Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Roscoroo on October 31, 2006, 04:10:15 PM
-
In the spirit of All Hallow's , I thought id bring ya the story of the Night Witches .
In 1942 the Soviet Union formed three regiments of women combat pilots who flew night combat missions of harassment bombing. They flew obsolete Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes, that were otherwise used as trainers, and which could only carry 2 bombs that weighted less than a ton altogether. They were so successful and deadly the Germans feared them, calling them "Nachthexen"—night witches.
THE NIGHT WITCHES'S TACTIC
The Witches would fly to a certain distance of the enemy encapments that were to be the target, and cut their engine. They would then glide silently, silently... When the Fascists started to hear the whistle of the wind against the Po-2's wing bracing wires, they realized in panic that it was too late. The Night Witches would sneak up on them and release their bombs, then restart their engines and fly away home.
More ..
http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/witches.htm (http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/witches.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches)
-
cool:noid :aok
-
OH(http://wio.ru/aces/gal1/meklin.jpg)YEAH!
-
Nice Post!
Thanks!:aok
Regards,
Sun
-
Cool!
Good story.
-
Good history. Thanks.
"The Night Witches" would be a good name for an all-female rock band.
-
The following is a repost of a post I made on another thread here some time back...
Ripsnort just alerted me to this thread...
Thanks Ripsnort!
TIGERESS
............................. ............................. ............................. ....
A well kept secret of the Allies during WWII was... almost one thousand women flew combat missions in WWII against the Axis.
They had their share of Fighter Aces among them.
Also, some of the bravest women combat pilots were found with the all-female 588th Night Bomber Air Regiment, known as the “Night Witches.” Despite being equipped with slow, obsolete PO-2 biplanes, during the course of the War, they conducted an incredible 24,000 missions behind enemy lines, and delivered 23,000 tons of bombs from their fragile wood-and-fabric aircraft. Though their casualty rate was high, so was their recognition by a grateful nation. A total of 30 citations for “Hero of the Soviet Union”, Russia’s highest honor (The USSR's equivalent of the USA's Medal of Honor), were given to women in the Soviet Air Force, 23 of which were earned by the 588th “Night Witches.”
An image of Night Witches' Polikarpov Po-2/U-2 stealth Bomber flown by
the Night Witches who were known to the Germans as "Das Nachthexen"
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/Po-2Bomber.jpg)
Most of their Po-2s were unarmed except for their ordnance, but some carried a 7.62mm machine gun on a swivel-mount in the observer's position in the rear.
BTW, the Po-2 was a WWII stealth bomber...
The Po-2 would pass often undetected by the night fighters' radar, because of the mildly radar absorbing nature of the canvas surfaces, and the fact that mostly they flew near the ground. German planes equipped with infrared seekers would not see the little heat generated by the small, 110 horsepower engine.
Searchlights, however, were another story. The Germans at Stalingrad developed what the Russians called a "flak circus". They would bring out the flak guns that had been hidden during the day, and lay them in concentric circles around probable targets, and the same with the searchlights. Po-2s crossing the perimeter in pairs in the straight line flight path typical of untrained but determined Russian flyers were usually ripped to pieces by the Flak 37 guns. The 588th, however, developed another tactic. They flew in formations of three. Two would go in first, attract the attention of the searchlights, and when all of them pointed to them in the sky, separate suddenly in opposite directions and maneuver wildly to try to shake them off. The German searchlight operators would follow them, while the third bomber who was farther back snuck in through the darkened path made by her 2 comrades and hit the target unopposed. She would then get out, rejoin with the other two, and they would switch places until all three had delivered their payloads. It took nerves of steel to be a decoy and willingly attract enemy fire, but as Nadya Popova said: "It worked."
They had served so exemplarily throughout the whole war that they participated in the final onslauqht on Berlin.
I, for one, would like to have such a stealth bomber in the MA with no little red dots following them around on the enemies radar!
From what I have read, the 109s and 190s stall speed was faster than the Po-2's top speed, which made shooting down the agile Po-2 very difficult.
Question: Now, why was the role of women pilots kept such a secret during the war? hahahahahaha...
Answer: Some men's egos can't handle being bested, or defended, by a woman...
A real man can give credit where credit is due.
HWELTE, a book by Roy McShane about The White Rose and the Night Witches
CheckSix
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Question: Now, why was the role of women pilots kept such a secret during the war? hahahahahaha...
Answer: Some men's egos can't handle being bested, or defended, by a woman...
A real man can give credit where credit is due.
TIGERESS
Hey, as long as you make me breakfast, wash my clothes, get the kids off to school on time, and service m...ahhhh... you can go bomb anyone you want. :aok :cool:
:D j/k of course!(for the most part! ;) )
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hey, as long as you make me breakfast, wash my clothes, get the kids off to school on time, and service m...ahhhh... you can go bomb anyone you want. :aok :cool:
:D j/k of course!(for the most part! ;) )
hahahahaha!!!!!!!! I can??? Oh how fun!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait! If I am on deployment you get to do all that stuff!
While I bomb those bad boys!
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hey, as long as you make me breakfast, wash my clothes, get the kids off to school on time, and service m...ahhhh... you can go bomb anyone you want. :aok :cool: )
"Put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
And go out to the car and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me.
Now don't I let you wash the car on Sunday?
Don't I warn you when you're gettin fat?
Ain't I a-gonna take you fishin' with me someday?
Well, a man can't love a woman more than that.
Ain't I always nice to your kid sister?
Don't I take her driving every night?
So, sit here at my feet 'cos I like you when you're sweet,
And you know it ain't feminine to fight.
So, put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me."
:D
-
(Kinky Friedman)
You uppity women I don’t understand
Why you gotta go and try to act like a man,
But before you make your weekly visit to the shrink
You’d better occupy the kitchen, liberate the sink.
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed
That’s what I to my baby said,
Women’s liberation is a-going to your head,
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed.
Early every morning you’re out on the street
Passing out pamphlets to everyone you meet.
You gave up your Maiden Form for Lent
And now the front of your dress has an air scoop vent.
Every single brakeman that’s ever come along
Had a little woman always tellin’ him that he’s wrong.
Eve said to Adam, “Here’s an apple you horse�?
And Delilah defoliated Samson’s moss.
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed
That’s what I to my baby said,
Women’s liberation is a-going to your head,
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed.
Mean-hearted harpies are breaking all the laws
Tearing up their girdles and a-burning up their bras,
Now the air is dirty and the sex is clean
And your coffee makes my hair turn green.
So damn emancipated in your mind and your body,
Gonna have to cancel all your lessons in karate.
If you can’t love a male chauvinist
You’d better cross me off your shopping list.
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed
That’s what I to my baby said,
Women’s liberation is a-going to your head,
Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed.
Gotta love old Kinky :D
-
course... after the war was over and the soviets had enough men pilots to go around... there were no women fighter pilots. None in korea and none in vietnam.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
none in vietnam.
lazs
The Russians are touchy about things like that. :)
Awaits Boreoda. :aok
-
posted by Tigeress quoting Roy McShane
... German planes equipped with infrared seekers would not see the little heat generated by the small, 110 horsepower engine.
Huh? Someone want to tell me more about this?
-
Hiya Jackal1 and Culero,
Both very cute poems! :aok
Sums up a lot of the male side of the equation!
Irascible ole chauvinists need love too! hugs
I'm not a bra-burning femininist Lazs might have initially thought I was.
I trust he now knows better than that.
And also, I am not a "Stepford Wife" nor a "Cherry 2000". We are females of the human species... no less human than the males of the human species.
Male is the dominate gender but, often, female is under estimated.
I think men are great... a bit pre-occupied with reproductive matters and egos but then... God Bless 'em ...no one is perfect. :p ..and I wouldn't change them. :)
The USSR was very hard pressed for pilots in WWII ...Much much more so than the US or Great Britain.
The US had active duty and very well trained women flying daily during the war for the USAAF who flew every type of plane in service including P51-D Mustang fighter planes and B-17G heavy bombers.
Had the need arisen, those women of the USAAF would have gotten into their planes, started their engines, and flown off into harm's way and delivered their bullets and bombs on target... just as women of today now do for the US Armed Services in IRAQ.
Women of the US Armed Forces have been serving in certian combat roles for quite a while... with the full self-knowledge and understanding that some of them won't come back. They do it anyway... not to deny their gender or to change the world... rather, to be patriots and defenders of what they consider theirs... the USA... it really is that simple.
I don't think the women of the USAAF had their priorities wrong... it wasn't about the War of the Sexes... It was about defending the Homeland... our beloved Country... just as it was for Das Nachthexens, AKA The Night Witches, and the Russian female fighter pilots ...it was about their love and devotion for their Motherland.
If needed, woman can get the job done... not just in the kitchen and by our man's side but also in the skies. An airplane does not know if it's pilot is male or female... it just does what you tell it to do.
Under estimating the vastness of human potential is not the smartest play.
We don't live to fight in a war... we will fight in a war if need be, to live... in freedom ...and protect that which we consider ours.
This is not a reflection on the men by our side... it is our gift, should the need arise.
I give you guys my sincere respect... you deserve it... for a lot of reasons.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Dux
Huh? Someone want to tell me more about this?
Sure.
There were none.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Sure.
There were none.
I don't know about Infrared Detection in WWII, but... just doing some googling, a few things do come up about German WWII IR detection having to do with tanks in addition to this article on The Night Witches... Nothing showed up that would confirm the Russians needed to fear such detection for their night bombers. It may have been paranoia to consider such detection as possible... who knows. German high-technology was respected and feared by the Russians, Americans, and the British, and rightfully so.
Here is an interesting thread from a military forum on the subject of the Night Witches.
Night Witch Forum Thread from WWII in Color (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3730)
The above contains some very interesting inside information from the Soviet Military, photos, and a short movie.
TIGERESS
-
The most amazing about this girls was that they flew 600-1000 combat sorties... And in the beginning many of them were 17-18 years old.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The most amazing about this girls was that they flew 600-1000 combat sorties... And in the beginning many of them were 17-18 years old.
Yes, history records they were indeed girls.. many started as teenagers flying night bombers.
It is said these girls often flew with a small bomb in their laps that they would throw by hand at the enemy.
Those girls who survived their plane being shot down often committed suicide by detonating their lap borne bomb rather than be taken alive by the Germans.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I don't know about Infrared Detection in WWII, but...
[/b]
Well, I do. There were IR optics on German tanks, not on aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, I do. There were IR optics on German tanks, not on aircraft.
Do you know about a German WWII missile called "Little Red Riding Hood"?
...Or the Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen Steinbock version with IR homing guidance?
It is written that it's a German WWII IR Seeker guided missile... apparently developed as an anti-tank weapon.
It is also written that the X-7 in its primary configuration was the world's first wire-guided TOW missile.
...perhaps the first one was the X-4? I don't know.
Is it possible for WWII German tanks with IR detection systems to shoot a bomber? on the ground? or in the air?
Is it possible, since German tanks had IR detections systems, that the Germans could have potentially incorporated such systems on FLAK guns and night fighters given enough time?
Can an anti-tank missile hit a bomber? on the ground? or in the air?
I loves Google :)
Other than the now challanged mention of IR detection in the Night Witches article, I don't have any interest in esoteric stuff such as German WWII IR technology. boring....
...but just for the heck of it, I started researching it online to discover why IR detection was mentioned in the Night Witches write-up.
Some man wrote that "Knowledge is Power", and I believe him! :)
Today he might also say "Google is Power", I don't know.
TIGERESS
EDIT: hahahaha, oh my... I just googled "Knowledge is Power"; it was coined by Sir Francis Bacon; dang I love Google :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The most amazing about this girls was that they flew 600-1000 combat sorties... And in the beginning many of them were 17-18 years old.
Pryvet Boroda, Rada tebya videt!
Do you know of the WWII story of Alexandra Roschupkina?
Pa-ka! Uvidimsia!
TIGERESS
PS: I speak a little Russki only, but Google is my friend :)
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Hiya Jackal1 and Culero,
Both very cute poems! :aok
:rofl They are songs.
Sums up a lot of the male side of the equation!
They sum up...humor. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not a bra-burning femininist Lazs might have initially thought I was.
The bra burners of my days were far from feminists.......and we were proud of every one. :)
-
Heh...thanks Jackal, saved me that reply :)
Tigeress, I bet you'd enjoy hearing the songs if you care to take the time to google the mp3s, they're a real hoot ;)
-
another good song in the country vein is "burn down the trailer park" It pretty much describes the feminist experiance from the male point of view.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
course... after the war was over and the soviets had enough men pilots to go around... there were no women fighter pilots. None in korea and none in vietnam.
lazs
Hi Lazs,
Yes... as far as I can tell that is all true.
I am not offended at all.
Many of us (not all) would rather avoid a fight if possible... I know I avoid fighting... if at all possible.
I think, at least for me... the issue was not whether we live to fight... but whether we can and whether we will... if the need arises.
We can, we will, we have, and we do... if needed and if we want to...
Some do; some don't; same for men.
Our potential has always been there. It is a part of human nature.
It has been so noted in history since the dawn of human records.
Women have the human capacity of warrior... even though it is not our gender instinct to do so. Ask any of the women serving in the military or police forces of countries around the world. Some are better than others; same with men.
Men have the human capacity to nuture and nest build... even though it is not their gender instinct to do so. Ask any man with children and no help... who's wife is disabled, who is a widower, or is divorced with custody of his children. Some are better than others; same with women.
Gender instinct is not constructed with titanium.
In the modern age a man or a woman can climb into a fighter or bomber and with human intellect, and trained and practiced skill, deliver equally crushing blows to the enemy. There is no such thing as an estrogen bomb or a testosterone bomb... bombs and bullets don't have gender issues... they are equal opportunity devices... which are better given, than received.
History of Women in the Military
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Womenaswarriors.jpg/250px-Womenaswarriors.jpg)
The history of women in the military is one that extends over 4000 years into the past, and throughout a vast number of cultures and nations. Women have played many roles in the military, from ancient warrior women, to the women currently serving in the Iraq War.
Although the role of women in the military, particularly in combat, has been a controversial one beginning in the medieval era. Despite various roles in the armies of past societies, it is only recently that women have begun to be given a more prominent role in contemporary armed forces. As increasing numbers of countries begin to expand the role of women in their militaries, the debate continues.
The above is referenced HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare).
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
course... after the war was over and the soviets had enough men pilots to go around... there were no women fighter pilots. None in korea and none in vietnam.
Well we had first two woman-cosmonauts, Tereshkova was a skydiver, Savitskaya was a professional pilot, held several world records flying fighter-planes like E-266 (MiG-25).
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Pryvet Boroda, Rada tebya videt!
Do you know of the WWII story of Alexandra Roschupkina?
Pa-ka! Uvidimsia!
Could be nice to meet you too :)
I'll look for the name in Russian search engines. Our school had a small museum dedicated to Eugenia Rudneva, Hero of Soviet Union, killed in action... It's a shame that with a "liberty" and "democracy" they closed it. I hope that a memorial to our graduates who were killed in a War is still there.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Could be nice to meet you too :)
I'll look for the name in Russian search engines. Our school had a small museum dedicated to Eugenia Rudneva, Hero of Soviet Union, killed in action... It's a shame that with a "liberty" and "democracy" they closed it. I hope that a memorial to our graduates who were killed in a War is still there.
Alexandra Roschupkina was a tractor driver who wanted to fight the Nazis at the front lines.
She became a tank driver and was a Hero.
She was denied the honor of serving her country at the front by the army because she was female.
Not to be deprived of fighting against the invading Nazis, she did the only thing she could think of that she could to do. She disguised herself so she looked male enough to slip through and gave the name Alexander Roschupkina to the army.
She was accepted and fought to protect her Motherland for three years in battle... until she was badly wounded. Only one person, a male army doctor who first examined her, ever knew her secret until she was wounded. She had begged him to keep her secret which he reluctantly did. She lived in greater fear of being discovered than of dying. Unfortunately for her she was wounded in the lower abdomen.
Alexandra married after the war but because of her war wound... she was childless. She is alive today at the age of 93.
This is a recent photo of Alexandra today.
(http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/woman-alexander.jpg)
It is unfortunate that changes of government can cause erasure such as the closing of your museum for this brave Hero of the Soviet Union, Eugenia Rudneva.
She is a hero for her people and her Motherland... someone to be proud of and to remember for her acts of bravery and sacrifice against the Nazis during the USSR's Great Patriotic War.
The Russian women who fought and died are also my heros.
I can not express how deeply proud of them I am.
My favorite fighter plane is the Lavochkin La-5/La-7. If I could, I would put a white lily on mine as a to Lilya and all the brave Russian women who fought in the war.
A personal story for you...
When I first came to Aces High there was a man who's callsign was NoLoZone. He had an h2h arena and I flew in it... in my La-7.
He got to know me enough to know I never quit a fight and always came back. He always shot me down.
One day I took off in my La-7. When he saw me coming he commented "I am going to take that Russian B*tch Down!"
I smiled. He did that day... and many days after that... but finally one day, I met him in the sky, one on one, and I sent him away with a disabled fighter.
This Russian B*tch finally beat him! and I did not loose to him again.
I am not of Russian blood... but of Russian Spirit, I am.
TIGERESS
-
Ok... so how many women fighter pilots in russia... or anywhere else.. shot down planes after WWII... a cosmonaut would be about like our astronauts I would think... just meat along for the ride.. we used monkeys mostly at first.
no army that is not desperate for cannon fodder would... or even should... use women in combat roles. If you are short on humanity or simply desperate then... yeah.. they can stop a bullet too.
If you look at the armies that used women you will see what I mean about lacking humanity or simply desperate with no other resources.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... so how many women fighter pilots in russia... or anywhere else.. shot down planes after WWII... a cosmonaut would be about like our astronauts I would think... just meat along for the ride.. we used monkeys mostly at first.
no army that is not desperate for cannon fodder would... or even should... use women in combat roles. If you are short on humanity or simply desperate then... yeah.. they can stop a bullet too.
If you look at the armies that used women you will see what I mean about lacking humanity or simply desperate with no other resources.
lazs
How many have been prevented from flying thus scoring kills since WWII?
There is an old saying... "Pride goeth before the fall".
Survival trumps male pride... as noble as it is.
If the US sustained heavy hits on the homeland and was fighting a battle for our very survival at fronts on our own soil... women would be there to return fire, along with the men.
Permission to do so be damned. You know it; I know it. Tell that to the women who were fighting in the French resistance.
And that was exactly the situation in Russia.
Its with understandable and gallant honor that men... men like yourself protect us Lazs. And for that I am grateful, honored and respectful.
If it comes down to it... we will also fight to survive... it is our human nature to do so.
I understand where you are coming from... you are a noble man.
TIGERESS
-
you can't have it both ways... if they were so great then why would the enlightened russians throw them on the scrap heap when the war ended?
Why not let em fly in korea and vietnam and afghanistan?
Why were they "prevented"?
It is simply a bad idea.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you can't have it both ways... if they were so great then why would the enlightened russians throw them on the scrap heap when the war ended?
Why not let em fly in korea and vietnam and afghanistan?
Why were they "prevented"?
It is simply a bad idea.
lazs
Why? Because they are noble men also, dear... just like you.
But the backs of the Russian people were against the wall with a gun to their head.
They had no other option but to let their women fly in real combat... to kill or be killed.
Russian men and women are honorable people. And they are absolutely suvivors.
They didn't ask for that war; they were invaded. The Jews among them knew their fate if the Nazis won. Not a one of them would be left alive.
Many of these women fighters were Jewish.
It could, and may... happen here. I pray it doesn't ever come to that.
And That... is why women in combat has always been... and will always be... controversial.
War is a nasty business.
TIGERESS
-
"Noble" as he may be, Lazs is a bigot in more ways than one. Not allowing women in the military is as anachronistic as Lazs' "must protect the women of our tribe or we'll die out" mentality. The fact of the matter is that there are too many of us already and sustaining our huge populations is not an issue. As long as the women recruits compete on an even footing with their male counterparts I have no reservations against them serving. Women may be physically disadvantaged by nature with regard to soldiering, but it is not such a big disadvantage that they cannot overcome it through training and exercise. They simply have to work a bit harder to get there.
My Kr 0.11 ($0.02)
-
Actually the only problem I see with regard to women serving in the military is the way young males react to having women around. However, controlling hormone-fueled urges is a male problem that we have to work at.
-
Hi Viking,
Like I mentioned before. It will always be controversial. Always...
And it always has been so.
TIGERESS
-
In my corner of the world it is not. As a species I'm quite disappointed that we haven't come further than this.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you can't have it both ways... if they were so great then why would the enlightened russians throw them on the scrap heap when the war ended?
Why not let em fly in korea and vietnam and afghanistan?
Why were they "prevented"?
It is simply a bad idea.
lazs
I wonder what an actual fighter pilot would have to say about this issue?
"Lazs
To be honest, in the air it never comes up, even subconsciously. I've seen tapes of guys literally dying trying to save another guy, so having a girl up there doesn't change the equation especially after she's "proven herself" by going through the same training everyone else accomplishes.
I'm not sure how it works in the Army where you can actually SEE the other people, but when flying the training usually kicks in and overrides personal concerns. Those who can't leave their emotions in their lockers on the ground tend to wash out or get killed.
I worry more about some of the guys than I would about Capt Malachowski. I know she can handle herself. We have one set of flying rules, one set of standards, and we are extremely hard on ourselves about meeting and upholding the standards. That means that nobody gets any extra consideration for any reason. It's harsh and makes life pretty tough on those who struggle being as good as everyone else, but that's one of the things that separates our AF from the forces of some other nations.
Heck, my female cousin was a medic in her vehicle maintenance unit and after working with her awhile, they made her the standard driver for their "gunship" armored humvee. They didn't care that she was a girl, they just wanted the best driver behind the wheel of the vehicle that was the toughest to drive, the one that they'd count on when the shxt went down. I think most of the US military has adapted. That doesn't mean that given their choice the guys wouldn't follow their instincts and keep the women and children out of harm's way, but it means that they've learned (or been indoctrinated) to separate those feelings from their daily routine, to the point where for most troops it just doesn't matter anymore.
Besides, after you've gotten gunned mercilessly by a female weapons school grad a couple of times, you pretty much tend look to her for help instead of following a foolish and misplaced sense of chivalry by trying to watch out for her more than you would anyone else.
It's a tough world and in the end, maybe it helps to remember that there are some damn smart and tough women out there who volunteered to help defend our little part of the world."
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=153212
-
Idealistic and noble men can think what they want... we will kill to survive if pushed. And will do so with a unique savagery.
We women have proven time and again on the battle field and in the air, that when it comes down to it, we will fight to the death with skill and absolute determination.
It is absolutely indisputable.
Want to talk about Human instincts?
How about the instinct that caused the human race to survive the Stone Age to present day?
Every human possesses this instinct. Man and woman.
Without it, we would not be here today.
We would have been wiped out as a viable species.
Other humanoid species were wiped out... probably due to the intellect of Homo Sapiens coupled with our very strong survival instincts.
I think… part of the issue of women serving in the military is that males have an instinct to dominate the gene pool with their own personal semen.
Thus, male possession of us is paramount to this instinct.
Why do you think it is that conquering armies, since the dawn of time, are instinctively driven to perform strategic copulation with all the females of the conquered and tend to hold back their own females from their battle area?
Males historically protect what they consider their females and are driven to possess females they they don't already have, thereby killing off for all time the conquered males.
In my view, this is the real reason males are instinctively and seriously pre-occupied with reproductive behavior, even if they don't know why.
We do not live in pre-historic times... some instincts are hang-overs from that era. But these instincts are still with us.
War is a strange thing. Women are not driven to start wars... men are.
You men reach down inside of yourselves and take a look at this and then tell me I am wrong about it. I don't think I am wrong.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
War is a strange thing. Women are not driven to start wars... men are.
Well ... I don't think that statement is backed up by much scientific research. I think the real issue is that very few women have been in a position to start wars. Of those few at least Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher started wars in the last 50 years (although Thatcher was provoked into war by Argentinian military action). The notion that "if the world's nations were led by women there would be no wars" is a myth. You only have to look at the female politicians of today to understand that they are just as bad in every way as the male politicians.
-
Oh, and let's not forget Golda Meir. She is perhaps the benchmark of "Iron-handed" female political leadership.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Well ... I don't think that statement is backed up by much scientific research. I think the real issue is that very few women have been in a position to start wars. Of those few at least Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher started wars in the last 50 years (although Thatcher was provoked into war by Argentinian military action). The notion that "if the world's nations were led by women there would be no wars" is a myth. You only have to look at the female politicians of today to understand that they are just as bad in every way as the male politicians.
Food for debate...
Why are males driven to dominate? …To the point of controlling every Country?
There have been women in history that ruled a country either by royal blood lines or popular election but it is the exception and not without male power majority in the background.
We have an intellect capacity that puts us on par with males but not the gender instinct to dominate them, gender to gender, in the main.
We have the intellect capacity to rule countries and have proven that. It is indisputable.
I am not making a judgment call as to which is better... male or female, just observing historical behavior. Personally, I view the two genders as two halves of a whole. How can one be better if each can not survive from generation to generation without the other? I see the two genders as different yet equals in terms of being human.
I do not consider my gender to be inferior to male... we are not.
Getting to the bottom of the issues, I think, is the key... to peel back the layers of the onion to reveal what lies at its core.
Males are wired, by testosterone, to dominate... to the point of controlling every country.
That includes an instinct to dominate us... the females of the species.
Every woman knows of this behavior of males... first hand. We live with the reality of it every day.
The focus of the discussion is females serving in the military.
Lazs states he thinks it's a bad idea... empirically (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirically), and by study of history, I feel understand why he said it. Thus I am referring back to my previous post about instinctive male drives for possession of the gene pool and denial of other male's access to the gene pool. Some people refer to it as typical male horniness coupled with male-on-male ownage and it is a very real hormonally driven instinct to survive by instinctive domination.
Think we women don’t have an empirical understanding of men?
Think again... it dominates our reality and lives... and always has, and likely it always will. Intellect is the path out of life driven by base instincts that no longer serves a viable purpose.
It is yet to be determined whether there remains a viable purpose for some instincts.
Frankly, I can't imagine life without males, as is... we are symbiotic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbiotic); albiet, with socialized domestication.
Gender instincts affects us all but in the modern age, this is not an all encompassing "You Tarzan; Me Jane" reality in which we live today.
TIGERESS
-
LOL.. a wall of text from viking and tigress and all you are really saying is that it is a bad idea because...
Because men and women are different... viking/schlotsie says that all we have to do is change the nature of man so that he will allow women to die and suffer just the same as he would a man.
Thrawn makes a point... in the air.. who knows? no one really... til they are shot down and captured. Glad we had no women shot down and captured in vietnam.. or captured period.
Pretend the world and human nature is something it is not all you want but... we don't want to see women suffer or die.. women are not as agressive or strong. women captives will never be the same as men captives. nor will their effect on us.
And.. it is a good thing.. I do not want to live in a world where women and children are "equal" and can be made to suffer equally.
for you equal people... should I be able to punch out a woman who is mouthy? One that hits or slaps me?
Look at the police... look at the cops raped.. how many cops were raped before women police? sure... I hear the movies and media saying they are just as good... then I hear the grunts on the ground saying that if they could they would never have a woman partner. course... the level of ability to defend even themselves of cops these days has fallen almost down to the level of women but... bringing levels down is not the best way to make things "equal"
I have been hit by women but have never hit one back... how bout you guys?
in your better world... what would happen? I offer my seat to women if they are standing.... would that not be an extreme insult in your world?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. a wall of text from viking and tigress and all you are really saying is that it is a bad idea because...
lazs
I suggest reading that wall... not ignoring it.
I can tell by what you wrote that you did not read my last post.
I think you might be surprised.
Please read it... then reply again, Ok?
Otherwise the discussion turns into one person blocking and talking over the other one in an effort to dominate.
Otherwise, if that is how its going to be, there is no point in my continuing... :)
TIGERESS
-
I did read it and you are really saying that men and women are different.
You seem to want to ignore that fact when it suits you and claim equality. there is no equality.
You also claim that women understand men. that is either untrue or.. women are really really stupid. women have no clue as to what drives and makes a man. women marry men on death row... women have wanted me when I was at my worst..
women would not try to change men if they really did understand them.. look at the way men interact with other men... they DO understand.. women have no clue. even if they get a glimmer.. they ignore it and go with what they want men to be instead of what they really are. Women get it wrong every time.
oh.. and I was trying to reply to 3 different people.. it may have caused some confusion but...
I think it odd that us not being able to communicate seems to prove my point more than yours.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I did read it and you are really saying that men and women are different.
You seem to want to ignore that fact when it suits you and claim equality. there is no equality.
You also claim that women understand men. that is either untrue or.. women are really really stupid. women have no clue as to what drives and makes a man. women marry men on death row... women have wanted me when I was at my worst..
women would not try to change men if they really did understand them.. look at the way men interact with other men... they DO understand.. women have no clue. even if they get a glimmer.. they ignore it and go with what they want men to be instead of what they really are. Women get it wrong every time.
oh.. and I was trying to reply to 3 different people.. it may have caused some confusion but...
I think it odd that us not being able to communicate seems to prove my point more than yours.
lazs
I put in a link for the word empirical... meaning... we know men by observation. I am following your posts and reading them carefully :)
Tossing in "women marry death row inmates" is like me tossing in "men rape babies".
I don't marry death row inmates and I trust you dont rape babies.
I am like most other women and I trust you are like most other men.
Yes some women marry death row inmates and some men rape babies.
Do you understand the gaussian curve, meaning the bell curve?
I am not trying to change the you of you... that is not possible. I learned that years ago as I told you before, dear.
I am simply communicating.
TIGERESS
-
well... you observe a man killing and butchering entire groups and then marry him on death row...
you see a man is scum and you ignore it and assign womens traits to him saying that "deep down" he is a woman like you... he is not. he is the guy the men know him to be... not the man women want him to be.
mothers tend to overlook the fact that their son is a sociopath... a real sociopath not the kind you defined in another thread.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Otherwise the discussion turns into one person blocking and talking over the other one in an effort to dominate.
There is no need for effort. Men dominate. Always have, always will.....despite the hormonal breakdowns of women.
Otherwise, if that is how its going to be, there is no point in my continuing.
:D Yathink.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
There is no need for effort. Men dominate. Always have, always will.....despite the hormonal breakdowns of women.
:D Yathink.
Danged if you didn't hit the nail square on da hed!!!!!!!!!!!!
luv it!!!!!!!!!
And you and Lazs is a perfect examples! :p
ya think??? teehee
And you've seen my hormonal breakdown in action. lol
(I do not believe Lazs actually reads my posts... he interprets them into some kind of female wah wah wah. Like the Peanuts cartoons on TV tuning out adults hahahahaha)
We understand men well enough to live with them and love them... regardless of what he thinks in that adorable male-Lazs mind of his! hahahahaha
Jackal, you are a guy, what's your opinion? Think Lazs thinks I am trying to change him? :rofl
He is so utterly classically male, as are you, I can hardly contain my mirth!!! and can't help but like you both. ;)
He is not about to let me lead him around by the nose as I have been trying to do.
I try; he refuses; its classic.
TIGERESS
-
Lazs dear? Jackal dear?
With all kidding aside...
Why do you two feel women need to be obedient to their men and stay away from war?
That is to say, stay home and let you men protect us rather than us going off driving fighters and bombers and tanks into harm's way side by side with our men?
You both know we can actually do it... it is a fact of history.
I don't understand men the way you understand yourselves... I can't... not possible ...please explain.
Seriously... I mean the real reason... the male reason... deep down... in the gut. ...not that typical cop out stuff about men are men and women are women stuff. The REAL REASON.
I can only make educated guesses at it based on research...
Is it because you don't want the enemy (other men) to kill or get possession of us? your women?
...that you would rather ensure your possession of your women by keeping us away from the enemy (other men)?
...and instead deprive those men of their women by either killing their women or copulating with them?
...perhaps taking their women home with you?
...and have more two or more women at your beck and call?
...for your personal usage?
...to increase your offspring count?
...thinking as a male tribe dominating another another male tribe?
...whoever gets all the women effectively kills the blood lines of the other male tribe?
What greater male-on-male ownage can there be????
...by letting the surviving enemy (the other men) live in the knowledge you deprive them of
their women and instead possess their women?
I have absolutely seen this sort of thing all over the history books and depicted in movies and documenteries.
Any truth to that stuff???
You two are men, you should know. No fair copping out... the truth!
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
...snip
I loves Google :)
Personally I dislike google because it makes it too easy for too many people to fake knowledge. But maybe thats just me...scarred as I am by too many forum discussions with retarded people.
But to answer your questions.
There is a world of difference between an active IR optic on a Panther tank, and some sort of passive thermal sight that you seem to be asking about.
Basically the Panther tank had an IR searchlight that illuminated stuff at night via invisible IR-light that could only be seen through the IR optics.
I suppose it is theoretically possible to incorporate something like that in an aircraft. It would require said IR searchlight though, which rapidly makes this a losing proposition. Especially when one considers that this type of IR device cannot see through clouds or bad weather in any form.
I think you have some sort of mental image of a thermal sight of sorts, where any warm surface is sort of glowing in the dark when viewed through the optics. That sort of invention would come later, not during ww2 though.
I don't have any interest in esoteric stuff such as German WWII IR technology. boring....
Hrm. Not to all of us.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Personally I dislike google because it makes it too easy for too many people to fake knowledge. But maybe thats just me...scarred as I am by too many forum discussions with retarded people.
But to answer your questions.
There is a world of difference between an active IR optic on a Panther tank, and some sort of passive thermal sight that you seem to be asking about.
Basically the Panther tank had an IR searchlight that illuminated stuff at night via invisible IR-light that could only be seen through the IR optics.
I suppose it is theoretically possible to incorporate something like that in an aircraft. It would require said IR searchlight though, which rapidly makes this a losing proposition. Especially when one considers that this type of IR device cannot see through clouds or bad weather in any form.
I think you have some sort of mental image of a thermal sight of sorts, where any warm surface is sort of glowing in the dark when viewed through the optics. That sort of invention would come later, not during ww2 though.
Hrm. Not to all of us.
Hi Hortlund,
Thanks for the reply... I think its conclusive, the bit about German Thermal detection of bombers in flight by night fighters was a reach by the author of that piece. Good Catch!
I tend to agree with you about tards.
Tard-ness of tards quickly reveals itself for what it is... one way or the other. Not even Google can help a tard not be a tard.
I mentioned Google so that you would know... where my information was coming from... and not to pretend I owned that knowledge.
I work in a NO BS Zone :)
TIGERESS
-
tigress.. I am not all that fond of the way you put words into my mouth and... don't answer questions.
Do you think that a man should be able to beat up a woman who insults him just as he would another man? If a woman hits or slaps me should I be able to beat her up?
All this equality stuff and civilized stuff and "we are not cavemen anymore" stuff is fine... fine until the crap hits the fan.
When there is a disaster.. a riot.. a famine.. whatever... even here with something as mild as a hurricane or a riot over a verdict..
Well.. then thousands of years of instinct take over.. and the civilized veneer leaves.. women revert to their role and men to theirs.
It is the civilized veneer that is false not the instinct.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. I am not all that fond of the way you put words into my mouth and... don't answer questions.
Do you think that a man should be able to beat up a woman who insults him just as he would another man? If a woman hits or slaps me should I be able to beat her up?
All this equality stuff and civilized stuff and "we are not cavemen anymore" stuff is fine... fine until the crap hits the fan.
When there is a disaster.. a riot.. a famine.. whatever... even here with something as mild as a hurricane or a riot over a verdict..
Well.. then thousands of years of instinct take over.. and the civilized veneer leaves.. women revert to their role and men to theirs.
It is the civilized veneer that is false not the instinct.
lazs
tigress.. I am not all that fond of the way you put words into my mouth and... don't answer questions.
Goodness Lazs! Sorry! Didn't realize I was doing that. Not right.
Where did I put words into your mouth?
If I'm doing that I need to take a look at that cause I don't mean to.
On these particular questions, I thought they were rhetorical...
Do you think that a man should be able to beat up a woman who insults him just as he would another man?
I don't think its ok to beat up a woman or a man for an insult.
But especially not a woman. I can not defend myself with my hands and feet from a man.
If a woman hits or slaps me should I be able to beat her up?
I think a woman who hits a man is risking getting beaten up.
I would never do it.
I don't think you should beat her up but defending yourself from blows is reasonable. I don't think it is ok for a woman to slap or hit anyone unless she is physically defending herself or someone else from physical attack.
I would be tempted to hit someone beating you up if I though you needed the help.
Thinking about it... I don't recall slapping or hitting anyone since I was a teenager... that was a defense to a physical assault on my body situation.
All this equality stuff and civilized stuff and "we are not cavemen anymore" stuff is fine... fine until the crap hits the fan.
When there is a disaster.. a riot.. a famine.. whatever... even here with something as mild as a hurricane or a riot over a verdict..
Well.. then thousands of years of instinct take over.. and the civilized veneer leaves.. women revert to their role and men to theirs.
It is the civilized veneer that is false not the instinct.
I agree with your statements as far as they go.
My living reality is something you can't possibly know first hand...
but I am very sure you know of it second hand to a degree having been married to a woman. And, you say you know yourself and what you and other men are capable of.
All of us women live on a thin edge between a civilized veneer and aggressive male instincts.
We are targets... always have been... always will be.
Even to the point of needing to close the blinds after dark to keep men from focusing on the house or me. I live very close with the threat of male instincts day and night... virtually all women do. I keep my doors locked, always and have a several weapons.
I believe most civilized men would not act on their instincts under "normal"conditions... but any man is capable of it under the right conditions and I can't tell by looking at a man if he is civilized.
I have reason to trust other women... most all of us do... and tend to look out for each other even if we don't know each other.
I do not look at men who are in cars beside my car... doing so invites a real problem.
Don't believe for one single second that we don't have a working understanding of what men are capable of. This information is passed down from mother to daughter... sister to sister ... friend to friend.
It always has been.
We live side by side with the Beast and manipulate the Beast to both love one of them and to protect ourselves from him and the rest of them.
We start working on the beast while they are very young. When an old beast tells a young beast to be nice to girls and women... likely it is old tapes from old beast's mother when he was young.
If you don't think we have working knowlege of what men are capable of... you are dreaming.
Far as I am concerned we civilized you men to what ever level you may be, otherwise this would still be a caveman-esque knock us in the head and drag us off by our hair reality. I have had men try that approach sort of after they have been drinking, it's not fun.
For you... what are the real no BS "only a man knows" reasons you don't want women in combat? And the "we can't emotionally/physically do it" I consider BS.
TIGERESS
-
As an add-on to the previous post: Verifiable and consistant honesty in a man is the something very important I look for. If I can't trust him, I walk away. It's about survival and possible romance.
TIGERESS
-
"Why do you two feel women need to be obedient to their men and stay away from war?"
I did not say that at all.. you put those words into my mouth.
Again.. you are proving my point.. I would agree that both men and women have a working knowlege of each other.. how could they not and survive.. but that does not by any means say we understand each other.
How can we be equal if I can beat up a man who insults me in a vile way but not a woman?
How can we be equal given crime stats? that is the uncivilized elephant in the room... that is what is under the thin and delicate veneer of civilization..
even in the most civilized nations on earth.. a simple disaster or riot brings us right back to our instincts... what makes you think that combat won't? it is simply a bad idea.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
With all kidding aside...
Why do you two feel women need to be obedient to their men and stay away from war?
That is to say, stay home and let you men protect us rather than us going off driving fighters and bombers and tanks into harm's way side by side with our men?
Dang it woman, put down them hotsy totsy, high falutin` magazines that`s filling your head with all them silly notions...................... ...........and go cook me some taters. :)
Seriously... I mean the real reason... the male reason... deep down... in the gut. ...not that typical cop out stuff about men are men and women are women stuff. The REAL REASON.
Seriously I think we have seen more than enough to see what happens when women are put in combat situations. For example, we have seen what happens to women when they are captured. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.
It can also get real complicated , real fast, in tight situations of war.
When the poo hits the fan, then the males involved alongside of the women feel that they not only have their backs to watch, but also the women. Complicating and dangerous. It takes attention away from the situation at hand at the worst of times. That`s just the way it is.
Men feel a need to protect women in dire situations. That`s our job so to speak.
We also saw enough from Nam to see what can happen if women are used to fight against you. One blink, one hesitation and it`s too late. Most men of the western world are appalled at the thought of having to kill a woman. So...................you are at a disadvantage in the survival field.
Is it because you don't want the enemy (other men) to kill or get possession of us? your women?
I don`t view women as possessions in any shape, form or fashion.
...perhaps taking their women home with you?
...and have more two or more women at your beck and call?
If Skuzz will excuse me........................... .OH HELL NO! :rofl
thinking as a male tribe dominating another another male tribe?
Well, when you get down to it, that pretty much sums up war.
-
the first picture..
Looks like shes smuggling midgets ; )
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Why do you two feel women need to be obedient to their men and stay away from war?"
I did not say that at all.. you put those words into my mouth.
Again.. you are proving my point.. I would agree that both men and women have a working knowlege of each other.. how could they not and survive.. but that does not by any means say we understand each other.
How can we be equal if I can beat up a man who insults me in a vile way but not a woman?
How can we be equal given crime stats? that is the uncivilized elephant in the room... that is what is under the thin and delicate veneer of civilization..
even in the most civilized nations on earth.. a simple disaster or riot brings us right back to our instincts... what makes you think that combat won't? it is simply a bad idea.
lazs
Hi lazs,
I actually did not feel I was putting words in you mouth.
I inferred your position, from your copious postings, in which you discuss the instinctive relationship between women and men, and additionally your position on women in combat.
In any case, putting words into the mouth of others is not something I do intentionally.
If you look at your post, I could have accused you of putting words in my mouth and not answering my questions.
Whatever made you think that I believe combat won't bring back male instincts? Goodness gracious. Please find the quotes that support your contention.
Virtually every military woman in-country in Iraq has either been sexually assulted, or the attempt has been made, by male members of the US military. I have back up references if you choose to dispute this.
My everyday life is like a war zone, in effect, with regards to potential attack from uncivilized males. It's the same for all females, regardless of their age.
Lazs wrote: "How can we be equal if I can beat up a man who insults me in a vile way but not a woman?"
It's not that you can't... it's that you should not and would be jailed for doing so and sued in civil court for every dollar possible. It's against the law to beat up anyone except, in legally justifiable defense.
But we all know all this... nothing new here.
Please find other superiorities to discuss.
Jackal actually answered my questions... you, so far, have not.
Thus I await you answers.
Best Regards,
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
the first picture..
Looks like shes smuggling midgets ; )
hahaha... yeah Alandrea is not a pin up model... she is 93 years old.
ohhhh!!!! The "First" photo! Uhh... those are mammary glands.
We all have them. How male of you to compliment her on them!
I like compliments on mine as well, if done respectfully.
And no! you can't have a look at them! :)
hahahahaha God bless you men!
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Dang it woman, put down them hotsy totsy, high falutin` magazines that`s filling your head with all them silly notions...................... ...........and go cook me some taters. :)
Seriously I think we have seen more than enough to see what happens when women are put in combat situations. For example, we have seen what happens to women when they are captured. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.
It can also get real complicated , real fast, in tight situations of war.
When the poo hits the fan, then the males involved alongside of the women feel that they not only have their backs to watch, but also the women. Complicating and dangerous. It takes attention away from the situation at hand at the worst of times. That`s just the way it is.
Men feel a need to protect women in dire situations. That`s our job so to speak.
We also saw enough from Nam to see what can happen if women are used to fight against you. One blink, one hesitation and it`s too late. Most men of the western world are appalled at the thought of having to kill a woman. So...................you are at a disadvantage in the survival field.
I don`t view women as possessions in any shape, form or fashion.
If Skuzz will excuse me........................... .OH HELL NO! :rofl
Well, when you get down to it, that pretty much sums up war.
Hiya Jackal!
I fix a mean!!!! mess o'taters!!!
Love to watch a hungry man enjoying my cooking!
I thought you would be honest! Cool...
Women in combat roles are forced to earn their spurz, thus respect... so do the men.
The German males these Russian women fought seemed to have no ethical problems when it came to raping, torturing, and killing female combatants they managed to capture.
The women knew what would happen and fought anyway, relentlessly and methodically, and with deadly determination, killing as many of those males as they could as often as humanly possible with no mercy shown; and no mercy expected.
These Russian women killed more men than were killed themselves.
The stories are there to read... still, came the Night Witches and female Russian Fighter Pilots... to send them all to hell.
I can promise you before God, had I been there with them I would have climbed into my cockpit and bombed those b@stards to bits, as often and as long as I could. I am naturally a very non-violent person but in the situation they faced, I have it within me to do it... I am human.
FWTW, I joined WWII in Color forum in order to discuss the Night Witches, The Rose of Stalingrad, the La-5/7, Russian women in combat, and the little Po-2 bomber... with active duty Russian Military men.
And, HiTech, and Pyro, and Skuzzy, to also promote flying in Aces High and this forum with these men from around the world.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=110482#post110482
Hugs,
TIGERESS
-
tigress.. so you are saying that I would be punished more for beating up a woman who said vile filthy things to me than if it were a man.
I agree... I would most certainly be punished more... in fact.. I would probly not be punished at all if I did so to a man and.... people around would probly cheer.
If however.. I did this to a woman... I would indeed be sued to death after my jail term if... if I survived the beating that the men watching would deal out.
I don't think that you or I would have it any other way but... you can't have it both ways... you can't be equal and not equal so far as combat goes.
If you were a man...you would understand that combat is two people fighting as much as it is a war.
This is fundamental.. it is a difference that can not be denied.. we are not at all equal.. this same mentality carries through to the military... it is a bad idea to put people in this situation.
Women are raped in the service and men are confused and the whole thing is simply a bad idea.
I think that there a plenty of jobs women can do but there are plenty that they should not do.
I do not want to pay my taxes for substandard soldiers or police or firemen for instance... women 99.9% of them are substandard in those fields and the only way that you can make them fit is to lower the standards.
lowering the standards may fit a PC touchy feely ideal but it is a rip off for the citizen.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. so you are saying that I would be punished more for beating up a woman who said vile filthy things to me than if it were a man.
I agree... I would most certainly be punished more... in fact.. I would probly not be punished at all if I did so to a man and.... people around would probly cheer.
If however.. I did this to a woman... I would indeed be sued to death after my jail term if... if I survived the beating that the men watching would deal out.
I don't think that you or I would have it any other way but... you can't have it both ways... you can't be equal and not equal so far as combat goes.
If you were a man...you would understand that combat is two people fighting as much as it is a war.
This is fundamental.. it is a difference that can not be denied.. we are not at all equal.. this same mentality carries through to the military... it is a bad idea to put people in this situation.
Women are raped in the service and men are confused and the whole thing is simply a bad idea.
I think that there a plenty of jobs women can do but there are plenty that they should not do.
I do not want to pay my taxes for substandard soldiers or police or firemen for instance... women 99.9% of them are substandard in those fields and the only way that you can make them fit is to lower the standards.
lowering the standards may fit a PC touchy feely ideal but it is a rip off for the citizen.
lazs
Hi Lazs,
I read sincerity in your post and understand what you are saying and why.
I do so hope you realize, I have don't have a personal quarrel with another because they have differing opinions and believe you feel the same.
Opinions are opinions.
Yours are yours; I have mine; others have theirs.
I thank you for doing a service to women everywhere by being the protagonist for the views you put forth in our friendly discussions which, no doubt, shed light to many on an important topic.
I am seriously heartened by the delightful number of men here expressing their respect and support for women... and women in combat... and in once case, for their military boobs. :rofl BigBMAW, perhaps some day you can have the honor of pinning a metal on a chest such as hers!
We can agree to disagree and we have previously found common ground on other related issues. I have your quotes. I never expected any more than that.
I like you and respect you and look forward to future debates on a variety of subjects. You speak your mind and I can not help but respect that.
Being a Moderate, I have views which are divided between Pro-Republican and Pro-Democrat... balance is the key, in my opinion... not too far to the right; not too far to the left.
It's time to throw out the Rupublicans to punish them for 8 years for the total disgrace Geo. W. Bush and his Republican Congress created. What a bunch of facist hacks they turned out to be. hahahaha What a big disappointment.
November '08 is on its way and I am registered to vote!
mmmmm... :) socialized medicine... that will teach them to go overboard with that ultra conservative crap! :rofl and lets see... oh yes, the hate crimes bill lets get that signed cause Bush and Co has ensured enough backlash to create the Thought Police, uhhh... and the coming vacant seats on the Supreme Court, to the left they go. ;) Oh, and make amends to everyone one we crapped on internationally who were once our friends.
I will leave your "mano y mano" threads alone... mostly. :rofl hahahaha
I have no interest in verbal fistfights and forum brawling!!!
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Oh, and make amends to everyone one we crapped on internationally who were once our friends.
Curious. Such as?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Curious. Such as?
The people of Great Britian for starters...
A backlash was Tony Blair was thrown out for caving in to Bush, wasn't he?
Blair Gone (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/11/blair_parting_robs_president_of_an_ally/)
And Russia...
America Alone (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6977)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The people of Great Britian for starters...
TIGERESS
How, in your opinion, did we "crap" on Great Britian?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
How, in your opinion, did we "crap" on Great Britian?
Isn't the art of politics really the art of neogotation and compromise?
I have seldom seen such strong armed international tactics as has been used since 911 and it's distancing the USA from her friends.
Understand, I am not a socialist by any means...
When I said I am disappointed and its time for a correction in the political balance of power in the US, it's because I expected better than this from Geo. W. Bush & Co.
I voted for him, twice... the country had gone too far to the left, imo.
TIGERESS
-
Didn`t answer my question, but what the hay.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Didn`t answer my question, but what the hay.
Thats fair...
Originally posted by Jackal1
How, in your opinion, did we "crap" on Great Britian?
Bush has been dictating to our allies... and its upsetting the status quo a great deal, imo.
The US didn't do that in WWII. The Muslim extremists are empowered by it, imo.
The art of politics is really the art of neogotation and compromise.
I have seldom seen such strong armed international tactics as has been used since 911 and it's distancing the USA from her friends.
Understand, I am not a socialist by any means...
When I said I am disappointed and its time for a correction in the political balance of power in the US, it's because I expected better than this from Geo. W. Bush & Co.
I voted for him, twice... the country had gone too far to the left, imo.
Father knows best only when Father knows best...
After the last 16 years... I am beginning to think a single 5 year presidential term might fix this problem.
...and term limits on congress.
We are not fighting a country, imo... we are fighting a Religion... Islam.
That isn't fixed with bullets... that just strengthens Islamic Extremists' power.
It's like the Hydra. Cut off one snake head and two grow back to replace it.
They want us to shoot them for just that reason.
But all this is a topic hijack... I started it and that wasn't right.
This is not the topic for this thread... my bad.
TIGERESS
-
So I guess I can`t expect an answer anyways soon, huh? :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So I guess I can`t expect an answer anyways soon, huh? :)
I started a thread on it... :) it's only right to keep on topic.
This thread is about the Night Witches thus women in combat.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
How, in your opinion, did we "crap" on Great Britian?
I think Geo. W. Bush & Co is "crapping" on our friends by forcing them down the wrong path. Please see the new thread: It's Like the Hydra
-
tigress.. so you believe that a liberal socialist country is preferable to a more conservative one.. that it is a good thing to have liberal judges disregard the constitution? that will somehow "teach them"?
Have you heard of the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
Unless you really want liberal socialism... you would not vote for democrats given who is running. "moderate" is not liberal socialist.
the logic of your thinking can only lead me to conclude that I would be better off with you not voting.
lazs
-
Tigress, didn't you make the claim in one of your threads that women make the best fight pilots due to their ability to multi-task better than men and some other factors?
I've been wondering if you have any proof to support that opinion.
For example, has there been an overwhelming percentage of women pilots getting the Distinguished Graduate award at Top Gun or Red Flag when compared to the number of males vs females in those classes?
Are their any women since WW2 that have air-to-air kills or that have made Ace status?
I've just been curious about that statement since you made it.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tigress, didn't you make the claim in one of your threads that women make the best fight pilots due to their ability to multi-task better than men and some other factors?
I've been wondering if you have any proof to support that opinion.
For example, has there been an overwhelming percentage of women pilots getting the Distinguished Graduate award at Top Gun or Red Flag when compared to the number of males vs females in those classes?
Are their any women since WW2 that have air-to-air kills or that have made Ace status?
I've just been curious about that statement since you made it.
Thanks.
I know I see women "multi-tasking" while operating motor vehicles quite often. Quantity does NOT equal quality in this case.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tigress, didn't you make the claim in one of your threads that women make the best fight pilots due to their ability to multi-task better than men and some other factors?
I've been wondering if you have any proof to support that opinion.
For example, has there been an overwhelming percentage of women pilots getting the Distinguished Graduate award at Top Gun or Red Flag when compared to the number of males vs females in those classes?
Are their any women since WW2 that have air-to-air kills or that have made Ace status?
I've just been curious about that statement since you made it.
Thanks.
Oh yes Toad... there are plenty of references to back that up.
Apparently we have a link between the left and right side of the brain that allows multi-tasking and that link is missing in male brains.
I will research it and provide references.
and FWTW, women have been repeatedly measured by a number of groups to have the ability to handle G-forces better than men, of all things.
That was a surprise to me. The multi-tasking thing I have known about for years. Its really quite funny. Ask a man a question who is actively concentrating on doing something and he either has to ignore you or quite what he is doing to answer the question.
Then try it on women. hahahaha
It's really profound, in my view.
There are men who have that link and women who don't but they are not the norm.
I will get back to you on this multi-tasking thing.
TIGERESS
EDIT: Added these links and information:
Multi-tasking reference (http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20030321-workfamily.html)
other male/female brain differences (http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Gender_First_Grade/)
Men and Women Have Different Brains: Brain Sex (http://www.coopyrite.net/2007/01/28/brain-sex-men-and-women-have-different-brains/)
SEX ON THE BRAIN; WHY WOMEN, MEN REALLY ARE OF TWO MINDS (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012006/entertainment/health/sex_on_the_brain_health_sara_stewart.htm?page=0)
An Excerpt from the last link:
"MULTI-TASKING
Men are better than women at focusing on one task and completing it. Women's brains excel at multi-tasking, which like many of their traits has origins in childbearing: "You're not just going to sit and stare at your baby. You have to process a demand from your child and move on to different tasks." In the brain, this means more connections across the corpus callosum, which divides the brain into two halves."
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Apparently we have a link between the left and right side of the brain that allows multi-tasking and that link is missing in male brains.
Tigeress, I don't know if you're refering to the corpus callosum but being ambidextrous I studied this a bit a while back. I found it is believed people who are ambidextrous often have a thicker corpus callosum which provides faster and/or more communication between the left and right brain hemispheres. I can assure you that there aren't many who are less able to multitask than I. Once I am focused on something I can and do ignore almost everything else. I don't think this explains a woman's better ability to multitask which I won't deny.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Tigeress, I don't know if you're refering to the corpus callosum but being ambidextrous I studied this a bit a while back. I found it is believed people who are ambidextrous often have a thicker corpus callosum which provides faster and/or more communication between the left and right brain hemispheres. I can assure you that there aren't many who are less able to multitask than I. Once I am focused on something I can and do ignore almost everything else. I don't think this explains a woman's better ability to multitask which I won't deny.
I believe you can multi-task!
There some men who have the brain wiring to do what most women can do; multi-task... and some women who don't have that wiring and can't.
See the link on my previous post about connections across the corpus callosum.
TIGERESS
-
Hi Toad,
I have found no evidence that women have been allowed to fly in real air to air combat until rather recently thus no evidence that women have shot down another fighter yet, since WWII.
It will no doubt happen though as more women are flying fighters for our country and for other countries.
There is, however, records of a female commanding a B-2 Bomber making bombing runs in Iraq.
There may or may not be air to ground attacks that have been carried out and there are female A-10 Warthog drivers. Their pictures are on this thread.
TIGERESS
-
Well, do you have any evidence that women take a disproportionate share of the top honors (Distinguished Graduate) at Top Gun or Red Flag?
Or any other nation's fighter combat school? Are women taking a disproportionate share of the top honors in the RAF or the IAF?
I see your studies on various aspects that may influence success in air combat.
What I'd like to see is some evidence that actually backs up the statement about being better fighter pilots. Who are they? How many of them are there? How did they prove they were the best?
-
Tigeress, I think we may have different ideas about what multi-tasking is. I freely admit that I am very poor at it. That may not mean the same to you as it does to me. I've flown cessnas and pipers and have about 40 hours of time in the left seat. I have no problem with this. I consider flying and navigating a plane to be a single task.
The only fighter a/c I've flown are computer sims but I consider those to be single tasks also and have no trouble with them. The problem comes when there is another task outside of what I've defined a task for my focus. If for example I'm caught up in a computer sim and someone wants to have a rl chat at the same time. This becomes an additional task and I cannot divide my attention adequately between the two.
Multi-tasking for men and women may be two separate concepts.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Tigeress, I think we may have different ideas about what multi-tasking is. I freely admit that I am very poor at it. That may not mean the same to you as it does to me. I've flown cessnas and pipers and have about 40 hours of time in the left seat. I have no problem with this. I consider flying and navigating a plane to be a single task.
The only fighter a/c I've flown are computer sims but I consider those to be single tasks also and have no trouble with them. The problem comes when there is another task outside of what I've defined a task for my focus. If for example I'm caught up in a computer sim and someone wants to have a rl chat at the same time. This becomes an additional task and I cannot divide my attention adequately between the two.
Multi-tasking for men and women may be two separate concepts.
mmmm.... yes. I think it has to do with brain hemisphere switching for men.
Without the link between the left and right brain halves, men have to switch back and forth between the the two and some can do it quickly... pausing one task momentarily, doing the other momentarily, switching back and forth.
For us, it's streaming two or more threads simultaniously instead of switching focus back and forth between left and right sides. Bringing two or more tasks together as a larger task... hard to put into words.
I very much try to stay away from "better than" thinking. I see that as something men do for reasons of self-worth and such.
I am team oriented, coperatively oriented, in effect "team results oriented." It's natural.
Additionally, living in a world dominated by males has its affect on you. Like Lilya, the Russian ace fighter pilot and the Night Witches, I work more for the common good and apply my talents and strength towards that end.
Regardless of how well I do something I will never be seen as an equal by men, generally speaking. I tried that early on in my life... and just got beat down... as Lilya did on her last sorte. She died... I live.
So with that framing, I say... we are equally human and have found that to be quite unargueable.
What I said to Lazs was "women can be just as good as, or better", when it comes to flying, and flying in combat.
This will be proven out as history proceeds down the timeline... we are flying in combat roles now... even though our numbers are comapritively small relative to men presently.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
and FWTW, women have been repeatedly measured by a number of groups to have the ability to handle G-forces better than men, of all things.
G what?
:D
-
Well, excuse me for pressing the issue but what you said in the Women's Suffrage thread was this (if you are looking for the post, 10-06-2007 08:09 AM):
Originally posted by Tigeress
Yup... and to that I can add... females make better combat pilots, all other things being equal.
Our brains are wired to be truly multi-tasking... and the lack of being ego bound allows for clearer thinking in certian situations.
We are team oriented much more so than the male lone-wolf.
TIGERESS
True, you didn't say fighter pilots, you said combat pilots. That's a slightly broader category but one that encompasses fighter pilots.
So, do you have any data that would support this? Again, something like stats from the various combat flight schools that show that women earn a disproportionate share of the Distinguished Graduate awards? This would cover the fighter schools, fighter/bomber schools, bomber schools and even tanker crew training.
Anything to support that statement that "females make better combat pilots"? Something based in real world experience?
-
tigress...sooo... multitasking is the only thing that makes for a good fighter pilot?
You realize that women see differently than men too? that while they have better color recognition.. they can't track fast moving objects as well.
I would think that is why they...despite you saying they are the best... never really finish in the top ranks.
multitasking is probly not as important as being able to see what is going on.
I don't know what you think is holding em back... Are men cheating in flight school? Why wouldn't we want women flying to boost our dismal kill ratio? Why wouldn't the enemy want em to slaughter our single minded clumsy male pilots?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How can we be equal if I can beat up a man who insults me in a vile way but not a woman?
Originally posted by lazs2
All this equality stuff and civilized stuff and "we are not cavemen anymore" stuff is fine... fine until the crap hits the fan.
When there is a disaster.. a riot.. a famine.. whatever... even here with something as mild as a hurricane or a riot over a verdict..
Well.. then thousands of years of instinct take over.. and the civilized veneer leaves.. women revert to their role and men to theirs.
It is the civilized veneer that is false not the instinct.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
for you equal people... should I be able to punch out a woman who is mouthy? One that hits or slaps me?
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you think that a man should be able to beat up a woman who insults him just as he would another man? If a woman hits or slaps me should I be able to beat her up?
First of all “equality” does not mean “equal” in this context. Equality means equal rights and opportunities. In my part of the world it is not socially acceptable for you to punch out or beat up anyone, male or female, for any reason except self defence. In fact a simple slap across the face is punishable by up to 6 months in jail. This also includes other forms of “bodily insult” (Norwegian legal definition) such as scratching, hair tugging etc. Mind you, if there is real damage done (not just infliction of pain or humiliation) the punishment is 3 to 5 years in jail. Break my nose and I’ll see you in 3 to 5.
If someone hits me I won’t hit back unless the assault continues and I have to defend myself. If such a situation arises I will apply violence as necessary without delay or remorse to a point where I consider myself no longer at risk of harm. However I will apply violence not out of revenge or because I’m angry, but because it is necessary.
Originally posted by lazs2
I have been hit by women but have never hit one back... how bout you guys?
I have never been hit by a woman, nor have I ever hit one. Unlike alpha-male a-holes, I’m a gentleman and have never given a woman reason to hit me. With the exception of training in the army, and an arranged “fight” I had in high school, I have never hit, or been hit by a man either.
Originally posted by lazs2
All this equality stuff and civilized stuff and "we are not cavemen anymore" stuff is fine... fine until the crap hits the fan.
When there is a disaster.. a riot.. a famine.. whatever... even here with something as mild as a hurricane or a riot over a verdict..
Well.. then thousands of years of instinct take over.. and the civilized veneer leaves.. women revert to their role and men to theirs.
It is the civilized veneer that is false not the instinct.
It is exactly when “the crap hits the fan” that it is most important to be civilised. We all do as we’re thought and your background as a biker criminal does not make you a fine example of the American male. I suspect a different set of rules guided your life back then. And just because you people start shooting at each other and behave like barbarians when a natural disaster strikes doesn’t mean everyone does. Other countries do get hit by natural disasters too, and we tend to try to help each other during such events. We are civilised.
Originally posted by Tigeress
Why are males driven to dominate? …To the point of controlling every Country?
Originally posted by Tigeress
We have an intellect capacity that puts us on par with males but not the gender instinct to dominate them, gender to gender, in the main.
Originally posted by Tigeress
Males are wired, by testosterone, to dominate... to the point of controlling every country.
That includes an instinct to dominate us... the females of the species.
Upbringing is not instinct. The German Hitler youth were not driven by any male instinct to dominate the world. Nor were they driven by any male instinct to think they were superior to other races. They were thought this by their adult instructors.
Throughout history boys have been thought they were superior to girls. Girls have been thought to be submissive to boys. Even in public education “a good wife knows her place.”
Even the well known notion that men think about sex more often than women is just a myth. Recent studies show that the genders are about equal in the time they spend on thinking about sex.
http://www.newsdesk.se/pressroom/lastminute/pressrelease/view/106451
There is one marked difference though: Single men think more often about sex than men in relationships. However, single women think less about sex compared to women in relationships.
While primordial indicts to some extent influence our behaviours, in an enlightened society (like most of those you find in the “western world”) these instincts play a very little role in forming our personalities compared to upbringing.
Originally posted by Tigeress
There have been women in history that ruled a country either by royal blood lines or popular election but it is the exception and not without male power majority in the background.
In Europe’s rather long and bloody history there have been numerous female leaders who were some of the bloodiest warmongers and butchers in history.
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/womeninpower/European-Queens.htm
Most people don’t realise just how many women have ruled nations in known history (literally thousands), and how many female warrior leaders there have been. Most people don’t even know there are words like “Chiefess” or “Matriarch”.
Just because our Christianity dominated societies have suppressed women rights and roles for the last thousand years or so doesn’t mean it has always been so. Instead of burning your bras you should have burned your Bibles.
Originally posted by Tigeress
All of us women live on a thin edge between a civilized veneer and aggressive male instincts.
We are targets... always have been... always will be.
Even to the point of needing to close the blinds after dark to keep men from focusing on the house or me. I live very close with the threat of male instincts day and night... virtually all women do. I keep my doors locked, always and have a several weapons.
I respectfully suggest you move to a more civilised part of the world where you can walk down the street at night without fear of attack, and even sleep in an unlocked home without any weapons. It’s not your men that are wrong; it’s the society you live in. We all do what we are thought.
Originally posted by Tigeress
mmmm.... yes. I think it has to do with brain hemisphere switching for men.
Without the link between the left and right brain halves, men have to switch back and forth between the the two and some can do it quickly... pausing one task momentarily, doing the other momentarily, switching back and forth.
For us, it's streaming two or more threads simultaniously instead of switching focus back and forth between left and right sides. Bringing two or more tasks together as a larger task... hard to put into words.
There are differences between the male and female brain. The one you describe is the better connectivity between the brain-halves of the female brain. This allows for better understanding of the whole spectrum of sensory input: sight, hearing, touch etc. This better understanding is often referred to as the “female intuition”.
Another difference is that females are better at distinguishing colours and sounds, and reading emotions in others. Combined with the “female intuition” this makes women generally better at interior decorating, fashion and therapy/psychological counselling. While a female have little trouble picking out a voice/conversation in a room full of talking people, a male does. Also the fact that a man has problems understanding his wife over the noise of the vacuum-cleaner while she hears him perfectly has led to domestic conflicts too numerous to count. ;)
This is not a one-way street however … the man gets his benefits as well. Males are generally better at spatial awareness (position and motion in 3d space), logic and motor skills (as in doing stuff with your hands). This makes us superior map-readers, mathematicians, drivers, pilots, and anything that requires fast and accurate fingers.
A study and video-diary was done on a young British female who wanted a sex-change operation. She was given hormone treatments to basically change her into a male. During this procedure she was tested in her abilities to: accurately recognise feelings from facial expressions, do arithmetic, and perform motor skills. As her transformation took place she/he got progressively worse at reading emotions in others while improving her/his logic and motor skills. It was a fascinating series to watch, seeing a young voluptuous woman turn into a hairy broad-shouldered man with a deep voice.
Mind you, all these gender differences are minor; less than ten percentage points in most cases. The only real difference that has any real impact on our abilities to perform certain work is the male’s superior upper body strength which is generally considered to be twice that of the female. However, even this female weakness can be overcome through physical exercise and training. There is nothing a man can do that a woman can’t … and vice versa.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress...sooo... multitasking is the only thing that makes for a good fighter pilot?
You realize that women see differently than men too? that while they have better color recognition.. they can't track fast moving objects as well.
I would think that is why they...despite you saying they are the best... never really finish in the top ranks.
multitasking is probly not as important as being able to see what is going on.
I don't know what you think is holding em back... Are men cheating in flight school? Why wouldn't we want women flying to boost our dismal kill ratio? Why wouldn't the enemy want em to slaughter our single minded clumsy male pilots?
lazs
Whatever Lazs... think whatever you want.
I see no point in a discussion with you, dear.
TIGERESS
-
To underscore my last point I'd like to introduce to you Mrs. Sue Mansour, a Nova Scotia wife, mother and worker. However unlike many other women she is stronger than most men:
(http://www.nsabba.com/images_profiles/sue_mansour2.jpg)
While I don't find her particularly attractive physically, she is living proof that with some effort the weaker female physique is not an obstacle that cannot be overcome.
-
Originally posted by Viking
To underscore my last point I'd like to introduce to you Mrs. Sue Mansour, a Nova Scotia wife, mother and worker. However unlike many other women she is stronger than most men:
(http://www.nsabba.com/images_profiles/sue_mansour2.jpg)
While I don't find her particularly attractive physically, she is living proof that with some effort the weaker female physique is not an obstacle that cannot be overcome.
I must take exception with your assertion that she is stronger than most men. Strength is more than body fat composition. Size and skeletal structure are factors in strength. You won't see the world's strongest power lifters that cut.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Whatever Lazs... think whatever you want.
I see no point in a discussion with to you, dear.
TIGERESS
The honeymoon is over. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, do you have any evidence that women take a disproportionate share of the top honors (Distinguished Graduate) at Top Gun or Red Flag?
Or any other nation's fighter combat school? Are women taking a disproportionate share of the top honors in the RAF or the IAF?
I see your studies on various aspects that may influence success in air combat.
What I'd like to see is some evidence that actually backs up the statement about being better fighter pilots. Who are they? How many of them are there? How did they prove they were the best?
I think it's too soon yet to know the real facts based on data from sources like Top Gun or Red Flag and actual combat performance records... of which I am confident, will be accurate once enough data is gathered and sifted.
We are presently a minority in Air Combat are not present in suffencent numbers and time in service, thus inexperienced, compared to men.
Females have been suppressed and repressed by men forever.
That is true today.
Give us a chance to demonstrate our abilities over the long run.
TIGERESS
PS: Here is a quote from Capt. B. A. Wilson, USAF (Ret), MA, MBA:
"My honest opinion is that it is not necessarily a male-female thing even though society portrays it that way.
I have known some pretty weak men who wouldn't protect the back of their own mother in a crisis or combat situation and some strong women who would go to the wall for a total stranger in the trenches - and vice versa.
Many women are excellent shots with pistol,carbine and automatic weapons, many men can't hit a cow with a target painted on it. Women pilots can handle some jet fighters better than men and male pilots can handle heavy bombers slightly better - both are about even in choppers.
But when it comes to the trenches, fox holes, covert operations, guerilla warfare, etc., I think it takes a particular personality type - almost on the edge of a pathological one to even want to become a trained killer.
This can have appeal for both men and women but hopefully very few. On the other hand survival is strong within both sexes and I would count on whomever was trained, schooled, and had the skill and cunning to get me out of any hostile situation - more often than not brains not brawn make better survival material.
And history tells us that hundreds of women have experienced varied forms of "combat" more so in Europe than here. But then men didn't head west in the pioneer days alone, women were experiencing the same trials and tribulations from hostile Indians to wild weather.
To say that women should not be in combat because they can't act like men is like saying they shouldn't be in major league baseball because they can't spit, scratch and rearrange [their nuts]. If they can throw from right field to first base is what counts.
But I digress - the point is rather moot given the technological nature of future wars - little will be done hand to hand and a lot will be done in the realm of virtual reality, computer and satellite arenas, and probably robotics.
The gut slitting, bayonet stabbing, and grenade tossing will be minimal - and if each branch of service wants to maintain it's own little group of cutthroats then let it be an equal opportunity band - I seriously doubt that too many women will apply. - and of course the religious right, the aging suits in congress and the anti choicers will hue and cry so loud it will never happen.
Meantime if there is another conflict I think the one with the most electronic toys will win and we both know either sex can handle computers, VRML, Virtual Reality, multimedia, Mars sojourners (invented by a woman), satellite tracking, robotics, unmanned aircraft, tanks and ships and computerized combat simulator software."
Real women have saved lives, gone in to space, fought wars, invented, financed and designed everything from nuclear fission to radium, and from DNA to COBOL.
Real women have overcome as many, if not more, obstacles and hardships than have men.
Women pioneered, starved, reigned, battled, spied, strategized, and taught, doctored, nursed, reared families, started churches, and won political rights, yet few magazines, books, movies and television productions tell these stories.
It's not a gender thing, it's not a sex thing, it's not a strength thing - a highly trained, highly intelligent, strongly motivated person can do any job the military has to offer - and do it well.
After all, the Amazons didn't cut off their breasts any more than the Legion of Thebes cut off their testicles - and both groups won battles galore!"
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tigeress
Whatever Lazs... think whatever you want.
I see no point in a discussion with you, dear.
TIGERESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AKIron
The honeymoon is over. ;)
Got that right... right now, if he were my husband he would be cut off, sleeping on the couch, making his own meals, and be presented with stone silence.
He has been a bad boy...
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I must take exception with your assertion that she is stronger than most men. Strength is more than body fat composition. Size and skeletal structure are factors in strength. You won't see the world's strongest power lifters that cut.
Most men these days can't even lift their own bodyweight. In this year's World Youth Weightlifting Championship in Spain a girl from Armenia, Meline Daluzyan, lifted 98 kilograms, and 123 kilograms in the clean and jerk. With the combined weight of 221 kilograms, she merited the title of co-champion of Europe. First place was garnered by Russian Tays Antonava, with a total of 231 kilograms.
123 kilograms is 270 pounds. Most men today can't lift what a little Armenian teenage girl can.
-
So Tigress ... any comments on my points, or are you in agreement? :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
So Tigress ... any comments on my points, or are you in agreement? :)
I'm fixin' to get to it! :)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Viking
Most men these days can't even lift their own bodyweight. In this year's World Youth Weightlifting Championship in Spain a girl from Armenia, Meline Daluzyan, lifted 98 kilograms, and 123 kilograms in the clean and jerk. With the combined weight of 221 kilograms, she merited the title of co-champion of Europe. First place was garnered by Russian Tays Antonava, with a total of 231 kilograms.
123 kilograms is 270 pounds. Most men today can't lift what a little Armenian teenage girl can.
Oh no, I won't let you do the relational thing. That is simply a lie or at least an untruth or dishonesty. Strength isn't relational, it is absolute. You heard it here last.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh no, I won't let you do the relational thing. That is simply a lie or at least an untruth or dishonesty. Strength isn't relational, it is absolute. You heard it here last.
And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that a (trained) woman cannot achieve the same level of upper body strength as the average (untrained) man?
If not, what are you trying to say?
-
Originally posted by Viking
So Tigress ... any comments on my points, or are you in agreement? :)
Great posts Viking. And well presented. Very well presented.
Base male instincts can be muted or heighten by the social influence during the time they are raised and that they experience in life. Same with us.
There are women to which I would not turn my back nor ever trust and whom would as quickly slit your throat and eat your liver as look at you and men I would trust with my life and my honor without question.
But with that said... we have brain influences derived from hormones from the time we begin to differientate in the womb.
I bet Lazs would be insulted to know all males are in fact "modified females." Those modifications start early in the womb to convert him from his default female body and brain to that of a modified female... a man.
He, no doubt, would be in denial to hear that he produces estrogen which flows through his blood stream but he could never deny that he has undeveloped breasts (mammary glands) complete with present yet undeveloped nipples.
TIGERESS
-
Yes we are but two sides of the same coin. Some would perhaps like to think otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes we are but two sides of the same coin. Some would perhaps like to think otherwise.
Yes, as I have said before... two halves of a whole.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Viking
And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that a (trained) woman cannot achieve the same level of upper body strength as the average (untrained) man?
If not, what are you trying to say?
Some women are or can be stronger than some men. The woman you posted does not look stronger than most men, to me anyhow.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Some women are or can be stronger than some men. The woman you posted does not look stronger than most men, to me anyhow.
Ok, she does to me.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Ok, she does to me.
Well, she does look manly, bit size is difficult to determine without an external reference. I'm judging her strength based on the size of her thighs vs her upper body. Her upper body looks relatively typical for a woman to me.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I think it's too soon yet to know the real facts based on data from sources like Top Gun or Red Flag and actual combat performance records...
[/b]
So your previous statement in the Women's Sufferage thread is unsupported opinion/assumption on your part. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So your previous statement in the Women's Sufferage thread is unsupported opinion/assumption on your part. Thanks for clearing that up. [/B]
Yes Toad... women suck at flying and cant fight their way out of a paper bag in an airplane.
that you should find acceptable without proof.
TIGERESS
-
Touchy, eh?
You made a totally unsupported statement and got called on it.
Now you're mad at me?
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
What I said to Lazs was "women can be just as good as, or better", when it comes to flying, and flying in combat.
This will be proven out as history proceeds down the timeline... we are flying in combat roles now... even though our numbers are comapritively small relative to men presently.
I don't agree with this at all and I think you're missing the greatest hurdle for women aspiring to be combat pilots. It's the same hurdle that exists in some other professions. Women are generally poor at 3 dimensional thinking. That is why there are so few women mechanical and civil engineers. Only exceptional women can process in 3 dimensions. Once things are transformed to 2 dimensional representations, they are better able to visualize and transform, but intuitive, rapid 3-dimensional thinking is something not many women are wired to do.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Touchy, eh?
You made a totally unsupported statement and got called on it.
Now you're mad at me?
Totally unsupported? You want data that is not yet established in the venues you sited. RED FLAG, TOP GUN and COMBAT
Women have never been given permission to fly combat in the US until somewhat recently.
You want me to site statistics that take time and oppurtunity to collect. We haven't been given a chance to prove what the military already knows.
Think there are any women flying in the Thunder Birds? Any idea what it takes to qualify for that? You think they let just anyone fly with the Thunder Birds?
There are 49 women fighter pilots in the USAF. How many male fighter pilots are there? How long have they been fly fighters in combat?
Gee, Toad...
Al Queda and the Afgan Taliban don't have an air force to shoot down.
TIGERESS
-
You would think then, given the above long list of missing data, that you would not have made such a statement as it is clear you understand the data is not there to support it.
As I said, YOU made the unsupported statement but somehow I get to be the bad guy.
BTW, I have flown as pilot crewmember with a handful of women pilot crewmembers in the cockpits of modern commercial airliners. I do think may have a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average person. I have no problem with women pilots. So stow your misplaced outrage please.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You would think then, given the above long list of missing data, that you would not have made such a statement as it is clear you understand the data is not there to support it.
As I said, YOU made the unsupported statement but somehow I get to be the bad guy.
BTW, I have flown as pilot crewmember with a handful of women pilot crewmembers in the cockpits of modern commercial airliners. I do think may have a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average person. I have no problem with women pilots. So stow your misplaced outrage please.
I'm not outraged dear... promise. Just a little tired of getting beaten down... It isnt you.
I sited the data I have so far in other posts...
My contention that females can fly combat as well or as good as males is anecdotal from Air Force Officers.
Believe me... if there were shoot downs avaliable that I knew about, I would site those.
The F-22 Raptor is unproven in battle. Think it will get the job done?
It has no shoot downs... yet.
Take a look at this site...
Chick Fighter Pilots Website (http://www.fighterchicks.com/)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I'm not outraged dear... promise. Just a little tired of getting beaten down... It isnt you.
I sited the data I have so far in other posts... It is anecdotal from Air Force Officers. Believe me... if there were shoot downs avaliable, I would site those.
The F-22 Raptor is unproven in battle. Think it will get the job done?
I do.
Take a look at this site...
Chick Fighter Pilots Website (http://www.fighterchicks.com/)
TIGERESS
Hehe, Quick on the draw. :aok
Mark
-
You continue down the same unsupported path.
For example, let's assume that women can pull more G's than men as you've stipulated. Fine.
That does not prove that women can/do utilize this capablity to outperform their male counterparts in combat aircraft. As you point out, the data is simply not there. As Rolex points out, there are other aspects that may preclude women from successfully utilizing this advantage.
But you're quite willing to assume they will be able to do so although the data is not in.
In the case of the F-22, it is inanimate. It's a piece of hardware with a known flight/weapons envelope that HAS been tested in simulated aerial combat missions.
Red Flag/Top Gun is simulated aerial combat; do women achieve Distinguished Graduate status at a disproportionate rate compared to their male classmates? Data missing, again.
Again, if you think I'm being hard on women pilots, you are wrong. Read that linked thread that talks about the 1st T-Bird woman pilot and see what I said way back then.
It's simply that you are drawing conclusions from totally insufficient data. It's a habit that won't serve you well on this BBS. As you've seen, it's a pretty harsh environment.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You continue down the same unsupported path.
For example, let's assume that women can pull more G's than men as you've stipulated. Fine.
That does not prove that women can/do utilize this capablity to outperform their male counterparts in combat aircraft. As you point out, the data is simply not there. As Rolex points out, there are other aspects that may preclude women from successfully utilizing this advantage.
But you're quite willing to assume they will be able to do so although the data is not in.
In the case of the F-22, it is inanimate. It's a piece of hardware with a known flight/weapons envelope that HAS been tested in simulated aerial combat missions.
Red Flag/Top Gun is simulated aerial combat; do women achieve Distinguished Graduate status at a disproportionate rate compared to their male classmates? Data missing, again.
Again, if you think I'm being hard on women pilots, you are wrong. Read that linked thread that talks about the 1st T-Bird woman pilot and see what I said way back then.
It's simply that you are drawing conclusions from totally insufficient data. It's a habit that won't serve you well on this BBS. As you've seen, it's a pretty harsh environment.
I work in a pretty harsh environment. I am used to it. No problem there.
I am the only female engineer in my company and it is an engineering company.
I can site WWII combat results data on the only Air Force that allowed women to fly Fighters and Bombers in combat, TMK. The Air Force of the former USSR. There were Ace female fighter pilots.
I concede your point...
Let me rephrase it... "Women have shown to the US Air Force the potential to be as good or better than men fighting in actual arial combat... Given the opportunity, I believe we will prove this to be so."
In the case of the F-22 we are talking potential vs results... inanimate or living, the issue is the same. Potential vs Results
At least one female USAF Pilot apparently has combat flight experience that I have found so far... Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, USAF
Martha McSally is a pilot in the U.S. Air Force. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the lifting of the 1991 prohibition of women in combat. McSally is also the first woman to command an American fighter squadron, the 354th Fighter Squadron based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. McSally is an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot.
McSally graduated from St. Mary Academy - Bay View and then the United States Air Force Academy in 1988. She earned a Master's degree from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was selected for fighter pilot school in 1993, and was deployed to Kuwait in January 1995. During that deployment, she flew combat patrol over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone. In July, 2004, she took command of the A-10 equipped 354th, and was subsequently deployed to Afghanistan, where she deployed weapons in combat for the first time. In 2005 McSally and her squadron were awarded the David C. Shilling Award, given by the Air Force Association for the best aerospace contribution to national defense.
McSally was represented by the Rutherford Institute in her successful lawsuit against the Department of Defense, challenging the military policy that required servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the body-covering abaya when traveling in the country.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Mcsally_1_250.jpg)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
right now, if he were my husband he would be cut off, sleeping on the couch, making his own meals, and be presented with stone silence.
TIGERESS
After what you've posted here, I thought you might have said you'd be humbling him through your higher earning power, convincing him with overwhelming logic, or some such.
Instead, it's "no soup OR nookie for you!"
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
After what you've posted here, I thought you might have said you'd be humbling him through your higher earning power, convincing him with overwhelming logic, or some such.
Instead, it's "no soup OR nookie for you!"
Thanks for clearing that up.
HAHAHAHA love it!
I haven't played all my cards... yet teehee
TIGERESS
-
You are up a little later than usual today Tigeress. I normaly don't see you on the boards after about 20:00 central.
I like your avatar, where did you get it?
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
You are up a little later than usual today Tigeress. I normaly don't see you on the boards after about 20:00 central.
I like your avatar, where did you get it?
Mark
Yes, This is late for me. I'm usually early to bed; early to rise.
I found it on the internet while looking for an avatar for this site.
I collected a few photos of female tigers but that photo bears some resemblance to me though she is younger than I am.
I have another but she is too exposed in that one.
This is the full photo...
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/Tigress03.jpg)
TIGERESS
-
I like the full one too.
I work nights and normaly get off work at 12:15 in the morning.
When I work day shift I rise early also. Generaly about 04:00 which means getting to bed before 22:00.
Mark
-
Yes, I usually arise about 4:50am.
I can forward the other one if you PM me with your e-mail address.
It's quite tastefully done.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Yes, I usually arise about 4:50am.
I can forward the other one if you PM me with your e-mail address.
It's quite tastefully done.
TIGERESS
Thanks!
You have mail :)
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Thanks!
You have mail :)
Mark
You do too :)
TIGERESS
-
Quote: Originally posted by Rolex
I don't agree with this at all and I think you're missing the greatest hurdle for women aspiring to be combat pilots. It's the same hurdle that exists in some other professions. Women are generally poor at 3 dimensional thinking. That is why there are so few women mechanical and civil engineers. Only exceptional women can process in 3 dimensions. Once things are transformed to 2 dimensional representations, they are better able to visualize and transform, but intuitive, rapid 3-dimensional thinking is something not many women are wired to do.
Not just any Tom, Dick or Harry, Martha, Jane, or Mary qualifies to fly combat fighter jets.
Only exceptional men and women are allowed to fly combat, so I don't see a problem there, as far as exceptionality goes...
mmmm... Then you better alert the US Air Force right away about the three dimentional drawback!
They already have 49 female fighter pilots.
Two of which are USAF Thunderbirds.
I can find their phone number if you wish. Their wingmen are in great danger according to your assertion!
You should, based on your assertion, notify the US Air Force immediately that women can't think in three dimensions.
:)
TIGERESS
-
Oh booohooo "we women are really superior it is just that men keep us down.. if we had a chance we would rule the world.."
Yeah... just like communism is really the best system.. they just haven't done it right yet.
and yes... I know that we are much the same in the womb.. then there is a radical change.. the change continues.
Take sclotzie/viking boys example of steroid girl for instance... sure.. she is strong...all humans can increase their strength with drugs and hormones. male hormones...
Is she the strongest human in the world? in the top 100? can she compete with other men who are body builders? of course not.. she is just some freak of a woman.. stronger than the average person but able to compete in what she does... only with other women... just like fighters...
maybe in schlotzie/viking boy world all is civilized but.. the truth is that it is not the world.. not even his.. his country is helpless and living at the good graces of stronger nations... his civilization could be over run in a heartbeat... A new soviet union could have it's way with his country and there is nothing they could do.
riots.. shortages.. disease.. power struggles..this is the way of the world now as it has always been.. people have not changed.. the phony and thin venner that is some civilized nations has collapsed before in an instant and will again.
sure.. as schlotzie points out... there are freak women who can compete with other women if they dedicate their life to it and do the right drugs but... they can't compete against men.
There are some freak women who could beat a wussy man in the ring but.. they average man can beat the most exceptional woman..
Anywhere that women are allowed to compete on an EQUAL basis in the physical... they lose. A whole lot of men are always better.
viking boy didn't really answer my question... if a woman hits a man it is out of frustration.. that does not give him reason to hit back.. I would say to him that it is not so much that the men are aholes and causing it as.. the women often cause the problem.. he has not seen American women in action... filthy mouthed drunks with no respect for men or women are all over the place... I would not beat one up tho. Of course I could... I don't need to prove it and can take the puny blows they throw.. I don't care if it is the steroid girl he shows.. no fear from any woman. An average man beats an exceptional woman... that does not spell equal.
lazs
-
You can't be serious. That makes no sense and you know it.
Here, let me quote something you said above and see if it fits with what I wrote:
"I am the only female engineer in my company and it is an engineering company."
Oops... :)
-
yep.. it all boils down too.. so long as you have plenty of men to choose from... why bother with the women?
I deal with plenty of engineering firms and there are a few women but.. all are run by men. All the important presentations and decisions are made by men... sure.. to look good.. they push a skirt out there in the group hug picture...
What country is using women for fighter pilots? how many planes have they shot down? we just shot down a bunch lately.. how many of the shooters were women?
I don't want women in combat... I don't want to worry about em... war is bad enough.. I will fight em if I have to but don't want to do that either.. only desperate or immoral countries allow their women to fight.
police and fire.. the taxpayer is being cheated having women in those roles... or.. weak men.. we would not have the weak men tho if we had not lowered the standard to let women in... women have ruined the fire and police... it has cost us money and lives.
putting women in harms way is immoral.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I concede your point...
Let me rephrase it... "Women have shown to the US Air Force the potential to be as good or better than men fighting in actual arial combat... Given the opportunity, I believe we will prove this to be so."
In the case of the F-22 we are talking potential vs results... inanimate or living, the issue is the same. Potential vs Results
TIGERESS
Potential. That is the key; as yet it is unproven potential.
In the actual event, I think we can all safely expect that the bell curve will once again rule, just like it does with men pilots. Some men and women will be below average pilots, including fighter pilots. Most will be adequate and average. A some will be very, very good and a tiny number will be OMG exceptional.
I do not believe that women will dispropotionately occupy the very top slots. I do not believe they will win a disproportionate share of the Distinguished Graduate awards at Top Gun/Red Flag or any other school. I expect them to be competitive and win their share but I don't believe, despite your various links, that they will sweep all competitors into the dustbin.
There's one other little factor too; robotics/computers.
Multitasking? There isn't going to be a human that can compete with a multi-tasking, properly programmed computer in the near future. Those will take the sensor data and compute all the possible opponent moves and best possible counter in nanoseconds. Consider how far the chess computers have come versus man. A few more generations of computer development and it will be no contest in the air, either.
Greater G limits? Again, humans can't compete even now. The aircraft can pull far, far more G's than the puny little human in the seat. Couple that with good computers and sensors and there's a huge change coming.
Yeah, there will still be human flown combat aircraft but I suspect that before to very long the inanimate killing machines will be the most feared winged predators in the sky.
-
Hi Viking,
I, for one, concede that abundant testosterone and suppressed estrogen does imbue any human, male or female, with muscle mass and a larger skeleton and a testosterone-induced aggressive and dominating behavior starting at the onset of puberty than a human, male or female, not so imbued.
The medical evidence speaks for itself.
Does physical strength alone make one inferior/superior relative to the other one?
...Depends on the bias of a given individual's assertion on that one basis, imho. But that doesn't mean it is true.
Some would argue that female is superior because of our ability to produce new humans. On that basis, we are superior.
I think gene splicing will even eliminate the need for male produced sperm, thus eliminate the need for the existence of males altogether, thereby making males obsolete and optionally non-existent thus irrelevant to the survival of the human species.
But I, for one, would not want to live in a world without males... nor bypass natural human reproduction methods but it is a very possible scenario.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
At least one female USAF Pilot apparently has combat flight experience that I have found so far... Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, USAF
Martha McSally is a pilot in the U.S. Air Force. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the lifting of the 1991 prohibition of women in combat. McSally is also the first woman to command an American fighter squadron, the 354th Fighter Squadron based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. McSally is an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot.
McSally graduated from St. Mary Academy - Bay View and then the United States Air Force Academy in 1988. She earned a Master's degree from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was selected for fighter pilot school in 1993, and was deployed to Kuwait in January 1995. During that deployment, she flew combat patrol over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone. In July, 2004, she took command of the A-10 equipped 354th, and was subsequently deployed to Afghanistan, where she deployed weapons in combat for the first time. In 2005 McSally and her squadron were awarded the David C. Shilling Award, given by the Air Force Association for the best aerospace contribution to national defense.
McSally was represented by the Rutherford Institute in her successful lawsuit against the Department of Defense, challenging the military policy that required servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the body-covering abaya when traveling in the country.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Mcsally_1_250.jpg)
TIGERESS
This is what Martha drives to work and what she used in actual combat sortes in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Very cool video, by the way!!! http://www.metacafe.com/watch/403875/a_10_thunderbolt/
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Toad
Potential. That is the key; as yet it is unproven potential.
In the actual event, I think we can all safely expect that the bell curve will once again rule, just like it does with men pilots. Some men and women will be below average pilots, including fighter pilots. Most will be adequate and average. A some will be very, very good and a tiny number will be OMG exceptional.
I do not believe that women will dispropotionately occupy the very top slots. I do not believe they will win a disproportionate share of the Distinguished Graduate awards at Top Gun/Red Flag or any other school. I expect them to be competitive and win their share but I don't believe, despite your various links, that they will sweep all competitors into the dustbin.
There's one other little factor too; robotics/computers.
Multitasking? There isn't going to be a human that can compete with a multi-tasking, properly programmed computer in the near future. Those will take the sensor data and compute all the possible opponent moves and best possible counter in nanoseconds. Consider how far the chess computers have come versus man. A few more generations of computer development and it will be no contest in the air, either.
Greater G limits? Again, humans can't compete even now. The aircraft can pull far, far more G's than the puny little human in the seat. Couple that with good computers and sensors and there's a huge change coming.
Yeah, there will still be human flown combat aircraft but I suspect that before to very long the inanimate killing machines will be the most feared winged predators in the sky.
Toad,
Thank you for helping me to refine the message to a more succinct, accurate, and finer granulated statement. That is what team-work is all about.
Men and women are partners and teammates... not adversaries.
I love you guys...
Best Regards,
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Rolex
You can't be serious. That makes no sense and you know it.
Here, let me quote something you said above and see if it fits with what I wrote:
"I am the only female engineer in my company and it is an engineering company."
Oops... :)
Why are females at a disadvantage breaking into a cerebral vocation which is presently male dominated?
Engineers are schooled and hired by males more so than by females because of historic and present male repression and suppression of females.
Stronger-willed and more determined females get through that male gauntlet in spite of the obstacles tossed in their way by biased males.
...Same with female combat pilots.
Think it has anything to do with aggression and dominance vs. naturally passive natures, intellect aside?
Face it... many men are simply biased enough to ignore strength of intellect on the part of females.
Go figure! :)
I have often pondered the male preference for male. Seems a bit MO'ish to me.
The men I work with, by and large, have gotten past such biases.
I am the one who turned thumbs down on the last female engineer interviewing for a job. Upon interviewing her I found she didn't have the right qualifications for the work we do.
I prefer to work, co-ed, with collegues. Working in a female prevalant vocation would be boring, among other things. :)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Stronger-willed and more determined females get through that male gauntlet in spite of the obstacles tossed in their way by biased males.
...Same with female combat pilots.
TIGERESS
Can't speak for the way things are now. I do remember that when the first 5 females made it through pilot training they were given special treatment. That treatment didn't make the course harder, either. So I don't know if you could have said obstacles were placed in their way; I think the opposite was true.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Can't speak for the way things are now. I do remember that when the first 5 females made it through pilot training they were given special treatment. That treatment didn't make the course harder, either. So I don't know if you could have said obstacles were placed in their way; I think the opposite was true.
Hi Toad,
Women were denied permission to fly in combat until 1991.
That was a serious obstacle.
Yes, often when a minority is given a pathway to an undiscovered country such as women flying combat, special allowances are made to easy the way initially.
This is often viewed as unfair. Things tend to settle out over the long run, all things being equal. Women flying combat was still met with biased resentment and slow acceptance on part of the male pilots. Their collective attitudes are reported to have changed quite a bit since 1991 ...to the good.
Same thing happened when blacks were finally allowed combat roles and finally allowed to vote unopposed by racial bias.
Women flying in combat presently, no doubt, earn the right to be there based on their ability to get the job done as do blacks of either gender.
For women with potential and interest in engineering, the obstacles start in grade school and continue due to society's gender bias.
Male and females are different thus society plays a very large role in enabling/disabling on a gender basis.
Good thing about society is its fluidity. It takes a little coaxing and a lot of time to change, but it does change slowly ...As we can all see with women flying in combat roles today... and also women in engineering in an increasing way.
Some male attitudes here in Aces High is evidence that gender bias is alive and well though not universal among all men.
For example, Tour 91, last month, a male pilot callsign Zack(etc) discovered I was flying due to convos on channel 200. He asked me if I was female to which I said yes. His next msg was to the effect: "Then I am going to un-sub. I don't want to fly with females.”
I laughed and asked him if he was gay just to tease him. The guys got a laugh out of his responses on ch:200.
I am accustomed to attitudes like that and don't take it personally nor seriously. I wanted to go send to him to the tower just so I might see his reaction to "SYSTEM: TIGERESS shot you down". hahahaha
(I shot down over 160 planes last month (my first tour); most if not all were males.)
But I didn't bother to find Zack. I was busy having fun, instead.
Some people will never change their biases.
Many, however, overcome their bias ...over time.
Society is slow, yet fluid, in that regard ...like thick molasses.
TIGERESS
-
Yeah.. just like "special allowances were made initially" for women to get into fire and police jobs.
the result is that we have lower standards of strength and size that have resulted in sub standard workers who are cheating the tax payer.
lowering standards is one way for women to compete... if there is no standards or they are low enough... everyone can compete.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yeah.. just like "special allowances were made initially" for women to get into fire and police jobs.
the result is that we have lower standards of strength and size that have resulted in sub standard workers who are cheating the tax payer.
lowering standards is one way for women to compete... if there is no standards or they are low enough... everyone can compete.
lazs
Lazs,
You have gender bias. Everyone here knows it.
You are entitled to you opinions, as is everyone.
God Bless you,
TIGERESS
-
If by "gender bias" you mean that I think men and women are different then...
yes... I do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Can't speak for the way things are now. I do remember that when the first 5 females made it through pilot training they were given special treatment. That treatment didn't make the course harder, either. So I don't know if you could have said obstacles were placed in their way; I think the opposite was true.
Didnt one of the first female Navy pilots splatter herself all over the deck of a carrier on a routine landing?
-
There is no doubt there was an institutional bias against allowing females into UPT. However, when the command came down (and it took a command directive) suitable applicants were found and ATC saluted and did what was ordered.
As I said though, once those 10 women got to UPT, their path was smoothed. I'm not arguing if that was right or wrong, I'm merely saying it was so. When the 5 of the 10 came to the command I served in, SAC, their path was smoothed. I don't think any of the male pilots found that remarkable. We all knew they would not be allowed to fail; after all, the USAF never makes mistakes. ;)
Before you go getting your dander up again, I think the 5 we got, from all the info I heard and from personal experience with one of them, fit the bell curve.
As for gender bias, to a certain extent I am sympathetic. There does come a point, however, when I begin to wonder when there will be satisfaction. What remaining real barriers are there?
Yes, there are individual cases that end up in court. You will always have that, just as we have with race, religion and other prejudices.
By and large though, I think a woman will be allowed to try anything she wants to try at this point.
Along with that comes the freedom to fail, just like it does for everyone else. That is when you'll have true equality.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Didnt one of the first female Navy pilots splatter herself all over the deck of a carrier on a routine landing?
Yes she did. She crashed and died. Although Navy pilots would probably say no carrier landing is "routine." But yes, no extraordinary conditions.
It was immediately assumed and verbalized publically by many male navy pilots and brass, thus believed, her death was due to pilot error attributed to an assumed relaxed standard for female fighter pilots, which was not the case.
There was a lot of egg on a lot of men's faces when it was finally determined the crash was due to mechanical failure.
Her name was Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen USN and she was flying a Navy F-14A Tomcat.
Navy Faults Engine in Female Pilot's Crash (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D71530F932A35750C0A963958260)
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Didnt one of the first female Navy pilots splatter herself all over the deck of a carrier on a routine landing?
Yep, Hultgren I think. Makes her absolutely no different than a boatload of other males who have done that too.
It's not that difficult to splatter yourself all over the deck of a carrier, even on a routine landing. It just takes one little moment of inattention.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, Hultgren[sic] I think. Makes her absolutely no different than a boatload of other males who have done that too.
It's not that difficult to splatter yourself all over the deck of a carrier, even on a routine landing. It just takes one little moment of inattention.
Oh yeah... By the way, her callsign was Revlon.
She crashed and died due to engine failure at the age of 29.
This is a photo of REVLON
(http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/hultgreen_a2055089_1000.jpg)
The carrier she was on finals to land on was the USS Abraham Lincoln on October 25, 1994.
Both she and her radar intercept officer (her RIO), Lieutenant Matthew Klemish, ejected, but only he survived.
Because the plane rolled onto its back as it went out of control, Hultgreen was ejected directly into the sea and was killed instantly.
Her body was recovered November 12 1994 in 3,700 feet of water not far from the sunken jet.
She was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
TIGERESS
-
Tigress, have you ever read the Mishap Investigation Report on that accident?
I don't want you to think I'm picking on you but you probably should read it. Cut to the conclusions for the short version.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tigress, have you ever read the Mishap Investigation Report on that accident?
I don't want you to think I'm picking on you but you probably should read it. Cut to the conclusions for the short version.
I don't have access to her Mishap Investigation Report; just media coverage at this point.
IF you have access to it I would like to read it.
I have always maintained and asserted my motivations are for the complete facts in lieu of needing to feed an ego that wants to avoid being proven wrong at all costs in spite of the facts, known or unknown, liked or not liked.
I may or may not like the facts but facts, by definition, are indisputable.
It's the way of a good engineer.
TIGERESS
EDIT: Check that. I found what appears to be a ligitimate copy of her MIR on http://yarchive.net/mil/f14_hultgreen_accident.html
What I read in this is two things...
1. There was an engine malfunction
2. The casual factors of this mishap and injury are a result of overcontrol, external distraction, cognitive saturation, channelized attention, wear debris, complacency and problem not forseeable.
That is to say, it looks to me that the crash was perhaps unavoidable but her death was a result of stress induced brain overload.
F-14A Mishap Investigation Report
(Military City Online note: This is the Mishap Investigation Report into the
Oct. 25, 1994, crash that killed a Navy F- 14A Tomcat fighter pilot, Lt. Kara
Hultgreen. The report, which was released only to a limited number of
members of the aviation community, includes a list of acronyms used in the
text.)
12. Conclusions
A. Mishap narrative: MC flew as wingman during case II recovery for CQ
refresher. After normal break and landing pattern entry, MP commenced
approach turn. Computed wings level on speed was 139 KIAS. MR noticed
aircraft decelerating during approach turn from approx ten kts fast abeam to
eight kts fast at the ninety to ten kts slow during final approach. MP flew
WUOSX, 42 to 45 deg AOB. CLSO and BLSO observed MA exhibit noticeable left
YAW, which was perceived as MP applying left rudder to arrest overshoot. MP
reduced power to maintain on speed while rolling wings level. Additionally,
MCB system on left engine was stuck in bleeds closed position due to wear
debris. These factors combined to cause a left eng comp stall. During
postmishap recollection, MR remembered hearing an almost imperceptible
``pop,'' similar to a ``popcorn stall,'' prior to ma crossing ship's wake.
During final approach MR transmitted on ICS, ``we're ten knots slow, let's
get some power on the jet.'' MP did not respond verbally, but did add power.
There was no further ICS comm by MC during remainder of MF. As MA rolled
wings level at start, black smoke trail appeared from right eng only,
indicating left eng malfunction. MP did not inform MR of eng malfunction.
BLSO initiated waveoff verbally and visually for WUOSX. Black smoke trail
>from right eng ceased, indicating right eng staging to a/b. CLSO echoed
``waveoff'' twice, cutting out BLSO ``level your wings and climb.'' BLSO made
one ``power'' call, two ``raise your gear'' calls and a second ``power''
call. Throughout waveoff, left YAW and rod persisted. MP had applied right
stick and rudder to counter asymmetric thrust. MR did not observe any eng
stall warning lights. MP lost situational awareness, failed to scan AOA,
allowed pitch attitude to slowly increase and exceeded maximum controllable
AOA of 20 units. At approximately flight deck level, MA stalled, departed
controlled flight, and rolled rapidly left. CLSO called ``eject, eject'' as
MR initiated command ejection. MR and MP ejection seats both departed MA.
MR achieved seat-man separation and main parachute deployment. MP seat
fired outside safe ejection envelope, impacted water prior to seat-man
separation, damaging seat and interrupting seat sequence. The causal factors
of this mishap and injury are a result of overcontrol, external distraction,
cognitive saturation, channelized attention, wear debris, complacency and
problem not forseeable.
-
You know, Toad, another thing about facts are how they are applied by some people in a perverted way.
Simple case in point of good facts as far as they go; bad conclusion.
Men should never be allowed to fly combat because it is a known fact that the vast majority of combat crashes and shoot downs by the enemy were cases where men were at the controls of the downed planes. Therefore, women should be the only ones flying combat.
I see this kind of warped thinking often. It's rampant in gender bias and there are both men and women who do it against the other.
I try very hard to avoid that. There are others who use it as their primary modus operandi.
I discovered that I suffer from channelized attention when highly stressed and that is the reason I only fly in real life with another pilot in the plane and independently elected not finish pilot training.
I was heart broken to discover that in myself but I didn't want to risk it and possibly get killed and possibly take other people with me. Only to a very few did I ever admit that to in real life when I opted out of completing civilian pilot training.
I feel I could have completed my training and gotten the ticket in spite of it. Perhaps I could have overcome it with applied training to defeat it but I didn't want to risk it.
I wanted to be a military aviator; a good one.
Here, flying Sim Combat, I am immortal thus no high-stress induced "channelized attention."
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I discovered that I suffer from channelized attention when highly stressed and that is the reason I only fly in real life with another pilot in the plane and independently elected not finish pilot training.
I was heart broken to discover that in myself but I didn't want to risk it and possibly get killed and possibly take other people with me. Only to a very few did I ever admit that to in real life when I opted out of completing civilian pilot training.
I feel I could have completed my training and gotten the ticket in spite of it. Perhaps I could have overcome it with applied training to defeat it but I didn't want to risk it.
I wanted to be a military aviator; a good one.
Here, flying Sim Combat, I am immortal thus no high-stress induced "channelized attention."
TIGERESS
So what is channelized attention? Untill the previous post I had never heard of it.
I gave up private training for a different reason. Money and I think fear. I didn't think I could ever learn the ATC system well enough for the amount of time I could afford to fly if I had gotten my ticket.
I don't think I would ever have had a problem with the actual control of an aircraft, I was called a "natural" by more than one instructer. Not completing my training was very dissapointing to me. My father had been a pilot and I had always wanted to do the same thing not because my father did it but because I really enjoyed it myself.
I fly PC simulators because of that. ( when I can find time, anyway )
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
So what is channelized attention? Untill the previous post I had never heard of it.
I gave up private training for a different reason. Money and I think fear. I didn't think I could ever learn the ATC system well enough for the amount of time I could afford to fly if I had gotten my ticket.
I don't think I would ever have had a problem with the actual control of an aircraft, I was called a "natural" by more than one instructer. Not completing my training was very dissapointing to me. My father had been a pilot and I had always wanted to do the same thing not because my father did it but because I really enjoyed it myself.
I fly PC simulators because of that. ( when I can find time, anyway )
Mark
Channelized attention exists when a person's full attention is focused on one stimulus to the exclusion of all others.
In a way its a panic manifestation.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Channelized attention exists when a person's full attention is focused on one stimulus to the exclusion of all others.
TIGERESS
You almost make it sound like a bad thing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Channelized attention exists when a person's full attention is focused on one stimulus to the exclusion of all others.
TIGERESS
I see. I always thought of that as tunnel vision but I suppose that could also be the effect of g loading on the body.
Sorry to hear about that, you seem to have a lot to offer as a career pilot.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
I see. I always thought of that as tunnel vision but I suppose that could also be the effect of g loading on the body.
Sorry to hear about that, you seem to have a lot to offer as a career pilot.
Mark
Thank you for the compliment, Mark. Means a lot to me and I really appreciate it.
I believe that true tunnel vision is visual... due to lowered blood pressure in the brain thus a dangerous level of oxygen deprivation. I have experienced it but not due to G-force.
My back-down was an issue of self-trust with human lives. I was astounded when I realized I did it in a high stress situation. Like I said, it may have been defeated with the right training.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
So what is channelized attention? Untill the previous post I had never heard of it.
I gave up private training for a different reason. Money and I think fear. I didn't think I could ever learn the ATC system well enough for the amount of time I could afford to fly if I had gotten my ticket.
I don't think I would ever have had a problem with the actual control of an aircraft, I was called a "natural" by more than one instructer. Not completing my training was very dissapointing to me. My father had been a pilot and I had always wanted to do the same thing not because my father did it but because I really enjoyed it myself.
I fly PC simulators because of that. ( when I can find time, anyway )
Mark
My father, when he was very young, was a bomber crewman... B-17G.
He loved aircraft and passed it on to all us kids.
You would have overcome the fear with experience... I am sure of it.
Dad said fear of the unknown can be defeated by knowing the unknown.
I can sense you mind even through a forum. The ATC would have gotten to be second nature for you.
mmm... initially I had to get my head out of the cockpit and instrument panel... that was overcome pretty easily after enough flight hours when it started feeling natural and started getting a feel for the horizon... such as maintaining level flight without looking at the Artificial Horizon while making turns. IFR was easy to me.
Even did some aerobatics such as hammer heads with a guy I used to fly with and started getting a good feel for the effects of G-force. Darn near left my tummy a thousand feet above me at first. wow! but never got nausated... not even once. Then being body compressed with positive Gs on the pull out from the dive... wow.
I knocked 'em dead wearing the blinders right out of the starting gates. Took to the instruments like a duck to water. attitude trimming was a no-brainer.
Navigating was awsome!!!! loved it!
Oddly, I found external view in AH to be great because it kept my eyes off the inst. panel without distraction and let me just fly in an intuitive way even though the physical clues like Gs/inertia were missing ...flying like a bird.
The J-3 was my favorite ride... it was the closest thing to a WWI ride I ever drove. Always wanted to drive an open cockpit bi-plane.
I went so far as to take parachute training and logged two jumps.
SERIOUSLY thrilling... that was the truest feeling of flying like a bird in some ways I ever felt. Since I was the newbie I was designated as the first to exit the jump plane... ohhh gee. That was probably the highest level of fear I have experienced till the chute popped open and got the twist out of the risers and started steering with the toggles.
TIGERESS
-
You a pilot Tigress? Nice :)
-
Never got to fly a J-3, always wanted to. The closest I got to one was a PA12 SuperCruiser my dad flew for a few years. I got some stick time in it but not much, I was in my early teens then.
The last dual instruction I got was about 20 hrs in an Aeronca Champ. A 8BCN if I remember correctly. The instructor put a 85 Continental in it, it oringinaly had a 65. It needed that and more to get both of us off the ground during hot summer days. We ran with a half tank of fuel measured with a bobber on the cowling.
What I liked the most about the Champ was that it could be flown solo from the front seat.
The only aerobatic time I experienced was when HT took me up in his RV-8 one day. I was along for the ride and enjoyed it for a bit then started to get a little sick.
Mark
-
B. Causal factors of the mishap:
(1) The narrative cause factors of this mishap are Determined to be:
(A) Aircrew factor - MP attempt to salvage overshooting approach led to
reduced eng stall margin, contributing to left eng comp stall.
She caused the compressor stall.
The bleed problem was minor; it is something that probably wouldn't be noticed unless there was a warning system monitoring it; I'm not sure of that as I'm not familiar with the F-14A NATOPS. It was not an emergency in and of itself, however. It just reduced the margin of error.
Based on above analysis, AMB concludes although not sufficient alone to stall the eng, this malfunction, combined with reduced throttle setting and sideslip,contributed to left eng comp stall. component: directional control linear bleed
Stall margin was already reduced up to 26 percent on left engine due to MCB system stuck in bleeds closed position.
This is next part is a key factor and isn't really addressed; she didn't need to do the single engine waveoff procedure:
(CU) The left eng was found to be fully capable of producing normal power at impact. (14a)
If she had used both engines on the waveoff, and she could have, the story might have been just another tale to tell at the bar.
However, the report shows it was not engine failure or mechanical failure. Sorry.
MP stands for "Mission Pilot", Hultgreen.
Here's the bottom line:
B. Causal factors of the mishap:
(1) The narrative cause factors of this mishap are Determined to be:
(A) Aircrew factor - MP attempt to salvage overshooting approach led to
reduced eng stall margin, contributing to left eng comp stall. RAC II.
(B) Aircrew factor - MP failed to execute proper single eng waveoff
procedures. RAC II.
Now I see no point in discussing this further here as it is clearly a sensitive subject for you on a predominantly male BBS.
So I suggest you take this MIR over to the chick fighter pilot board and discuss it there.
If they are honest (and I think they will be) and if they are competent (which I think they are) they, your fellow women, will tell you that this accident was pilot error.
There's no shame in that; as I pointed out there's been an awful lot of male pilot error written into the history books.
-
Ah, open cockpit bi-planes are vastly overrated. :)
If you get a chance get someone to take you up in one of these. The view is magnificent and not blocked by a big ole upper wing and a forest of wires and struts:
(http://www.kcghostsquadron.org/gallery/albums/pt-19/Twin_PTs.jpg)
33 used to be mine, 50 used to belong to my brother. This was taken out by the Golden Gate.
Great airplane; just a blast to fly.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You almost make it sound like a bad thing. ;)
You always make me laugh! :rofl
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, open cockpit bi-planes are vastly overrated. :)
If you get a chance get someone to take you up in one of these. The view is magnificent and not blocked by a big ole upper wing and a forest of wires and struts:
(http://www.kcghostsquadron.org/gallery/albums/pt-19/Twin_PTs.jpg)
33 used to be mine, 50 used to belong to my brother. This was taken out by the Golden Gate.
Great airplane; just a blast to fly.
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I just fell in serious love with your plane!!!!!!!!!!!
AWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've never seen it before. What is it? Is it a Navy trainer?
TIGERESS
-
BTW, you should go on back and get your ticket.
Just about every pilot goes through an initial period of channelized attention. I've heard it called "boresighted", "head up and locked", "tunnel vision" and a few other things. It's killed pilots, for sure. New ones, old ones, all kinds.
For almost everyone it kinda goes away as you become aware of the ;) multi-tasking involved in safe, successful flight.
You always have to be aware of it and you always have to guard against it because it can slip in on you at critical times as you probably noticed. Even for old dudes with thousands of hours. But if you're aware of it, you'll recognize it and you'll get your scan moving and your brain in gear and come out OK. It is, btw, one of the reasons commercial airliners have two sets of eyes and two brains monitoring the show.
Even that doesn't work sometimes. Ever listen to the CVR tape from the Eastern L-1011 crash in the everglades? Lost an airplane over a burned out gear down light. Boresighted. They were all male, btw. ;)
-
That is the Fairchild PT-19 Cornell. About 12,000 or so made in three similar models (one with a radial, another like this with a canopy.)
About 100 remain flying with another 100 or so scattered around in bits and pieces on shelves that could eventually be restored.
Current price ~$60k for a good specimen.
This is, IMHO, the world's finest conventional gear trainer. Handling characteristics are superb. Fairchild designed the wing in such a way that when fully stalled, about 1/3 to 1/4 of the outboard ends of the ailerons are still functional. You have some roll authority when stalled. The only cable driven control is the elevator trim. All others are torque tube with ball bearing control ends. You can literally fly it with one finger of one hand on top of the stick. HUGE rudder; 25mph crosswinds are no problem, as the rudder is matched with a W-I-D-E main gear. 4 hours of flight to dry tanks. Performance just a little bit less than a C-172 on 9-10 gallons per hour. (Well, hey.. so it's heavy and has quite a bit of drag... it's almost perfect.
I taught both of my sons the rudiments of flight in that airplane. Easiest trainer I've ever seen for teaching someone.
Just a lovely, lovely thing, she is.
-
Although not as easy to fly for newbs, this one is without doubt the most secksie WW2 US trainer. Quite a bit more expensive now than a Fairchild and parts much harder to find. I think they only built about 1200 or so.
It's a bit nasty and unforgiving of those who try to salvage an overshot final without plenty of altitude and airspeed though. :)
Otherwise, it's pretty sweet.
Oh, yeah.. after the 5th turn in a spin it is also unrecoverable.
Ryan PT-22
(http://www.vintageaircraft.org/images/Vintage_15_i.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, you should go on back and get your ticket.
Just about every pilot goes through an initial period of channelized attention. I've heard it called "boresighted", "head up and locked", "tunnel vision" and a few other things. It's killed pilots, for sure. New ones, old ones, all kinds.
For almost everyone it kinda goes away as you become aware of the ;) multi-tasking involved in safe, successful flight.
You always have to be aware of it and you always have to guard against it because it can slip in on you at critical times as you probably noticed. Even for old dudes with thousands of hours. But if you're aware of it, you'll recognize it and you'll get your scan moving and your brain in gear and come out OK. It is, btw, one of the reasons commercial airliners have two sets of eyes and two brains monitoring the show.
Even that doesn't work sometimes. Ever listen to the CVR tape from the Eastern L-1011 crash in the everglades? Lost an airplane over a burned out gear down light. Boresighted. They were all male, btw. ;)
I kept it a secret. Considered it a fatal flaw. I multi-task with ease unless seriously stressed under panic. I would like to start flying again. I love it like crazy.
TIGERESS
-
Do it.
Find the right instructor and not necessarily some flight school.
There's a great old guy up here that teaches in a Citabria. He's got tons of hours in light taildraggers like that. Very thorough, knows his stuff and just carries on at YOUR pace until you sastisfy yourself and him.
Never known one of his students to fail a check, never seen one that wasn't a safe, competent pilot.
Find a guy like that.
Hell, my UPT instructor used to say that given enough bananas, he could teach a monkey to fly so none of us had to worry about getting our wings.
Go do it. Boresight is just another hazard of aviation that you will learn to look for and to avoid.
Most everyone did that; you can too.
G'luck!
-
I took flight training but didn't like it much.. I did fly ultralights for a while and really enjoyed that.. I like being out in the wind and flying by the seat of my pants.
The women who failed as fighter pilots should never have been allowed to exist... they got in on lowered standards.. not good for anyone.
tigress... I like to fly AH too. I don't fly near as much as you but... For all your superior multitasking.. you don't seem to be able to handle what is going on around you in the game... it would appear that every time you meet another fighter... it is a given that you will lose.
one example does not make a point but.. why are there so many men in the game... all the best are men... any person... male of female with a credit card can play. No one is being held back.. in fact.. you don't even have to identify yourself as female or male... What is stopping women from excelling?
lazs
-
Originally posted by texasmom
You a pilot Tigress? Nice :)
TxMom,
Yes, I have cockpit time.
You really should conside trying out, even if only once.
"First Lesson" is quite inexpensive to lure you into and so darn exciting for a first timer! wooo HOOOOO
There is nothing in this world like driving a plane, in my experience.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
TxMom,
Yes, I have cockpit time.
You really should conside trying out, even if only once.
TIGERESS
:) Probably would be fun. I was a controller (a long time ago). The pilots always did seem like they enjoyed what they did.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do it.
Find the right instructor and not necessarily some flight school.
Go do it. Boresight is just another hazard of aviation that you will learn to look for and to avoid.
Most everyone did that; you can too.
G'luck!
Absolutely agree on the right flight instructor.
That is exactly the same advice I gave on the "Golf" thread here for a newbie golfer taking up golf for the first time. I am a long time golfer.
I never realized channelized attention syndrome was so prevalent...
In my case, it never happened while flying but did in other situations when overloaded with stress such as sometimes happens when I sailed aboard a coastal cruising sailboat with others. (I had switched to sailing with others in lieu of flying)
Things can go down hill in a blink of an eye. I was almost always elected to be the navigator (Coastal Pilot), and am USPS trained and well experienced for that, and have sailed for years along the Atlantic coastline and could handle all aspects of sailing the craft.
It's like if you have five things that are all individually critical to survival going on in real time, the mind triages as best it can and locks-on to the worst one in a supremely determined way to solve it even if it unsolvable at the time and thus loose "the bubble" on the others. I fight that when it starts happening 'cause I know what it is now and it can be quite deadly.
Seems to me to be borne taking responsibility very seriously, from inexperience and lack of reason for self-confidence, or unreasonable inability to let go of continuing to control a no-control event and switch to other events in progress. Sometimes its the other events that will kill you; not the one you are focused on.
G’Day
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by texasmom
:) Probably would be fun. I was a controller (a long time ago). The pilots always did seem like they enjoyed what they did.
You should get to know B2B, he was Army ATC too. SUPER guy! Luv'um ta pieces.
He might be interested in a squad, btw.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Toad
Although not as easy to fly for newbs, this one is without doubt the most secksie WW2 US trainer. Quite a bit more expensive now than a Fairchild and parts much harder to find. I think they only built about 1200 or so.
It's a bit nasty and unforgiving of those who try to salvage an overshot final without plenty of altitude and airspeed though. :)
Otherwise, it's pretty sweet.
Oh, yeah.. after the 5th turn in a spin it is also unrecoverable.
Ryan PT-22
http://www.vintageaircraft.org/images/Vintage_15_i.jpg
Another beauty! mmm... seems the drag number would be higher than yours from looking it over. Also radial vs inline so engine torque would be a greater factor I am thinking.
The landing gear on yours look very substantial... that's why I thought perhaps navy trainer. The colors of her lead me to believe she was a military trainer but not having seen this aircraft. I love old warbirds and have some lovely photos.
Been to a nice number of air museums including the one in you neck of the woods, Dallas area …nicely kept large collection. Nice things re: Flying Tigers and Russian A/C.
Saw an ME-262 and other fighters in rl on a trip to Germany. Eire seeing the swastika on an actual German warbird that flew in combat.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I took flight training but didn't like it much.. I did fly ultralights for a while and really enjoyed that.. I like being out in the wind and flying by the seat of my pants.
lazs
I felt the same about ultralights; have posted about it here.
Gliding in gliders is absolutely wonderful.
Quite... sooo sooo quiet... like a whisper... then a dive speeding thru the wind rushing against you vibrating the plane feeling it with your body ...with cockpit placement as bird's eyes. Using thermal updrafts climbing them like a spiral managing speed and angles feeling along the energy of the thermal's edges to store as you go up then let go of the thermal and escape away.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
It's like if you have five things that are all individually critical to survival going on in real time, the mind triages as best it can
TIGERESS
A large part of the solution is training followed by experience.
Stuff happens in the air; always has. Part of the training is to be prepared for that stuff. Emergency procedures training is a good example. You learn what steps to take and in which order. Practice, practice, practice. You first airplane is the toughest and they get easier as you go because, in general, the basic approach to say, an engine failiure, is very similar between aircraft.
Then you just build hours and stuff happens. You use your training to stumble through ;) the first ones and then you get progressively better at handling stuff. That's the experience part.
I think the Navy is credited with the shorthand for prioritizing dealing with stuff.
Aviate, Navigate and Communicate. First, FLY THE AIRPLANE. Then figure out where you are and where you want to go and how to get there. Then tell people what you are doing.
The Air Force gave me this one: Maintain aircraft control; analyse the situation, take the proper action.
Engine on fire? FLY THE AIRPLANE! Can't afford to hit a hill while you are dealing with the engine. Analyse the situation, make SURE it is an actual engine fire before you start shutting things down. Take the proper action, do your memory items and then follow up with the checklist.
Trust me on this one Tigress: there isn't that much new in the air that will kill you. A good instructor will teach you how to deal with the old stuff. You'll have to stay current and gain experience.
You could do it. Many, many folks have.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A large part of the solution is training followed by experience.
Stuff happens in the air; always has. Part of the training is to be prepared for that stuff. Emergency procedures training is a good example. You learn what steps to take and in which order. Practice, practice, practice. You first airplane is the toughest and they get easier as you go because, in general, the basic approach to say, an engine failiure, is very similar between aircraft.
Then you just build hours and stuff happens. You use your training to stumble through ;) the first ones and then you get progressively better at handling stuff. That's the experience part.
I think the Navy is credited with the shorthand for prioritizing dealing with stuff.
Aviate, Navigate and Communicate. First, FLY THE AIRPLANE. Then figure out where you are and where you want to go and how to get there. Then tell people what you are doing.
The Air Force gave me this one: Maintain aircraft control; analyse the situation, take the proper action.
Engine on fire? FLY THE AIRPLANE! Can't afford to hit a hill while you are dealing with the engine. Analyse the situation, make SURE it is an actual engine fire before you start shutting things down. Take the proper action, do your memory items and then follow up with the checklist.
Trust me on this one Tigress: there isn't that much new in the air that will kill you. A good instructor will teach you how to deal with the old stuff. You'll have to stay current and gain experience.
You could do it. Many, many folks have.
Hi Toad,
Thanks for your post and vote of confidence. I really appreciate it.
"Can't afford to hit a hill while you are dealing with the engine. "
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress... I like to fly AH too. I don't fly near as much as you but... For all your superior multitasking.. you don't seem to be able to handle what is going on around you in the game... it would appear that every time you meet another fighter... it is a given that you will lose.
lazs
Yup, I don't yet have my groove but I have my moments! :)
Still learning to survive in a higher population enviroment and an environment populated with higher percentage of really good pilots.
And still learning, period.
I have had a look at your first recorded tour of AH. kill/death ratio 1.12 Nice!
Were you a previous Sim Fighter Pilot prior to Dec 2000?
Tour 92 was my first ever (if you dont count AHII h2h flying) with a kill/death ratio was 0.63
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Never got to fly a J-3, always wanted to. The closest I got to one was a PA12 SuperCruiser my dad flew for a few years. I got some stick time in it but not much, I was in my early teens then.
The last dual instruction I got was about 20 hrs in an Aeronca Champ. A 8BCN if I remember correctly. The instructor put a 85 Continental in it, it oringinaly had a 65. It needed that and more to get both of us off the ground during hot summer days. We ran with a half tank of fuel measured with a bobber on the cowling.
What I liked the most about the Champ was that it could be flown solo from the front seat.
The only aerobatic time I experienced was when HT took me up in his RV-8 one day. I was along for the ride and enjoyed it for a bit then started to get a little sick.
Mark
Mark, the guy into aerobatics with whom I flew, took it easy on me initially so I could get accustomed to it instead of trying to force me to clean his cabin lol
He wanted to share it with me over the long term... not make me barf on the first ride... thus run me off.
We did barrel rolls, loops, hammer head stalls, wing overs and the like.
Ironically he was a submarine type... active Navy at the time. Really like him a lot! Quiet man... thoughtful, commanded a lot of respect from others and I trusted him with my life... literally. He got transferred, darn it.
At first I found it hard to believe the wings didn't snap off but I gained faith and respect for his plane.
Don't remember what make and model it was now, darn it.
No doubt a Piper, though.
TIGERESS