Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Pilot Lorraine Zillner claimed these incidents happened because of men "who didn't really feel that women had any business in a cockpit," but none of these alleged cases were proven, historian Helena Page Schrader writes in Sisters in Arms: The Women Who Flew in World War II.
Agreed although this does not take away the fact that the bias of the time prevented recognition of the contribution to the war effort by groups like the women and the non-caucasians at the time.From the article:
I'm hard-pressed to believe it.
Agreed although this does not take away the fact that the bias of the time prevented recognition of the contribution to the war effort by groups like the women and the non-caucasians at the time.
Pretty much sums it up really.Agreed although this does not take away the fact that the bias of the time prevented recognition of the contribution to the war effort by groups like the women and the non-caucasians at the time.
And the language is very new age, too.From the article:
I'm hard-pressed to believe it.
The words sabotage and traitor also come to mind here. Doubtful that anyone would have risked that.And the language is very new age, too.
The problem I have with the alleged sabotage, is back then, the war effort was priority one.
Damaging a warplane just to teach a woman a lesson, meant one less for the front and would have turned the perpetrator into an instant target for an angry mob.
And the language is very new age, too.
The problem I have with the alleged sabotage, is back then, the war effort was priority one.
Damaging a warplane just to teach a woman a lesson, meant one less for the front and would have turned the perpetrator into an instant target for an angry mob.
Just as Warspiter mentioned, pulling a stunt like that back during the war would have them pegged as a traitor aka Nazi Sympathizer and such.It just sounds wrong to me. Misogyny is one thing, and very real in that era, but killing someone over it? Smells fishy. Even if the investigation is not public, and it won't be, once they find the fuelie there's some prison time in line for him.
Destroying gov't property in wartime was, and is, a very serious offense.
Just as Warspiter mentioned, pulling a stunt like that back during the war would have them pegged as a traitor aka Nazi Sympathizer and such.
Like I mentioned, they'd have a bigass target on their back.
Hmm, in an ideal world maybe, but there are enough examples of actions that were personally favourable, but not for the war effort. Most famously two generals who thought their ego was more important than winning the war.And the language is very new age, too.
The problem I have with the alleged sabotage, is back then, the war effort was priority one.
Damaging a warplane just to teach a woman a lesson, meant one less for the front and would have turned the perpetrator into an instant target for an angry mob.
Perhaps hazing, Marcel, but not destruction of material.Hmm, in an ideal world maybe, but there are enough examples of actions that were personally favourable, but not for the war effort. Most famously two generals who thought their ego was more important than winning the war.
I think it's fully plausible that things like these happened on an individual basis. I'm not saying they really happened, I just don't know.
There are those truly committed to stupidity without thinking things through.Hmm, in an ideal world maybe, but there are enough examples of actions that were personally favourable, but not for the war effort. Most famously two generals who thought their ego was more important than winning the war.
I think it's fully plausible that things like these happened on an individual basis. I'm not saying they really happened, I just don't know.
The words sabotage and traitor also come to mind here. Doubtful that anyone would have risked that.
Brewster used a downtown factory in New York and as a result no doubt employed man new immigrants.