Left-wing gender madness goes to war: Australian fighter pilots told to think of women and take “gender perspective” during bombing missions

War is a terrible thing and anyone who’s been to war will tell you that. 

The savagery of modern warfare, which anyone can quickly reference online in videos and photographs, clearly reveals the death, destruction, and suffering associated with it.

It’s why most nations choose war as a last resort. 

But when the choice is made to put a country’s armed forces into action, generally as an extension of a vitally important and necessary geopolitical objective or to merely protect the homeland, the very first priority should be to minimize the number of casualties your own military suffers.

Thanks, however, to the pervasiveness of the extreme Left, some Western militaries are being conditioned to structure their tactics around political, rather than strategic, goals.

According to the Sydney-based Daily Telegraph, a new Australian military doctrine called “Gender in Air Operations” instructs fighter pilots to consider how their actions might affect women by taking a “gender perspective” during bombing missions. 

The combat doctrine guides pilots regarding their actions before dropping or launching their ordnance in war zones to make sure that women are not put in any danger.

No word on what Aussie fighter pilots should do if they happen to face a female fighter pilot flying an enemy aircraft.

Breitbart News noted further that one hypothetical situation that Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) pilots might encounter is how bombing a bridge being utilized by enemy troops could, if destroyed, force local women to have to walk farther in order to get their basic domestic chores finished during a day.

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.

Designed to promote a “new way of thinking,” the program seeks to decrease war casualties and risks for women only, though it’s unclear how the doctrine would work if, say, male enemy troops identified as women. (Related: Gender is NOT a “social construct” – it has a real biological basis.)

Politically correct targeting is lunacy

According to a separate report from The Daily Telegraph, the Royal Australian Navy appears to have adopted a similar doctrine.

“The Royal Australian Navy Deputy Fleet Commander has ordered that ‘all operations and exercises’ be conducted with consideration of a “gender perspective,” the paper reported. “It comes after it was revealed air force pilots were told to do the same thing in battle scenarios.”

For the record, no, this is not a satirical story.

Needless to say, the ‘policy’ has been met first with disbelief and secondly with widespread condemnation.

“I think it’s utterly bizarre…this sort of guideline just adds that complexity and some kind of moral dilemma for someone who may have their targets sent on a strategic site,” said one Australian commentator.

‘Bizarre’ doesn’t begin to cut it; insane is a more apt description of this policy.

Retired Australian army Maj. Gen. Jim Molan, now a member of parliament, noted that RAAF pilots already take civilians into consideration when they are choosing targets.

“This is a well-intentioned but appallingly, clumsily written bit of scenario. I suspect it’s been written by people who haven’t had to do it,” he said.

‘Well-intentioned?’ That was far more polite than it should have been.

The object of war is to win and that occurs by destroying enemy formations and combatants, as well as the infrastructure necessary to carry on the conflict. That means in the simplest of terms ‘breaking things and killing people’ — regardless of gender.

It’s hard to determine who is most crazy, the people who wrote this policy or those who ordered that it be implemented.

Read more about the cultist Left’s gender lunacy at Gender.news and LeftCult.com.

Sources include:




comments powered by Disqus