Well, I can't really say what my secret girlfriend does

I used to give a lecture to graduate trainee’s & you better believe that it used to kick up some manure.

It is considered that the single most difficult ‘job’ a human can accomplish is to pilot, fly the mission & then land a fast jet fighter on an aircraft carrier at night in bad weather. This job is so difficult & demanding that it simply isn’t possible to lower the standards required. The people who qualify really are one in a million. If you don’t understand this, or think there is some other job that is more or equally as difficult then you are wrong.

When the US decided to let women enter the club it was universally accepted that there is no physical reason why they should not qualify on an even footing. It does not require physical strength or any other attribute that sets women apart from men.

The first woman to qualify was Kara Hultgreen, Google her cos’ she’s a legend.

Every aspect of a carrier pilot’s ongoing performance is closely monitored & graded by their peers, not by a snot nose carrying a clipboard but by someone who can actually do the job. If a qualified carrier pilot scores low grades in a certain pattern then they are shifted backwards down the line until they re-qualify.

If you Googled her you would know that Kara Hultgreen became the first female mission qualified carrier fighter pilot & did it with some to spare. She was not only one in a million to qualify but she was a one in a million of the million so to speak. She crashed & died on a routine training mission.

This is the controversial bit, the bit that gets them jumping out of their seats.

In the analysis of ‘why’ she crashed it was discovered from combining her medical records with her performance records . . . . That she was in a certain point of her menstrual cycle whenever she scored a low grade. You won’t find that on Google, you have to know what the ‘yacht club’ is & how it works to be party.

We are different. Until we can all accept that fact then there can be no equality.

im going to remember that last post the next time im going on a plane and see that its a wifey pilot with her baps tied down and a mans haircut…
it really fill me with even les confidence that i already had.
was there not some wifey pilot on the news a while ago that her man was navigator or had a job in the cockpit beside her when she threw a hissy fit,stormed out of the cockit and locked herself in the bogs in a big huff for a while till he did some grovelling and coaxed her back out to fly the plane?
i remember reading it a few months back…kinds sums it up nicely.

^^^^^^^^
here it is…classic :smiley:
independent.co.uk/news/worl … 41361.html

sammym:
Would it not be good to have more highly trained people who don’t look like soldiers? Does no one consider it might be a bit challenging to stick a team in a place when it’s all blokes and not stand out?

As long as the physical requirements are not weakened this is nothing but good news.

The biggest threat that our nation faces is a bunch of deluded over paid politicians getting us into a fight with Russia at some point.In which case just like the previous major wars conscription would be a reality.I’d doubt that the average husband/brother/father/mother/or son/daughter would see their wife/sister/daughter/mother being called up for cannon fodder as being supposed ‘good news’.It seems obvious that the whole idea is a slippery slope based on deliberately confusing a few misguided career soldier women,who choose to think and act like men,to push the general idea that women serving in front line service is supposedly a good thing.Just as supposed pension age equality was used as a way to cut the pension bill.

As for anyone going to war not ‘looking like soldiers’ that obviously contradicts the Geneva Convention which says that all combatants have to be in uniform and recognisably soldiers.

Dork Lard:
I used to give a lecture to graduate trainee’s & you better believe that it used to kick up some manure.

It is considered that the single most difficult ‘job’ a human can accomplish is to pilot, fly the mission & then land a fast jet fighter on an aircraft carrier at night in bad weather. This job is so difficult & demanding that it simply isn’t possible to lower the standards required. The people who qualify really are one in a million. If you don’t understand this, or think there is some other job that is more or equally as difficult then you are wrong.

When the US decided to let women enter the club it was universally accepted that there is no physical reason why they should not qualify on an even footing. It does not require physical strength or any other attribute that sets women apart from men.

The first woman to qualify was Kara Hultgreen, Google her cos’ she’s a legend.

Every aspect of a carrier pilot’s ongoing performance is closely monitored & graded by their peers, not by a snot nose carrying a clipboard but by someone who can actually do the job. If a qualified carrier pilot scores low grades in a certain pattern then they are shifted backwards down the line until they re-qualify.

If you Googled her you would know that Kara Hultgreen became the first female mission qualified carrier fighter pilot & did it with some to spare. She was not only one in a million to qualify but she was a one in a million of the million so to speak. She crashed & died on a routine training mission.

This is the controversial bit, the bit that gets them jumping out of their seats.

In the analysis of ‘why’ she crashed it was discovered from combining her medical records with her performance records . . . . That she was in a certain point of her menstrual cycle whenever she scored a low grade. You won’t find that on Google, you have to know what the ‘yacht club’ is & how it works to be party.

We are different. Until we can all accept that fact then there can be no equality.

Interesting…some on-line research reveal that this woman was allowed numerous attempts to complete training tasks at various levels where a male pilot would have been put back or washed out.

I’m not saying that many male pilots don’t make mistakes etc…it’s just that they have to take the consequences, while she was given a pat on the head and another go. Luckily she didn’t kill the ‘guy in back’ when the inevitable happened.

GasGas:
I’m not saying that many male pilots don’t make mistakes etc…it’s just that they have to take the consequences, while she was given a pat on the head and another go. Luckily she didn’t kill the ‘guy in back’ when the inevitable happened.

It seems to fit a script of offer em the perceived glamorous jobs to make em feel important.With the aim of conditioning em to accept the call up papers for the cannon fodder scenario when they land on the floor mat.As for the glorification of even war in the air it might all look good in Hollywood one sided fiction like Top Gun but the reality of meeting a well matched foe in the air probably even today goes more along the lines of the film Aces High.While would anyone really want this if not worse to happen to their wife/daughter/sister/mother even if they are lucky enough to escape from a crippled aircraft.

mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gu … er-7188213

Well, no one signs up in the hope that they will end up like that…but my mate in the RAF tells me that before a trainee pilot is even allowed near a plane, they have to pass through the survival, evade, and capture training. In other words, you know what you are signing up for. A WW2 Spitfire ace wrote his autobiography…Brain Kingcombe. It was called “A Willingness to Die” which was one of the essential qualities required of a fighter pilot.

In modern war, those behind the front line are in some cases even more at risk than those in the front line.

There was a series on TV a few years back about the history of the defence of these islands…from Roman times up to the end of the 20th century. It ended with the presenter parking up in a disused V-bomber shelter, and making the point that in the age of the ICBM there was no such thing as a frontline as a physical or geographic thing, and the idea that you could hide civilians out of harm’s way no longer applied.

And this is even more true in our current age of asymmetric conflict…our current enemy would regard a concert hall filled with little girls as being a better target than an army base. One ‘innocent’ western death is worth more than the deaths of 10 western soldiers in their eyes, because it has greater ‘shock’ value.

My only question over the use of women in combat is one of selection, training and effectiveness. And that goes beyond the armed forces to the police and fire services. I remember when Tazers came in…they were supposed to be deployed only by specially trained officers when life was under threat as a last resort alternative to a gun. Then they were given out willy-nilly because women PCs were struggling to subdue male offenders.

Result: you get a woman PC in Avon constabulary tazering an old chap in the face because he wouldn’t answer her rude and aggressive questions. At no time had he attempted to strike her, he was not ‘resisting arrest’ because he wasn’t under arrest, and he had committed no offence at all because he was under no obligation to speak to her. I doubt if a male PC would have done what she did.

There was a male firefighter at Grenfell who elected not to go back in because his co-worker was just back from maternity leave and the chances of them both getting out again were not that good. In both those cases, I would say that gender was an issue that hampered effectiveness in both cases.

dieseldog999:
im going to remember that last post the next time im going on a plane and see that its a wifey pilot with her baps tied down and a mans haircut…
it really fill me with even les confidence that i already had.
was there not some wifey pilot on the news a while ago that her man was navigator or had a job in the cockpit beside her when she threw a hissy fit,stormed out of the cockit and locked herself in the bogs in a big huff for a while till he did some grovelling and coaxed her back out to fly the plane?
i remember reading it a few months back…kinds sums it up nicely.

^^^^^^^^
here it is…classic :smiley:
independent.co.uk/news/worl … 41361.html

In that case, she left the flight deck after her husband (and second officer) punched her.

His fault, not hers.

GasGas:

dieseldog999:
im going to remember that last post the next time im going on a plane and see that its a wifey pilot with her baps tied down and a mans haircut…
it really fill me with even les confidence that i already had.
was there not some wifey pilot on the news a while ago that her man was navigator or had a job in the cockpit beside her when she threw a hissy fit,stormed out of the cockit and locked herself in the bogs in a big huff for a while till he did some grovelling and coaxed her back out to fly the plane?
i remember reading it a few months back…kinds sums it up nicely.

^^^^^^^^
here it is…classic :smiley:
independent.co.uk/news/worl … 41361.html

In that case, she left the flight deck after her husband (and second officer) punched her.

His fault, not hers.

Well, he might have been emotional?
Could it have been his time of the month?

:smiley:

GasGas:

dieseldog999:
im going to remember that last post the next time im going on a plane and see that its a wifey pilot with her baps tied down and a mans haircut…
it really fill me with even les confidence that i already had.
was there not some wifey pilot on the news a while ago that her man was navigator or had a job in the cockpit beside her when she threw a hissy fit,stormed out of the cockit and locked herself in the bogs in a big huff for a while till he did some grovelling and coaxed her back out to fly the plane?
i remember reading it a few months back…kinds sums it up nicely.

^^^^^^^^
here it is…classic :smiley:
independent.co.uk/news/worl … 41361.html

In that case, she left the flight deck after her husbfand (and second officer) punched her.

His fault, not hers.

^^^^^;^
he gave her a slap and she flung a hissy fit drama.ffs cop yourself
on.
she lleft the contŕols when she was the pilot flying the plane at the time.
there were guys flew back from berlin in ww2 shot to ■■■■ and then never left the controls.
do you think the outcome would have been the same if it was a male pilot■■?

GasGas:
Well, no one signs up in the hope that they will end up like that…but my mate in the RAF tells me that before a trainee pilot is even allowed near a plane, they have to pass through the survival, evade, and capture training. In other words, you know what you are signing up for. A WW2 Spitfire ace wrote his autobiography…Brain Kingcombe. It was called “A Willingness to Die” which was one of the essential qualities required of a fighter pilot.

In modern war, those behind the front line are in some cases even more at risk than those in the front line.

There was a series on TV a few years back about the history of the defence of these islands…from Roman times up to the end of the 20th century. It ended with the presenter parking up in a disused V-bomber shelter, and making the point that in the age of the ICBM there was no such thing as a frontline as a physical or geographic thing, and the idea that you could hide civilians out of harm’s way no longer applied.

And this is even more true in our current age of asymmetric conflict…our current enemy would regard a concert hall filled with little girls as being a better target than an army base. One ‘innocent’ western death is worth more than the deaths of 10 western soldiers in their eyes, because it has greater ‘shock’ value.

My only question over the use of women in combat is one of selection, training and effectiveness. And that goes beyond the armed forces to the police and fire services. I remember when Tazers came in…they were supposed to be deployed only by specially trained officers when life was under threat as a last resort alternative to a gun. Then they were given out willy-nilly because women PCs were struggling to subdue male offenders.

Result: you get a woman PC in Avon constabulary tazering an old chap in the face because he wouldn’t answer her rude and aggressive questions. At no time had he attempted to strike her, he was not ‘resisting arrest’ because he wasn’t under arrest, and he had committed no offence at all because he was under no obligation to speak to her. I doubt if a male PC would have done what she did.

There was a male firefighter at Grenfell who elected not to go back in because his co-worker was just back from maternity leave and the chances of them both getting out again were not that good. In both those cases, I would say that gender was an issue that hampered effectiveness in both cases.

To be fair there’s a big difference between the scenarios of the BoB Fighter Pilot,v the reluctant conscript housewife torn away from her home husband and children and family and then having to face front line war service.Which make no mistake is the real agenda behind all this feminist stupidity.

As for the fire fighting example how could anyone justify a woman,let alone a mother,running into a burning building and possibly dying in the process maybe with the exception of rescuing her own children.As I said only the devil himself would countenance such an idea.

As for the total war scenario yes agreed there is arguably point where we decide as a nation to end it all and all go out together being a better option than surrender to a merciless enemy.But in most cases that’s rightly all about a deterrent to war on all sides in the knowledge of the results of that choice.As opposed to the glossy recruitment videos which are there to appeal to the worst type of naivety among a strange minority of women with a career soldier mindset and possibly to hide a more sinister hidden agenda,of subjecting the female population,to the same conscription regime as the male one,in the event of a major conventional war breaking out.Which will inevitably be the case first anyway regardless such as in the case of the NATO v Russia etc scenario in which it going nuclear will just be the logical escalation.The current environment of sabre rattling against Russia and recruitment policies based on the weird appeal of war service to some women,making all that more likely not less and the horrific implications for those women who rightly don’t want to get involved in front line war service along the old established moral lines.

As for the ‘willingness to die’ example,I’d guess from my father seeming to have been somewhat traumatised for life by what he saw and dealt with in the recovery of the aftermath of such encounters,I’d say that was a more apt description of Allied tank crews in the typical German opposition type confrontation scenario for example than the Spitfire v 109 type one.I’d guess the thought of those casualties being women could have quite possibly destroyed morale among many of our forces in such pivotal theatres as Normandy to Germany,North Africa and Italy in that regard.

biggriffin:

GasGas:
In WW2 the British were quite OK with sending female SOE agents into Europe…they faced torture and death if caught, and many of them were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_SOE_agents

They were purely volunteers, yes recruited, but they volunteered to go behind lines,

Aren’t those that join the Army also volunteers and even more so the Special forces?

GasGas:
Going back to the 1970s, my Dad (who had fought across Europe in 1944/5) was always complaining about the Common Market in General and the French (and their Golden Delicious apples) in particular… Come the vote on whether or not we should stay in, I was surprised that he said he was voting ‘in’.

I asked him why.

“Because I grew up knowing I would almost certainly have to fight in a European war. the Common Market means you can grow up knowing that you almost certainly won’t.”

How quickly we forget, don’t we?

If membership of the EU/Common Market stopped European countries going to war with each other, how come for most of the last 70 years most countries in Europe weren’t in the EU and none of them went to war with each other, maybe it has more to do with NATO and the Warsaw pact?

Carryfast:
A number of things have made me think that the devil has won out and the idea of any female’s family being willing to accept their daughter/sister facing any number of horrific ends in front line military service and her being selfish enough to put them through that just adds to it.

But its perfectly ok to send their son’s, brother’s and husband’s to any number of horrific ends in front line military service

Carryfast:
Women are supposed to be the weaker softer ■■■ who we protect wherever possible and not deliberately put into harm’s way.

Women from well off backgrounds could traditionally afford to be the weaker ■■■ and have men look after them, but those from poorer backgrounds had to be tough to survive and for their family to survive.

muckles:

GasGas:
Going back to the 1970s, my Dad (who had fought across Europe in 1944/5) was always complaining about the Common Market in General and the French (and their Golden Delicious apples) in particular… Come the vote on whether or not we should stay in, I was surprised that he said he was voting ‘in’.

I asked him why.

“Because I grew up knowing I would almost certainly have to fight in a European war. the Common Market means you can grow up knowing that you almost certainly won’t.”

How quickly we forget, don’t we?

If membership of the EU/Common Market stopped European countries going to war with each other, how come for most of the last 70 years most countries in Europe weren’t in the EU and none of them went to war with each other, maybe it has more to do with NATO and the Warsaw pact?

Maybe that was so…but the Warsaw Pact is no more, and NATO looks shaky as America goes isolationist again. This strengthens the case for European co-operation.

We can see…look no further than these pages…a rise in European ultra-nationalism again. History tells us that doesn’t always end well.

muckles:

Carryfast:
A number of things have made me think that the devil has won out and the idea of any female’s family being willing to accept their daughter/sister facing any number of horrific ends in front line military service and her being selfish enough to put them through that just adds to it.

But its perfectly ok to send their son’s, brother’s and husband’s to any number of horrific ends in front line military service

Carryfast:
Women are supposed to be the weaker softer ■■■ who we protect wherever possible and not deliberately put into harm’s way.

Women from well off backgrounds could traditionally afford to be the weaker ■■■ and have men look after them, but those from poorer backgrounds had to be tough to survive and for their family to survive.

It’s never perfectly ok to send anyone to a horrific end in war.However violence against women of whatever sort is rightly seen as being unacceptable by most people.Ironically these words ‘’ the mailed fist must always fight for rights which can never be won with intellectual and moral weapons’‘.’‘To protect WOMEN and children’‘.’‘A task which MEN have always undertaken’’ were written in an autobiographical account,by a …Luftwaffe fighter pilot,regarding a conversation at the time with a comrade expressing his disillusionment with modern war.

Also don’t get your idea that the male protective instinct towards women has anything whatsoever to do with class.When even the worst aspects of the class divisions applying WW1 never called for the conscription of working class women into front line service.Just as the combat environment forces personnel of WW2 would have been horrified to have women posted among their ranks.

Ironically I’d guess that one of the exceptions which proves the rule in the form of the IDF,like the Kurdish resistance groups,is probably based on a similar logic of total war in Europe in that there is a point where all of society has to face up to the most horrific implications of war when the stakes and tactics reach a certain point.In that case by necessity just blurring the edges across to the conventional war type scenario with the ‘stakes’ in question being effectively the same for them either way in that case.

When I was 14 I was in the Air Cadets but the blue serge trouser uniform made my legs itch so I wouldn’t wear them so was told by the Commander not to go again, but I think the fact that I thumped a school prefect who was a ■■■■ but was also a cadet warrant officer might have had a bigger bearing on that than the trouser issue … :slight_smile:

GasGas:
We can see…look no further than these pages…a rise in European ultra-nationalism again. History tells us that doesn’t always end well.

Until you realise that the Nazis weren’t Nationalists they were no less Soviet style Socialists than the Soviet Union hence both deciding to ignore the right of self determination of Poland and WW1 was caused by the Austro Hungarian Federation being unwilling to accept the secession and right of self determination of Serbia.While the Napoleonic Wars were obviously all about Napoleon wanting to impose the ‘Continental system’ on Europe against the right of self determination of Europe’s nation states.While the Yugoslav war was mainly all about the Yugoslav Federation being unwilling to accept the right of self determination and secession of the Nation Sates which were hijacked by Tito in its formation.

By your logic Napoleonic France,the Austro Hungarian Empire,the Soviet Union,■■■■ Germany,and the Yugoslav Federation were all the victims of European Nationalism and secession.Obviously including Polish National defence against Soviet and ■■■■ anti nation state aggression.

muckles:

biggriffin:

GasGas:
In WW2 the British were quite OK with sending female SOE agents into Europe…they faced torture and death if caught, and many of them were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_SOE_agents

They were purely volunteers, yes recruited, but they volunteered to go behind lines,

Aren’t those that join the Army also volunteers and even more so the Special forces?

Yes and we also started WW1 and WW2 with a volunteer professional army.Don’t see anything in the article which states that women would be exempt from any potential future draft.Nor does it refer to only special forces.

GasGas:

muckles:

GasGas:
Going back to the 1970s, my Dad (who had fought across Europe in 1944/5) was always complaining about the Common Market in General and the French (and their Golden Delicious apples) in particular… Come the vote on whether or not we should stay in, I was surprised that he said he was voting ‘in’.

I asked him why.

“Because I grew up knowing I would almost certainly have to fight in a European war. the Common Market means you can grow up knowing that you almost certainly won’t.”

How quickly we forget, don’t we?

If membership of the EU/Common Market stopped European countries going to war with each other, how come for most of the last 70 years most countries in Europe weren’t in the EU and none of them went to war with each other, maybe it has more to do with NATO and the Warsaw pact?

Maybe that was so…but the Warsaw Pact is no more, and NATO looks shaky as America goes isolationist again. This strengthens the case for European co-operation.

We can see…look no further than these pages…a rise in European ultra-nationalism again. History tells us that doesn’t always end well.

And has this rise in “Ultra-nationalism” just comes out of thin air, or is it a consequence of decisions and policies from the EU and European politicians?

Carryfast:

muckles:

biggriffin:

GasGas:
In WW2 the British were quite OK with sending female SOE agents into Europe…they faced torture and death if caught, and many of them were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_SOE_agents

They were purely volunteers, yes recruited, but they volunteered to go behind lines,

Aren’t those that join the Army also volunteers and even more so the Special forces?

Yes and we also started WW1 and WW2 with a volunteer professional army.Don’t see anything in the article which states that women would be exempt from any potential future draft.Nor does it refer to only special forces.

Why is it any fairer to conscript a man who doesn’t want to join, instead of a woman?

I didn’t say it was only Special Forces, but merely pointed out that the Special Forces were also volunteers. The OP’s article made a big point of this change would in theory allow women to join the special forces.