Military Female Flyers....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Military Female Flyers....
There is currently a debate going on, on the other means , re. Female Military flyers, and are there any pretty ones?
I'm trying to find piccies (Sexist Pig? Moi?) , or at least piccies that the brown job element won't rip to bits.
Does anyone have any piccies, piccie references, or as seems to be very much in demand, any photo references for Ex-Sgt Ali Jenkins , Chicken leg Pilot AAC...?
Damien , what have you got in your vast photo collection?
Any help , comments, piccie posts to the address below
http://www.arsse.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb1...num=1036702640
Cheers fellas (and fella-esses)
I'm trying to find piccies (Sexist Pig? Moi?) , or at least piccies that the brown job element won't rip to bits.
Does anyone have any piccies, piccie references, or as seems to be very much in demand, any photo references for Ex-Sgt Ali Jenkins , Chicken leg Pilot AAC...?
Damien , what have you got in your vast photo collection?
Any help , comments, piccie posts to the address below
http://www.arsse.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb1...num=1036702640
Cheers fellas (and fella-esses)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get the photos you want on over 300,000 other websites, why do you want to clog up space on PPRuNe satisfying your sexist fantasies?
P.S. Got a sense of humour somewhat more highly developed then yours!
Didn't realise you were a PONGO, I retract my last 2 posts!
P.S. Got a sense of humour somewhat more highly developed then yours!
Didn't realise you were a PONGO, I retract my last 2 posts!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pete O'......
I scanned the aforementioned 300,000 websites, and the actual number of female Military aviatrix , is incredibly small, and most of the piccies are posted on the other means.
We need more women Military Pilots, never mind just the good looking ones, who are few and far between. Well, that Turkish F-16 jockette is a babe, and I have seen A USAF Herc Pilot who was very nice.
So there must be more out there, believe me , i've looked and it's scarce.
As for fantasis, all I have to do is stick the future Mrs Solo in a grobag and have at her, but as she used to date a Tornado Jock, that might be a bit passe....
.....and yep, it's just something amusing to pass the time for a bunch of bored Pongos between Op Fresco and Op Sandcastle II
I scanned the aforementioned 300,000 websites, and the actual number of female Military aviatrix , is incredibly small, and most of the piccies are posted on the other means.
We need more women Military Pilots, never mind just the good looking ones, who are few and far between. Well, that Turkish F-16 jockette is a babe, and I have seen A USAF Herc Pilot who was very nice.
So there must be more out there, believe me , i've looked and it's scarce.
As for fantasis, all I have to do is stick the future Mrs Solo in a grobag and have at her, but as she used to date a Tornado Jock, that might be a bit passe....
.....and yep, it's just something amusing to pass the time for a bunch of bored Pongos between Op Fresco and Op Sandcastle II
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC?
Does anyone else out there think that the arguments against women serving in the infantry, cav, RAC, marines, RAF regt, apply equally to ALL frontline military positions?
Including any aircrew position that involves possible contact with the enemy? (downed pilot/nav/ALM, serving in a ground tour, etc)
I'm not saying that women lack the flying skills or officer/SNCO qualities, but deficiencies in upper-body strength, stamina and susceptability to gang rape by (heterosexual) enemy troops is enough argument for me to believe that the policy of exclusion which was legal in Britain until the late '80s, is STILL relevant today!
Strapping into my seat, who's first?.......
Including any aircrew position that involves possible contact with the enemy? (downed pilot/nav/ALM, serving in a ground tour, etc)
I'm not saying that women lack the flying skills or officer/SNCO qualities, but deficiencies in upper-body strength, stamina and susceptability to gang rape by (heterosexual) enemy troops is enough argument for me to believe that the policy of exclusion which was legal in Britain until the late '80s, is STILL relevant today!
Strapping into my seat, who's first?.......
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the privilige to train the RAFs first Female Pilot on Her first Squadrons Aircraft
ALL I will say is this:
Julie,
I will fly with you any time and any where.
If you read this
Best Wishes
Keith
ALL I will say is this:
Julie,
I will fly with you any time and any where.
If you read this
Best Wishes
Keith
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Females can be easily as good or better in most military jobs (not regiment etc), but as TR points out, if they get in to enemy hands they will beg for a quick end.
This is not sexist or non-pc but is based on my belief that the torture that can be inflicted on them can run a lot deeper and be more effective than a beating that will leave male grasping for his life.
This is not sexist or non-pc but is based on my belief that the torture that can be inflicted on them can run a lot deeper and be more effective than a beating that will leave male grasping for his life.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks sensible_G
Been there, done that. Quite a nice site actually, the "funny" audio is actually funny in places, well if you're American or Dutch that is. Not sure that site doesn't breach several countries OPSEC as well....
....and Training Risky, how dare you hijack my self-indulgent sexist thread, with a thought-provoking and decent debate kick-starter
Good topic, which we have kicked around on the other means....
Been there, done that. Quite a nice site actually, the "funny" audio is actually funny in places, well if you're American or Dutch that is. Not sure that site doesn't breach several countries OPSEC as well....
....and Training Risky, how dare you hijack my self-indulgent sexist thread, with a thought-provoking and decent debate kick-starter
Good topic, which we have kicked around on the other means....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bedford
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to disagree Risky but should you ever deploy then I am certain the brief you will receive from the organisation I work for will open your mind on the subject of cross-gender issues and possibly make you think twice about your present opinions
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N. Wales, Liverpool and Osterley
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex REMF who worked with a large no. of women I would say that there is no place for females in the army. Total waste of space and the uniform makes their arses look fat too.
(with apologies to the 5% who were worth a damn)
(with apologies to the 5% who were worth a damn)
Last edited by NoSurrender; 25th Dec 2002 at 16:32.
Angry Lizard
I consider my mind to be as open as Britain's borders! I will listen to anyone's point of view and defend their right to express it; I don't have to agree with it though.
Bring it on! Let talk about 'cross-gender issues' then.....
Bring it on! Let talk about 'cross-gender issues' then.....
well, the Russians used quite a lot of military female fliers during the second world war, and I'd suggest that if you can take the battle of Stalingrad, there's not much you can't! And they can still rape you if you're a bloke...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oxon
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at this thread and thought how the heck do I get an astonished smily into the reply.
Get real - Isn't it about time people started to look at the capabilities rather than the packaging? It may be less of a life of choice for females but if those that can meet (objective) criteria then why not.
Howver, current legislation discriminates by way of biological differences against the male gender. Career (what career?) management (ditto) and the needs of the service are likely to sacrificed on the high alter of PC. Career or children but not both.
Get real - Isn't it about time people started to look at the capabilities rather than the packaging? It may be less of a life of choice for females but if those that can meet (objective) criteria then why not.
Howver, current legislation discriminates by way of biological differences against the male gender. Career (what career?) management (ditto) and the needs of the service are likely to sacrificed on the high alter of PC. Career or children but not both.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bedford
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risky, you intimate that only women are susceptable to gang rape. I can inform you now that is completely untrue. Men get raped as often as women do when in a "captive" environment. The only difference is that women actually aren't suprised that it happens to them. In effect they expect it, whereas men with opinions such as yours are completely overcome should they be the victim of rape. It is proven that women victims as a whole deal with the situation both during and post attack much better than their male counterparts. A quick statistic: approx 4500 female rapes occurred int he London areas over a 2 year period. Approximatley the same number of male rapes occurred too, but many went unreported. It happens and it happens frequently. I ask you to consider the following: how would you deal with being gang raped? Bear in mind that you are as likely to be the victim as a woman. Also, seeing as you are both equally likely to be attacked does it not negate your point that women are more of a risk in the frontline?
Looking forward to the final Cornish Camping Club Excursion for this year....all welcome!!!
Looking forward to the final Cornish Camping Club Excursion for this year....all welcome!!!
Champagne anyone...?
non-issue
Didn't we cover this women-aircrew thing in about 1990?
All a bit old hat frankly. Can't say it's an issue at all anymore.
"Astonished" smiley? Hmmm.....I can offer you -
or
All a bit old hat frankly. Can't say it's an issue at all anymore.
"Astonished" smiley? Hmmm.....I can offer you -
or
Angry Lizard....
Quote: "I'm not saying that women lack the flying skills or officer/SNCO qualities, but deficiencies in upper-body strength, stamina and susceptability to gang rape by (heterosexual) enemy troops is enough argument for me to believe that the policy of exclusion which was legal in Britain until the late '80s, is STILL relevant today!"
I was not implying that 'only women are susceptable to gang rape'. If this is what you inferred from my post, read it again.
I believe I was stating that while it is possible for women to be raped by straight men, I was not excluding the possibility of men to suffer the same from gay troops, (or even straight troops who will do anything to extract intel.)
I'm not qualified (as you might be) to argue which sex is better prepared to handle such an assault. Am I? Well thats something I will hopefully never find out.
This was not my main argument though, this is:
Fact 1. Aircrew (male or female) might be called upon to carry out the same tasks in war that infantry/RAF regt have to carry out,(hand-to-hand combat, digging trenches, carrying casualties/corpses).
Fact 2. Our political masters have decided that women are to be excluded from these posts for reasons of: combat effectiveness, lack of upper-body strength, stamina, and other reasons;
Now is it unreasonable to conclude that appointing female aircrew absolutely flies in the face of the logic posed by fact number 2? I am not supposing for one minute that I am a superman or indeed, many other men are. But there are physiological differences between men and women that make fact number 2 relevant.
Just because the day-to-day work of aircrew is nothing like that of soldiering, doesn't mean that fact number 1, won't happen or hasn't happened before. When it does, I'd like to know that everyone I might have to command in the future can carry out a reasonable task without struggling, therefore placing others lives in danger.
And with regards to the Russian front of WW2, that was an emergency situation requiring 'all hands to the pump'. The operation of modern, effective armed forces cannot be compared with guerrillas fighting a losing battle which was doubtless helped by the fierce Russian winter halting the largely mechanised advance of the Hun.
The Israeli Defence Force tried it a while ago and reversed the decision.
I was not implying that 'only women are susceptable to gang rape'. If this is what you inferred from my post, read it again.
I believe I was stating that while it is possible for women to be raped by straight men, I was not excluding the possibility of men to suffer the same from gay troops, (or even straight troops who will do anything to extract intel.)
I'm not qualified (as you might be) to argue which sex is better prepared to handle such an assault. Am I? Well thats something I will hopefully never find out.
This was not my main argument though, this is:
Fact 1. Aircrew (male or female) might be called upon to carry out the same tasks in war that infantry/RAF regt have to carry out,(hand-to-hand combat, digging trenches, carrying casualties/corpses).
Fact 2. Our political masters have decided that women are to be excluded from these posts for reasons of: combat effectiveness, lack of upper-body strength, stamina, and other reasons;
Now is it unreasonable to conclude that appointing female aircrew absolutely flies in the face of the logic posed by fact number 2? I am not supposing for one minute that I am a superman or indeed, many other men are. But there are physiological differences between men and women that make fact number 2 relevant.
Just because the day-to-day work of aircrew is nothing like that of soldiering, doesn't mean that fact number 1, won't happen or hasn't happened before. When it does, I'd like to know that everyone I might have to command in the future can carry out a reasonable task without struggling, therefore placing others lives in danger.
And with regards to the Russian front of WW2, that was an emergency situation requiring 'all hands to the pump'. The operation of modern, effective armed forces cannot be compared with guerrillas fighting a losing battle which was doubtless helped by the fierce Russian winter halting the largely mechanised advance of the Hun.
The Israeli Defence Force tried it a while ago and reversed the decision.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact 1 ?!?
Very, very, very tenuous IMHO.
1 - By opening the job up to the widest possible audience, we get to pick the absolute cream of the crop. If the selection people are doing their job right, the women flying in the RAF today are BETTER PILOTS than the men 'whose places' they took.
2 - That we have BETTER PILOTS is of far more consequence than the fact that some of those pilots might not be as good at digging trenches or whatever.
As a final point, how likely do you think it is that £5m-a-time FJ crew would be sent to the front line to dig trenches or carry stretchers? If things were really getting that desperate, we'd need every last person in the country to be fighting - woman or not.
Very, very, very tenuous IMHO.
1 - By opening the job up to the widest possible audience, we get to pick the absolute cream of the crop. If the selection people are doing their job right, the women flying in the RAF today are BETTER PILOTS than the men 'whose places' they took.
2 - That we have BETTER PILOTS is of far more consequence than the fact that some of those pilots might not be as good at digging trenches or whatever.
As a final point, how likely do you think it is that £5m-a-time FJ crew would be sent to the front line to dig trenches or carry stretchers? If things were really getting that desperate, we'd need every last person in the country to be fighting - woman or not.
Last edited by Nearly there!; 28th Nov 2002 at 20:38.
NEARLY THERE, POINTS TO PONDER.....
If fact 1 is so tenuous why oh why are we subjected to the A course? For fun/sado-masochism? Of course not. It's to give us a mere taster of the physical/mental demands of being pursued and captured by the Hun.
If aircrew are not ever expected to carry out difficult physical infantry type tasks, why do we learn any of the stuff we do at Basic trg? (Section attacks, weapons trg? Admittedly the 'Assault' course at CWL is a joke, made so that the lowest common denominator could pass it.)
I believe that if "the selectors are doing their jobs right" as dictated by MOD policy, the women flying today are no better than some of those men turned away. 'They' need quotas filled to satisfy equal opportunity policies. Women, and ethnic minorities look fantastic at press conferences to combat the CRE's claims of discrimination in the mob. Who out there can deny this fact!
Yes, we need good pilots (why do you say better pilots? compared to who?), but not at the expense of lowering the bar for unsuitable candidates who lack strength/stamina/leadership!!
If we go too far down this road, we'll start training pilots with curvature of the spine, on the basis that they would make excellent multi-engine pilots due to their high aptitude scores!
Finally, I was not saying that it is at all likely that "£5m-a-time FJ crew would be sent to the front line to dig trenches or carry stretchers". That is not what their primary duty is.
But when your all-female graduate FJ crew is downed in the bondu and a platoon of infantry needs their help to get them ALL out of the sh*t, the guys who have women banned from their ranks on grounds of operational effectiveness would be pretty 'annoyed' IF said FJ crew could not yomp/carry/fight!
No- being annoyed is one thing, endangering the lives of comrades is another.
ANGRY LIZARD: I take it you are a sad lonely misfit whose greatest hobby is torturing chaps on Bodmin?
If aircrew are not ever expected to carry out difficult physical infantry type tasks, why do we learn any of the stuff we do at Basic trg? (Section attacks, weapons trg? Admittedly the 'Assault' course at CWL is a joke, made so that the lowest common denominator could pass it.)
I believe that if "the selectors are doing their jobs right" as dictated by MOD policy, the women flying today are no better than some of those men turned away. 'They' need quotas filled to satisfy equal opportunity policies. Women, and ethnic minorities look fantastic at press conferences to combat the CRE's claims of discrimination in the mob. Who out there can deny this fact!
Yes, we need good pilots (why do you say better pilots? compared to who?), but not at the expense of lowering the bar for unsuitable candidates who lack strength/stamina/leadership!!
If we go too far down this road, we'll start training pilots with curvature of the spine, on the basis that they would make excellent multi-engine pilots due to their high aptitude scores!
Finally, I was not saying that it is at all likely that "£5m-a-time FJ crew would be sent to the front line to dig trenches or carry stretchers". That is not what their primary duty is.
But when your all-female graduate FJ crew is downed in the bondu and a platoon of infantry needs their help to get them ALL out of the sh*t, the guys who have women banned from their ranks on grounds of operational effectiveness would be pretty 'annoyed' IF said FJ crew could not yomp/carry/fight!
No- being annoyed is one thing, endangering the lives of comrades is another.
ANGRY LIZARD: I take it you are a sad lonely misfit whose greatest hobby is torturing chaps on Bodmin?