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

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.

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.

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.

#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:
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.

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:

and

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.

Danny

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!

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.

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

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.

IRaven-

"Laundry provision will improve then..."

Care to explain this then?

@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.

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.

Rotate Too Late

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

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

What? Vote?
Verrry controversial.

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

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:

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.

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.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...peaker%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.