Military Female Flyers....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when did digging trenches or carrying stretchers form part of the 'A' course? A bit of yomping, perhaps, but no-one believes that aircrew need to be able to yomp as well as the paras. If women pass the course, that should be enough to satisfy you.
The reason Cranwell make aircrew cadets do weapon training, etc, is that they can do 'useful' things such as guard duty (apparently used post-9/11 - or was it during FMD? Can't remember). This is also the reason why student FJ aircrew continue to train on the SA80; they only switch to the pistol at OCU, when they're regarded as being above such menial tasks!
As for the general infantry skills - I can see the Army's reasoning in excluding women from the front line, after all, it's their day-to-day job. However, the remote possibility that aircrew might end up fighting alongside infantry is not enough reason to exclude women from flying. The argument about realistic expectations has been worn out many times in this forum - you can't expect a pilot to be particularly good as a soldier; how many of us male aircrew could claim to be of real value to an infantry squad? The standard required is easily achievable by women, as witnessed on survival exercises throughout the flying training system.
And as for quotas... even if you assume that there are quotas at OASC, and at IOT, where do they go from there? I believe the flying training system has learned something from the first group of women pilots, who were pushed through regardless of ability (or lack thereof). That did no-one any favours. To say that "the bar is lowered for unsuitable candidates who lack strength/stamina/leadership" is arguably true about IOT, but patently untrue about flying training. Try finding an OCU exec who would consciously let a sub-standard female pilot join a sqn.
The reason I say "better pilots" is this - you want your air force to have the best pilots available (some of which are women). If you exclude those women, you have to accept some men of a lower standard. It's a pretty simple argument - by having the biggest possible range of people to choose from, you can pick the best.
Finally - why the reference to 'graduate' in your all-female-FJ-crew example? Did DEs get some secret extra training while graduates were at Uni, or do you simply have a chip-related balance problem??
The reason Cranwell make aircrew cadets do weapon training, etc, is that they can do 'useful' things such as guard duty (apparently used post-9/11 - or was it during FMD? Can't remember). This is also the reason why student FJ aircrew continue to train on the SA80; they only switch to the pistol at OCU, when they're regarded as being above such menial tasks!
As for the general infantry skills - I can see the Army's reasoning in excluding women from the front line, after all, it's their day-to-day job. However, the remote possibility that aircrew might end up fighting alongside infantry is not enough reason to exclude women from flying. The argument about realistic expectations has been worn out many times in this forum - you can't expect a pilot to be particularly good as a soldier; how many of us male aircrew could claim to be of real value to an infantry squad? The standard required is easily achievable by women, as witnessed on survival exercises throughout the flying training system.
And as for quotas... even if you assume that there are quotas at OASC, and at IOT, where do they go from there? I believe the flying training system has learned something from the first group of women pilots, who were pushed through regardless of ability (or lack thereof). That did no-one any favours. To say that "the bar is lowered for unsuitable candidates who lack strength/stamina/leadership" is arguably true about IOT, but patently untrue about flying training. Try finding an OCU exec who would consciously let a sub-standard female pilot join a sqn.
The reason I say "better pilots" is this - you want your air force to have the best pilots available (some of which are women). If you exclude those women, you have to accept some men of a lower standard. It's a pretty simple argument - by having the biggest possible range of people to choose from, you can pick the best.
Finally - why the reference to 'graduate' in your all-female-FJ-crew example? Did DEs get some secret extra training while graduates were at Uni, or do you simply have a chip-related balance problem??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NT, AL, TR et al......
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but it really does not matter one whit what any of us on the front line (or Groups or anywhere else in uniform) think - if President Tony decides that we the people are to continue with the policy set circa 1990, the we the people just have to get on with it. When has military efficiency or effectiveness ever been allowed to get in the way of a financial or politically-correct decision?
I have flown with a variety of female pilots, navs and AEOps, and to no great surprise have found that some are very good, some completely useless and most somewhere in between - a bit like the cross-section of the 3 or 4 hundred male aircrew it has been my lot to fly with over the last decade or 2.
The debate might be entertainin, but there are more important things to discuss - like what the hell has happened to all the Chinagraph leads and bodge tape? - how are we supposed to go to war without them?
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but it really does not matter one whit what any of us on the front line (or Groups or anywhere else in uniform) think - if President Tony decides that we the people are to continue with the policy set circa 1990, the we the people just have to get on with it. When has military efficiency or effectiveness ever been allowed to get in the way of a financial or politically-correct decision?
I have flown with a variety of female pilots, navs and AEOps, and to no great surprise have found that some are very good, some completely useless and most somewhere in between - a bit like the cross-section of the 3 or 4 hundred male aircrew it has been my lot to fly with over the last decade or 2.
The debate might be entertainin, but there are more important things to discuss - like what the hell has happened to all the Chinagraph leads and bodge tape? - how are we supposed to go to war without them?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be picky but Paras don't yomp - they tab. Ask any airborne/ex airborne soldier the difference and he'll tell you it's faster!!!!!! As for the point of female aircrew being captured there was definitely a lady medevac pilot downed and captured by Sadda's henchmen during the first Gulf outing and I have read she bore up no worse than her male counterparts and once repatrioted she picked up where she left off.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: mushroom farm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky,
I am 100% with you on this.
The real facts are that MANY of the women (aviators) are there because their face fitted, and thats a fact!! Even some of the girls themselves have told me that some of their female colleagues were accepted and graduated/passed simply because the instructors were under strict instructions NOT TO FAIL them.
In the main, 'most' of the women aviators have got to the position they are at simply because of their gender, and certainly NOT because of their ability.
Believe me, I have had first hand experience of this over the past few years:
'I can't fly, my feet hurt' 'My flying suit is too tight' 'Sorry but I'm not in the right frame of mind today' blah - utter rubbish.
I'm sorry girls, I'm sure some of you are good at your job, and some of us 'old boys' are more than happy to fly with you. The problem is that the vast majority of your female colleagues simply arn't up to the job, and should have kept their feet firmly on the ground.
Very sorry girls.
Best wishes to all the good 'ens tho'
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, pass me my handbag, my mascara is running!'
I am 100% with you on this.
The real facts are that MANY of the women (aviators) are there because their face fitted, and thats a fact!! Even some of the girls themselves have told me that some of their female colleagues were accepted and graduated/passed simply because the instructors were under strict instructions NOT TO FAIL them.
In the main, 'most' of the women aviators have got to the position they are at simply because of their gender, and certainly NOT because of their ability.
Believe me, I have had first hand experience of this over the past few years:
'I can't fly, my feet hurt' 'My flying suit is too tight' 'Sorry but I'm not in the right frame of mind today' blah - utter rubbish.
I'm sorry girls, I'm sure some of you are good at your job, and some of us 'old boys' are more than happy to fly with you. The problem is that the vast majority of your female colleagues simply arn't up to the job, and should have kept their feet firmly on the ground.
Very sorry girls.
Best wishes to all the good 'ens tho'
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, pass me my handbag, my mascara is running!'
Oh dear ... poor solotk puts in a simple request, and his thread then gets hijacked by the old militant crowd 
Forgive me, solotk, but I'm just going to say one thing regarding the hijacked portion of the thread.
[Mini-rant] If what Swinging Monkey says is true "the vast majority of your female colleagues simply arn't up to the job, and should have kept their feet firmly on the ground" then who the heck selected these women; who allowed them to progress in training if they weren't up to the job; and who is allowing them to remain in these positions?? If they had (or have) a bad attitude or substandard abilities, they should have been booted before they had a chance to let down their side, in order to make room for the other qualified pilots (of either gender) who ARE up to the job.
Maybe it's a little different in the US -- and no, I'm not saying we do things perfectly either, because we have had a very small number of women who got into fighter or other mil cockpits when they had no business being there. However, the vast, vast majority, (who were selected and trained on their own merit instead of some misguided PC agenda) have served their squadrons very well through the years. Most guys in their squadrons don't even think about them as being "girl pilots" or "women pilots" or whatever .. they're just one of the squadron pilots. Wonder why you don't hear about them? Because they're simply doing their job, fully and competently, upholding and executing all requirements and responsibilites of the position (i.e. the way they are supposed to be doing it) -- and that doesn't make the news.
Moral? Keep the selection and training standards constant; demand the same (not better, not worse) standard of performance from everyone ==> problem solved. [/Mini-rant]
-----
Back to solotk's topic .... wish I could help you, mate! Sadly, my mil flying days are behind me now, so I'm afraid I'm of no use to you
Forgive me, solotk, but I'm just going to say one thing regarding the hijacked portion of the thread.
[Mini-rant] If what Swinging Monkey says is true "the vast majority of your female colleagues simply arn't up to the job, and should have kept their feet firmly on the ground" then who the heck selected these women; who allowed them to progress in training if they weren't up to the job; and who is allowing them to remain in these positions?? If they had (or have) a bad attitude or substandard abilities, they should have been booted before they had a chance to let down their side, in order to make room for the other qualified pilots (of either gender) who ARE up to the job.
Maybe it's a little different in the US -- and no, I'm not saying we do things perfectly either, because we have had a very small number of women who got into fighter or other mil cockpits when they had no business being there. However, the vast, vast majority, (who were selected and trained on their own merit instead of some misguided PC agenda) have served their squadrons very well through the years. Most guys in their squadrons don't even think about them as being "girl pilots" or "women pilots" or whatever .. they're just one of the squadron pilots. Wonder why you don't hear about them? Because they're simply doing their job, fully and competently, upholding and executing all requirements and responsibilites of the position (i.e. the way they are supposed to be doing it) -- and that doesn't make the news.
Moral? Keep the selection and training standards constant; demand the same (not better, not worse) standard of performance from everyone ==> problem solved. [/Mini-rant]
-----
Back to solotk's topic .... wish I could help you, mate! Sadly, my mil flying days are behind me now, so I'm afraid I'm of no use to you
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the ORP
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinging Monkey, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree.
I'm involved in instructing and can categorically deny that there is any pressure to get the girls through. Some girls are good, the majority are average, some are poor---exactly like their male counterparts and that's it. If a stude deserves to pass they will, if they don't, they won't.
I'm involved in instructing and can categorically deny that there is any pressure to get the girls through. Some girls are good, the majority are average, some are poor---exactly like their male counterparts and that's it. If a stude deserves to pass they will, if they don't, they won't.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bedford
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobalt Frog - I could not possibly confirm or deny such a scurrilous allegation unless you were to mail me personally!
Training Risky - Unfortunately I do not fit the template you describe. I can comment on things infantry as I am a Rock. I can also comment (broadly of course) on A course type events as I have attended many run by varying different agencies.
Firstly under no circumstances will you as aircrew ever be involved in "difficult infantry type tasks". You are not trained to do it and in the fast moving, section level battle you would be a liability. You are aircrew and know your job, the section commander knows his and never the twain shall meet. Your exposure to this subject at Cranwell is used mainly as a leadership tool in order to apply pressure to challenge the old grey matter.
As regards the Cornish Camping Club outings, just remember that we are providing a training vehicle and the end result is a person better qualified to deal with something that I hope never happens to anyone of you. One of the reasons we are selected to serve with the unit is we are able to switch off the behaviour once we knock off, many can't and are rejected. We are quite pleasant in real life! Anyone for a beer in Newquay?
Cobalt Frog - It appears I have!
Training Risky - Unfortunately I do not fit the template you describe. I can comment on things infantry as I am a Rock. I can also comment (broadly of course) on A course type events as I have attended many run by varying different agencies.
Firstly under no circumstances will you as aircrew ever be involved in "difficult infantry type tasks". You are not trained to do it and in the fast moving, section level battle you would be a liability. You are aircrew and know your job, the section commander knows his and never the twain shall meet. Your exposure to this subject at Cranwell is used mainly as a leadership tool in order to apply pressure to challenge the old grey matter.
As regards the Cornish Camping Club outings, just remember that we are providing a training vehicle and the end result is a person better qualified to deal with something that I hope never happens to anyone of you. One of the reasons we are selected to serve with the unit is we are able to switch off the behaviour once we knock off, many can't and are rejected. We are quite pleasant in real life! Anyone for a beer in Newquay?
Cobalt Frog - It appears I have!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: mushroom farm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 TWU
I can't comment on what the standards are at the moment, but I defy you to put your name to this forum and say categorically that in the early days my comments were NOT TRUE
If you have been around for the past 10 years+ or more, then you will know exactly what I mean. Ask the girls themselves, even they will concur!!
If you are saying that things have now got better, and the girls are now getting through on merit, and NOT on the quotas given to you by the airships and MPs, then I will retract my comments.
The thing is, I speak frequently to many colleagues who, like you possibly, are in the training/instructor world. The fact is, they keep telling me that things are just the same, and that you are still being forced to work to quotas, whether you like it or not.
The sad thing is that, good or bad, we are now so desperately short of front line aircrew, of ALL trades, that to chop someone is virtually unheard of these days - hence the quality of many.
Wake up 2 TWU, I admire your loyalty and dedication to the fairer sex, but ask yourself this.........
Would you like to go to war with them?? (sounds like a line from a film
)
I have been 'to war' with them, and I can tell you it's crap!!
Regards
The swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, have you seen my handbag?'
I can't comment on what the standards are at the moment, but I defy you to put your name to this forum and say categorically that in the early days my comments were NOT TRUE
If you have been around for the past 10 years+ or more, then you will know exactly what I mean. Ask the girls themselves, even they will concur!!
If you are saying that things have now got better, and the girls are now getting through on merit, and NOT on the quotas given to you by the airships and MPs, then I will retract my comments.
The thing is, I speak frequently to many colleagues who, like you possibly, are in the training/instructor world. The fact is, they keep telling me that things are just the same, and that you are still being forced to work to quotas, whether you like it or not.
The sad thing is that, good or bad, we are now so desperately short of front line aircrew, of ALL trades, that to chop someone is virtually unheard of these days - hence the quality of many.
Wake up 2 TWU, I admire your loyalty and dedication to the fairer sex, but ask yourself this.........
Would you like to go to war with them?? (sounds like a line from a film
)I have been 'to war' with them, and I can tell you it's crap!!
Regards
The swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, have you seen my handbag?'
Swinging Monkey
Please don't taint every female flier with your past experiences. The policy of passing girls through flying training in the late 80's/early 90's (which I witnessed so don't tell me it didn't happen then) was recognised remarkably quickly by the lords and masters as not helping recruitment, and doing a lot to damage the effectivness of front line squadrons. It most certainly does not happen now. I'm not saying all the female aircrew are great, nor that they're bad - just that they have to pass the course like everyone else and we ALL have to meet the same standard.
As to would I go 'to war' with them? I do. Regularly!
And no, I don't have any pictures
Please don't taint every female flier with your past experiences. The policy of passing girls through flying training in the late 80's/early 90's (which I witnessed so don't tell me it didn't happen then) was recognised remarkably quickly by the lords and masters as not helping recruitment, and doing a lot to damage the effectivness of front line squadrons. It most certainly does not happen now. I'm not saying all the female aircrew are great, nor that they're bad - just that they have to pass the course like everyone else and we ALL have to meet the same standard.
As to would I go 'to war' with them? I do. Regularly!
And no, I don't have any pictures
I've also trained and worked with many female aircrew. In the past 10 years, only one that I know of simply played the system for her own hidden agenda. The others have all been fine; however, another did realise that she'd made the wrong career decision as she would never be likely to be co-located with her husband - except, perhaps, on a detachment if it happened to work out that way.
At UAS, once the 'glamour girl novelty' nonsense of the first few years had passed, I found that the lady students generally polarised into those who really wouldn't ever make it - and the vast majority who were fine. Interestingly, we found that 'average' to a bloke meant 'good enough - shall go to the pub', whereas to a woman it meant 'I need to work harder'!
But some posting on this thread do have a point; the genetic 'protectionism' of the male psyche means that, as no doubt Angry Lizard, Royal Rock and the other Disco Queens will bear witness, threats made by the bad guys against a fellow captive who is a female are something that an interrogator would probably exploit in order to prompt a degree of 'co-operation'....
"Tell us what you know or the jailers get to play with the girl". What would you do?
At UAS, once the 'glamour girl novelty' nonsense of the first few years had passed, I found that the lady students generally polarised into those who really wouldn't ever make it - and the vast majority who were fine. Interestingly, we found that 'average' to a bloke meant 'good enough - shall go to the pub', whereas to a woman it meant 'I need to work harder'!
But some posting on this thread do have a point; the genetic 'protectionism' of the male psyche means that, as no doubt Angry Lizard, Royal Rock and the other Disco Queens will bear witness, threats made by the bad guys against a fellow captive who is a female are something that an interrogator would probably exploit in order to prompt a degree of 'co-operation'....
"Tell us what you know or the jailers get to play with the girl". What would you do?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the ORP
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinging Monkey
I can't vouch for what happened 10 yrs ago, as I'm sure you can't; yes, we've all heard rumours but how much credence can you put on rumours? I have been around for much longer than the 10 yrs you quote, 3 times as long if you wish to know, but at the time you are alluding to I was overseas and not involved in the training role. So, if there were "quotas", then I am not in a position to confirm or deny, can you with any degree of authority?
What I can say is that where I now instruct there are no such quotas, all studes pass or fail on their merits irrespective of gender.
I can't vouch for what happened 10 yrs ago, as I'm sure you can't; yes, we've all heard rumours but how much credence can you put on rumours? I have been around for much longer than the 10 yrs you quote, 3 times as long if you wish to know, but at the time you are alluding to I was overseas and not involved in the training role. So, if there were "quotas", then I am not in a position to confirm or deny, can you with any degree of authority?
What I can say is that where I now instruct there are no such quotas, all studes pass or fail on their merits irrespective of gender.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: mushroom farm
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 TWU
I'm delighted to hear it old boy. As to it happening 10 years ago or not, well I wasn't in the training system either, however, I've spend the last 10 years (plus the 23 before that!) flying on front line sqns, and I've seen the calibre (regretably) at first hand.
Propulike, I'm delighted your comments concur with mine, but I did make it clear that NOT ALL of them are like those I eluded to. But many are!
And as for going to war with them, regularly? I can only assume that the ones that get to your sqns are a damned sight better than the ones that have come to mine!!
If that's the case, you have been lucky and I envy you!!
But believe me, there is nothing in this world that compares with sharing a tent in the desert with a moaning, bleating, whinging, griping, nagging female aviator!!
I'm afraid i have no pictures either
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, another G & T, there's a good chap'
I'm delighted to hear it old boy. As to it happening 10 years ago or not, well I wasn't in the training system either, however, I've spend the last 10 years (plus the 23 before that!) flying on front line sqns, and I've seen the calibre (regretably) at first hand.
Propulike, I'm delighted your comments concur with mine, but I did make it clear that NOT ALL of them are like those I eluded to. But many are!
And as for going to war with them, regularly? I can only assume that the ones that get to your sqns are a damned sight better than the ones that have come to mine!!
If that's the case, you have been lucky and I envy you!!
But believe me, there is nothing in this world that compares with sharing a tent in the desert with a moaning, bleating, whinging, griping, nagging female aviator!!
I'm afraid i have no pictures either
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, another G & T, there's a good chap'
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bedford
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I must be honest and own up to the fact that Royal Rock and I are the same person. Unfortunately owing to a good Gunner moment I washed the part of my hand that my password was written on hence the new ID!
The cross gender issues that arise as you mentioned are most definately an advantage in my line of work. Possibly, "Tell us what you know or I will force you to play with the girl, and one of your mates too...!"
I am incredibly curious as to the origin of the term Disco Queens. Put me out of my misery and explain it to me please. I like a bit of banter makes me smile.
The cross gender issues that arise as you mentioned are most definately an advantage in my line of work. Possibly, "Tell us what you know or I will force you to play with the girl, and one of your mates too...!"
I am incredibly curious as to the origin of the term Disco Queens. Put me out of my misery and explain it to me please. I like a bit of banter makes me smile.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bedford
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way!!! Now I am even more curious.
"Unless you tell me I vill be forced to make sure zat for you ze var vill be ofer"
OR I will cordially invite you to the 03 inaugural gathering of the Cornish Camping Club!!
Go on tell me what it means you swine!
"Unless you tell me I vill be forced to make sure zat for you ze var vill be ofer"
OR I will cordially invite you to the 03 inaugural gathering of the Cornish Camping Club!!
Go on tell me what it means you swine!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: london
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I helped convex a female Tornado front-seater once and she was fine - and she drank with the boys! I also got stories also about those that were "pushed" through basic and advanced training from mates who trained said ladies - and that "top" decision was a bad military move.
I think, therefore I am right, that despite "top" "PC" directives, the further a lady FJ pilot advanced, the less likely incompetence would pass - especially on a front-line FJ Sqn.
There were exceptions apparently during the early years
Blah Blah Blah
I think, therefore I am right, that despite "top" "PC" directives, the further a lady FJ pilot advanced, the less likely incompetence would pass - especially on a front-line FJ Sqn.
There were exceptions apparently during the early years
Blah Blah Blah
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some diametrically opposed opinions which are probably of no use to the thread...
BEags, if the jailers want to play with the girl, they're going to whether you tell them anything useful or not. That's the nature of Bad Guys.
Should she be there in the first place? Hmm...
Military Uniformed Female Flyers (M.U.F.F.'s) most definitely have a place in the armed forces of the Free West. That's part of what makes us Free, and part of what makes us West.
But should we send our women to war? Many cultures, the Celts included, have and have had, a tradition of Women Warriors. Sometimes this has been as a result of necessity, sometimes in recognition of ability. A big strong Valkyrie or Amazon is undoubtedly more capable on the battlefield than a myopic seven-stone conscripted accountant.
One of the most impressive and capable individuals it has been my privilege to know is a flying instructor qualified on both Fast Jets and Helicopters. She is (admittedly younger) faster and fitter than me (out of my league in video game car racing), at least as clever, far better trained, just as well educated albeit in different disciplines, hard headed, focussed; in fact, all the things one could want in a military pilot...and gorgeous to boot.
But do I want to see her go to war? No! I want to protect her. (Humour me for a moment with the assumption that I am better capable of protecting her than she me). I have no way of knowing how well either of us would stand up to capture by a slant-eyed or towel-headed enemy hell bent on cruelty or personal violation; but frankly, given the choice, I would rather it was me than her who was put into that situation.
Maybe it's a silly attitude. If it is then it's one I'm proud to hold.
I guess, if push comes to shove, as others have alluded to, it may be a case of all hands to the pump. So maybe the question of inclusion comes down to the relative necessity of the particular war one is contemplating?
There are some things men and women can and can't do, and some things they should and shouldn't do. For example, men can't have babies, and women can't pee standing up.
By the same token, men shouldn't shave their legs, and women shouldn't go to war. Unless either is absolutely necessary.
I mean, war is a guy thing, you know?!
Let's keep the M.U.F.F.s flying transports, trainers, MP, SAR, and all the other missions where we can guarantee their safety (just like we can guarantee anyone's) until the fertilizer hits the ventilator, at which point we can change the rules for as long as proves necessary.
I'm quite keen to see some pics if you find any, solotk
BEags, if the jailers want to play with the girl, they're going to whether you tell them anything useful or not. That's the nature of Bad Guys.
Should she be there in the first place? Hmm...
Military Uniformed Female Flyers (M.U.F.F.'s) most definitely have a place in the armed forces of the Free West. That's part of what makes us Free, and part of what makes us West.
But should we send our women to war? Many cultures, the Celts included, have and have had, a tradition of Women Warriors. Sometimes this has been as a result of necessity, sometimes in recognition of ability. A big strong Valkyrie or Amazon is undoubtedly more capable on the battlefield than a myopic seven-stone conscripted accountant.
One of the most impressive and capable individuals it has been my privilege to know is a flying instructor qualified on both Fast Jets and Helicopters. She is (admittedly younger) faster and fitter than me (out of my league in video game car racing), at least as clever, far better trained, just as well educated albeit in different disciplines, hard headed, focussed; in fact, all the things one could want in a military pilot...and gorgeous to boot.
But do I want to see her go to war? No! I want to protect her. (Humour me for a moment with the assumption that I am better capable of protecting her than she me). I have no way of knowing how well either of us would stand up to capture by a slant-eyed or towel-headed enemy hell bent on cruelty or personal violation; but frankly, given the choice, I would rather it was me than her who was put into that situation.
Maybe it's a silly attitude. If it is then it's one I'm proud to hold.
I guess, if push comes to shove, as others have alluded to, it may be a case of all hands to the pump. So maybe the question of inclusion comes down to the relative necessity of the particular war one is contemplating?
There are some things men and women can and can't do, and some things they should and shouldn't do. For example, men can't have babies, and women can't pee standing up.
By the same token, men shouldn't shave their legs, and women shouldn't go to war. Unless either is absolutely necessary.
I mean, war is a guy thing, you know?!
Let's keep the M.U.F.F.s flying transports, trainers, MP, SAR, and all the other missions where we can guarantee their safety (just like we can guarantee anyone's) until the fertilizer hits the ventilator, at which point we can change the rules for as long as proves necessary.
I'm quite keen to see some pics if you find any, solotk
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oxon
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueWolf - I would not fancy your chances against, for example, that well-known chariot-with-fancy-curved-blades-driving female warrior of a past age.
Let's face it, there will always be some who want to do this sort of thing and, providing the training standards are objective (that's the real test). In my experience, if you treat servicewomen the same as servicemen, then you tend to get the same result. Bottom line is think outside the box ...... and don't let it become an issue.
Let's face it, there will always be some who want to do this sort of thing and, providing the training standards are objective (that's the real test). In my experience, if you treat servicewomen the same as servicemen, then you tend to get the same result. Bottom line is think outside the box ...... and don't let it become an issue.