RAF Regiment

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/women-win-right-to-join-raf-infantry-v5wbmlqxc

Women will be allowed to join the RAF Regiment, the air force’s infantry unit, from September, paving the way for the first female infantry troops in Britain to be deployed in the field next year. The defence secretary announced the lifting of the barrier yesterday. Sir Michael Fallon said that it was “a defining moment for the RAF as it becomes the first service to have every trade and branch open to both genders”.

About 11 women, a mix of serving staff and civilians, have expressed an interest in joining the 2,000-strong regiment, which is tasked with guarding airbases and aircraft around the world. The regiment was due to open recruitment to women by the end of next year, alongside the Infantry and Royal Marines, but a recent review of work practices found that in terms of risks it was closer to the Royal Armoured Corps, which is already admitting women to its training ranks.

The opening up of the RAF Regiment to women a year earlier than planned is part of a wider move to allow servicewomen to take part in ground close combat roles that was announced a year ago.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, chief of the air staff, said: “The RAF is committed to providing equal opportunity to all, so it’s fantastic to be able to open recruitment to the RAF Regiment to women ahead of schedule.”

[dctyke]

Interesting that they say that potential female recruits will be treated exactly the same as men. Will that mean they have to pass the male version of the fitness test which I think is vital for a trade like the RAF Regiment.

[Rheinstorff]

Interesting that they say that potential female recruits will be treated exactly the same as men. Will that mean they have to pass the male version of the fitness test which I think is vital for a trade like the RAF Regiment.

Yes, male and female officers and gunners will undergo the same tests. After a long and detailed study, the Regiment's fitness tests have been updated to more accurately reflect the demands of its operational tasks. (For example, the loads carried on operations are higher than in the past, despite everyone's best efforts to reduce them, so the new tests are likely to reflect this). This will ensure the tests are more likely to stand any legal challenge, should someone - male or female - fail a test and decide to take legal action over the fairness of that and the consequences.

[Motleycallsign]

Sir Michael Fallon said that it was “a defining moment for the RAF as it becomes the first service to have every trade and branch open to both genders”.”

Females still excluded from one branch - Catholic Priest!

I'll get my hat and coat!!!!!!

[Cows getting bigger]

I guess they've got rid of Kennel Maids then?

[tescoapp]

but a recent review of work practices found that in terms of risks it was closer to the Royal Armoured Corps, which is already admitting women to its training ranks.

Surprised nobody picked up on that gem. Any Rocks any good with a Guitar to take on James Blunt?

I thought they had been doing trials with a couple of transsexuals anyway?

[Tocsin]

Of course, this is old hat to some RAuxAF Sqns, who had gunners of the female persuasion over a decade ago...

[Tankertrashnav]

I've never been in the least bit against women aircrew, in my limited experience they seem to make just as good pilots/WSOs as blokes. As an ex Rockape officer though I do admit to having qualms about this. There is no logical difference I suppose between a man or a woman sitting in an aircraft, pressing a button and sending either troops on the ground or enemy aircrew to oblivion, they end up dead either way. But we are talking here about getting up close and dirty and maybe having to stick a bayonet in your adversary. Am I wrong to think it's not the sort of thing we want women to be doing? Just cultural conditioning I suppose.

[HEDP]

Cant have the 5 miler of Death watered down now can we.....

[pr00ne]

Tankertrash,

You miss the point.

"....not the sort of thing WE want women to be doing..."

Who is WE?

As a man you have no right to tell women what you think is right for them to do, or not to do. That's kind of been the point of sex discrimination legislation of at least the last 40 years...


You may not like the idea, but frankly it has nothing to do with you what a woman can and can't do.

[Top West 50]

I think we can all agree from the outset that the primary purpose of our Armed Forces is to fight and win our wars? They are not a vehicle for promoting gender equality or any other minority sexual agenda, whatever the merits of those causes.

In recent publicity announcing that, from September, women would be free to serve in the RAF Regiment, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said “a diverse force is a more operationally effective force.” Coincidentally, in a separate statement, the Chief of the Air Staff eerily concluded that “a diverse force is a more effective force.” Neither of the top men offered any evidence to support their respective conclusions.

As a mere tax payer these days I warmly welcome this improvement in operational effectiveness – more bang for a buck as it were. On the other hand, I am also of a generation that occasionally shows some irritation towards the political correctness agenda. So, in a masterstroke of having cake and eating it, the MOD has gingered up the front line whilst simultaneously advancing the cause of gender equality. Brilliant, but what I find difficult to comprehend is why it has taken our Armed Forces so long to come to this conclusion?

[Rosevidney1]

I deplore the trend of putting our national breeding stock in harms way and much of the politically correct double-speak we increasingly hear.
Dinosaur? Me?

[Rosevidney1]

Yes I am unashamedly so!

[MPN11]

TTN ... I shall be drinking with a serving lady wg cdr Nav tomorrow. I shall seek her perspective ;)


I will not impose my ancient views on this Forum.

[Brian 48nav]

Quite frankly I don't care what you think either! You seem to be typical of the modern PC world where there is no longer freedom of speech.

Let me tell you a little story - I have a friend who used to be a crewman on RN 'Junglie' Sea Kings. On his first tour at sea on HMS Ocean it was an all male crew, then on his next tour ladies were now part of the crew. Separate sleeping and toilet/shower accommodation had to be provided, which meant less space for everyone.When it came to re-victualling at sea previously a line of matelots threw the sacks of spuds etc from one to another; once the ladies were part of the crew only about 2 of the complement of 50 were capable of doing the work. So much for equality!

[Melchett01]

I think we can all agree from the outset that the primary purpose of our Armed Forces is to fight and win our wars? They are not a vehicle for promoting gender equality or any other minority sexual agenda, whatever the merits of those causes

On that basis I think it will be fine. I've seen plenty of females involved in some vicious CQB, usually on a Thursday night after NAAFI chucking out time. Frankly they were terrifying!

[Pontius Navigator]

Of course, this is old hat to some RAuxAF Sqns, who had gunners of the female persuasion over a decade ago...

I checked with Miss PN as was. CFT was a team effort, they helped her and she didn't carry the 10 kg weight. She did get to do hand grenade practice, GMP, drive a Humvee and even a Bradley.

The live grenade practice was something else. Best not to drop it in your trench.

[ORAC]

The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Rudyard Kipling

[westernhero]

Yes but when push comes to shove can a woman in a trench put a rifle bayonet in some crying conscripts guts and twist it ? If yes then ok carry on, if not then I'm afraid you're not what's required, some one who will kill the enemy.

[Lima Juliet]

Some appauling attitudes here from some I believe as gentlemen. The CQB and bayonet argument is quite simply laughable and maybe you should all go and dribble into your travel blanket with your cup of cocoa thinking of the good old days of Benny Hill and On the Buses. Have you not considered that the female aircrew may very well find themselves in a toe-to-toe fighting situation when their aircraft spears in and the locals aren't friendly? There have been some incredible stories of women under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan with medals for gallantry to back up their actions. Please keep your minds open or your sneering mysogeny to yourself.

For me it's quite simple, if the females pass the same selection then great. As long as there is no discrimination in the required standards as there is now, then everything is equal. See https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/D9E0A3C7_1143_EC82_2E3E762735D95037.doc
However, how can it be right that a peak of fitness female 17-29 has to reach broadly the same standard as a 50-54 male? This cannot be right and if the Chief and the SofS are really truthful about equality then either the female fitness scores need to rise to that of the males or the males need to drop to that of the females. Quite frankly the levels of fitness amongst some of the female and male cadre is poor and there are way too many with a sick-chit and "excused from games". I like to consider myself a feminist but the discrimination between male/female Service fitness requirements does the female's cause of equality no good whatsoever.

LJ

[air pig]

'There have been some incredible stories of women under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan with medals for gallantry to back up their actions. Please keep your minds open or your sneering mysogeny to yourself.'

The ones I can think of have been combat medics putting their lives at risk in the best traditions of the medical services for their teams.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8408236/Female-medic-awarded-Military-Cross-for-bravery.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328175/Female-Army-medic-Sarah-Bushbye-awarded-Military-Cross-extreme-courage.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/6168951/First-Royal-Navy-female-awarded-Military-Cross-for-Afghanistan-bravery.html

If they were men they'd be described as having big brass ones, just don't know how you would describe the receipients here.

[Al R]

I think some of us are missing the point. The issue is not one of doubting efficacy of the servicewoman. Rather, would I, as a section commander, be skewed in my combat appreciation and as a consequence, not commit a female to the fray? Would I, if captured, be placed under needless self induced pressure if a female comrade was about to be gang raped in front of me?

'Hey, sort yourself out, dinosaur bloke!'.

Maybe. Or maybe, it's not my fault, it's not anyone's fault, it's simply the product of tens of thousands of years of evolution. Will be get through it? Yes, our professionalism and conditioning will see us prevail. Does some slavishly adherence to an abstract political concept make us a better society, though? Thankfully, I'm quickly getting beyond the point of giving a damn.

[cheekychimp]

Sorry, meant to add. The female Aircrew who find themselves toe to toe and the other women who have rightfully received gallantry awards were all done under self-defence. Taking the fight to the enemy and assaulting fire trenches etc are a totally different thing.

[The Oberon]

I always come back to the sports analogy. When I see no gender segregation in all sports at all levels then cross gender infantry is OK, until then, forget it.

Mind you a mixed gender Calcutta Cup match at Twickenham might be a good watch.

[tescoapp]

Well some Cops have had them for years.

Now only from personal experience from the lady's I still know from my time in green.

The Girlies who didn't get involved with humping Bergan's are generally normal. No real lasting issues apart from a rather unlady like vocab and a pretty brutal method of dealing with idiots.

Now the ones that got involved with the humping and dumping running around with weight are to a woman, broken. Thier bones, cartilage tendons and ligaments are all stuffed. One had to get a knee replaced at 35 and another is in the process of getting hip replacements at 43. I also believe one of the others who I am not in contact with is now in a wheel chair after some vertebrae collapsed. Not saying this doesn't happen to the blokes as well but the numbers of the full effort ladys who are now broken is spectacularly high.

On the subject of sticking a knife/bayonet in someone. Its really not an issue these days and hasn't been for some 20 odd years. Your just as likely to get stabbed by a gang of girls in Croydon as you are a gang of boys.

[Basil]

Seems to me that those in favour are those writing the rude riposts.
Well here's what I think:
I do not think women should be in any sort of infantry operation except as special operators. Women do not compete against men in sports - or should we have mixed weight-lifting?
We are giving in to the very, very few PC activists with an axe to grind.

[Rotate too late]

ive no doubt about a woman being able to pull a trigger/stab etc, the US Marines I worked with seemed happy enough with it.
it's the getting there that worries me, the enemy won't give a **** about non gender specific issues, so, as long as the standard is met......fine.
Female RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544)
I agree that it is more aimed at undoing the appalling recruitment situation rather than a huge leap forward in other ways.

[Wrathmonk]

AlR

Given that some of our foe in recent conflicts don't (allegedly ;))seem to be too fussy which side they bat on are you saying that, if captured, you don't feel you would be placed under needless self induced pressure if a male comrade was about to be gang raped in front of you?

[Top West 50]

My point was that Fallon said that "a diverse force was a more operationally effective force." That is, I assume, a mixed force of men, women and others will be more operationally effective than the existing all- male composition. He provided no evidence for this. And if he he is right, what is the optimum mix of diverse components?

[Pontius Navigator]

levels of fitness amongst some of the female and male cadre is poor and there are way too many with a sick-chit and "excused from games

A high standard of combat effective fitness for all is a laudable aim. It means that anyone properly qualified can be posted to any appropriate role - a manning dream.

However many individuals are capable of outstanding work in one role but physically unsuited to most other role related jobs. It is right that that individual is dismissed the service for failing a fitness test?

I have in mind a particularly large computer programmer in a particularly rare computer language. He was superb at his job but needed his own high capacity swivel seat.

Or first rate navs and pilots on the V-Force who could fulfil their deterrent role but if forced to bail out would have been a lost cause. What is better an average all rounder or a role star?

[Jayand]

Worked with three women on tornado Sqns years ago who couldn't lift the aircraft ladder up to and onto the cockpit. They couldn't be put together on a servicing team as the job wouldn't be done with them. Equality is fine as long as it really means that. My fear is that despite assurances standards will be dropped to accommodate the PC brigade.

[teeteringhead]

All this talk of "diversity" reminds me of a conversation I had in Kuwait just before the last Gulf Unpleasantness with my USAF opposite number.

Over a beer (well - alcohol-free Bud!) he was extolling the virtue of a representative fighting force reflecting the ethnicity of the country.

"Indeed", says I "so why doesn't that apply to your Olympic Track and Field Team......"

Which kind of makes my (serious) point. If these "Rockettes" [you heard it here first!] can pass the same tests to the same standards as the chaps - then why not? Best person for the job.

We had the same arguments over female aircrew and even - before that - on arming females. Let's grow up and say if you can do the job then you may do the job, whatever your personal collection of X and/or Y chromosomes may be......

[tmmorris]

Seems to me the rabbit hole we are disappearing down is the collision between:

a. Women who can meet the same standard as men should be allowed to do the job.
b. For physical tasks including infantry soldiering it's harder for women than men to meet that standard, which is discriminatory.

I don't know how we square that circle. b. for example was responsible for paying compensation to women injured in training; and is why crew who couldn't carry ladders were employed when a. should have prevented it.

[Al R]

AlR

Given that some of our foe in recent conflicts don't (allegedly ;))seem to be too fussy which side they bat on are you saying that, if captured, you don't feel you would be placed under needless self induced pressure if a male comrade was about to be gang raped in front of you?

Simply put, no. And as a factual correction to another post, the bayonet was used often in Afghanistan.

Once again, I have no issues with the technical ability of female soldiers. And I think we'll eventually overcome issues surrounding men being overly protective, or about an enemy being overly exploitative. Because we're good enough, and because conditioning in training against a more liberal societal backdrop will provide context. I just don't think it'll make us a better society. We are becoming artificially and politically inured over the course of decades, to factors which have ingrained themselves naturally over millennia, certainly centuries - and that will come at a cost. Whether or not the cost is excessive, whether or not we'll adapt, whether or not we need to adapt, I no longer care much. It's about the cost of something, versus the benefit of it, not the calibre of the individuals at all. And, let's face it, none of us here can possibly hope to answer that. You reap what you sow and I'll have long withered on the vine by then. For now, fetch me my gin.

[Rotate too late]

I'm sure that one thing can be guaranteed, and that is that the MOD will royally cock up its implementation, which will lead to claims of discrimination.
Even the phrase "Rockettes" is on dodgy ground.
I loved joining the police and finding this all out the hard way!!

[Lima Juliet]

Ok, here is a female Silver Star holder. Got it for hand-to-hand clearing trenches whilst under fire. Military woman receives Silver Star (http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/silverstar.html)

Here is a lady that you might have heard of famous for her soldiering skills:
http://www.maidofheaven.com/maid_assets/extras/joanhorseetty.jpg
Joan of Arc

Here is another closer to home:
https://heroinesofhistory.wikispaces.com/file/view/548921.jpg/243488417/372x277/548921.jpg
Boudicca of the Iceni

For the followers pf Japanese warriors there is Tomoe Gozen and Nakano Takeko:
http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/00429v.jpg

Pirate Grace O'Malley took up arms with her crew to fight hand to hand. There was Lozen the female Apache warrior. Chilonis, the Spartan warrior who fought with a rope around her neck so she could commit suicide rather than being taken alive. Arawelo the Somalian queen who hung her opponents by their testes if they survived her battles - her army was all female. Jeanne Hachette who defended her town with an axe against the Duke of Burgundies troops. Finally, as one example of a woman who fought for 13 years as an infanteer in the British Army in the 18th Century there is Christian Davies - veteran of the Battle of Landen, Battle of Schellenberg, Battle of Blenheim and Battle of Ramillies wounded in several by musket shot.

Here is a recent Israeli female Medal of Valor winner: https://israelnewsonline.org/female-idf-hero-awarded-israels-highest-honor-the-medal-of-valor/#.WWoTjLHTWhA

So for pity's sake grow up gentlemen. It is only your "little women" prejudices that are letting you down. As for injuries, I was working on a unit with a Regional Rehabilitation Unit on it - lots of men with torn tendons, knackered knees and fractures - it isn't a totally gender specific issue!

LJ

[dctyke]

Some appauling attitudes here from some I believe as gentlemen. The CQB and bayonet argument is quite simply laughable and maybe you should all go and dribble into your travel blanket with your cup of cocoa thinking of the good old days of Benny Hill and On the Buses. Have you not considered that the female aircrew may very well find themselves in a toe-to-toe fighting situation when their aircraft spears in and the locals aren't friendly? There have been some incredible stories of women under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan with medals for gallantry to back up their actions. Please keep your minds open or your sneering mysogeny to yourself.

For me it's quite simple, if the females pass the same selection then great. As long as there is no discrimination in the required standards as there is now, then everything is equal. See https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/D9E0A3C7_1143_EC82_2E3E762735D95037.doc
However, how can it be right that a peak of fitness female 17-29 has to reach broadly the same standard as a 50-54 male? This cannot be right and if the Chief and the SofS are really truthful about equality then either the female fitness scores need to rise to that of the males or the males need to drop to that of the females. Quite frankly the levels of fitness amongst some of the female and male cadre is poor and there are way too many with a sick-chit and "excused from games". I like to consider myself a feminist but the discrimination between male/female Service fitness requirements does the female's cause of equality no good whatsoever.

LJ

Lower ranks have been dismissed for failing the test whilst people in positions of power or with bosses with a bit of clout blatantly get away with it. Frequently I've seen people in uniform who were frankly, an embarrassment. I would have put my mortgage on them not passing the test.

[Danny42C]

Rosevidney1 (#12/13),

The Dinosaurs were very successful in their day, and lasted a good long time. Can I join your Dinosaur Club, please ?

And ORAC's (#18) Kipling quote is absolutely 'on the button'.

Five years ago, in my Post #2504 on Page 126 on this Thread, I wrote:

"Having said that, I must admit that for me (and, I rather suspect, for many others, another less creditable reason may have played some part. We can all laugh now at Corporal Jones ("they don't like it up 'em!") and at the bloodcurdling yells of bayonet practice on TV. But the real thing isn't funny at all".

"Can you really envisage what it takes to thrust six inches of cold steel into another human being's guts, twist it so that it doesn't stick (doing still more damage), pull it out and then do it again and again (against all your civilised instincts?) I remember a terrible chapter in "All Quiet on the Western Front", where the German narrator, marooned between the lines in a shellhole with a French poilu, with whom he at first becomes friends, is forced by circumstances to disembowel his new "oppo". (Hitler banned the book in Germany as pacifist propaganda). As usual, Kipling has the words for it":

"I do not love my country's foes / Nor call 'em 'eroes - Still, / Where is the sense in 'ating those / 'Oom you are paid to kill?"

"There was a way out: accept the risk of death for yourself, but volunteer for a technical arm like the Air Force or the Navy, where you will kill clinically, at a distance, where you won't see " the whites of his eyes". Was this a form of cowardice? Probably. All I know is, I take my hat off to the PBI, who had to do the dirty work".

IMHO this applies with even greater force to the female. Is it "Right" to ask a woman (the giver of human life) to do this ? What is the "Right" and the "Wrong" in this case ? I find Kant's "Categorical Imperative" ("what would happen [to the human species] if everybody did this all the time ?") gives the best answer: Clearly, you must protect your breeding stock at all costs, to secure the next generation, whereas the males are expendable.

Of course, this will not meet the approval of the "Annie Oakley" persuasion ("anything you can do, I can do better"). We must agree to differ.

Danny.

[Lima Juliet]

Oh dear Danny:

Of course, this will not meet the approval of the "Annie Oakley" persuasion ("anything you can do, I can do better"). We must agree to differ.

Are you watching Wimbledon at the moment? I don't fancy your chances against Venus Williams in a tennis match old fruit...

LJ

[air pig]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Inayat_Khan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violette_Szabo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odette_Hallowes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Rowden

I leave these four ladies for your contempplation, in that they were as brave as any man in the situation they were in.

[The Oberon]

Oh dear Danny:



Are you watching Wimbledon at the moment? I don't fancy your chances against Venus Williams in a tennis match old fruit...

LJ

Sorry Leon, but that is not the point. put her in with one of the top 3 male professionals and see what happens, especially if, by chance, it went beyond 3 sets.

[Brian 48nav]

I think it's you who should grow up! Danny is 95 - show some respect!

[Rotate too late]

So you've trawled hundreds of years to find a few examples, well done. Now back to the "average" grunt. As long as the standards are not undermined, then fine. But the realists on here know that it's going to be a bumpy road, I mentioned the USMC earlier, but the Facebook pages controversy of a few months ago proves that there are/will be challenges. We can all say/tow the party line and what's correct for the day. MAYBE somebody saying the uncomfortable elephant in the room type point should be regarded with more respect. Emporers new clothes?

[BEagle]

Being cynical, I feel that perhaps this topic is being driven less on 'equal opportunities' grounds than on an attempt to mitigate recruiting shortfall.

Equal opportunities? I refer to Monty Python's Life of Brian:

hUBAx8jbYNs

[langleybaston]

A scenario to ponder.

Assume that you are male.

You are told that you will have to fight for your life, as in a phone-box, and can choose the gender of your opponent.

Which is it to be?

[Rotate too late]

Beags,
Agreed, have a like for getting Monty Python in on the thread. :D

[Wander00]

sorry what was that, do what in a phone box....hat, coat

[air pig]

The UK has and still does recruit women into special forces within SRR, previously 14 Int Company. This started in the days of the overt conflict in Northern Ireland.

[Basil]

The UK has and still does recruit women into special forces within SRR, previously 14 Int Company. This started in the days of the overt conflict in Northern Ireland.
No objection whatsoever to that or use as interrogators etc.

[Pontius Navigator]

Air pig, this is of course horses for courses. If you insist on everyone meeting a common standard you will miss those that would excel in a specialist role but otherwise fail in a less relevant aspect.

Miss PN2 only 'just' qualified in marksman ship. She probably passed as the instructor recognised that a female sqn ldr supplier was unlikely to be given a gun.

[Danny42C]

Thanks, Bryan 48nav (#41), for springing to my defence. Yet I would not plead in aid my grey hairs.

Rotate Too Late (#42), has put his finger on the 'root of the matter'(Churchill's phrase), IMHO:

..."MAYBE somebody saying the uncomfortable elephant in the room type point should be regarded with more respect"...

It is not the only "Elephant" (aka "Sacred Cow") from which we sedulously avert our gaze. The prize specimen is the "Free at the point of Delivery" mantra of the NHS. Setting aside the fact that: "there is no such thing as a "free lunch"
(someone always has to pay):

When Aneuran Bevan set up the NHS in 1948 this was a noble aspiration indeed. It was thought that the health of the nation would so improve that the demand for NHS services would diminsh. As we know, the exact opposite has taken place, to the extent that all the revenues of the land could be devoted to the NHS - and it would still be underfunded - because the demand for its services is (potentially) infinite. The NHS, as at present constituted, is a bottomless pit.

The only way to "square this circle" is to take an axe to the Sacred Cow. "When I were a lad", a visit to the Doctor cost 5/-. If he came out to you, it was 7/6. The system worked only because the doctors "tempered the wind to the shorn lamb", those patients well able to pay subsidising those who couldn't. My father had a serious abdominal operation. "Mr "X" does one of these for 100 guineas" , said the Ward Sister, "and then he does three more for nothing"....

5/- then amounted to three hour's work by a man on average wage. A comparable sum today would be £40. I do not suggest a draconian figure anything like that - but surely, excluding those living on benefits, nobody should object to (say) £10. At one bound, the NHS would be solvent - and there would be a marked reduction in the attendances at surgeries and A&Es.

All this is widely off-topic and off-Thread. But if we slay one Sacred Cow, how about the one at the heart of our discussion ? Men and women are different (vive la différence !) There are some things men are better at (hand-to-hand combat against another man for a start). Women are supremely better at giving birth. It just is so. Accept it.

Danny.

[air pig]

Miss PN2 only 'just' qualified in marksman ship. She probably passed as the instructor recognised that a female sqn ldr supplier was unlikely to be given a gun.

Does that include the CO of 12 Squadron and other lady aircrew or the female members of the MERT, ground medics logestics crews etc who have given such service.

[Danny42C]

air pig,

I think PN specified Sqn Ldr supplier.

[air pig]

air pig,

I think PN specified Sqn Ldr supplier.

He did indeed, but who is to say that there were not female RAOC officers leading logistic trains, what if there was an attachment to an army unit?

Should not all be up to the standard without those assesing them prejudging what or where they may be posted or deployed, such an attitude may put others at risk.

If a woman comes up to the standard required, what is the problem?

At this point I'm leaaving this thread.

[ORAC]

The forces can't get enough men to join, 50% of the workforce now is female. Accept it - and plan accordingly.

In days of old knights wielded broadswords, now the majority wield guns, females as prominently as males. They can't carry as much as men, but do you just have less troops or a proportion who can carry less but increase mechanisation and reduce weight by new materials?

Facts on the ground have a way of trumping theories on paper.

[Lima Juliet]

Oberon - I tell you what I'll pitch your 3 best male gymnasts against the 3 best female gymnasts on the beam and the floor exercises and see how they do. The fact is Venus Williams and any female tennis professional could probably wipe the floor with 99% of the male population in a game. Pitching your 3 best males from the world against Ms Williams just shows how blinkered you are.

Brian48Nav - no respect for disrespectful attitudes to female rights and misogyny regardless of age. Thank goodness that this is slowly becoming a practice reserved for the very small minority.

There should be no role that is not open to any gender, age, religion or race - it must be competency based but if you make the grade then you should be allowed to do it. Those that believe there are "woman's" and "man's" roles need to grow up and leave behind the despicable legacy of the patriarchy within the Abrahamic religions. Some of the views on here appear to be as a direct result of this.

I can recall the dreadfull whohaa after we got the first females flying military aircraft and then that they should only fly the supporting missions on multi-engine aircraft. Then they were allowed rotary and finally fast jet. One of the best fighter pilots I ever flew with on a squadron was a woman and then I have had the pleasure to know a female helicopter pilot with a DFC. Having females in the Regt will be just fine as long as we weed out the unfair discriminators and the bullies. I would be proud to serve alongside any woman that is capable of doing their job - as long as we don't witness positive discrimination in the female's favour then everything will be just fine.

LJ

[YellowTom]

Leon Jabachjabicz, Sir, thank you. Your comments represent the RAF of today, along with its values and people that I'm proud to be a part of. I can concur that the girls who work down the back of our helicopters today are ready for anything and anyone. When it comes to being ready to give better than you're getting, I'd say some of them are a match for some of our Rocks. The girls who don't want to stick a bayonet into a rib cage won't apply, simples.

[Lima Juliet]

YellowTom - I wholeheartedly agree with you as well. I actually like the heritage of the old RAF as well but it did exist during a time where society sexually discriminated far more than today. :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Danny, thank you. Her med cat was downgraded due to an obstetric problem. This meant she was on a restricted med cat but still did a productive tour in Kandahar and several productive tours following. She has just retired at her 38 point despite to prospective promotion.

My point is at 100% man equivalent fitness may be a laudable aim but would deny many able individual.

[Rotate too late]

I leave it at this.
Genuinely, the best of luck to you. We've mentioned the strides made so far, and they are to be lauded, no doubt. But just because it's a resounding success in some quarters, doesn't mean it follows in others...
By chasing the holy grail of equality, if you undermine the operational effectiveness of the unit, you are a failure for not speaking up. And I warn you, the stakes may be higher than you ever thought possible.
Good luck again.

[ORAC]

Armed Forces made up of SAS and SBS would be incredible - but obviously impossible for many practice reasons. Armed forces made up of alpha males would be great, but obviously impossible for precticle reasons. Armed forces made of male only troops would be preferable for many reasons, but is impossible for many reasons.

The past is the past, conscription is gone and will not return, numbers are dwindling because recruitments cannot reach targets by only targeting 50% of the work force.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.....

[Lima Juliet]

Crikey, it's not a "holy grail" it's a basic human right! I don't understand what many of you are so afraid of. If they achieve the standard then regardless of gender, race, age or religion if they want to serve then let them serve. However just why they would want to serve some of the misogynist muppets that have revealed themselves on this forum is beyond me though...:(

[Cazalet33]

I worked with an Israeli Major for a year. He'd fought in both the Six Day and Yom Kippur shemozzles. On the Sinai front in both of those gigs.

In the first one they'd had women serving as front line infantry, but it was a bit of a disaster. No problem with their fitness and ability to fight. The problem was that there was a very deeply ingrained cultural thing which led the male soldiers to takes crazy risks to render aid and rescue to a fallen femme soldier which they would not have done so unthinkingly with a male casualty.

The Egyptians soon learned to plink the female soldiers first, knowing that they could pick off any number of IDF soldiers coming to her assistance. The IDF brass have learned the lesson and although they still have female infantry, the plan is no longer to place them right on the front line in quite such a literal way.

With the Regiment's prime role being to guard airbases, which tend to be behind the front line to some extent, perhaps this is not quite the same consideration.

[cheekychimp]

Leon, thanks for calling us all misogynist Muppets. I've served in the RAF Regt for 30 years and there's not one person I know who thinks this is a good idea. Oh well, what could we possibly know.

[Pontius Navigator]

My point, to approach it from a different way, is that a common entrance standard is highly desirable but the fitness standard, or any other measure, should be dependent and not universal and gender specific.

[taxydual]

Have I missed something? Is there a hoard (or whatever collective noun) of women desperate to join the RAF Regiment?

[Mahogany_Bomber]

There are two entirely separate issues in debate here which are being conflated by a number of posters.


The first issue is whether employment should be based on merit/competence rather than gender or other characteristics. The 21st Century answer of course is that, in terms of employment, gender should have no role to play. Other arms and services operate role specific absolute fitness standards (ie carry weight x over distance y in under time z) irrespective of age or gender, why would the RAF Regiment be any different?


The second issue is one of cultural acceptance, is UK civil and military culture ready to accept female combat casualties? The answer again is yes, we have done so for many years, the difference of course is that now they will now potentially become casualties as a consequence of females being employed on roles requiring them to close with and kill the enemy. If we accept the requirement to provide non-gender biased life opportunities we must accept that the same opportunities will arise in terms of dying as well.


I have operated alongside female service personnel is dismounted close combat on operations and I can categorically state the only thing that mattered was their ability as a rifleman (in all aspects of the role), gender never came in to it. Properly trained to the task and given a fair chance (which does not mean reducing any role specific requirements) I don't doubt that this will prove to be a complete non-issue in military terms, but may cause ill-informed and over-emotive faux outrage in the tabloids.


Good luck to all who choose to go down this path.


MB

[Brian 48nav]

I have no interest at all in whether the 'Rockapes' are 100% men, 100% women or a mixture. What does concern me is your 'Holier than thou' attitude, where anyone who disagrees with your point of view has to 'grow up' - who made you the arbiter of what people can say? This is all very reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

In the news this morning there is a report re concerns that MPs have over the attacks they have been subject to on social media during the course of the election campaign. You are doing the very same thing to posters here - I have had the privilege of reading hundreds of Danny's posts and I have never seen a hint of misogyny.

You would do well to remember the saying, ' I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it'.

Brian Wildey

[Cazalet33]

Is there a hoard (or whatever collective noun) of women desperate to join the RAF Regiment?

A horde, perhaps. Unless you meant Reservists.:p

[Top West 50]

With respect Mahogany Bomber there is only one issue at stake here and that is our ability to fight and win wars.

[Vendee]

In the news this morning there is a report re concerns that MPs have over the attacks they have been subject to on social media during the course of the election campaign. You are doing the very same thing to posters here

The attacks on MPs you mention have been death threats, rape threats, racist abuse and bigotry. To suggest that LJ has been guilty of that is rather disingenuous.

[Brian 48nav]

That may be so, but from tiny acorns mighty oaks grow. I find his attitude to WW2 hero Danny appalling.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Top 50 West. You are correct and our ability to fight and win wars will only be enhanced by opening up the pool from which we recruit to all of the population, regardless of gender.


MB

[vascodegama]

Like the majority here I am all for the recruitment from 100% of the population but only on the grounds that standards are absolute. PN I am sure that Miss PN did a good job in Kandahar but the idea that someone in her position is unlikely to be given a gun is off track in my book. The Taliban attack on Bastion is a good example. As for the joke of the fitness test the less said the better.

[Lima Juliet]

Brian

I find his attitude to WW2 hero Danny appalling.

I don't really care if he is the future King of England! You cannot discriminate on the grounds of gender even if you have offered your very best to the country in service; not a valid exemption. It is against the Law to discriminate on grounds of gender as stated in the Equality Act 2010 and all of the Acts that preceded it.

Not wanting to single out one particular individual for the horrific comments I've read on here, I find it staggering that 99 years after we gave women over 30 the vote in the UK we are still having to support them against this type of discrimination. Any of you with working wives and daughters will realise that we still have some way to go yet in certain areas - some of the comments on this forum serve to prove this. Misogyny is still alive and well in small pockets of mainly older privileged males in the UK - my wife who earns a six-figure salary in business has to put up with it on a daily basis. So it's not "holier than thou" it's just wrong legally, morally and as a gentleman/officer I find it abhorrent to find attitudes to this recent announcement by CAS and the SofS still exist in our society.

As for "freedom of speech" - again, it is not acceptable to be derogatory about gender, just as it isn't for sexuality, disability or race. Sorry, thems the rules!!

Anyway, great post Mahogany Bomber. :ok:

LJ

[Rotate too late]

Not a fan of other people's views but not above a bit of casual racism eh jet boy?

"I don't hate them all, I just dislike those that don't want to integrate with UK society, customs and culture and want to bring little-Mungostan with them and set it up front and centre. I have some very good mates who's parents do not hail from the UK - guess what? They have integrated fully with the customs and culture of this country; including wearing a poppy and not torching a young lad from one of the UK's biggest youth organisations!

I'm pretty sure that if I conducted an attrocity of this magnitude in another country where this type of radical behaviour has 'sprung' from (see what I did there?), then I suspect at the very least I would be enjoying a stretch 'Midnight Express' stylee."

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Vasco, while a proper combat evaluation in both ability and fitness would have seen her screened from posting, and we would have been delighted, I don't think she would have wanted to avoid it on those grounds.

I suspect many others would have tried to wriggle out of such a posting. I accepted my OOA posting with good grace before a Christmas and was 100% pissed off when I discovered that SLOPS had refused to accept a fighter controller and a pilot sent at short notice on a promise of a six week det rather than six months. In the event a fighter controller would have been ideal. Gripe over.

[Rotate too late]

"I don't really care if he is the future King of England! You cannot discriminate on the grounds of gender OR RACE"

See what I did there LJ

[melmothtw]

Someone better tell the Kurds that women aren't up to front line combat. Don't think they got that memo...

[Brian 48nav]

This could go on to the cows come home! Once again, re-read Danny's comments and there is nothing that could be considered misogynist. Yet you have told him to grow up and called him and others a muppet.
What sort of gentleman and officer are you?

As a PS - we could put this whole thing to bed easily. If the Moderators think that any post here has contravened the Equality Act then it is up to them to delete them or, as you believe that to be the case, you have the option to flag up those posts.

Back to my early evening beer - enjoy your tipple too!

[flash8]

Someone better tell the Kurds that women aren't up to front line combat. Don't think they got that memo...

I have met a few of them on my 'travels' and they are absolutely amazing, and amazingly ruthless. You make a fair point.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is a difference. Kurds are fighting for their lives and their country, much as us in WW 2.

Now the British Services fight for their politicians even though they swear allegiance to the Sovereign.

[Slow Biker]

No mention of female EOD operators. They share the same risk as the men, carry the kit, wear the suit and do The Walk in conflict and in peacetime.

[Rotate too late]

What sort of gentleman and officer are you?

One that doesn't like the look of my wife (Asian)
Don't worry Leon I'm sure you're safe from her kind in your ivory tower.

[Danny42C]

#62 from Cazalet33 is worthy of serious consideration. It goes to the heart of the problem. I have heard that the Israeli Army found that, in battle, a wounded female
meant two non-combatants - the casualty and a male soldier who simply could not abandon her before help arrived.

This is a basic human reaction and no way can you blame the IDF High Command for recognising it:
...The IDF brass have learned the lesson and although they still have female infantry, the plan is no longer to place them right on the front line in quite such a literal way...
This is not "Discrimination" against women - just common sense. The IDF had a war to win, btw, and may have future ones to fight.

And how about this, some long time ago there was published here a picture of a FJ output from Valley: three young men and one young woman (all credit to the young lady !) All were Flt Lts, which (I think) means that they have all had 3½ years Commissioned service (probably all in [very expensive] training).

Who would deny her the right to resign her Commission on marriage tomorrow, were she minded to do so ? But isn't that "Discrimination" (a male officer has no such option). You see how "rights" collide. And how about the taxpayer - does he/she not have a stake in this ? (someone would have to pick up the bill for her training).

If this is misogyny, so be it. But I have been the Adjutant of an (Auxiliary) Unit whose prime purpose was to train 70-odd (almost all) airwomen in the vital trades of Radar Operator and Fighter Plotter; have spent a three-year tour lecturing and practical training RAF and WRAF direct entrant officers at the ATC School; and had five years experience working with the School graduates "in the field" before my retirement..

I would without hesitation affirm that the quality has been uniformly excellent: the youhg ladies were every bit as talented and as capable as the young men. BUT - almost all the WRAF we had (admittedly only half a dozen) resigned their SSCs on marriage before completing their term of active service, whereas several of the young men transferred to General List for full careers: two reaching Wing Commander before retirement.

Which proved more profitable for the MOD to recruit ?

Misogynist - Moi ?

Danny.

[Wrathmonk]

Rotate to Late

I'm struggling to follow your line of thinking/ranting.

Can you clarify who, in your opinion, you are referring to when you say:

Not a fan of other people's views but not above a bit of casual racism eh jet boy?

and

What sort of gentleman and officer are you?

One that doesn't like the look of my wife (Asian)

Only asking because I thought this thread was all about equality across the genders (and certainly if you are referring to LJ then the line seems (to me) to be "best person for the job" irregardless of their gender) and nothing to do with casual racism.

[Wrathmonk]

Danny

Who would deny her the right to resign her Commission on marriage tomorrow, were she minded to do so ? But isn't that "Discrimination" (a male officer has no such option).

Think that went out when WRAF were "amalgamated" into the RAF (this was not a very good process - this particular rule remained 'law' for a short while (at least up until a few male RAF pilots attempted to use the 'marriage' clause to get around the 3 yr (?) PVR waiting time that was in force at the time (mid 90's?).

From your experience how were female SOE operatives thought of during WW2 (apart from being exceptionally brave) given that their fate, were they caught, was likely to be both horrific and final. Were there any 'second thoughts' at the time about using females in such role?

No disrespect intended for questioning your view - am genuinely curious!

[Rotate too late]

Happy to clarify.
The quoted remarks were his on a previous thread( it ends with initials LJ)....with clearly racist tones. His attacks on Danny are therefore utterly undermined when he alludes to attitudes. The question was posed about what sort of officer he is/was. I would suggest a cold hard look in the mirror would answer that, but after showing my other half his rather odious comments, her face said it all. We are a multi cultural society, with men and women.

Seems fairly straightforward but hope that clears it up for you.

To be utterly clear, I accept the changes ref gender, but I'm concerned about the implementation. That is all.

[Training Risky]

My god, I have read some sanctimonious claptrap on this site over the years, but nothing beats this lot of desperately trendy feminist equalities guff.

Leon. I assume your handle is a pun on 'lay on your back, you bi*CH'. Better change it then, your halo is starting to slip. But before you do, please tell me more of your boasts about your missus' six-figure income and how having an opinion on the internet can be against 'the law'...

(Pssst, people who have to tell others repeatedly that they are officers and gentlemen are neither and it makes you look a bit sad...)

Back to topic though, when I was TA infantry (PWRR) in the late 90s it was exhausting. Not all the blokes could tab miles with bergans, extra ammo and then fight at the end of it. And we only did 2 weeks at Catterick compared to the hell the regulars went through. There is a reason why women don't do infantry! (Rock apes don't count...the EFI won't guard itself!):E

[iRaven]

Oh dear training risky, you appear to have revealed your true colours:

"desperately trendy feminist equalities guff"

If you think it's guff then please join the rest on the naughty step.

[Rotate too late]

IRaven-

"Laundry provision will improve then..."

Care to explain this then?

[Lima Juliet]

@Rotate Too Late

I think you need to look at that post of mine in context (which I am sure you have done by going through posts 3 years old). The post was originally from back in 2014. The context of the post related to a young cadet that had been assaulted and the claim from others was that the attacker was likely to be Muslim - which is a religion and not a race. As you know, to be a Muslim you can be black, white, yellow or brown in skin colour - it is the BEHAVIOUR that I was taking issue against, not the race/skin colour. Even then, I have no profound issue with those that wish to follow the Islamic faith, but when the BEHAVIOUR becomes extreme (regardless of race) falling short of acceptable and a young cadet is injured then I have the right to object. You should know that BEHAVIOUR is not covered by the Equalities Act. Poor behaviour is exactly the thing that the Law and Justice system protects us against. As it happens in the case of the Cadet, if I recall correctly, the OP got it very wrong and the criminal was actually a wacked-out druggy that commited the attrocity (although it was some time ago, so I may have this wrong).

@Training Risky

Yes, mea culpa for having a pathetic "Benny Hill"esque Nom De Plume. I was somewhat more immature when I came up with the name 17 years ago - others around at the time were Justin Cider-Belvoir or Normus Teets; equally poor judgement and childish these days. Anyone know how or if it can be changed - I'll glady swap it for something less inflammatory.

@Brian48

I've had a look at D42's post again and whilst it is nowhere near as bad as some of the others. It does read poor in that D42 showed a desire to belong to the "Dinosaur Club", "Clearly, you must protect your breeding stock at all costs, to secure the next generation, whereas the males are expendabl" or "anything you can do, I can do better. I beg to differ" - all very polite but the undertone and perceived intent is so very wrong.

BOTTOM LINE ON ALL OF THIS
What would have been really nice on this thread to begin with would have been some views on how the allowance of females in the RAF Regt was the right thing to do. How, if the females reach the required standard they will be welcome into the Trade/Branch. How, some of them can realise their ambition without fear of prejudice and the expectation to succeed should they make the grade. But no, a bunch of likely grumpy old gits rattled off arguments/attitudes that should have been buried at least 100 years ago. Well I for one want to wish the future female Jr Gunners and JROCs the very best for their success.

[Rotate too late]

As long as they're IC1,
There's no excuse for your brand of outdated discriminatory diatribe. By trying to justify it, you've failed massively.
Well done for having the arrogance to try.

[iRaven]

Rotate Too Late

Care to explain this then in 2015? I'm sure the First Minister is very happy about this...would you what?

But Nicola Sturgeon...would you? Just asking like.

I can't be arsed to go through all of your posts as you seem to be for the rest of the Pruners.

[Rotate too late]

What? Vote?
Verrry controversial.

[Rotate too late]

I'm keen to ask then, does LEON JABACHJABICZ translate to lie on your back you bi**h?
Yes or no answer

[iRaven]

Danny

Just looking at your argument about sending women forward, it appears flawed. Why do we happily send female combat medics in to treat our wounded under fire (as previously stated some have got MCs to prove it) but wouldn't send them in with a rifle/bayonet in case they get targetted? It just doesn't make sense to me. If it is too dangerous and a threat to infantrymens' efficiency then surely there should be no female medics either? I don't believe that real life experience in Iraq and Afghanistan would support this concern?

Also, I think all of us need to remember that the RAF Regt tend to be employed in and around airfields on FP duties. I see no reason why females, that have passed selection, wouldn't make fine Rock Apes (note that Apes' names are not gender specific which is quite apt in this case) and may even excel in certain areas over their male colleagues with their gender specific attributes. One such example is as a sniper. The Soviet Union found that some of their best snipers were female such as Pavlicenko with 309 kills during world war 2.

So I agree, let us get behind this and see what it brings. Just saying 'no' or 'I beg to differ' isn't really giving it the chance the scheme deserves. :ok:

[Rotate too late]

iraven,
I'll be honest with you, it was LJ's unwarranted attack on a WW2 veteran to whom I have never met but enjoy his posts enormously, with shocking arrogance that led me to conduct my little search between jobs.
The exercise was to show that his moral high ground was indefensible in a stroke, and with his moniker, will continue to be so. You got caught up in the crossfire.
So, in a more conciliatory tone. We can all be naughty in different ways. I'll wind my neck in and leave the thread as I've not really anything to add.
But LJ, you've been exposed chap.

[melmothtw]

There was nothing "unwarranted"about LJ's 'attack' on Danny's views.

Surely he is just exercising the freedom to disagree that Danny fought for, no?

In that regard he's actually honouring Danny's service.

[BEagle]

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-24.61397.h&s=speaker%3A11626 is a link to a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Defence, concerning the shortfall in recruitment of reserve and regular gunners and officers in the RAF Regiment.

To my mind, the CAS statement “The RAF is committed to providing equal opportunity to all, so it’s fantastic to be able to open recruitment to the RAF Regiment to women ahead of schedule” is a complete smokescreen. The purpose of removing the gender barrier in the RAF Regiment is simply an attempt to mitigate the overall recruiting crisis.

No-one is forcing women to be recruited into the Regiment; it will be interesting to learn whether many will actually apply.

[Brian 48nav]

I've had a long hard think about our opposing views and this 'light-bulb' moment came to me.

To SAY one prefers men only Rockapes is not an offence, it is an opinion. For the CAS or AOC RAF Regiment to say that no way will they have ladies in the Regiment is an offence.

Similarly, I am opposed to gay marriage for several reasons; it is not an offence for the many in public life who have also expressed that view, BUT if I ran a B&B or similar business and refused admittance to a gay couple, then I would be guilty of discrimination.

I always hold a door open for a lady, not always for men, does that make me a misogynist? For most of us poor old men who are not comfortable with exposing the 'nurturing' sex to front-line danger it is not because we think they are not up to the job, it is because evolution has hard-wired us into this protector role.

As an ex-nav I have seen many jibes made by the '2 winged Master Race' directed against us, the worse being 'the smell of pee from the back seat'; do I complain, NO, because I was born with a sense of humour, although the 'joke' I have mentioned is not funny at all.

As for your moniker - how about using your actual name? Here's mine again.

Brian Wildey

[minigundiplomat]

There are some very valid arguments on both sides, but lets get things in perspective - when was the last time the RAF Regiment were involved in a bayonet charge?

[Basil]

Hear, hear, Brian - Ian.

[downsizer]

There are some very valid arguments on both sides, but lets get things in perspective - when was the last time the RAF Regiment were involved in a bayonet charge?

Mate, they are part of the Big 3, show some respect! :ooh:;)

[tescoapp]

Its not really bayonet charges that concern me.

Its loads of people with life changing none combat injury's who are dumped out of the services broken to fend for themselves.

If the Mil breaks them due to PC policy changes/lack of people wanting to join up they should pay for what they break.

Personally I think its going to cost a fortune in damage claims but we shall see.

[Danny42C]

Wrathmonk (#87),
...Think that went out when WRAF were "amalgamated" into the RAF...
1994, I believe. I speak of the late '60s
...From your experience how were female SOE operatives thought of during WW2? ... No special experience of them. They were universally admired for their courage. ...Were there any 'second thoughts' at the time about using females in such role?...
None at all on gender grounds AFAIK - and they were all volunteers, of course.

Danny.

[Tankertrashnav]

minigundiplomat - You might as well ask when was the last time an RAF Typhoon shot down an enemy aircraft? However we still work on the assumption that pilots, male or female may have to do that. Whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of females using the bayonet in combat, you have to work on the assumption that they may have to.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

Ref the RAF and bayonets.

I'm in the RAF, but not in the RAF Regiment. In early 2012 on ops in the Upper Gereshk Valley in Afghanistan I dismounted from a Warrior AFV along with the rest of my patrol and fixed bayonet. A bit of a moment, to say the least and unique in my service career. I'm not telling the story to say "look at me, I'm great!" but to illustrate the fact that it does still happen and not always by whom you might expect. Thankfully, another callsign did the necessary by other means just as we commenced our tab in.

[Danny42C]

BEagle (#100),
...The purpose of removing the gender barrier in the RAF Regiment is simply an attempt to mitigate the overall recruiting crisis...
The heart of the matter. Pay your Forces properly, give them decent accommodation, look after their families, and you won't have a recruiting crisis.

Danny.

[Danny42C]

Brian 48nav (#101),
...For most of us poor old men who are not comfortable with exposing the 'nurturing' sex to front-line danger it is not because we think they are not up to the job, it is because evolution has hard-wired us into this protector role...
Exactly ! I'm with you 100% !

Danny.

[melmothtw]

As for your moniker - how about using your actual name? Here's mine again.

Brian Wildey


- play the ball, not the man, Brian

[old,not bold]

Yes but when push comes to shove can a woman in a trench put a rifle bayonet in some crying conscripts guts and twist it ?You will find that the proportion of each gender who cannot do that is pretty much the same among men as among women. This may not have been true 50 years ago, but in that time men have become much more feminine than they were, and vice versa.

[Danny42C]

old, not bold,

A pity !

[melmothtw]

These women are clearly out of their depth and should be nurturing children at home...

Female front line 360 -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40612479

[Brian 48nav]

This 70 year old 'has been' has just returned from a 55 mile solo cycle ride ( please don't clap too loudly! ) during which I pondered my next message to LJ.

I'm sorry Melmothtw, but i am not just going for the man I am going for his jugular.

Leon - your moniker is the most offensive I have seen on here in my time as a PPruner and can be interpreted only one way - that you are the worst kind of misogynist. I guess you must have been 10 years old when you chose that! Does six figure salary wife know that is the name you use?

I am amazed that the mods let that one through - or maybe in their innocence like me they saw a Polish sounding name and thought you must be descended from one of the WW2 heroes who fought with the RAF.

The first thing you can do now is make an apology to all those you have attacked here, but particularly Danny42C and then, because I and no doubt others find it difficult to believe that you are an officer and gentleman, reveal your identity and proof that you are not a troll! I'm thinking all this talk about flying in fast jets and helicopters with female pilots is all bullsh*t.

If you aren't prepared to do so, I hope that someone who knows you may 'Out' you. When you choose a new moniker I suggest 'six figure salary wife's lapdog'. Better still I think you should be banned.

If I have upset others here with this post then you know who to blame, and it is not me!

[Mahogany_Bomber]

For the purpose of the wider discussion and without rancour, can we not simply accept the view (but not necessarily agree with it ) that some forum members believe that the RAF Regiment and other military units whose primary role is to close with and kill the enemy should retain gender as a selection criterion? And vice versa.

I'm genuinely interested in what other types of occupation or parts of life in general would proponents of the status quo consider gender inclusion/exclusion to be acceptable? How have their views been formed? Personal experience? Cultural norms? Gender stereotyping or honestly held belief that some jobs/aspects of life are better done by one gender or another?

Any links to peer reviewed research on the topic gratefully received as I seek to expand my knowledge beyond my own limited personal experience. Hopefully my username and quotes from previous posts won't be used in evidence against me! My apologies for not previously using my real name on the internet, I realise that it would only be seen by 2 billion of my closest friends. Time to go public with my real name (this feels very liberating), my parents actually named me Bamboo Bomber but I never really liked and so changed it as soon as I left home to join up. There, said it.

[Wrathmonk]

None at all on gender grounds AFAIK - and they were all volunteers, of course.

Thank you - kind of the point I was looking to make - they were all volunteers. Nobody forced them to do it. And a damn fine job those that were selected did.

And all those females wishing to join the RAF Regiment will be the same - volunteers. Nobody is forcing them to join. And those that do will, I'm sure, do an equally fine job or be shown the door. And why shouldn't they be given the chance to do what they want to do?

Off topic, but this has to be one of the most unintentionally funny threads outside of Jet Blast for ages - only normally see such internet meltdowns on t'other (Army) site. And, of course, on sci-fi forums since it was announced the next Doctor Who was going to be a ....... woman. Shock horror. ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

Wow how bitter this thread.

My daughter in the RAuxRAF Regt was initially trained in all arms. When they later tried to restrict her to radios she rebelled.

On one occasion, having broken her ankle during the week, she had it strapped up so she could exercise on the Warcop ranges.

On exercise in the States she was section leader of a combined RAF/NG section.

When she found they actually paid her she was delighted. When she got her tax free bounty she could not believe it.

Yes, if they want to join, let them provided they meet the qualifying criteria

[Chris Kebab]

Personally i'm feeling a bit glum that after 17 years of reading Leon's posts I've only just worked out his handle:sad:

No wonder they said i'd never make Harriers...

[heights good]

Mate, they are part of the Big 3, show some respect! :ooh:;)

MPGS, MoD Police and RAF Regt?! 😀

[heights good]

Hhhhhhmmmmm, this topic has been 'interesting' to say the least. So, my input then....

Equality is absolutely the right thing to do and should be applauded... However there is a practical side that has to be looked at when employing women in certain roles such as infantry. Whilst medics in Afghanistan showed what women who are given a chance are capable of it is one side of a story. Doing this over a 20+ year career, week in, week out is another thing.

I have no doubt there are women who can carry 20 kg bergans (Commando Test) or keep up with men when tabbing over high ground (Goose Green etc) or mill with a bloke of a similar stature (Para Regt milling) etc. The long term effects for the average infanteer are lower limb injuries and back problems that plague them for their careers and in later life.

Women are more likely to be injured when subjected to the rigours of infantry training vs males(see links below). As much as this will annoy some, this is unfortunately science fact. There are ways to mitigate some injuries but the reality is that women are just built differently and suffer more through over-striding, weight bearing and different hormonal needs that cause other isues such as (relative) iron deficiency) and a body not designed to pack on muscle mass and with a (relatively) less robust skeletal system.

This all tied in with a bodymass to weight carried ratio being at a guess about 15-20% different without correcting for lean body mass, bone strength and absolute cardiovascular fitness. There are ways to limit these issues, but as the MoD lost 26 aircrew at a cost of £100's millions due to musculo-skeletal injury over a 6 year period they are unlikely (never!) to implement anything worthwhile for infantry units.

The crux of my point, from a strategic and military point of view, females will more likely get injured = time off = less manpower = less to do the fighting = less likely mission success.

From a human and moral point of view and being a father to daughters, more injuries = more pain = more chance of repeat injuries = chronic pain = lack of operational effectiveness = med discharge = life of pain and suffering.

I really would hate for numerous young women in their prime to have life changing injuries or chronic pain for the sake appeasing the bra burners and make some politician look good. The long term health effects on women have to be taken seriously if we must go down this route and planned for by using peer reviewed studies from respected academics. We cannot let political correctness cloud a potential health timebomb without fully knowing the implications.

And just to be clear, I 100% support women in all front line roles providing the entry standard is not adjusted for gender.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8331441/

http://natajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.4085/1062-6050-51.9.09?code=nata-site

https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/705-notes.pdf

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/26/army-stats-show-that-women-are-injured-twice-as-of/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18849872/

http://jmvh.org/article/load-carriage-and-the-female-soldier/

[jonw66]

Excellent post

[EricsLad]

The next thing of course - why are there not enough female Sgts ? Ask the blokes who get passed over to achieve that aim - who thinks that won't happen ?

As it happens I was serving when the WRAC were armed in 1982 - most that I knew did not like it (I think that it was optional for those already serving).
They even gave them "That Gun" !
My wife who was a part-time trained killer before then was armed from the mid-Seventies (the STABs were a different Army).

For those who might consider the bayonet being only ceremonial -
Badass - Brian Wood (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=905475926435)

After all - those Harrier aircraft were wrecked by an insurgent attack on an airfield.

[Danny42C]

Brian 48nav (#115),

Thank you for taking up the cudgels on my behalf, but you do not need to worry: in my 95 years I've developed a pretty tough hide. You are right in that this Thread has become a bit waspish. Yet vituperation can never replace reasoned argument. It is sad if it appears here, whereas on my "home turf" ("Pilot's Brevet"): "No harsh word is to be spoken".

As to the matter in hand, I suppose it is a generational thing. To my Neandertal mind, there is a case against having women in the fighting services at all (unless, as was in 1916) the nation has simply run out of manpower.

The argument has two legs: the first is logistical: your "Penny Bun costs Twopence" - you have to double up on quarters, ablutions, uniform designs etc. (In peace there is the retention problem - young marriages ensure you do not, on average, give the same length of service). In WWII there was a gag going the rounds: "The WAAF is more of an administrative nuisance than she is an operational asset". Discuss on one side of foolscap".

The essence of the second is the ethical argument, illustrted well by Cazalet33's Israeli Major (#63), and developed by me in my (#85):

"IMHO this applies with even greater force to the female. Is it "Right" to ask a woman (the giver of human life) to do this ? What is the "Right" and the "Wrong" in this case ? I find Kant's "Categorical Imperative" ("what would happen [to the human species] if everybody did this all the time ?") gives the best answer: Clearly, you must protect your breeding stock at all costs, to secure the next generation, whereas the males are expendable".

Whether a woman can fight hand-to-hand as well as a man, whether she wishes to do so (which nowadays constitutes an automatic "right"), whether the Government has the right to ask her to do it, is quite irrelevant. She has an overriding duty (dirty word) to stay out of harm's way to produce the next crop of human beings.

Having: "Stated my case - of which I'm certain", I'll retire from this Thread. I doubt I will convince many. As I said: "It's a generational thing" - and my generation will soon be history.

"The Past is another country - they do things differently there".

Danny.

[melmothtw]

"The Past is another country - they do things differently there".

With respect, Danny, the Soviets were using women in combat to great effect 'in your time'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

I'm sure there were some who scoffed at the time, but I bet they weren't scoffing for long.

[Vendee]

because I and no doubt others find it difficult to believe that you are an officer and gentleman

Could we please give the "officer and gentleman" thing a rest. Anyone who thinks that a commission makes the holder a better person than the next man/woman, or confers any mystical status is sadly deluded.

[pr00ne]

[QUOTE=Brian 48nav;9830981]Quite frankly I don't care what you think either! You seem to be typical of the modern PC world where there is no longer freedom of speech.

And I don't care what you think nor do I care about what you think about what I think....

The whole point here is that you have no right to tell half the population what they can and cannot do!


Rosevidney1,

It takes both genders to breed you clown!

[Rosevidney1]

Thank you, pr00ne for your brilliantly clever remark. Without your invaluable aid I doubt if many of us would have realised what a flash of genius enabled you to come up with the answer - and pretty smartish too, I might say.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Could we please give the "officer and gentleman" thing a rest. Anyone who thinks that a commission makes the holder a better person than the next man/woman, or confers any mystical status is sadly deluded.

Dead right. We saluted the Queen's Commission, not the bearer of it. They ignored NCOs (particularly SNCOs) at their peril.

NEO

[pr00ne]

Rosevidney1

You may have missed the fact that it totally repudiates YOUR remark!

[Roadster280]

It looks to me as though this thread is missing perspective.

The regular component of the RAF Regiment is no more than 2000 people. Of that number, women may in future occupy a small percentage. It is a limited-role infantry capability. That's not to say they're not at the sharp end at times, but there's no mechanised capability, no AAW weapons, just basic light infantry with a defined scope (60 miles from the airfield, IIRC).

The argument about solving manning shortfalls seems ancillary to me when there are still areas of HMF that are gender-closed. Open the gender gate, and then assess whether you still have a shortfall. Definitely putting the cart before the horse in my view.

There's no NEAF, FEAF, ATAF, RAFG or anything else anymore, and hasn't been for years. Same for the Army and RN. A few stragglers in Germany closing down. Hell, JHQ closed; I never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. The point being that the scope of the entire Service, and indeed HMF is much reduced, and while this issue might have been a flea on an elephant in the Cold War, it's more of a flea on a cow these days.

As for the "officer and gentleman" horse****, it is exactly that. There's no place in modern society for such pretend distinction between rank divisions. It is a relic of the 17th century and belongs there. I've read on here (not recently, thank the Lord) terms such as "untermensch", referring to "ORs". Those making such statements write their own career epitaph.

Good luck to the future RAF Regiment gunners; whatever their gender.

[Pontius Navigator]

Roadster, I will only comment on para 2.

While that is correct right now, the RAF Regiment, unlike most of the Army, was never a single role organisation. It is quite likely to evolve in a different direction from time to time.

[Mahogany_Bomber]

heights good,

Thanks for your post, most informative and some really good links to view and ponder.

MB

[gijoe]

The question remains - why would you want to join the RAF Regiment?

Heights good post is excellent.

[Al R]

The question remains - why would you want to join the RAF Regiment?

Heights good post is excellent.

I was given all sorts of options - I considered them all and enlisted in the Regiment. I chose it, it didn't choose me. The idea of plodding away in some hanger or workshop on an aircraft filled me with absolute horror (still does) and, if I could do it all again, I probably would have looked more deeply into commissioning or aircrew possibilities. I was only considering six years craic and then leaving, however (I would have joined the Marines if they weren't full). That's what you get for being a latent underachieving hyperbolic discounter, I guess.

This thread is hysterical.

[Parson]

We have a female Doctor Who now so I don't see what the problem is.

[Pontius Navigator]

I remember looking at a female RAF doctor in the 60s with some surprise - formidable.

Also in another country, the NS WRAF were a breed apart too
They seemed mostly employed a batties and relished the unrationed quantities of chips and beans.

[ORAC]

We have a female Doctor Who now so I don't see what the problem is.

Give it time......

[Corporal Clott]

Brian, you need to calm down as others have said 'play the ball and not the man'. The monikers that you refer to have been and are used on PPrune by many posters. They are also used by military aircrew on spoof name badges in many a happy hour. All very immature, but I have seen some of the female aircrew wearing some of these names as well!

Examples are:

Justin Cyder-Belvoir
Welwyn Cyder-Belvoir
Helen Damnation
Willie Eckerslike
Mike Oxlong
Mike Hunt
Heywood Jablomey
Hugh Jardon
Buster Hyman
Ali Chapussy
Isaac Hunt
Sheila Vaperiod
Drew Peacock

So when put into context then the LJ moniker is no different to the above. Indeed one of them is the most prolific on the caption competition thread on PPrune - equally offensive to the female gender. They are jokes; intended to be so. I even note that LJ admitted mea culpa that it is one of the poorly chosen immature joke names, and that in hindsight he would change it if he could.

However, I also agree with many on here that some of the comments on this thread appear to be heart-felt and could be at best be described as 'outdated'. Discriminatory comments on female roles and stereotyping being the 'baby bearers' is making the news today: Advertising watchdog to get tough on gender stereotypes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40638343)

I also found some of the attitudes towards the new Dr Who hugely telling on a minority's viewpoint on gender in the UK. Yes, the posted Tardis driving jokes are probably a bit too raw at present not to be seen as more anti than funny.

Like it or not, the world is changing. I still find it staggering that women were not allowed to vote in this country some 100 years ago. Luckily I am from a different generation that finds this so very strange and deplorable.

[Top West 50]

Oh dear, you are all still confusing biological gender with politicised gender.

[langleybaston]

Oh! Go on then, missing were:

Fanny Bent
Mary Hingepiece
Norah Titz
Betty Swallocks ...............

[Corporal Clott]

Top West 50, come on then, what's your viewpoint on that?

[Corporal Clott]

Langley, my apologies, how could I have missed those! :ok:

[Al R]

Like it or not, the world is changing. I still find it staggering that women were not allowed to vote in this country some 100 years ago. Luckily I am from a different generation that finds this so very strange and deplorable.

As a point of interest, it's worth bearing in mind that it wasn't just women who were unable to vote 100 years ago. We are all aware that it was the Suffragettes who obtained votes for women but we seem to have had male suffrage airbrushed from our minds, many will argue that it's because it has been at odds with an ongoing political narrative. Whatever the reason, its omission from our understanding is inexplicable and unwarranted.

Before 1918, the vote was restricted not only by gender, as we are lead to believe, but also by property qualifications, when only 60% of adult men were entitled to vote. The RotP 1918 Act is, rightly, famous for giving 8,000,000 women the vote; but it also allowed 5,000,000 men returning from The Great War, the ability to vote as long as they were over 21 and, finally, without regard to property or social class. It's such a shame that we don't talk about it more, or that it goes unreported. It is almost a stain on the memory of what we/they were fighting for - namely, modern freedoms for both men and women.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

[Corporal Clott]

Al R, absolutely. I'm fully aware of that. There is an interesting TV program coming up on Ch4 hosted by Clare Balding that discusses how the Football Association banned womens' football in 1921 for over 50 years. At the time a womens' football team was drawing crowd sizes of over 60,000 spectators. So gender exclusion is still very recent in this country and more so than many think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/07/16/football-banned-women-clare-baldings-new-documentary-fa-outlawing/

[Corporal Clott]

Before anyone thinks that my moniker is belittling female menstruation, it is taken from a comic many years ago!

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/britishcomics/images/0/0d/Animate_7_004.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101004065733

Joke!

[ORAC]

As opposed to which other type of menstruation?

[Training Risky]

"Their periods attract sharks!" (R Burgundy, 1980).

[Corporal Clott]

ORAC, I'm just trying to ensure no one gets confused: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_menstruation :p:p

[Lima Juliet]

This 70 year old 'has been' has just returned from a 55 mile solo cycle ride ( please don't clap too loudly! ) during which I pondered my next message to LJ.

I'm sorry Melmothtw, but i am not just going for the man I am going for his jugular.

Leon - your moniker is the most offensive I have seen on here in my time as a PPruner and can be interpreted only one way - that you are the worst kind of misogynist. I guess you must have been 10 years old when you chose that! Does six figure salary wife know that is the name you use?

I am amazed that the mods let that one through - or maybe in their innocence like me they saw a Polish sounding name and thought you must be descended from one of the WW2 heroes who fought with the RAF.

The first thing you can do now is make an apology to all those you have attacked here, but particularly Danny42C and then, because I and no doubt others find it difficult to believe that you are an officer and gentleman, reveal your identity and proof that you are not a troll! I'm thinking all this talk about flying in fast jets and helicopters with female pilots is all bullsh*t.

If you aren't prepared to do so, I hope that someone who knows you may 'Out' you. When you choose a new moniker I suggest 'six figure salary wife's lapdog'. Better still I think you should be banned.

If I have upset others here with this post then you know who to blame, and it is not me!

Brian

The only thing that we can agree on is that my nom de plume is offensive to the female gender, for which I apologise wholeheartedly to them all for. I will be asking the PPrune Mods to suspend this account at the end of this post via the 'contact us' option. It was chosen from a set of supposedly joke names that should have been assigned to the rubbish bin some years ago - no better than school boy sniggerings or some of the other offensive things like the Robinson's Jam mascot.

As for the rest of my comments, I am not sorry. Some of the attitudes/comments displayed on this thread to the female gender are totally outdated, inappropriate and offensive - just like my nom de plume. Maybe some of you could also reflect like I have on what is wrong? Even if you were born in an era when women were banned from soccer and only over-30s were allowed to vote; things change, and they have, for the better.

Finally, there is a very good reason why nicknames, monikers or nom de plumes are used on PPrune by those still serving; if you are serving you cannot be seen to publically criticise things whilst actively promoting your full identity. Otherwise, the press would start quoting "Fg Off Snodgrass on PPrune said...". I am sure you know that. Maybe in years to come I can buy you a beer and tell you face to face who I am and why I think your position is so very wrong. Until that day comes, and I retire, then it's not an option.

Once again, I apologise to the females on this forum for my childish and inappropriate use of my nom de plume that I chose to use.

Over and out...

[Brian 48nav]

I promised myself after my rant yesterday that I was going to ignore this thread.

Thank you for having the balls to admit your ill-advised choice of moniker.

Corporal Clott

I have calmed down! BUT all those names you put up are humorous and not indicative of some dreadful way to treat women.

Also over and out!

[melmothtw]

Good post Leon.

[Corporal Clott]

Hi Brian

Some of these also meet the same 'insulting to females' criteria that ex-LJ has deemed to have deemed to have applied:

Justin Cyder-Belvoir
Welwyn Cyder-Belvoir
Helen Damnation
Willie Eckerslike
Mike Oxlong
Mike Hunt
Heywood Jablomey
Hugh Jardon
Buster Hyman
Ali Chapussy
Isaac Hunt
Sheila Vaperiod
Drew Peacock

Just saying :cool:

Anyway, I doubt he'll take up your suggested moniker if he does reinvent himself on here!!! :}

[MPN11]

I would note that Dave Hunt's nickname on 20 Sqn was "Isaac".

Now, what was the subject again? Oh, yes ... I beiefly discussed the Female RAF Regt personnel subject with my friend, the female Nav wg cdr, at the weekend. She wasn't in the least interested in the gender issues. "if they can do the job, that's fine."

[Training Risky]

Sheesh Leon, (or whatever your handle is now), will you please get off your faux-feminist high horse and stop telling us what to think!:ugh:

Go practice your Labour/Green party prospective parliamentary candidate speech elsewhere.:yuk:

[iRaven]

Training Risky, you're still on the naughty step as well fella (post #90)

https://media.giphy.com/media/ac7MA7r5IMYda/giphy.gif

:p

[MACH2NUMBER]

I doubt whether my drill Sergeant - Flt Sgt Paddy Fogarty would have approved of ladies in the Regiment. Indeed he approved of very little we cadets did at Cranwell. However he was a great bloke, he taught us discipline and we really loved him. Anyone else remember Paddy.

[downsizer]

This thread is hilarious. Without even trying.

But a valid point for the retired dudes, I have seen people being witch hunted by serving management for "controversial" opinions on this site and others. Not pretty and indeed seen careers destroyed by what they posted on here.

[Vortex_Generator]

I wonder how many female posters there are on this thread, or indeed on the whole mil forum?

[langleybaston]

these days you need to ask about a whole spectrum, its not just Mars and Venus.

There are Lettuces, Gerberas, Bananas and Tomatoes.

You read it here first!

[Roadster280]

Brian

The only thing that we can agree on is that my nom de plume is offensive to the female gender, for which I apologise wholeheartedly to them all for. I will be asking the PPrune Mods to suspend this account at the end of this post via the 'contact us' option. It was chosen from a set of supposedly joke names that should have been assigned to the rubbish bin some years ago - no better than school boy sniggerings or some of the other offensive things like the Robinson's Jam mascot.

As for the rest of my comments, I am not sorry. Some of the attitudes/comments displayed on this thread to the female gender are totally outdated, inappropriate and offensive - just like my nom de plume. Maybe some of you could also reflect like I have on what is wrong? Even if you were born in an era when women were banned from soccer and only over-30s were allowed to vote; things change, and they have, for the better.

Finally, there is a very good reason why nicknames, monikers or nom de plumes are used on PPrune by those still serving; if you are serving you cannot be seen to publically criticise things whilst actively promoting your full identity. Otherwise, the press would start quoting "Fg Off Snodgrass on PPrune said...". I am sure you know that. Maybe in years to come I can buy you a beer and tell you face to face who I am and why I think your position is so very wrong. Until that day comes, and I retire, then it's not an option.

Once again, I apologise to the females on this forum for my childish and inappropriate use of my nom de plume that I chose to use.

Over and out...

Excellent post, Leon. Might I suggest you ask the mods to simply change your user name to say "Leon J"? That way, the displayed name on the posts you have made will change, and will not be "orphaned".

Either that, or "Ivor Biggun", which isn't sexist. Just "sizist" :)

[Basil]

Either that, or "Ivor Biggun", which isn't sexist. Just "sizist"
. . and also very subjective :hmm:

[Basil]

I would note that Dave Hunt's nickname on 20 Sqn was "Isaac". . . . .
Ah, was that tall, ginger Dave 'Hunt for Hunters' who was at Leeming '66/'67?
Glad to read he got them.

[Tankertrashnav]

I am thinking of putting a bid to be the thickest member on PPRuNe!

In all the years I have been on here I must have seen hundreds of posts by Leon Jabachjabicz and never tumbled what the name actually meant

One of my best friends in my youth was a Leon, and he had a Polish surname. Were it not for this thread I would probably thus have carried on thinking that LJ's family was of some unspecified Slavic origin :(

[alemaobaiano]

I am thinking of putting a bid to be the thickest member on PPRuNe!

In all the years I have been on here I must have seen hundreds of posts by Leon Jabachjabicz and never tumbled what the name actually meant

One of my best friends in my youth was a Leon, and he had a Polish surname. Were it not for this thread I would probably thus have carried on thinking that LJ's family was of some unspecified Slavic origin :(

I can assure you that you are not alone :ugh:

[jonw66]

I'll assure Tanker there's a few thick ones here. And in Leon's defence he has always been a total gentleman on here officer or not.

[melmothtw]

+1 here also, on both the name and Leon's conduct.

[MPN11]

Ah, was that tall, ginger Dave 'Hunt for Hunters' who was at Leeming '66/'67?
Glad to read he got them.Yes indeed ... a good mate of mine too. I was fortunate to be 20's "Pet ATCO" as a Secondary Duty, so got to know a lot of them quite well [as far as one could in a Ground Branch :)]

Too tall for Gnats, he had to do Valley on the Hunter where he clearly showed ability. FEAF and 20 Sqn for a 1st Tour fg off must have been a treat, as it also was for a young fg off P T Squire ;)

[Danny42C]

Tankertrashnav (#164),

..."I am thinking of putting a bid to be the thickest member on PPRuNe!"...
"In all the years I have been on here I must have seen hundreds of posts by Leon Jabachjabicz and never tumbled what the name actually meant"...

I must've had a sheltered childhood. Neither do I ! But I don't blush easily. TTN, please PM and whisper it gently into my shell-like ear (but only TTN - I don't want my inbox bunged up with you all crowding in).

Danny.

[Bill Macgillivray]

TTN, regarding your post about Leon J. I have to agree entirely and regrettably feel that things are getting slightly out of hand!

Bill.

[phil9560]

OK I've read it repeatedly and I'm still missing something.

What is the double entendre with Leon's alias?

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Me too. Can't see it ?

NEO

[Corporal Clott]

I had a flick through the PPRuNe Forum Rules

We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. These rules work in conjunction with any forum-specific rules as well as the site's Terms & Conditions.

(In no particular order)

No advertising or promoting of business/commercial ventures.
No classified ads. (Either offering items or services for sale or 'wanted' items.)
No spamming.
No links to other aviation websites.
No multiple posting. (Duplicate posts in more then one forum)
No flaming/personal attacks. (Play the ball, not the player.)
No libel or defamation of character. (Be careful - libelous/defamatory posts can and have landed members in legal hot water. PPRuNe will not guarantee your anonymity in such situations.)
No racist comments.
No offensive/abusive posts.
No swearing, sexually explicit or vulgar language.
No sexually explicit material, nor links to websites containing such material.
Do not post anyone else's address or telephone number.
Do not 'out' (reveal or attempt to reveal) the identity of another poster.
Do not reveal the contents of Private Messages (PMs) in the forums.
Do not post copyrighted material for which you do not have permission.
Stay on topic.

Posts breaching any of the above will be removed and your posting privileges may be suspended or removed permanently.

My highlight in bold, but I suspect that some have nibbled on the edges of these rules.

Also, when it comes to usernames it would not be possible for LJ to change the username as it says on the registration page (again my bold).

A username is a nickname which will be visible on the forum...
...You will not be able to change your username. Do not use a username that you may need or want to change, for example, do not your current airport or location/airport code or include any part of your real name or email address, etc...

So +1 on LJ's post but who is somewhat snookered by the PPrune username rules and the gender-equality conundrum posed with the poor choice of a username chosen some years ago. It's a PPrune Catch22!

[Corporal Clott]

PS. It would seem that some of the arguments on gender equality are 'front and centre' right now in the news following the BBC's salaries being revealed today.

[Two's in]

Jesus Christ on a bike! Your nom de plume Leon was a play on words and obviously a joke. I wouldn't change it just because you've outed a few "Tyranasaurus Mysoginist" on here. The attitudes you have highlighted are anything but a joke.

[artee]

OK I've read it repeatedly and I'm still missing something.

What is the double entendre with Leon's alias?
I'm with TTN, I hadn't realised. But he's one of the posters that i have enjoyed reading. I hope he rejoins under another nom de plume.

My understanding from another post somewhere is that it is Lay-on ya back ya bitch.

[Tankertrashnav]

Danny - see your PMs, but I see that artee has spilled the beans in any case!

I always thought Dan Winterland was a good one, although it took me years to work that one out as well!

[artee]

Danny - see your PMs, but I see that artee has spilled the beans in any case!

I always thought Dan Winterland was a good one, although it took me years to work that one out as well!

OK, I give up - what does Dan Winterland mean?

[Like This - Do That]

artee

"Dan Win" "ter land"

ie not Cross wind, not turning base three greens, but Dan Win .....:}

EDIT: BTW TT It's more likely I am thicker than you Sir. Comes with the uniform. Apparently we're all delusional about air power as well, but that's another argument and another thread as luck would have it!

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/596819-british-army-delusional-about-air-power.html

[Al R]

At the risk of giving this thread more oxygen than it deserves, has anyone considered context?

[langleybaston]

I'm with TTN, I hadn't realised. But he's one of the posters that i have enjoyed reading. I hope he rejoins under another nom de plume.

My understanding from another post somewhere is that it is Lay-on ya back ya bitch.

That is rather like a too-clever personalised car plate which needs explaining ....... for a brain-challenged MetMan, they have to be self-evident, very self-evident!

[phil9560]

Ah the penny has now dropped.

Personally I enjoy other peoples opinions.May not agree with them but I share Voltaire's philosophy.

[sidewayspeak]

If (when?) a big war happens, conscription will be interesting... Women will be liable to the call up as men. Infantry with a 50/50 split, as per approximate population, would result in us losing. I always thought the idea of the military was to win, not pander to the PC brigade.

[Basil]

If (when?) a big war happens, conscription will be interesting... Women will be liable to the call up as men. Infantry with a 50/50 split, as per approximate population, would result in us losing. I always thought the idea of the military was to win, not pander to the PC brigade.
What's wrong with you?
Everyone else knows we do not mention elephants - ever! ;)

Funny old thing, last night in the pub, we were discussing the feminist assertion that men are responsible for all the violence in the World and someone mentioned that women are attracted to and wish to mate with, at least, assertive, dominant men. :hmm:

[iRaven]

If (when?) a big war happens, conscription will be interesting... Women will be liable to the call up as men. Infantry with a 50/50 split, as per approximate population, would result in us losing. I always thought the idea of the military was to win, not pander to the PC brigade.

If they pass selection and are fully trained, then why not? There is no reason to lose a war. The Russians used females in combat roles in both world wars and did not lose after all?

[Exnomad]

Equily should mean that. Same physical standards, pleanty oif strong females.
Still have the sex problem, mixed showers probably no conducive to good dicipline, but probabkly fun.

[ORAC]

Shich would you prefer beside you in combat? The one that is male or the one that passed the physical?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ngwLFhzZ_cc/TXilUj8NxoI/AAAAAAAAElk/tTgY5EGLmGg/s1600/Muscle+wOmen+07.jpg

https://femuscleblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/wimp.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

Only one of them would have passed anyway.

[pr00ne]

sidewayspeak,

Mass conscription? Has the last 72 years passed you by completely?
Even if there were to be mass conscription and someone had managed to uninvent the nuclear bomb and ICBM's and SLBM's, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that we would somehow have 50/50 male/female infantry units? Mind boggling...

Basil,

Your mate in the pub, the one with the strange opinion of what women are attracted to, is either living in a strange deluded world of fiction, or has just maybe never spoken to a woman?

Must be something in the air this week!

[Basil]

Your mate in the pub, the one with the strange opinion of what women are attracted to, is either living in a strange deluded world of fiction, or has just maybe never spoken to a woman?

In your humble opinion :}

[ExAscoteer]

Funny old thing, last night in the pub, we were discussing the feminist assertion that men are responsible for all the violence in the World and someone mentioned that women are attracted to and wish to mate with, at least, assertive, dominant men. :hmm:

I find it telling that you and your friend want to stereotype women as being all the same.

You are, of course, talking utter drivel.

[Basil]

I find it telling that you and your friend want to stereotype women as being all the same.

You are, of course, talking utter drivel.
Ah, another great pundit speaks. 2231? Been at the sauce?

ps: "stereotype women as being all the same" No, just the raving feminists who, I may say, do not find favour with my wife either.
Toodle pip!

pps: If you read my posting again, in the cold light of day, you will see that I was reporting a comment by someone else.

[Mil-26Man]

...who, I may say, do not find favour with my wife either.

Uh???

Been at the sauce?

I think that someone has been at the sauce, Basil. A very odd series of posts.

[Basil]

Uh???

It's English idiom. Most people would understand it.

[Willard Whyte]

Shich would you prefer beside you in combat? The one that is male or the one that passed the physical?

The one that shoots straightest.

[Trim Stab]

Equily should mean that. Same physical standards, pleanty oif strong females.
Still have the sex problem, mixed showers probably no conducive to good dicipline, but probabkly fun.

Mixed showers are not a discipline problem at all from the few occasions I have encountered them. In Belize in 1980s the other ranks shower block was open stall and used by both sexes. In Bosnia in the early 90s there was a mixed shower block in Gorni Vakuf (sp?) until the camp became more developed, and the Swedish garrison (where we stopped over) on the up country routes even had a mixed sauna. Everybody was generally far too knackered to care.

[Basil]

OK, OK, Ees joke, señors . . and señoras ;)
Well, not for them.

Reference removed. Inappropriate to make joke about couple in a spot of bother possibly occasioned by PTSD. Bas.