Complete Blog
This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.
Eyes on Sydney: Drag Queens for Kids
Eyes on Sydney has an update following the passage of ‘homosexual marriage laws’.
The Woolloomooloo Bay Hotel has its priorities right (or it has simply surrendered):
I labelled it ‘Australian National Flag’ with some artistic flair. It more closely resembles a loosely interwoven collection of ragged dental floss. But let’s be charitable and assume that the fraying tatters at the top of this pole used to be part of our flag.
And let’s be less charitable about what we think of the Woolloomooloo Bay Hotel.
Meanwhile, the Mardi Gras is holding a ‘Family Fun Day’ on Saturday, complete with family-friendly Drag Queens to entertain the kids:
For those of you who don’t know who Coco Jumbo is (and I didn’t until Eyes on Sydney reported in today), this picture is on his Instagram page:
I’m still not sure which one is ‘Coco’.
And here is Hannah Conda in action two days ago:
Unfortunately, this event has now been ‘sold out’. I’m not sure what is worse: exposing children to this depravity or knowing that there are ‘parents’ out there who will actually pay to do it…
Doctors turning away Veterans: Contact Magazine
Contact Magazine ran a very disturbing article a few days ago.
It seems that the Department of Veterans Affairs has not increased the fees it will pay doctors to treat veterans since 2012. Consequently, veterans are being turned away by doctors:
The AMA’s bottom line was that doctors were not obliged to accept DVA cards for payment – and, in fact, the AMA said they had long been aware that an ever-increasing number of medical-service providers were refusing DVA cards for payment.
Warwick Hough, Director of the AMA’s General Practice and Workplace Policy Department said the problem was that DVA’s fee schedule had been frozen since 2012, but even before that, DVA generally paid a lower fee for services than a medical practitioner would otherwise charge…
…The doctor who refused to take me on as a DVA patient phoned me to directly explain his position.
He said his current policy was not to accept any new DVA patients where a DVA card was the preferred payment method, simply because DVA did not pay a fair and reasonable fee.
He also said that he was legally barred from charging veteran clients a ‘gap’ under a DVA-payment arrangement, even if they were willing.
If true, this is outrageous.
Veterans who serve this nation are entitled to have their health care costs met by the government for injuries that they have sustained in uniform. It appears, for many years, this has not been occurring, particularly where mental health treatment is required.
Making the news (for all the wrong reasons)
Linda Reynolds is finally in the newspapers.
A week ago the Liberal Senator declared on Twitter that females were good enough to be selected on merit to play in professional sporting competitions like the AFL and NRL:
Lyle, that was called the Womens Royal Australian Army Corp, which was disbanded in 1985 when women were fully integrated Army. So why don’t we take the lead from the ADF and desegregate women in sport, so men and women compete equally on talent, not by gender.🤔
— Linda Reynolds (@lindareynoldswa) February 13, 2018
And now her ‘idea’ is in the newspapers.
None other than Latika Bourke has ‘exclusively’ covered the comments – even though this webpage covered about them here over on 13 February. This is how Latika’s story started:
A rising star inside the Turnbull government has called for a national debate on introducing mixed gender competitions to professional sports, asking why women are segregated from competing against men in codes like the AFL, NRL and rugby union.
Linda Reynolds, who was Australia’s first female brigadier in the Army Reserves before joining Parliament, told Fairfax Media that sport should follow in the footsteps of the Australian Army, which has a target of lifting the proportion of women in its ranks to 25 per cent within five years.
By the way, does anyone remember this?
The Matildas are strongly fancied to give Australia’s its best ever shot at a medal in the sport of football at the Rio Olympics in August. Perhaps they should be grateful there will be no under-16s boys’ teams in their pool.
In a friendly match against the Newcastle Jets under-16 boys team on Wednesday, the Matildas were humbled 7-0. That’s right, the team ranked fifth in FIFA’s women’s rankings were roughed up by a bunch of lads barely old enough to shave.
Out of interest, although Linda Reynolds claims that women meet the same standards as men in the Australian Army, they do not. See the Basic Fitness Test requirements below:
Strangely enough, Linda Reynolds has been rather silent on that point. I think she is too busy rolling her eyes:
.@lindareynoldswa: Women are now fully integrated and serving with great distinction alongside their male colleagues. I’m just sorry that @corybernardi hasn’t had an opportunity to go and meet the women who serve for our country. https://t.co/siYEtc8n8J pic.twitter.com/PXqS1UvSvY
— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) February 7, 2018
It should noted that this interview was broadcast by Sky News a full two weeks before Latika Bourke’s ‘exclusive’.
However, one thing is clear. If the NRL followed in the Army’s footsteps, females would playing – but only because the rules of the games were changed.
Front rowers would be off on the sidelines giving interviews about ‘White Ribbon Day’, while females would applauded for scoring tries at the 30m line (the actual try line would be adjusted for ‘gender meritocracy’). And the referee would be in constant communication with the Australian Human Rights Commission to determine if any tackles constituted sexual harassment…
…and the answer would be yes. All of them. Because #MeToo.
Who didn’t see this coming?
In case you haven’t noticed, in the post-marriage equality world the war is raging on.
Just take the fact that the AFL women’s comp is now staging a ‘Pride Game’.
Ironically by 2020 it will probably be played entirely by men.
It was launched a few days ago with these words:
You know we had a massive break through with marriage equality but we sorta can’t stop there. We just have to keep pushing…
Special occasion that will create inclusiveness, gender diversity, and welcoming of all people 🤗🤗
Take a 👀 at Wednesday’s historic #AFLWPrideGame launch 👇#RealStrength pic.twitter.com/NVgC2xgdQr
— WesternBulldogs AFLW (@BulldogsW) February 7, 2018
Pushing for what?
Well that would be the total eradication of traditional Christian-based belief. The ‘Yes’ campaign’s submission for to the Religious Freedom Review is described this way by Fairfax media:
Religious schools should be forced to hire LGBTI teachers and all church exemptions to anti-discrimination law should be abolished, the “yes” campaign has told Philip Ruddock’s religious freedom inquiry.
And this is what the actual submission recommends:
Religious exemptions in state and federal anti-discrimination law should be repealed. In particular, the exemptions should not allow discrimination in publicly funded delivery of goods and services, and particularly those services targeting vulnerable population groups…
The pro-homosexual marriage lobby groups haven’t shut down. They are only just gearing up. In their sights are parents, Catholic schools and ordinary Australians who may dare to disagree on marriage.
And if you didn’t see this coming then you have had your head in the sand…
Air Force Chief says gender doesn’t matter as he oversees female-only recruitment program
Air Marshall Leo Davies is the Chief of Air Force. He’s the smiley bloke below:
And he’s quoted on the Air Force webpage devoted to diversity and other inanity as saying this:
We want them to know that their height, religious background, skin colour, gender or specialisation doesn’t matter. Everyone gets a fair go at a rewarding career.
It all sounds rather nice. But it, to be polite, is a load of codswallop and he knows it.
When it comes to height, the RAAF does have restrictions:
Screenshot of the Defence Recruiting webpage detailing height restrictions for RAAF pilots.
So regardless of what the Chief of Air Force said about height not mattering, it does.
And when it comes to gender, it also has restrictions:
Screenshot of Defence Recruiting webpage detailing that the Graduate Pilot Scheme is only open to females.
So, again, regardless of what the Chief of Air Force said about gender not mattering, it does. If you are of the female persuasion, the RAAF will allow you to join via its Graduate Pilot Scheme. But if you are challenged in the area of being female, well then it’s stiff bickies.
All of this just goes to show that the language of diversity is entirely meaningless. It makes people, like the bloke running our Air Force, look stupid.
Furthermore, this stupidity is increased because one of these restrictions makes sense. And one does not.
If you are too big to fit into the cockpit of an F-18 then there’s not really much point or purpose in having the RAAF train you to fly an F-18. Hence the reasons there are height and weight restrictions for those seeking to become a pilot in the Air Force.
I don’t know why the Chief of Air Force feels the necessity to pretend that these restrictions don’t exist but, then again, I am not into this whole diversity thing.
I can only put it down to the possibility that in this brave new world of diversity people somehow feel so embarrassed by saying no that they choose to say yes instead.
However, despite the fact that the Chief of Air Force seems hesitant to acknowledge that there are, in fact, height restrictions for the RAAF, these restrictions make sense.
The same cannot be said about the gender restrictions for the ‘Graduate Pilot Scheme’.
A cockpit of an F-18 (or any other plane) does not restrict females in general and nor does it restrict males. Although it must be noted (and the Australian Human Rights Commission has) that a greater proportion of males have the height and weight characteristics required to fly these things than females. According to the Human Rights Commission it is a sign of entrenched discrimination against women by those who design combat aircraft.
But given that fact, if there was going to be a gender-based restriction on pilot entry programs it would actually make sense for the RAAF to prefer males.
But the RAAF has done the opposite. It’s lost its mind over females which seems to make it a particularly masculine organisation, even if it is doing its best to pretend otherwise.
Given all of this, it is entirely unsurprising that the Australian Human Rights Commission has latched onto the Graduate Pilot Scheme and called for the RAAF to, firstly, continue the program and, secondly, monitor its effectiveness.
Normally I would have thought that you would assess effectiveness before deciding to continue with a program. But, then again, I don’t work at the Human Rights Commission either so am really in no place to make an informed judgement on its upside down and back-to-front thought processes.
However, it should be noted that this program was born from an understanding that females training to become pilots ‘hated’ uniforms and ‘hated’ the idea of providing a fixed period of service to the RAAF (known as a ROSO – Return of Service Obligation). And they also still wouldn’t join even if they could train without signing up to either of those things.
So the RAAF decided to chip in to pay for their degrees. And pay them as well.
That seems like a real winner and a grand total of three women signed up for the package in 2014/15. I’m not sure how many have signed up since. It might be seven…
This is what female pilots told the Australian Human Rights Commission about this program:
With the graduate pilot scheme…there were two…hurdles for women in military aviation. One is military and one is aviation. So rather than take girls off the street who then had to battle military and aviation we just targeted one group…women who were already studying aviation, have an established support network and…they have that confidence.
So we looked at them and went well what would it take for you to join and one was they hated the ROSO and they hated the uniform. So if we get rid of the ROSO, the uniform might be a bit harder. So that’s how we did it but they still weren’t wanting to apply so then you had to incentivise it which is how we got the funding for Air Force to then give them back, when they graduate as a military pilot they then get all their tuition fees and university accredited and reimbursed, so that was that in a nutshell.
And that, right there, is how government decisions to spend millions of your dollars are made.
The RAAF ‘Graduate Pilot Program’ has been designed to chase people who don’t like the uniform, don’t like the service conditions and are still only interested in insignificant numbers even if you pay them a king’s ransom.
And they must be female because even though the Chief of Air Force says gender doesn’t matter, it does if you’re into ticking diversity boxes instead of winning wars.
To cap it all off, male pilots who are required to sign on for ten years of their life after they complete their training are labelled by the Human Rights Commission as ‘trouble makers’ for failing to understand that women need special measures for ‘equality’:
Some male pilot trainees reported that the initiative provided an unfair advantage to women pilots…One way that Air Force leaders could communicate measures such as the reduced ROSO, is in terms that explain substantive equality. Women are disadvantaged unless there are special measures that give them time out of the workforce to have a family.
Gender doesn’t matter in the RAAF? Pull the other one Leo Davies. After all, you’re the one obeying orders from the Human Rights Commission to give people special deals based entirely on the fact that they are not male…
Defence unleashes the rainbow jihad
In times of political slavery, these should be words to send shivers down the spine:
…this will be a…very powerful symbol showing LGBTI people who is friendly in their area.
Why? Well if displaying the symbol shows you are friendly, failing to display it shows that you are not.
These words have just been sent out from Defence’s Diversity HQ in Canberra to soldiers, sailors and airmen across the nation.
The rainbow jihad has been unleashed. Just like Communist Russia, Defence now has its battalion of Political Commissars monitoring military personnel for their allegiance to the cause. They’re known as ‘Diversity and Inclusion Advisors’.
Every Defence member who submits and ‘volunteers’ to be an LGBTI ally will be publicly recorded. And every member who fails to volunteer will also be identified and outed.
In fact, the Defence Corporate Directory, which is like the military’s ‘White Pages’ will visibly show who has scribbled their signature on the LGBTI Ally form. And who has not.
Just like this:
A screenshot of the Defence Corporate Directory showing that everyone who signs up as an ‘LGBTI Ally’ will have a rainbow symbol placed against their name.
‘Homosexual marriage’ has only just been legalised and already we’ve moved from the acceptance phase to enforcement.
It’s no longer enough just to vote ‘yes’ in the privacy of the ballot box. You now have to act ‘yes’ at work. And also at home.
For those who don’t remember, the Federal Court ruled that it was entirely lawful for Defence to sack me for expressing private views contrary to Defence’s cultural change agenda. And that means anyone else can be as well.
That means you need to be an LGBTI Ally around your kitchen table too.
And it has not taken very long to reach this point.
The Human Rights Commissioner, Edward Santow, gave an ominous warning during last year’s marriage debate that this is where we were always headed.
As votes were being cast, he stood up in front of a room full of gay and lesbian officers and decried the ‘pockets of resistance’ that stood in their way. He also noted that ‘cultural change’ was an ongoing project.
Very senior members of the Defence Force were present, giving his statement official endorsement.
It was a clear sign: Defence members with conservative views on marriage, family and morality would no longer be tolerated.
Less than six months later, the process for the purge has been put in place.
Every officer receives an annual report. They are graded for their acceptance of diversity and cultural change.
There is no better way of receiving a glowing report than by demonstrating that you have signed up for the rainbow tick of approval.
And if you don’t have one? Well, it’s not compulsory (yet). Although it’s not a good look either. But I’m sure it won’t make much difference at all.
You just won’t be as competitive for promotion.
That’s today.
Tomorrow, the Political Commissars may not be so lenient. You might need to forget promotion and consider whether you want to sign up just so you can keep the job.
Don’t expect to see many officers reach above the rank of major from now on unless they too are prepared to join in the rainbow jihad…
Read the entire call for Defence members to ‘volunteer’ as LGBTI allies here:
*****
This information, and plenty more including information that Defence:
- is discriminating against male recruits,
- is training ‘genderless’ officer cadets,
- was planning to change chaplains’ hat badges to appease Muslims,
- ran indoctrination training to promote Islam to junior officers,
- published an article promoting taxpayer-funded prostitutes and sex toys, and
- is handing out halal-certified rations to soldiers
has come to light thanks to brave men and women in the Australian Defence Force who have shown, to paraphrase the former Chief of Army’s words, that they will not accept walking past low standards.
I thank them for their service and their courage.
These stories are causing great discomfort in Canberra. Politicians and senior officers are squirming. Mostly it is behind closed doors but they have been forced onto the back foot in public too.
Please keep this up – I have no doubt that truth and pressure will see logic win the day.
Thank you also to those of you who have donated to keep this website going. Without your generosity, none of this would be possible.
Equal opportunity insanity (or did you hear the one about the pregnant male footy player?)
There’s nothing like a half-pregnant man to raise eyebrows.
Especially playing at the footy.
And who knows? We may just be there.
After all, there are blokes playing in the women’s sides and they have a whole sports maternity leave thing going on and Medicare statistics helpfully show that in the 2017 financial year 37 dudes delivered a baby ‘by any means’ (mostly in New South Wales where strange things are normal).
Screenshot of Medicare item number 16519: Management of labour and birth by any means.
Screenshot of Medicare statistics for item number 16519 – showing that while the vast majority of those who received treatment for the management of labor, 37 were also male.
One of them is listed as being between 45 and 54 years of age. So someone has a grandfather for a mother.
Thankfully, other statistics make slightly more sense. A solitary fella from Western Australia gave birth by caesarean section which, upon pondering these things, does seem like the appropriate medical response for a bloke with a bun in his oven.
So we seem destined to be politely raising our eyebrows at the footy from now on and thinking back fondly to the days when we only had to raise our eyebrows at less exotic things.
Like Barnaby’s affair.
It merely resulted in a woman expecting a baby and is really so last century. Perhaps if it was Barnaby with a belly the Nationals could have positioned themselves to take on the growing Green vote…
Of course, say what you will about Barnaby (and I certainly have here), he at least deserves credit for accepting that he is actually the man in this business. Because the truth is a man can’t give birth at all and not even ‘by any means’ either.
All that has happened is that the mindless bureaucrat who is paid by you and me to record the number of Medicare obstetric procedures by gender got bored.
Or doesn’t know how to count.
Or doesn’t know what a man is.
I’m guessing it’s all three of those things which is why, to be fair to Medicare, its statistics come with a disclaimer: it takes no responsibility for the accuracy, quality or suitability of its data and recommends that we mugs exercise care and diligence when it comes to interpretation of this information.
But it still says 37 dudes gave birth.
And that has my eyebrows raised too, which brings us back to the footy.
There may not (yet) be half-pregnant full forwards. But there are now blokes playing at full forward in the women’s league who demand that we recognise they may identify as pregnant at a moment’s notice.
This should make people like Senator Linda Reynolds ecstatic. After all, only yesterday she was off on her high horse about how elite sports like the AFL should ‘desegregate’ and let the talent rise to the top.
But really, as a feminist, she should have known better.
It’s only a matter of time before blokes win the Brownlow medal. And that other blokes in skirts win whatever equivalent medal they have for the competition formerly known as the AFL women’s league…
****
By the way, this whole transgender thing is making everyone look stupid – especially those who are trying to run with it.
The AFL, in its wisdom, has accepted that a man can be a woman. But it won’t accept that a man can be a woman in the elite AFL women’s league. However, they can be a woman in other female leagues. And all of this is apparently because a man has an unfair advantage in the top female league but is fine and dandy to go against the less talented gals.
And all of this is going to ‘transition’ again next year, when we will probably find that a man can be a woman on Tuesday and Thursday night training but not at pie nights and not if they play in the midfield (except if they wear a skirt) and only if they are under 6 foot like other women (noting that no woman is like any other women).
Talk about trying to be half-pregnant and eating your cake too.
I’ll leave it to none other than the bouncing ‘Hannah Mouncey’ to flounce on in and explain it all (including the part about how unfairly he has been treated by those who took so long to grant him permission to play against the girls):
*****
I really don’t know why actual women (I guess they would be the ‘people with uteruses’ as so lovingly described by Children by Choice) don’t kick up more of a stink about the way ‘transgender women’ carry on.
As an aside please don’t fret that Children by Choice excludes transgender women either – it helpfully explains to them (and, I think worryingly, the rest of us) that:
Regardless of how people identify themselves or their relationships, pregnancy can still be possible.
I’m not sure whether that is good news or bad news…
Anyway, as far as I understand this whole shebang, all transgender women were ‘assigned’ the male gender at birth by the Official Gender Assigner (I have not been able to find a Medicare number for this procedure but I’m still looking). Which means none of them have the foggiest idea what it’s like to actually be a woman. They can only do their best to ‘project’ femininity when they live as their ‘authentic self’ (I love this phrase – there’s nothing so like ‘authenticness’ as pretending to be something entirely different to what you actually are).
And every ‘transgender woman’ I’ve ever listened to acts like women are nothing more than a walking hissy fit.
I don’t know what is worse.
The perception that ‘transgender women’ have of women. Or that fact that feminists (who spend their lives supposedly championing the cause of real women) accept this poor-form pantomime.
Actually, on second thoughts it all makes sense now. Feminists are walking hissy fits…
Being Linda Reynolds
Sometimes smugness verges into stupidity so crystal clear that it’s like a ray of fresh air sweeping away the cobwebs until it’s as loud as a bell.
I’m speaking about Linda Reynolds.
She is a Senator from Western Australia. She doesn’t think much of this webpage nor of the views posed by others about the ongoing degradation of our military capability.
I say ongoing because once 18 year olds in the infantry needed to do 40 push ups. And when I say once, I don’t mean long ago – the kids who are entering prep this year were alive when that was still the standard.
Now some infantry soldiers only have to do 21 push ups because equality.
I know that last sentence does not actually make sense grammatically, or in any other way. But it is still the reason for this change.
And at this rate, by the time kids born in 2013 actually get to apply for a job as a front-line killer they’ll just need to identify what a bot on a playstation doing a push up looks like (and also where it sits on the gender continuum).
Anyway, I digress from the good Senator. Linda is also completely in favour of a ‘merit-based selection’ process to place females in front-line combat roles while keeping lower fitness standards for women while simultaneously advocating for complete desegregation of gender and competition based entirely on talent.
Whhooo!
I know. It is a bit of a mouthful.
It would also mean that Linda Reynolds is in favour of a process that would mean not a single woman would ever serve in the Army.
See:
Bernard, women have been integrated into the Army for over 30 years and train and serve alongside male colleagues. Merit based selection rightly rests with the chain of command. It really is time to get over it.
— Linda Reynolds (@lindareynoldswa) February 13, 2018
And see again:
Lyle, that was called the Womens Royal Australian Army Corp, which was disbanded in 1985 when women were fully integrated Army. So why don’t we take the lead from the ADF and desegregate women in sport, so men and women compete equally on talent, not by gender.🤔
— Linda Reynolds (@lindareynoldswa) February 13, 2018
The smug part is this: Linda tried to deflect criticism of her ‘progressive’ plans to require Defence to employ females in the infantry by arguing that elite sports should be so ‘super progressive’ as to follow Defence’s lead.
The stupid part is this: Linda argued that competitions like the AFL should not have any gender requirements at all but should select players based entirely on talent. Which would mean, in practical terms, that the AFL would begin as a men’s competition and it would also end as a men’s competition.
And the really stupidly brilliant part is this: if Linda’s suggestion for the AFL was actually implemented inside the Defence Force there would be no women in the Army at all.
It would mean that all females are required to do the same amount of push-ups as men, run as fast men and carry the same amount of gear as men. It would certainly mean an end to the female-only pre-recruit recruit course that runs for seven weeks at taxpayers’ expense to get women to the grand fitness standard of being able to muster 8 push ups.
So I’m completely against Linda Reynolds’ philosophy (because it’s not a philosophy and is instead mindless rambling) and am completely in favour of the outcome it would produce by accident.
It would end Linda Reynolds’ insane idea that it is a good idea to employ women (who are not as physically strong as men) in a role that required them to use physical strength to kill dudes.
And it would also rub out the second idea that you can defeat criticism of the first idea by placing your fingers in your ears and repeating ‘diversity will keep us safe’ until the bad guys go away.
For the record: the bad guys are not the enemy but people like me – there is no actual plan for the enemy.
Welcome the world of being Linda Reynolds. It’s a magical enigma.
Stay tuned. I’m sure this is not the last of her Alice in Wonderland wisdom…
Do the math: If female AFL players injure at 5 times the rate of men, what about female soldiers?
It’s amazing how practice can take the oomph out of theory.
One very small season and a further two (very low-scoring) games into the experiment known as female footy and the bright sparks down at AFL HQ are experiencing the actual difference between men and women.
In short, one of these demographics is more likely to suffer injuries than the other. You should be able to work out which of them it is yourself. But if you just can’t muster a Sherlock-like ability to deduce the bleeding obvious, a medical expert helpfully gives the answer below.
This is what was plastered all over the AFL website yesterday:
AFLW players are about five times more likely to rupture an anterior cruciate ligament than their male counterparts, leading sports medico Peter Brukner says.
The opening two weeks of the NAB AFLW season have been blighted by a spate of season-ending knee injuries…
..Brukner told RSN radio on Monday morning this run of knee injuries could largely be explained by the fact women are significantly more vulnerable to ACL ruptures than men.
“(Women) are something like five times more likely to tear their (anterior) cruciate than their male counterparts with equivalent activity,” Brukner said.
The interesting part of all of this is this: while the AFL learns the painful way that female bodies injure at a far higher rate in a far lower intensity game than that played by men, Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal government is about to pass laws requiring females to be placed in front-line combat roles.
Now, generally speaking, combat is not a game.
When you lose on the sporting field you get to have beers in the pub afterwards. When you lose on the battlefield someone (hopefully) sends you home in a box.
However, generally speaking both combat and sport depend on an ability to do really physical things. Both of them, so to speak, sort the men from the boys.
Yet our nation is sending women into the fight.
The AFL is learning this has its problem with a large number of broken knees. The Australian government (and the families of this nation) will learn one day that this has its problems too.
But I’m not sure a broken knee will be the extent of the disaster.
In fact, happy days if that’s as bad as it gets.
Cory Bernardi was ridiculed last week for clearing his throat while this insanity was promoted in the parliament. And then Andrew Hastie also had the courage to speak up.
He might know, too. After all, he has served in the SAS (which I have not), so you can take his word over mine on the dubious benefits of this idea to the cohesion of a fighting team.
Strangely, the Liberal Defence Minister, Marise Payne, got all hot and frothy (but only about Bernardi – which kinda makes this frothiness seem a little petty and partisan):
Disappointing and ill informed views from Sen Bernardi re women in combat roles. The ADF is strengthened through engagement of great serving women and men. You can’t ignore the abilities of half the population in the 21st century.
— Marise Payne (@MarisePayne) February 5, 2018
So did the West Australian Senator, Linda Reynolds (who did serve in the military and was never once required to meet the same basic fitness assessment as men – so no need to worry about lowered standards when they’re already lowered, eh?):
Disheartening comments from Senator Bernardi! Serving our nation requires loyalty, respect, resilience, courage and teamwork – qualities men and women share equally. Providing equality of opportunity does not mean lowering of entry standards.https://t.co/exftLW77n9
— Linda Reynolds (@lindareynoldswa) February 6, 2018
Yet neither of these women addressed the concerns raised by Bernardi or Hastie. That’s ok because in today’s world anything a man says can be instantly ignored because it was said by a man and the words ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ form some magical barrier against criticism.
But the words of another woman are not so easy to dismiss.
Captain Katie Petronio served in the US Marines and she outlined her experience in a 2012 article questioning the wisdom of the push for female ‘grunts’:
As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations…This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the [infantry] field [to females].
And then this experienced veteran explained why:
…my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
Captain Petronio was obviously highly fit, highly intelligent and highly competent.
No one should question her motivation, her patriotism or her willingness to serve.
But Captain Petronio herself questioned her physical ability – and she did so after combat experience and even though there is no doubt that she was one of the very few women with the fitness to embark on the infantry training program:
I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country…
…The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability…
…It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment…
…Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.
Petronio then went on to look at the wider implications for the US Marines and the known statistics that already point to the failure of the attempt to place females in infantry units:
I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.
Hmmm…
You can read Captain Petronio’s full article here.
And you can watch her below:
Not to worry. Once the Greens have prosecuted Jim Molan for doing his job in Iraq I’m sure they’ll turn their sights on the hippies. Watch this space for an Adam Bandt-led inquiry into war crimes of stupidity committed against our own people.
*****
When I was in Iraq in 2008/09, we were required to chaperone female Australians in certain places and locations. And this wasn’t to protect them from the enemy. It was to protect them from our allies…
With ‘conservatives’ like Barnaby, who needs ‘progressives’?
When I was a kid, my father used to joke about people having faces like half-sucked mangos.
Well, Barnaby Joyce has a melon that resembles a bruised tomato. And it’s turning a deeper hue of crimson by the minute.
Of course, back then Dad was joking. And, of course, this is now and I am not.
Basically, with ‘friends’ like Barnaby, who needs enemies?
It’s not the Alan Joyces of this world who worry me. We know how his flag flies. It’s the Barnaby Joyces who are the problem. We have no idea where they’ll end up falling at all, or how much damage they’ll do on the way down.
It is painfully obvious that most of the politicians who claim to be ‘conservative’ these days are nothing of the sort.
In fact, blokes like Barnaby are an empty charade. They bung on a conservative show because it keeps them paid, rather than because they actually have the slightest belief in what they say.
Blokes like Barnaby are not conservative; instead they are parasites on conservative Australia. They see us as a resource to be sucked dry for their own personal gain.
A quick recap of Barnaby’s career demonstrates this in spades.
He’s backed halal certification.
He’s shot down attempts in parliament to stop the baby bonus or paid parental leave from being paid out after babies are aborted.
And now we find that the highest-ranked ‘conservative’ politician to oppose homosexual marriage actually has no regard for the sanctity of marriage at all.
Indeed, about the same time as the actual fight to save marriage was blowing up in July last year, Joyce was off blowing his own one up.
There are many reasons the fight to save marriage was lost. But somewhere in all of this, blame must rightfully be laid at the feet of those who led us to utter defeat. Not because they tried and failed. But because they failed to even try.
Barnaby is a farce. A sham. An embarrassment. A disgrace.
It seems that the nicest thing that has been written about Barnaby in recent days was penned by the left-leaning columnist, Malcom Farr. And that’s really saying something:
It means Mr Joyce now has limited scope for maintaining his championship of traditional, conservative views on marriage.
Ya reckon?
Barnaby Joyce has not just let his wife down. He has not just let his daughters down. And he has not just brought a child into this world with a woman that he doesn’t even have the courage to name.
By virtue of his position, he has let all conservative Australians down. He is entirely compromised. As a result, Joyce is not just unable to help in the big fights that are barrelling towards us; he’ll actually hurt our defences.
This story needed to be told. So do the stories of other hypocritical ‘conservatives’ (and let’s get the truth on the virtue-signallers as well). Voters have a right to make an informed choice about the moral compass of those who seek their support.
This is not to say that I don’t feel for Barnaby Joyce’s humiliated family. But we need a clean out and new leadership if we are ever going to have a chance of winning the culture wars. The dirty linen needs airing if we are to move forward.
To put it bluntly, Barnaby Joyce is the Neville Chamberlain of conservatives. He’s spent his whole career appeasing the enemy. And now it’s time for him to go, like a dog with his tail between his legs.
And he should forever be remembered as the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party who, when the time came for a fight on marriage, not only failed show up but who was acting up while the war raged around him.
Some have called him a hypocrite. The truth is far worse. He betrayed us all…
*****
Malcolm Farr is right to point out the hypocrisy in Barnaby’s position. But he just might like to consider this: why don’t journalists point out the hypocrisy of Christine Forster?
She was a married woman who destroyed her own family to pursue a lesbian relationship. And she was also one of the most prominent campaigners for ‘homosexual marriage’.
Why is it is hypocritical for divorcees to campaign for traditional marriage but not for ‘homosexual marriage? Why doesn’t he write that Christine Forster has limited scope to champion ‘marriage equality’? Why do these left-leaning journos scribble love-story write ups about Christine Forster’s ‘affair’ but not about Barnaby Joyce’s?
Oh yeah, of course. How could I forget…
Divorce and homosexual marriage come from the same steaming bucket labelled with the words, ‘101 Ways to Destroy a Family’. These ideas are not opposed. They are singing from the same hideous sheet of music.
And the media commentariat praising the Forsters of this world while kicking the Barnabys are just as hypocritical as the man they pull down.
*****
Bill Shorten’s craven political opportunism over the Barnaby Joyce affair is sickening. Remember this?
LABOR MP Bill Shorten has left his wife for the daughter of Kevin Rudd’s newly appointed Governor-General, Quentin Bryce.
The parliamentary secretary for disabilities and children’s services separated from his wife, Deborah Beale, in the past month and is understood to be in a relationship with Chloe Bryce.
That being said, there is a stench over the secrecy, silence and protection that appears to have been given to Barnaby and his mistress.
Barnaby’s affair may well cover others in the proverbial as well…
*****
It’s one thing for a bloke to fail. None of us are perfect and I have many faults of my own.
But it’s another thing entirely to persist in scandalous conduct.
This is how Barnaby Joyce was described in The Australian las week:
Mr Joyce is a Catholic and has spoken often of his conservative social and economic values.
I’m guessing it will only be a few moments before Barnaby is publicly warned that he will not be able to receive Holy Communion while he publicly persists in this scandal.
Actually, I joke.
Whoever heard of a bishop in recent times defending the church in the face of public scandal?
Some of Barnaby’s own constituents have had the courage to confront him over this affair. Collectively, the bishops could learn a lot from their example…
*****
For those who want a little more info on Barnaby Joyce’s shameful antics in the Senate regarding baby bonus payments for abortion, here is part of the transcript of the debate that took place on 16 June 2010:
Senator Fielding (Family First): … Another huge flaw in the bill is the fact that people who have late-term abortions would still be eligible to receive paid parental leave payments. That is right. Under this bill drug addicts and welfare cheats can rort the system and get paid parental leave money for nothing. Drug addicts and welfare cheats can get pregnant, then after 20 weeks have an abortion and still pocket the government’s cash. It is absolutely ridiculous and it makes you wonder whether the government is making policy on the run again. This was a loophole which was discovered in the baby bonus legislation, and I cannot understand why the government has been so careless as to make the mistake again and is then too stubborn to fix it up…
Senator Fielding (Family First):… —by leave—I move amendments (2), (3) and (12) on sheet 6112 revised:
(2) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 8), after the definition of ABN, insert:
Abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman by:
(a) using an instrument; or
(b) using a drug or a combination of drugs; or
(c) any other means.
(3) Clause 6, page 17 (line 16), at the end of the definition of stillborn, add “; but does not include a child whose period of gestation was terminated by abortion”.
(12) Clause 31, page 41 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:
(6) Despite subsections (2), (3) and (4), a person is not eligible for parental leave pay for a child on a day if the child:
(a) is stillborn following an abortion ; or
(b) has died before that day following an abortion .
These amendments are to do with the issue of abortion. I know that this is always a difficult topic for discussion, but it is a discussion that needs to be had. These amendments will close any loophole and remove any greyness which currently allows parental leave payments to be paid to someone who has an «abortion» after 20 weeks. It takes away any greyness. All the assurances that we may have heard before are just talk. We do not need assurances; we need to make sure it is in legislation. These amendments are quite clear. Amendment (2) says: ‘abortion means intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy with the consent of the woman’. It is a clear definition that will be written into law and will not be left to someone’s guesswork or to assurances that the minister or the government may give. This makes it clear. It is not an assurance from the minister. This puts into law that people who have an abortion after 20 weeks should not be able to receive money from paid parental leave.
Barnaby Joyce (National Party): These amendments do not create an assurance; they create a wedge. These amendments bring into this chamber an issue on which there are deeply held beliefs around the parliament. It is a conscience issue. The way in which this issue has been introduced takes the debate to a base level. You know full well that if you bring the abortion debate up then a bit more diligence is required than you have shown with the process you are following here. I am disgusted by the mechanism of this. An assurance has been given. We have actually been doing the footwork—asking people and getting the assurances across parliamentary lines on this issue. I find it one of the more base forms of politics to bring up an issue that you know full well, Senator Fielding, is held as an absolutely primary issue by so many people around this place. I really question the motives you have at the forefront of your mind in bringing this issue forward in this manner.
It is quite clear—it has been disclosed by the minister and also by Senator Stephens. You are asking what we are to do if a person commits a criminal act—that is, if the doctor lies about the motives that they have put forward. I suppose that if the doctor lies they go to jail or they lose their registration. What are your motives on this one, Senator Fielding? What are you trying to do here today? What is your motivation? Is this a sincere and honest approach on which you have spent a period of time lobbying people, discussing the issues and going through the proper mechanisms and processes? Have you done that, Senator Fielding? Or have you just brought in a highly emotive issue without actually consulting or doing the footwork? What is your primary motivation? Can you tell the chamber about all the people that you have discussed this with? Can you tell the chamber about all the lobbying you have done on this issue? Or is this merely a political ploy of yours? If it is, I think it is absolutely disgusting.
To be fair to Barnaby, at the time he was given an assurance Centrelink payments would never be paid out for abortion. Yet three years after that ‘assurance’ was given, the South Australian government was helping people to claim the baby bonus after late-term abortions.
And the law has not changed.
Just so you know, right now, Barnaby Joyce is the Deputy Prime Minister.
And just so you know, right now, there are several Centrelink payments available following the death of a child or if it is still born.
And just so you know, these payments have been and continue to be available following late term abortions.
There is not a single clause in any of the laws relating to Centrelink payments preventing payments following abortion. There are, however, several clauses that stipulate the only requirement is that the child was stillborn after 20 weeks gestation or weighing more than 400 grams, or that they died after birth. There are also other clauses that mean a person can lose entitlement to these payments if they are charged with and convicted of murder. That hasn’t happened anytime recently when it comes to abortion.
And just so you know, every aborted child is still ‘delivered’. Some of them are even ‘delivered’ alive.
And just so you know, Barnaby Joyce labelled Senator Fielding as ‘disgusting’ for trying to close this loophole. And now Barnaby Joyce is overseeing it.
Barnaby Joyce was perfectly right to use the word disgusting. He just applied it to the wrong person. It is a label that fits him perfectly.
*****
UPDATE: It seems I have been too lenient on Barnaby.
Readers have pointed out on Twitter and Facebook that Barnaby also defended 18c, got into bed with Turnbull and carried on with his affair while refusing to stand down as Deputy PM while he knew he was a dual citizen…
