Australian Air Force Pilots Told: Consider ‘Gendered Social Roles’ During Bombing Operations

Article here. Excerpt:

'The “Gender in Air Operations” doctrine informs pilots what they should do before dropping bombs in war zones to ensure women aren’t placed in danger, according to the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

One hypothetical example included in the RAAF guide highlights how destroying a bridge, being used by enemy forces, could force local women to walk further to perform basic domestic chores. The doctrine said:

Although destroying this target may provide a military advantage against the enemy, the second order effect may mean that, due to the gendered social roles, women need to travel further afield, on unfamiliar and less secure, well-known or well-lit routes to gather water and firewood.

The program has been designed to encourage a “new way of thinking” in which vulnerable women aren’t at an increased risk of violence or threat, the Telegraph reports.

Veterans and local news commentators are calling the move an exercise in political correctness that will add another layer of concern for pilots fighting in war zones.'

Like1 Dislike0


The stuff I see coming out of Australia even beats Canada, though maybe not Scotland. It's anyone's guess what's next with them.

Like3 Dislike1

Australia has gone further and faster down the road of gendered double-speak over the last few years. Hatred of men and masculinity has been fostered and applauded by our national broadcaster, the Australian Braodcasting Corporation (ABC), as has the abuse and degradation of women who speak their own mind and don't support the Leftist narratives.

As for this latest ridiculous leak of femsplaining to the military...

Assumption 1 (sexist). Only female non-combatants are entitled to consideration
Assumption 2 (sexist). Only females provide water and food for families.
Assumption 3 (sexist). All children have a female carer and all females care for children; i.e. conflating female safety with child safety.
Assumption 4 (sexist). Women are non-combatants and only men fight wars or have a stake in armed conflict. Tell that to Thatcher, Clinton, Indira Ghandi, Isabella of Spain, Elizabeth I, Victoria I; warmongers and pilagers of the third world.
Assumption 4 (just plain stupid). Non-combatants are better off if the "enemy" is allowed freedom of movement on the field so they don't have to walk very far for water or food? Sort of wonder why we would be fighting if that was the really the case.

Clearly these protocols have been written by morons with no understanding of modern battlefields, but with a masters degree in gender studies.

Like2 Dislike0

Men don't drink water or start fires.

Yes, destroying a bridge can have major consequences, including limiting water supplies. But to make this a gender issue is introducing an unnecessary dimension. If bombing the bridge stops the advance of enemy troops, women may have to suck it up and walk a little farther for water and firewood. One presumes these women might also be protected from enemy troops. If inconveniencing women is more important than winning the war, I suspect the war is already lost. Women are inconvenienced. Men die.

Maybe they should consider that as well.

Like0 Dislike0