit that Malcolm McGregor may be a good friend of his, but that his continued service is not in the interest of the Australian Army.