As War Rages in Iran, Woke MoD Asks Troops: “Guys, Do You Want to Wear Make-Up and Nail Polish?”
Army chiefs have come under fire for launching a review into whether male soldiers should be allowed to wear make-up, just as the war in Iran intensifies. The Mail has the story.
While British personnel in Cyprus called for more protection and HMS Dragon was stuck in port, all serving soldiers were asked on Thursday whether they thought men could apply cosmetics and wear their hair like women.
They were surveyed on woke “gender-free” changes which could see men wearing make-up with long hair or hair extensions, painted nails and earrings.
The consultation from Army HQ in Andover asked soldiers if they agreed “rules on make-up should be gender-free”, explaining “this means that men, women and non-binary service personnel can all wear make-up in the same way”. …
Soldiers were also asked if hair and jewellery policies “should be the same for men, women and non- binary personnel” – effectively meaning men could style their hair like women and wear stud earrings.
Make-up is currently banned for men and they must have short hair “which does not reach to the collar or on to the ears”.
The review also suggests laying down rules for “facial aesthetics” such as fillers and microblading for the first time, plus “recovery periods” for tattoos and piercings.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why choose this moment to bring this up? Why THIS moment? The moment of our greatest weakness and humiliation …
In any case, makeup and painted nails are NOT gender-neutral.
Why not just make everyone’s beret pink, cut the buttocks out of the MTP trousers to make chaps, and replace the horrible Far-Right Union Flag with the “progress pride” one on the shoulder patches?
Ball gags optional.
I’ve always felt proud to have served back in the 70s, but over the past few years, I’m wavering.
Served four years myself, married to a veteran, mother of a veteran, and I can safely speak for all of us: we are ashamed of what successive governments have done to our Army, Navy and Air Force. My husband says that the rot set in with the introduction of the Military Salary: airmen would say “I’m paying for my billet: I can live in a tip if I want.”. Then George Robertson, the Defence Secretary, told us that the Services had to “reflect society”. Need I say more?
We have some serious problems with the armed forces top brass. Talk about donkeys.
FFS !
But who do we blame the feminization of the British Army on, hux? Those pesky feminazis over in HR, the ‘DEI hire’ woketard woman in charge who’s bound to be pushing this ideology on the troops, or…..shall we check our prejudices and preconceived notions at the door, contend with reality and see who the person responsible actually is?😨
That’d be General Sir Roland Walker. A white man.🤣
https://www.forcesnews.com/services/army/new-army-chief-spends-first-day-service-hq-thanking-troops-leadership-transition
Do you deliberately fail to understand the difference between ‘feminisation’ and a person’s sex? It’s the feminisation of society and institutions that’s the issue, not a person’s sex.
What i absolutely understand is that people like you have an issue accepting reality when it doesn’t support your bias, hence why you’re always so triggered when somebody speaks up and acknowledges the butt naked Emperor.
Shooting the messenger just because it’s a white man embracing and pushing this BS ideology on British troops, as opposed to a woman or coloured person, tells me all I need to know.
Now, carry on being all bent out of shape by inconvenient facts. It’s delicious..🤩
Lol, someone is having a bad day. On the contrary, it’s you that is repeatedly ‘triggered’ by those pointing out a decades old observation that’s slowly destroying our society. It matters not the sex of those involved, which you use to deny and deflect from the actual argument.
How is anything I’ve said deflection?😆 When a white man is in charge and pushes woke/demonstrates himself to be corrupt, inept, discriminates against fellow whites etc it boggles the minds of people like you because white men are beyond reproach, never to be held accountable, so who to blame instead when the usual scapegoats ( women and people of colour ) are nowhere to be seen.
You accuse me of being “repeatedly triggered” yet it’s you that can’t seem to stop yourself responding in this defensive manner to my posts. Do you possess any self-awareness whatsoever, or are you another one who’s going to require a bolus dose of copium? 🤔 My stocks are limited…😁
You are a complete eejit, and clearly attention seeking, who in their right mind when a serious situation is taking place has a rant about military personnel wearing make up and tarting their hair up, because of someones’s skin colour(as if that mattered) clearly you do reflect many of todays society, pathetic!., suggest you might try a stint in said forces and put up with what they have to, on top of the risk of being prosecuted later
You don’t like my flavour of free speech? Then I suggest you scroll on by or cope. Them’s your two options. But instead you choose to behave like a mardy little bitch. Pathetic.😏
You’re blaming the wrong person because your idea of miltary organization and operation is way off.
I don’t care about the sex of the people pushing this crap Mogs but they need to be got rid of and PDQ.
Trump has pointed out quite rightly that this country is a laughing stock, the head of the army shouldn’t be rubbing salt in to the gaping wound. Clearly a man with no pride and completely devoid of patriotism.
I agree. Sex of the person in charge shouldn’t matter one iota. But you and I both know that had that General have been female we’d never hear the last of it. “DEI hire!” ad nauseum.
All this story does is continue to support my assertion which, frankly, is irrefutable: that woketards come in both sexes. That’s always been my stance and what I’ll always maintain, because it’s based in fact. It’s never myself that inevitably turns this gender politics garbage into a divisive blame game when these articles drop. We all know who does that by now, and they’re many.
That’s the chief of the general staff which means he’s the chief military planning officer in peace time and the chief advisor to official supreme commander (nominally, that’s the king) in war time. Unless the situation in Britain in this respect is totally different from what it was in Germany when it still had a general staff, he’s not involved with day-to-day running of the army. That would be the ministry of defence and the associated civil service organizations which certainly have their more-than-fair share of woketards of all genders and sexes (in some random combination).
^^
This would have been correct for Prussian Great General Staff in various forms until 1945. It’s probably not correct for the general staff of the British army although determining the exact responsibilites of that would take more time than I currently have for this.
Walker is responsible for the day-to-day running of the British Army HQ and is answerable to the Chief of the Defence Staff: Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, another white bloke, believe it or not 😮
”Chief of Staff (COS): Acting as the second-in-command, the COS is responsible for the day-to-day running of the headquarters. This officer ensures that the commander’s directives are implemented effectively across all branches.”
https://www.defenseadvancement.com/resources/staff-branches/
Walker is responsible for the day-to-day running of the British Army HQ.
You might notice an additional two letters in this term which don’t appear in British Army. Walker is the head of the army HQ because he’s the military commander of the army. In this function, he reports to the military commander of all British armed forces, the chief of the defence staff.
He’s not responsible for making decisions of the kind mentioned in the text. These come from civil MoD bureacracy more-or-less unter control of the government. This is an entirely different hierarchy and such order just move through the office of the Chief of Staff to the Standing Joint Command (Home Army Command) which implements them.
In theory, Starmer and Healey are responsible for this. In practice, very possibly female HR types employed by the MoD are certainly involved.
With slightly more detail: That’s the supreme military commander of the army who is himself subordinate to the supreme military commander of the armed forces (called chief of defence staff). He’s not involved with policy decisions affecting the military as such. These come, as the Mail correctly stated, from the MoD and are just relayed from through Army HQ. This means two other white men are nominally responsible, namely, John Healey and Keir Starmer insofar general policy decisions are concerned. In practice, stuff like this will come from some civil service department in the MoD based on the general policy that “the army shall be fit for the 21st century”, ie, anti-racist, trans-aware, climate-friendly etc, the whole usual political boondoggle assortment.
Yes, white men, white men…everywhere I look are white men in leadership roles, seemingly largely responsible for the alleged “feminization of the nation”. 👀 How does that work, exactly? I dunno, but could it be, as I’ve been repeating now like a broken record, that both men AND women are responsible for reconfiguring society and pushing the woke tripe? This is hardly a radical notion, yet you’d think it was highly controversial going by many people’s attitudes. They’re all at sea when they can’t directly blame feminists or women in general.
How many men ( and flying monkeys ) are happy to point the finger of blame at women in subordinate positions because they can’t cope with the fact a white, male CEO or Chief Constable etc is an epic woketard? The level of denialism and cognitive dissonance on display…e.g; White men are the perma-victims of society and are routinely discriminated against Vs White men in positions of authority are actively discriminating against white men….but it’s somehow the women in HR’s fault.🤦♀️
Governments.
If the senior officers had a problem with all this they would loudly resign.
Reform have a lot to do.
changes will have to be made in all departments of state in parallel stating within a month if taking office.
likely Farage will need to appoint hundreds of Perts to get the legislation through.
”If the senior officers had a problem with all this they would loudly resign.” Yes they would, and the fact they never do speaks volumes. Even if they’re not fully onboard with all of this woke baloney in private they’ll be enjoying their status and all the perks that come with it too much, so principles be damned. They never seem to even oppose it, quite the opposite, because it’s embraced and promoted. The only person I’ve heard of to resign over this was that female recruitment officer at the RAF, who was clearly more principled and had more integrity than her male boss because she blew the whistle and refused to toe the line and be part of a corrupt and unfair recruiting process. It’s like the story about the fireman with 27 years service who lost his career and reputation because he refused to comply and correct his colleagues when they said ”fireman” around a female firefighter, which is allegedly an ”outdated term” now, and she made a complaint. But his boss: Chief Fire Officer Matt Cook could’ve nipped all of that in the bud and prevented it escalating. However, instead, he disciplined Simon Bailey, who went on… Read more »
If the senior officers had a problem with all this they would loudly resign.
The usual human rationalization for complying with policies believed to be wrong/ detrimental is that otherwise, someone who believes them to be right/ beneficial would be appointed to implement them and then, things would become a lot worse than when someone who at least tries to prevent the worst is in charge of that.
Real life isn’t military fiction where the good guys always prevail in the end. It’s much more likely that they just end up unemployed while what they couldn’t prevent is implemented nevertheless. Especially in a military force in peace time which is little more then an Anything goes! bureaucrat’s plaything, anyway.
Monty Python predicted this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ecasPqhgk
But it was a joke then!
“Silly and a bit suspect” sums it up nicely.
Jesus Christ.
Woketards everywhere. How the hell has it come to this?
We must be swiftly arriving at the last chance saloon. If we don’t *very soon* get politicians who will clear out the woke nonsense in its entirety, we will be too far gone as a nation. It will be irreparably broken. God knows what happens to us after that…
That will strike fear into the hearts of the most hardened Jihadist. ” Yoo-hoo, Mohammed baby. Mwah,mwah!
Handbags at forty paces.
Off-T
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2FArtemisfornow%2Fstatus%2F2030539167684255892%3Fs%3D20%3AcuXtIl3yn-T3bKT75IupNGLEso0&cuid=7594221
Something akin to winning a game of monopoly.
In Minnesota one person can vouch for eight without id.
‘Jungly’ Drake, Brigadier would be turning in his grave. Tough old sod.
Who’se a pretty boy then!,
Good luck to those tho wear makeup when they go to the ablutions.
Flogging was banned in the British Army in 1881 – time to bring it back.
Not quite on subject but in New Zealand…
https://nominister.wordpress.com/2026/03/09/they-need-saving-from-themselves/
Have they decided on what colour nail varnish? Various shades of pink?
I suggest whoever put these proposals forward should be given a dishonourable discharge having first been given 50 lashes with the birch.
My RSM at school would be turning in his grave.
Why do we need to allow women serving in the military to wear makeup, have long hair, protect kittens from bombing missions or whatever else they’d prioritise. Better make a level playing-field and if they don’t like it they can find another, better suited, role. And if it is a case of conscription of women in wartime – suck it up. Be careful what you wish for. Or accept that women a better suited, in general, to not being involved in such obviously inappropriate nastiness.
A variation on standard black camouflage I guess. Shades of Monty Python come to mind!
There is no place in the armed forces for “non binary” aka mental people.