GETTING caught ain't what it used to be. No longer are women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant after an ill-advised fumble stigmatised by society.
And thank goodness for that. The era of the back street abortion is long gone. And though there are still some deluded gym slip mums who see deliberately having a baby as the gateway to the idyll of a council house and a life cushioned by the state, by and large society understands that unexpected pregnancy is an occupational hazard of opportunity and inclination. The office party, the one night stand, the forgotten pack of pills. We're all human and we're all frail. So whose to judge?
But the fact is that pregnancy reminds us - for all the strides in equality - that there are some things that set women apart from men.
Ah ha, you might think. Not that old chestnut again. But unfortunately this old chestnut has come home to roost as it was revealed yesterday that ten servicewomen have been flown home from Afghanistan after falling pregnant, evacuated under strict military rules which bar expectant mothers from front-line service.
Apparently our armed forces do have a potent contraceptive in place: namely a strict 'no-touching' rule which all 700 women and 8,500 men serving in the war zone are warned of on arrival. Being caught with your combats down can lead to disciplinary action.
But, come on. We read every day about the dangerous situation of our brave soldiers. Life turns on a dime, be it through inadequate weaponry or the lucky hit of a lone sniper. In such a highly charged atmosphere is it any wonder that men and women seek solace in the most natural way they can?
Understandable though that is, it raises yet another reason why women should not be sent to war zones. Female squaddies may be banned from front-line infantry regiments, but bombings and other insurgent attacks can happen almost anywhere. In today's dirty wars, the front-line has shifted to a footfall from base camp.
There's no doubting that women have the intellectual power to contribute significantly to the effectiveness of our armed forces. In terms of strategy and planning their role could be incalculable. But women are also weaker physically, needed at home by their children and not biologically programmed to harness the aggression required to fight on the front (whatever the rise of the cat-fighting ladette on our high streets might suggest). And they fall pregnant.
Of course women want to achieve but combat zones are not the place to prove their equality - because out on the battle field they simply are not equal. To suggest otherwise, especially to placate the political correct brigade, is to do a disservice to all of those who fight in this terrible conflict.
There are some lines that can't be crossed. And the little blue one that shows up on a positive pregnancy test proves that more eloquently than anything else ever could.
Spread the hunt for the weird Marmite thief
At the time of writing there was still no sign of the shaven-headed raider who has been targeting a petrol station for….jars of Marmite.
The thief, who limits his pilfering to this tar-coloured spread has hit on the same 24-hour garage near Northamptonshire four times in a month, each time clearing out its stock .
The question is, why ?
Marmite, like James Blunt, is the kind of stuff that triggers extreme reactions: either you love it or you hate it.
I know people who could eat it by the spoonful straight from the jar, and remember certain pregnant pals getting cravings for it at the most inopportune moments. Whereas me…well, as the recent loser on Mastermind said repeatedly, I'll pass.
So what is the mystery man doing with his stash? Is Marmite the new cellulite buster, a vital ingredient to making Moonshine, or the best way to defrost the car ?
Maybe he just likes it. Or maybe there are a bunch of kids at home whom he thinks will benefit from overdosing on this admittedly nutritious spread. I think we need to find him fast. If only for their sake.
Record breaking Mr Normal
Even though he's one of Britain's best loved comedy stars, it's still astounding to hear that Peter Kay's long-awaited tour has smashed box office records at the Manchester Evening News Arena.
Websites crashed and new dates were hastily added as an unstoppable stampede of fans clamoured for tickets to his Tour That Doesn’t Tour – Tour which hits the arena for an unprecedented 20 night run in April next year.
Kay confounds all the rules of showbiz popularity. The greater his success, the increasingly normal he appears. He doesn't do the flakey 'working class hero' routine to jack up his appeal. This is a bloke you really could imagine eating a bag of chips in the bus queue.
It's a source of pride that Greater Manchester - or to be more precise, Bolton - has hatched a comic talent like Kay. His introduction to Sir Paul McCartney at the recently screened Children in Need concert was priceless.
If there are any tour tickets left I suggest the bosses who over stuff the pockets of Chris Moyles, Russell Brand and other so-called funny men should grab one if they can so they can watch and learn. About time they spent some money well.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 8 and replies | View All
Englisc Stannes, North Manchester (23/11/2009 at 13:16)
citycentre, manchester (23/11/2009 at 14:12)
As most confilcts involving the British Army today are not the mass battles of years ago when strength and aggression where ideal, but a mixture of occasional combat, police action, community work and intution the lack male aggression is possibly a good thing, maybe with more women in advanced comabt roles there would be less bombings of weddings, less death such as Baha Mousa and more success in convincing the peoples of occupied areas that the troops really will do them some good.
BluePurgatory, Manchester (23/11/2009 at 14:14)
The Man, Sat on a chair (23/11/2009 at 14:17)
Sheik Man SOUR - King Of The BITTERS. ABU Dhabishire (23/11/2009 at 14:27)
Mrs Jammy, Sitting on the settee (23/11/2009 at 15:52)
Andanotherthing, Mcr (23/11/2009 at 16:20)
salfordrat (23/11/2009 at 23:34)
Okay, I know I have over simplified what the writer was trying to say, but only because the writer has over complicated something or other. i am not sure what and I suspect, neither is she. What a mixed up mess of writing. The whole thing suggests some weighty point, without actually having one. Not really.
Just a couple of things I will pick up on though. Firstly, it is a dangerous myth to carry on promoting; that young girls purposely get pregnant just for a council house and benefits. Some of the many reasons why young girls or 'gymslip mums' to use the writers tabloid-ese are: lack of suitable roll models, lack of suitable education (not sex education, the kind of general education that teaches people how to look at the wider scheme of things) lack of hope (for any other kind of future than the one they have been led to believe is the only one available to them) and lack of vision or the questioning skills. These, I suspect, among a myriad of others.
Myself and my parter of the time had our first child aged 17 years. We did not even think about a council house. We were just children. Basically, we just didn't think. Period. There was no machiavellian plan involved. I should point out here that both our children, despite their parents have split up many years ago, are now holding down part time jobs and studying at college/university. Just before the usual suspects start to rant that is.
Secondly, and much more briefly - is the writer actually a woman? I only ask because she(?) doesn't seem to understand much about her own species, not if she thinks that other women join the forces and go off to fight merely to prove some silly little point about women being as capable as men. Yet another home goal from Ms Epstein. Oh dead oh dear oh dear.