Hello. I am Ex RAF and there was always something I disagreed. I the RAF the fitness standards were very different for men and women. For example I have just checked the latest RAF fitness standard. For a 17-29 YO male a pass on the bleed test is 9.10 but for a female of same age it's 7.01. For anyone who has ever done a bleep test that is a massive difference. The RAF say it's aimed at making a level playing field as women's physiology is weaker. Is this fair or is this a miss guided a tempt at equality? From a very practical view point I am against it. Women are often very much in the thick of it these day and rightfully so. I have served with lots of them in various tours of Afghanistan. I don't give a dam about gender. I just care about if you can do your job and be relied on when it hits the fan. My concern is that the enamy won't make allowance for differing physiology why does the RAF.
I don't think it is that important for feminism that women are allowed to die in wars waged by patriarchal countries.
However, in a combat situation, does upper body strength (that which men tend to have more of) actually matter that much? I think no one really knows that, and the fitness tests are just to make sure they don't get couch potatoes. So the allowance for differing physiology is actually sensible, as men with the same upper body strength as a fit woman might be quite a bit less fit in general.
And RAF is royal air force, correct? (Could be Rote Armee Fraktion, but probably not) Wouldn't women actually be better pilots, considering that they tend to weigh less?
(What is the bleed test? I am guessing it is not a test on how much you can bleed without passing out ... though women are rather good at that, as proven by menstruation.)