First female F-35 pilot begins training
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 658
- Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26
Xander, there is absolutely no disagreement on physiological differences on my part - when we talk about statistical data.
The problem with your post above is this:
There are lots of men who *also* fail to meet physical or mental standards. And there are plenty of women who *do*meet them. Once you base your argument on gender instead of individual capacity - the argument is very much sexist. I'm sorry if that contradicts your experience, but that's how I see it - and I will call it every time.
The selection processes in the air force or otherwise should be sufficient to filter out those who are not fit - regardless of gender. If not, they are up for some revision.
As for issues with rape, sexual harassment and so on being a problem related to the women themselves - you should probably use that argument with one of the women in your service and see how it pans out. The women I've served with would certainly take offense.
Now, I'll shut up about this - I've sounded my opinion.
The problem with your post above is this:
There are lots of men who *also* fail to meet physical or mental standards. And there are plenty of women who *do*meet them. Once you base your argument on gender instead of individual capacity - the argument is very much sexist. I'm sorry if that contradicts your experience, but that's how I see it - and I will call it every time.
The selection processes in the air force or otherwise should be sufficient to filter out those who are not fit - regardless of gender. If not, they are up for some revision.
As for issues with rape, sexual harassment and so on being a problem related to the women themselves - you should probably use that argument with one of the women in your service and see how it pans out. The women I've served with would certainly take offense.
Now, I'll shut up about this - I've sounded my opinion.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
krorvik wrote:
There are lots of men who *also* fail to meet physical or mental standards. And there are plenty of women who *do*meet them. Once you base your argument on gender instead of individual capacity - the argument is very much sexist. I'm sorry if that contradicts your experience, but that's how I see it - and I will call it every time.
Yes you are going to run into what is called "overlap" much like a vinn diagram. Yes there are women who can, just like there are men who can not. I'm basing my argument on the individual capability of the gender in general. Saying "all women crumble under pressure" is sexist. Saying women tend to crumble more often then men is a proven fact. feel free to "Call it everytime" you brave man you. I'll gladly concede that 1 in 130 women can do what a man can physically if you concede there are 129 there that can't. Literally less than 1 percent of females. So I tend to be broad and forgiving of people who say "they cant!" Rather than slagging people and saying "you're wrong! Less than 1 percent can!!" Out of a battalion sized unit all of 6 or 7 can do what the guys can? Wow. People speak in broad strokes and when something is true 99 percent of the time I forgive them for painting in broad strokes. It's literally true to say 99 percent of the time women are not as strong.
My point is that the "juice is not worth the squeeze" The military is allowed to discriminate-- its not "equal opportunity" For example there are age, and health restrictions, there are many restrictions in fact. But just because for example a 45 year old man would make a great infantryman, doesn't mean I think we should start allowing 45 year olds to join the infantry, even when you can point to a fat little 18 year old couch potato that could not do it.
again my point stands. I don't think its in our best interest to sort through 129 female failures to find the 1 who can do what the men can. The military is perfectly within its rights to put its money and time into people it thinks will help it the most. And make no mistake the military fails plenty of men who don't meet standards. The military is also packed with rules and regulations some of them very arbitrary. Audie Murphy was not allowed to join the marines because he was "too short" for example. But the standard is the standard. The standard is there with the knowledge that it's made for the betterment of the majority of the force, even if it means not helping with smaller percentages.
I can only imagine the hate and discontent if we fielded a weapon system that only "worked" once out of every 129 times it was started.
And that's the problem. If we had actual equality, there would be few females in the military. The ones you would run into would be exceptionally fit and probably motivated to be there. Capable of keeping up with the men and earning their respect. We don't have that now. We have lowered standards based on gender so the vast majority of females in the military continue to verify all the stereotypes. There was actually a funny quote by a Marine captain recently, that basically said "we have to put what we know about females behind us in order to accept them" and he wasn't being ironic there. Just sort of forget what you know and have seen after decades.
Bottom line we pay more money to train women to do the same things.
Another bitter little pill is the military puts you where you go. Not where you would like to go. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way when women "demand" to go or get exceptions to go where they want.
The selection processes in the air force or otherwise should be sufficient to filter out those who are not fit - regardless of gender. If not, they are up for some revision.
Air forces are different. Pilots especially because they are already extremely picky slots. they are far less physically demanding for one. I still give my dad a hard time about his 20 years in the air force and ask him if he ever considered joining the military LOL. I still see a lot of the same "social problems" in the air force, along with other things like "perfectly timed" pre deployment pregnancy, and of course deployment pregnancy.
Even for pilots however and there are issues like for example ejection seats meant to deal with lighter weights and less bone density to what happens if they are captured.
As for issues with rape, sexual harassment and so on being a problem related to the women themselves - you should probably use that argument with one of the women in your service and see how it pans out. The women I've served with would certainly take offense.
sure, are you willing to translate? I have said it to plenty of women in the US military already. Its not a mystery. Lots of the women who take the job seriously loathe the woman who don't even more than the men. And if you think that rape and harassment is a one way street only I've got some bad news for you. You should see what happens when lonely ladies hang out with muscled alpha males. I've been sexually harassed and groped before by females in the military and I'm ugly as sin. And "sexist" too.
Like I said it's all darkly comical and contradictory. The funniest part is when they say things that are obviously not so. They make these crazy arguments like people have never actually been near women. Women are as big and strong as men? Lol Yes that's been my experience too. Who are you trying to convince? Basement dwellers who have never been around women? Women who also know that isn't true?
The caveat of the double standards for females in the US military was this "yes their standards are lower, but don't worry they aren't going into combat" but now they have opened that up-- yet the double standard remains. So now I'm being told by the PC police they are just as capable of full scale war--but dont expect them to do as well on a basic fitness test or anything. Don't be ridiculous. Just because she can't do 3 pull ups doesn't mean she can't punch a guys face in! Lol yes, yes of course. How silly of me.
Choose Crews
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
My experience is that most women fighter folks cringe at the trumpeting of "firsts" by PAOs or other media reporting. As LtCol Mau notes, “...women have been flying fighters in combat for over 20 years.” Conspicuously, she de-emphasized the matter of gender and focused on the performance of the jet.
Also consistent with my experience, she provides these observations -- “Flying is a great equalizer...the plane doesn’t know or care about your gender...nor do the ground troops who need your support...you just have to perform. That’s all anyone cares about when you’re up there — that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well.”
Amen sister.
Also consistent with my experience, she provides these observations -- “Flying is a great equalizer...the plane doesn’t know or care about your gender...nor do the ground troops who need your support...you just have to perform. That’s all anyone cares about when you’re up there — that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well.”
Amen sister.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 637
- Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
quicksilver wrote:My experience is that most women fighter folks cringe at the trumpeting of "firsts" by PAOs or other media reporting. As LtCol Mau notes, “...women have been flying fighters in combat for over 20 years.” Conspicuously, she de-emphasized the matter of gender and focused on the performance of the jet.
I liked how she ended that sentence with "…..so it's not really a thing". Agreed, it's only a "thing" if we keep acting like it is.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 868
- Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
- Location: Texas
Well I've bit my tongue on this for about as long as could, for a few reasons, not the least of which is I like Lt Col Mau's attitude and military mindedness that I've seen in the Q&A's. She seems to have more on the ball mentally than a lot of run of the mill jocks. Good thing.
In my experience she has to have more on the ball mentally to make up for her limitations physically. To whit, about 80% of any nominally fit but untrained male areis better suited for combat than the top 20% fit females. Add training, and the disparity between the sexes increases to the point of almost no intersection, and we don't even let males in or we let them fall to the wayside when they're at the bottom of the cohort. Combat flying, especially in fighters is a thinking person's game, but it it also an extremely physical one. I only pulled 'real' g's in a fighter on a couple of occasions and as an extremely fit male (at that time) I still found it exhausting. The years I was on flying status (~'85-'93, yikes! so 'last century') the running gag at the Flight Doc's was that the ideal fighter pilot was a 45 year old male who ate too much red meat, drank too much and smoked Camel unfiltered, because they tended to have hardened veins and arteries that gave them better g-tolerance than all the running health nuts -- you just had to worry about them keeling over on the walk out to the plane. In the early 90's, USAFE even set aside weight room hours at all the bases with F-16s for pilots so they could build up their upper body strength-- because they found good cardio can lower your g-tolerance and there was an epidemic of g-LOC or were worried there was an epidemic. In physiological training (where we got our chamber rides) we learned women tend to have better untrained g-tolerance but their mass distribution and core muscle strength doesn't help them match men's trained g-tolerance. I also have a problem with the F-35 ejection seat that has nothing to do with crew weight (which is only a proxy for presumed neck musculature), because it is a little kinder and gentler on the initial egress than past systems which tended to break female's backs due to the female of the species greater S-curvature to the spine. Let us hope the slower blast-off doesn't make the live-die equation break towards the 'die' side sometime down the road for some unfortunate guy. I guarantee you most, if not all, males can work the touch screens, buttons, gizmos faster under g-load. And with training, all men could. Ah! Testosterone. Ever try lift your hand under high g? Go ahead, pop those countermeasures as fast as you can, let's hope it is fast enough.
If things go south, women are even more at a disadvantage, but who ever heard of things going south in combat? /sarc. 'Darn' if you didn't pop flares before that MANPAD whacked you. At least with the F-35 you don't have a crewmate that you aren't strong enough to help escape if they're injured. On the other hand Ms. Aircrew, you're more likely to be injured (less bone density and thinner bones) and a drag on the E&E in the first place. On the third hand, you're more likely to die from shock due to blood loss faster if you're injured. Shock from blood loss is the single largest cause of combat deaths historically and females have ~20ml less blood per pound of bodyweight, and their red blood cells carry ~20% less oxygen than males) so you probably won't be a drag for long--unfortunately probably just long enough to tank your buddy's chances. But let's pretend men and women are the same, ....cuz 'Equality'!
Don't get me started on the length some of these people will go to further the 'agenda'. Remember Rhonda Cornum? She spoke to my AFSNCO Academy class, and during Q&A denied (when asked by a female classmate) that she experienced any sexual abuse. A year later (or less) after all the interviews were over it was in her freaking book. She freakin' retired as a BGen fer cryin' out loud.
At the macro-level, I have objections on the basis that the hard math of biology and reproduction means males are relatively expendable. (There is a Sorites' paradoxical 'heap' of feminist demagoguery in post-modern sociology text trying to refuse and refute the idea, but they're pretty comical and sounds like they're whistling past the graveyard.) IMHO any society who thinks the female is as expendable as the male is doomed to eventual failure. Demographics is destiny. i.e. the future belongs to those who show up.
Sad thing is, the 'women in combat' issue would disappear if fitness standards were truly based upon the physical demands of combat.
In the tradition of the Great Gums McAdoo, SMSgt Mac opines...
In my experience she has to have more on the ball mentally to make up for her limitations physically. To whit, about 80% of any nominally fit but untrained male areis better suited for combat than the top 20% fit females. Add training, and the disparity between the sexes increases to the point of almost no intersection, and we don't even let males in or we let them fall to the wayside when they're at the bottom of the cohort. Combat flying, especially in fighters is a thinking person's game, but it it also an extremely physical one. I only pulled 'real' g's in a fighter on a couple of occasions and as an extremely fit male (at that time) I still found it exhausting. The years I was on flying status (~'85-'93, yikes! so 'last century') the running gag at the Flight Doc's was that the ideal fighter pilot was a 45 year old male who ate too much red meat, drank too much and smoked Camel unfiltered, because they tended to have hardened veins and arteries that gave them better g-tolerance than all the running health nuts -- you just had to worry about them keeling over on the walk out to the plane. In the early 90's, USAFE even set aside weight room hours at all the bases with F-16s for pilots so they could build up their upper body strength-- because they found good cardio can lower your g-tolerance and there was an epidemic of g-LOC or were worried there was an epidemic. In physiological training (where we got our chamber rides) we learned women tend to have better untrained g-tolerance but their mass distribution and core muscle strength doesn't help them match men's trained g-tolerance. I also have a problem with the F-35 ejection seat that has nothing to do with crew weight (which is only a proxy for presumed neck musculature), because it is a little kinder and gentler on the initial egress than past systems which tended to break female's backs due to the female of the species greater S-curvature to the spine. Let us hope the slower blast-off doesn't make the live-die equation break towards the 'die' side sometime down the road for some unfortunate guy. I guarantee you most, if not all, males can work the touch screens, buttons, gizmos faster under g-load. And with training, all men could. Ah! Testosterone. Ever try lift your hand under high g? Go ahead, pop those countermeasures as fast as you can, let's hope it is fast enough.
If things go south, women are even more at a disadvantage, but who ever heard of things going south in combat? /sarc. 'Darn' if you didn't pop flares before that MANPAD whacked you. At least with the F-35 you don't have a crewmate that you aren't strong enough to help escape if they're injured. On the other hand Ms. Aircrew, you're more likely to be injured (less bone density and thinner bones) and a drag on the E&E in the first place. On the third hand, you're more likely to die from shock due to blood loss faster if you're injured. Shock from blood loss is the single largest cause of combat deaths historically and females have ~20ml less blood per pound of bodyweight, and their red blood cells carry ~20% less oxygen than males) so you probably won't be a drag for long--unfortunately probably just long enough to tank your buddy's chances. But let's pretend men and women are the same, ....cuz 'Equality'!
Don't get me started on the length some of these people will go to further the 'agenda'. Remember Rhonda Cornum? She spoke to my AFSNCO Academy class, and during Q&A denied (when asked by a female classmate) that she experienced any sexual abuse. A year later (or less) after all the interviews were over it was in her freaking book. She freakin' retired as a BGen fer cryin' out loud.
At the macro-level, I have objections on the basis that the hard math of biology and reproduction means males are relatively expendable. (There is a Sorites' paradoxical 'heap' of feminist demagoguery in post-modern sociology text trying to refuse and refute the idea, but they're pretty comical and sounds like they're whistling past the graveyard.) IMHO any society who thinks the female is as expendable as the male is doomed to eventual failure. Demographics is destiny. i.e. the future belongs to those who show up.
Sad thing is, the 'women in combat' issue would disappear if fitness standards were truly based upon the physical demands of combat.
In the tradition of the Great Gums McAdoo, SMSgt Mac opines...
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
"I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out." Back to the hockey game...
Clearly, the biggest hurdles to women in fighters have been cultural. But, Christine Mau is not the first female fighter pilot; the "women flying fighters" train left the station decades ago. Time to get over it and move on.
Clearly, the biggest hurdles to women in fighters have been cultural. But, Christine Mau is not the first female fighter pilot; the "women flying fighters" train left the station decades ago. Time to get over it and move on.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
35_aoa wrote:it's only a "thing" if we keep acting like it is.
This.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 868
- Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
- Location: Texas
LOL. It's a thing that can only be ignored until the "gods of the copybook headings" assert themselves.http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm. Until then, we can pretend it doesn't matter.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
35_aoa wrote:quicksilver wrote:My experience is that most women fighter folks cringe at the trumpeting of "firsts" by PAOs or other media reporting. As LtCol Mau notes, “...women have been flying fighters in combat for over 20 years.” Conspicuously, she de-emphasized the matter of gender and focused on the performance of the jet.
I liked how she ended that sentence with "…..so it's not really a thing". Agreed, it's only a "thing" if we keep acting like it is.
Indeed the ejection seat doesn't care. It will apply the same amount of force regardless of the damage it does. With a highly specific and specialized field like flying Its not as critical a factor because as she says the plane does the work, however there are still details and ignoring them doe not make them go away.
I'm looking forward to another generation of junior leaders that get stomped on for not being able to make a square peg fit into a round hole, and the only way to succeed in doing so is to ignore it, lie, or pretend its "not a thing"
Only in PC land can 129 females not being equal to a male be held up as aberration and the single gal of 130 that makes it be proof of total equality across the board.
Choose Crews
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
I guess I was being too subtle.
We're not talking about "women in combat." We're talking about women flying fighters. There are many who have done it; some really well, some pretty average, some better suited for other aircraft types. Some are good to be around in the ready room; some, not so much. No different than the guys. Been going on for decades. Have seen it first-hand.
We're not talking about "women in combat." We're talking about women flying fighters. There are many who have done it; some really well, some pretty average, some better suited for other aircraft types. Some are good to be around in the ready room; some, not so much. No different than the guys. Been going on for decades. Have seen it first-hand.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 637
- Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
quicksilver wrote:I guess I was being too subtle.
We're not talking about "women in combat." We're talking about women flying fighters. There are many who have done it; some really well, some pretty average, some better suited for other aircraft types. Some are good to be around in the ready room; some, not so much. No different than the guys. Been going on for decades. Have seen it first-hand.
What he said. I know a lot of you guys have strong opinions about women in ground units……I don't have a dog in that fight, nor do I have a particularly strong opinion either way (not that anyone asked me). However in a realm I am experienced in, specifically flying fighters, if she can do her job as well as anyone else, I have no issue.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2810
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
Withya AoA. And I wonder how many others here are pilots, and fighter/attack ones at that, hmmmm?
As with you, I do not have a "dog" ( no disrespect for sometypes we're discussin) in the fight WRT the grunts. Gotta admit that I do have mixed feelings and I try to understand where some of the guys are coming from when they talk about holding onto a female as she bleeds out in his arms. Don't know if I would treat her like any other grunt, or feel any worse. I just do not know.
In the aviation bidness, most of the time we saw an oily smoke plume off at 7 o'clock, but many times not. It would be an empty chair at the debrief and a peg in the life support shop that had no helmet or g-suit hanging there. Trust me, we lost 5 folks at Hill in an 18 month period and I got so sick of going to memorial services that I only went to the first 3 or 4, and then one after I retired in the Eglin area ( a nugget I helped train at Hill in 80 or 81). All but one of the guys at Hill were my age and were Chief of Safety, 421st CO, 16th CO and Chief of Stan Eval. All were pilot error and I was beginning to wonder about my own judgment, even after saving three jets that some could not ( next LEF failure dude couldn't land and ejected).
I tell all that the VIper was the first jet made to fit basketball players as well as midgets. I am not bigger than most of the females flying the Viper and a bit shorter than some. The rudder pedals only move 1/2 inch and you can crank those puppies out as much as you need. The seat can be lowered so much that I could not see thru the HUD or over the glareshield, heh heh. We wondered about g-tolerance, but seems that conditioning and training makes that moot. And AoA seems to agree with me that we could care less who is in the other jet as long as the pilot is competent and I am not having to "carry" the load ( training checkout excepted).
so taking the bait from SgtMac,
Gums opines....
Withya AoA. And I wonder how many others here are pilots, and fighter/attack ones at that, hmmmm?
As with you, I do not have a "dog" ( no disrespect for sometypes we're discussin) in the fight WRT the grunts. Gotta admit that I do have mixed feelings and I try to understand where some of the guys are coming from when they talk about holding onto a female as she bleeds out in his arms. Don't know if I would treat her like any other grunt, or feel any worse. I just do not know.
In the aviation bidness, most of the time we saw an oily smoke plume off at 7 o'clock, but many times not. It would be an empty chair at the debrief and a peg in the life support shop that had no helmet or g-suit hanging there. Trust me, we lost 5 folks at Hill in an 18 month period and I got so sick of going to memorial services that I only went to the first 3 or 4, and then one after I retired in the Eglin area ( a nugget I helped train at Hill in 80 or 81). All but one of the guys at Hill were my age and were Chief of Safety, 421st CO, 16th CO and Chief of Stan Eval. All were pilot error and I was beginning to wonder about my own judgment, even after saving three jets that some could not ( next LEF failure dude couldn't land and ejected).
I tell all that the VIper was the first jet made to fit basketball players as well as midgets. I am not bigger than most of the females flying the Viper and a bit shorter than some. The rudder pedals only move 1/2 inch and you can crank those puppies out as much as you need. The seat can be lowered so much that I could not see thru the HUD or over the glareshield, heh heh. We wondered about g-tolerance, but seems that conditioning and training makes that moot. And AoA seems to agree with me that we could care less who is in the other jet as long as the pilot is competent and I am not having to "carry" the load ( training checkout excepted).
so taking the bait from SgtMac,
Gums opines....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
For the mau mau innit....
LM GM F-35 Weekly Update
03 Aug 2017 Jeff Babione
"Full Circle: Air Force F-35 Pilots Join F-35 Training Team
This month, we set another program first by hiring two retired U.S. Air Force F-35 pilots to support the F-35 training mission. Former U.S. Air Force pilots Todd LaFortune and Christine Mau will soon be fully qualified as F-35 Training instructors at the Academic Training Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
Todd flew F-16s before flying the F-35A with the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin, he actually helped set up the ATC as the U.S. Air Force pilot training lead. “Staying around the fighter community was an easy choice – training the next generation of pilots who will go into combat with this airplane is important work,” said Todd. “I’m proud to be on the Lockheed Martin team.
Christine has an F-15E background, she went through the Eglin courses in March 2015, and flew the F-35 for two years at Eglin. “I love teaching,” said Christine. “You get energy from teaching young folks – in the Air Force, and it’s rejuvenating to teach them and pass on what I’ve learned to the next generation...."
Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 8_3_17.pdf (0.2Mb)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests