RAF Regiment
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
RAF Regiment
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ntry-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.”
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.”
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.
RAF Regiment Fitness Tests
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Deepest Lincs
Age: 75
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”.”
I'll get my hat and coat!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I thought they had been doing trials with a couple of transsexuals anyway?
Of course, this is old hat to some RAuxAF Sqns, who had gunners of the female persuasion over a decade ago...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Dinosaur? Me?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
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.
I will not impose my ancient views on this Forum.
Last edited by MPN11; 15th Jul 2017 at 08:53.
Pr00ne
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!
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!
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!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The live grenade practice was something else. Best not to drop it in your trench.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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/mediaf...2735D95037.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
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/mediaf...2735D95037.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