Armstrong
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 19,390
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
You want the blunt version......'balls'!
Well I can think of a dozen women from our History alone who had nuts of steel, so I dunno about that !
My friend, certain things are just symbolic. As a primate, at the most primitive stage, we know what qualities, abilities and physical/emotional attributes both sexes are better/worse at. Can a woman take on a man in actual hand to hand combat....that would be the most primitive kind of battle right? We can simply build on from there.
There are some things better left to women, then again there are things better left to men. Is all I'm saying.
Dude theres nothing symbolic about flying a multi million dollar military aviation asset & training day & night, sometimes precariously so, to hone one's skills for actual combat.
I'm sure a trained lady can face off against a trained man; otherwise, even the miniscule number of women recruits from everywhere from the IDF to the Pakistan Army, won't be there. For there is very little that is symbolic about fighting on the front line & training real hard for it.
I see no reason, if they - the women - can meet the minimum acceptable criteria, to not join the combat branch of the Armed Forces.
However because our discussion sprang from women being fighter pilots, I don't know of any physiological or psychological deficiency, amongst women recruits, to make them unsuitable for active duty as combat pilots of the Pakistan Airforce. I'm sure the people running the Airforce as more concerned about Operational Performance than symbolic gestures if they've not only continued with the induction of female GD pilots, but have possibly, facilitated or approved of an ever increasing trend in that.