THE FIRST woman ever to join the Red Arrows, the elite British aerobatics team, has been reassigned to ground duty as a result of stress. According to The Daily Mail, 33-year-old Flt. Lt. Kirsty Stewart was traumatized by the accidental deaths of two other pilots. As a result of her unexpected reassignment, the Red Arrows’s famous “Diamond Nine” flight formation will be abandoned this year. Eight planes would not create the requisite visual balance.

Stewart joined the Red Arrows in 2009. It is no surprise that a woman would find daredevil flying and the deaths of coworkers traumatic. One also cannot discount the possibility that there were other factors. The article does not mention whether she has children.

Stewart is one small actor in the ongoing pseudo-reality show of the coed military, which denies basic, common sense distinctions of sex. You will not likely find anyone in the mainstream media saying that Stewart’s acceptance into the Red Arrows caused an enormous waste of public dollars. Nor will anyone likely suggest that Stewart had misplaced ambitions and that these were wrongly indulged. At least two potential male candidates were denied the chance to see their dreams of high-risk flying satisfied. The boys who fantasize about flying jet planes are legion. The number of girls who want to be real fighter pilots is tiny. The issues of wasted money and men turned down for the Red Arrows are relatively trivial. What is not trivial is the ultimate purpose that women “firsts” like Stewart serve. Masculinity and femininity are the world’s oldest checks on centralized power. The public relations effort exemplified by Stewart is now relentlessly advanced by government and big business, and it is a deadly serious game that protects the interests of those in power.

— Comments —

Michael Rivett writes:

I just wanted to write to say that your dross of an article bears no reality to fact, and is completely unfounded. Which is no surprise as you have used the Daily Mail as reference. It is amateur at best.

You clearly have no idea of the determination, dedication and skill required to do a job like this. And the very real fact that seeing two close friends / colleagues lost in very tragic circumstances may effect a frame of mind, when the smallest lack of concentration can have consequences on 8 other aircraft within a metre of yours.

Its certainly a relief that your views are not shared by many.

Laura writes:

I obviously disagree that my entry was “dross.”

You have misrepresented my argument. I said it was not surprising that a woman would find the deaths of two colleagues traumatic. That is normal. It is normal for a man to be traumatized by the death of other pilots, let alone for a woman, who is more emotional by nature.

I am sure it takes enormous dedication. That’s all the more reason why it is difficult for women, who have other important things to do.

I disagree that many people don’t share my view that women should not be pilots of fighter jets.

Philip Bosworth writes:

I should imagine you know nothing about the military fast jet regime. I do. I trained Kirsty Stewart on the Hawk and she was every bit as good as her male counterparts.

Before selection to the Red Arrows Kirsty Stewart completed operational tours as a Tornado pilot where she saw active service and as a fast-jet instructor. You make no mention of this in your article and I wonder if you bothered to do your research properly before you condemned her for stealing the dreams of boys and pursuing her pseudo-real, liberal agenda.

Two of only 9 Red Arrows lost their lives last year and in the year previous another 1 very nearly lost his life; that’s a third of the team (put another way 3 of Kirsty’s 8 colleagues) suffered death or serious injury in a 2 year period. RAF pilots know what they’re investing in and loss of life is always a possibility but losing colleagues to the horror of war is not the same as losing them to tragic accidents. That one of the team is struggling to cope with those events comes as no surprise; the only surprise is that we haven’t seen more.

It’s unfortunate that it was Kirsty, and not one of the fellas, who fell victim to a case of PTSD. Unfortunate because it provokes narrow-minded parasites like you to step up and make statements about the things of which you know nothing.

Laura writes:

I never said Ms. Stewart was not good at what she does. I reported that she found the work too stressful, which is not surprising.

I completely agree that her struggle to cope with those events comes as no surprise. That was my point. It is normal for a woman to be stressed in such a position.

By the way, I did not condemn Kirsty for pursuing her dreams. I condemned the ideology that makes women think they can handle combat-related conditions or the flying of fast jets in the same way men can.

Dean Ericson writes:

Michael Rivett wrote:

I just wanted to write to say that your dross of an article bears no reality to fact, and is completely unfounded. Which is no surprise as you have used the Daily Mail as reference. It is amateur at best.

Mr. Rivett claims your article bears no relation to fact, yet he provides not a single fact of his own to help establish the truth. Instead of facts, we are treated to Mr. Rivett’s feelings. We are not impressed.

Henry McCulloch writes:

Except for Dean Ericson, your commenters on this post entirely miss your point. As one who has lived a long time on the Dead Island, and who has many friends there, I have a thought: Michael Rivett is a Brit – probably a sniffily liberal one, given his reflexive scorn for the Daily Mail – who is cheesed off, as one might say, that a cheeky Yank like you is making negative comments – as he sees them – about a Flower of “New” Britain such as Flt Lt Kirsty Stewart. He has certainly missed your point; but he is a product of his society and has probably been carefully conditioned not to see your point. For what it is worth, when I was an active fighter pilot, several friends and squadron mates of mine died flying fighters; I watched two of them die. I didn’t quit flying as a result; nor did any of my (all-male) squadron mates. It never entered our minds. We mourned our friends, and tried to learn something from how they had died.

Philip Bosworth must be a RAF pilot himself, if he’s telling the truth about having trained Flt Lt Stewart. I think his reaction – in addition to missing the point of your entry, like Mr Rivett – exemplifies what is wrong about putting women – no matter how good they may be at the mechanics of flying an airplane – into the man’s world that is flying fighters. (Of course, flying in an airshow team is not quite flying fighters; that’s especially true of the Red Arrows, who fly their shows in a trainer. Bosworth does say Stewart flew the Tornado, which is a sort-of fighter, complete with navigator to help the pilot.) Bosworth probably liked Stewart – she comes across as pleasant in the photo, for whatever that’s worth – and probably, as a man will, feels a bit protective of her. My hypothetical question: if a male Red Arrow pilot had quit the team in the identical circumstances, would Bosworth leap to defend him? I doubt it; what’s more, if Bosworth is a real fighter pilot, he probably would be rather contemptuous of the male quitter, even if he wouldn’t say so. Some silences can be pretty loud…

What neither Rivett nor Bosworth can see – and those who rule their country now want to make damned sure they never do see it – is that putting Kirsty Stewart in the Red Arrows is not some grand gesture of British patriotism, but a profoundly subversive social message. Whether she meant to be or not, Kirsty Stewart was being used as a tool of Britain’s cultural Marxists, doing her bit to upend normal social understandings in once-Great Britain. No doubt the neutered RAF will replace her with a flagrant homosexual, ideally a lesbian, if they can find one to do the job to the minimum standard.

Mr. McCulloch adds:

Apropos of our exchange, when I checked Facebook a moment ago (guilty! yes…), I came upon the following quote, posted by one of my favourite FB groups, Traditional Britain. Quite prescient, I think.

Mr. McCulloch continues:

Please follow and like us: