“Offensive” historic nose art safe in the Air Force National Museum for the time being.

Drudge linked to a story today titled Navy Will Inspect Its Bathrooms for ‘Degrading’ Images of Women. There isn’t really anything new about military policy in the basic article; women wanted in and the final mopping up operations of marking the territory are pretty much on schedule:

“If there is doubt as to whether material is degrading or offensive,” the memo says, “the individual conducting the inspection shall remove the material from the workplace to ensure a professional work environment.”

What did interest me however was towards the end of the article where it explained that the Air Force has made an exception for historic WWII nose art on planes in the National Museum:

According to a December 2012 Dayton Daily News report, paintings of voluptuous women will not be removed from the nose cones of old planes at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Following to the Dayton Daily News story I found a quote from Col. Cassie Barlow, commander of the 88th Air Base Wing:

I think the tradition and history at the Air Force museum is just that…
That’s our history. We’re not going to go back and change those things because that’s part of our history and that’s an important part of our organization. I think the museum will keep the displays that they have just as they are.

One plane from when the Air Force was an organization of men was so troubling to the Dayton Daily News reporter (or perhaps editor) that it couldn’t even be named:

The museum’s collection has several aircraft with nose art of pin-up models. For example, a World War II-era B-24D Liberator bomber on display shows a pin-up model reclining in a blue dress and a profanity used in the name of the plane.

I have no expertise when it comes to the topic of nose art, but I did some searching and I believe this is the B-24D which must not be named:

Strawberry_Bitch_nose_art640
Unfortunately this terribly un PC B-24 isn’t entirely out of the woods yet.  The article references “complaints” which have been made about some of the planes and quotes a statement provided by the Air Force National Museum:

At such time when an inspection is complete, the museum staff will make a reasonable assessment before any actions are taken…
Some aircraft and artifacts contain historical art, which the museum is professionally obligated to accurately represent as part of Air Force history.

Strawberry Bitch photo licensed as Creative Commons by Christopher Paulin.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminist Territory Marking. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to “Offensive” historic nose art safe in the Air Force National Museum for the time being.

  1. Give them time. Traditional organizations like the military always think they can negotiate with their enemies in good faith and find compromises that will last, but that’s not how it works. They take as much as they can get without causing a complete refusal, and then in a few years when everyone’s gotten used to the new way of things, they’ll push for more. Now that the precedent of caving in is so well set, those pictures are doomed. The best hope is that they’ll find their way to some private collector before they’re all destroyed.

  2. John says:

    “Traditional organizations like the military always think they can negotiate with their enemies in good faith and find compromises that will last, but that’s not how it works. They take as much as they can get without causing a complete refusal, and then in a few years when everyone’s gotten used to the new way of things, they’ll push for more.”

    That’s why my son’s troop is leaving the BSA by the end of this year…

    Back on topic, of course this is ridiculous. Why aren’t these feminist crusaders upset about much more offensive images you see everywhere now (magazines at checkout lines, pop-up ads online, billboards, etc). And of course you see them in person with the way most girls and women dress now.

    As a side note, images like that (as mild as they seem now), went on to become Playboy in the 50s, the sexual revolution in the 60s, and the downhill moral slide we’ve seen since in every decade. However, that’s NOT an argument to censor them. Rather, it’s better to keep them to show how the slippery slope works.

  3. DrTorch says:

    Dayton…with a ‘y’.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  4. Swithunus says:

    I think that it’s past time to stop caring about feminist complaints. As Cail says as with any grievance industry, there is nothing in it for them letting the issue drop long term. Whatever deal you do today, tomorrow they will be back for more. You can’t make them happy, so there’s no point trying to do so.

    Stick whatever poster that the law requires on the door of the hanger (‘may contain images causing bad-feel and butt-hurt’) and just accept that the absolute hordes of feminists will stop visiting (both of them).

  5. Solomon says:

    THIS is the cause they choose?

    There are children starving, children dying from abuse, people without food and water

    and they want concern themselves with THIS?

    utterly disgusting.

  6. Ton says:

    Now I rarely dealt with hatchet wounds when I was in, but I don’t recall any of them being offended with nudie pin-ups, foul jokes, foul lauange and the like. My suspicions are men are driving this because they think it will be a good bullet statement for their officer evaluation and help them get promoted.

    A junior officer can be good or bad depending on the man. senior officers are bad men, they get those jobs based on their politics not necessarily their ability to lead men

  7. earl says:

    Stick a crucfix in urine and that is an expression of art.

    Show some pretty lady in a submissive pose while having a deragorty term near it…and that is offensive.

    Get the difference?

  8. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Have them repainted as fatties.

    No longer offensive…to those currently experiencing catastrophic heart failure at the sight of art men like.

  9. sunshinemary says:

    Here is the Air Force’s list of items they found that were “unprofessional” or “offensive” when they did their inspection.

    http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf

    One of my favorites: Photos of old aircraft.

    It is OFFENSIVE for a man in the Air Force to have pictures of old aircraft. Yep.

    My suggestion for what the offended feminists in AF might like to paint on the sides of their planes:

    All your balls are belong to us!

  10. Toddy Cat says:

    THe idea that young heterosexual men fighting a ruthless enemy, in constant danger of flaming death, without any female company, might have had thoughts of attractive, submissive young women? Scandalous! Who could ever have imagined?

  11. AdmiralBenbow says:

    Not sure if you saw the recent article about how the Pentagon is going to open up the SEALs and Rangers to women. Of particular interest:

    Service leaders expect to have new training and qualification requirements for female Ranger candidates by July 2015, the AP reports.

    Feminists just want women to be treated as equal to men. Unless of course being treated as equal to men is just too hard for women to take, in which case they demand that the bar be lowered so they can get into the ranks of elite men without having the accompanying skills and accomplishments.

  12. Oh my goodness! Every year, MrsLarijani and I make the trip to Wright-Patteron AFB for the Air Force Marathon. When we do, we always make a point to tour the museum, as it is a favorite place of mine. (I spent a significant part of my childhood in Dayton, and toured the museum often.)

    And yes, the Strawberry Bitch is one of our favorite displays.

  13. herbn says:

    Drudge linked to a story today titled Navy Will Inspect Its Bathrooms for ‘Degrading’ Images of Women.

    When I was in the Navy (I got out in 1995) they had us remove pin-ups from our barracks rooms and berthing (sub crews don’t have to live on ship in port) because in the former case female barracks managers might have to inspect them and in the latter case female IMA works might see them.

    That this was our already limited personal space was irrelevant. Women whose personal space it wasn’t got to decide what was acceptable.

  14. deti says:

    This is a bit like educational “experts” editing and sanitizing classic books like Huckleberry Finn. Huck’s traveling partner in the original editions was “N*gger Jim”, so named because that’s how people talked and interacted with each other at the time the story was written, and it was a part of the culture in which Huck’s story takes place. (Ironically, I feel I can’t even type out the full epithet in this combox for fear of offending someone or that this relevant comment would be edited or deleted by WordPress, in large part because the “N-word” is considered even more vulgar, offensive and crass than the word “cunt” which i have no doubt will make it past the filters.)

    Now he’s just “Jim” — clearly a black man/runaway slave in the 19th century United States, but with the offending adjective removed.

    War aircraft nose art like this was a part of the culture in which they were created. These were painted and created by men away from home, away from women, not getting laid except very infrequently if at all. The images and words used to describe those images are part of our history. This is how these men talked and interacted with each other. It was how these men worked, played and lived with and around each other. This is how these rough, unrefined men got themselves through the utter hell, carnage, and fear of death that was conventional WW II era warfare. We destroy it at our peril, for if we don’t know where we came from, we surely will never know where we’re going.

  15. Prof. Woland says:

    Now might be a good time to start reminding everyone that is was MEN who fought and died in those planes and not a bunch of over promoted lesbians with cropped hair.

  16. Peter Blood says:

    Stick a crucfix in urine and that is an expression of art.

    Jewish psyops at their finest.

    Strawberry Bitch is pretty mild, it’s just cheesecake, but some of the art in the USAAF was downright pornographic, I’m sure that stuff didn’t make it into the newsreels.

  17. Buck says:

    The irony of this is that the girls who join the military are either lesbians (who are hyper-sexualized anyway) or notorious meat gobblers. That nose art is nothing compared to the most recent party pictures they have on their cell phone or sexts they send to Facebook friends.
    Quote a female drill instructor to her female recruits,, spoken as I passed by ” there is 5 miles of dick for you to ride IF you earn a weekend pass”

    That earlier commenter had it right….our world is falling apart and the U.S. Navy thinks THIS is a priorty!?!?!?!

  18. Jeremy says:

    Oi vey, we need another world war.

  19. What you have to understand is that the feminists play both sides so as to crush good, moral men in the middle.

    The same folks who started the feminist movement and the sexual harassment industry also launched the pornography industry.

    Note how the feminists never go after hardcore porn (as their ilk are funding/financing/profiting off it), but they only ever go after pg-13 content which normal men enjoy, so as to crush normal men.

    If you are working in their porn industry, you can fuck a woman in her butthole and profit off it. If you are working in their university or school, ask a women out, or compliment her shoes, and you can lose your job and get fired.

    The feminists and their ilk profit off hardcore porn, as they fund and create it. But try hanging an innocent swimsuit calendar in your office, and they will send forth their lawyers to seize your assets, even as they film one-another doing each other in their asses.

  20. Casey says:

    Just another shaming of men both past & present.

    Feminists are the biggest hypocrites. The blather in mainstream media is one long tyrannical verbal fart about how men must change to suit women……while simultaneously insulting those men.

    How about men show up at your ‘women only’ gym, and start making demands that suit us?

    I can hear the shrill cries of ‘unfairness’ already.

  21. Escoffier says:

    Deti, it’s worse than that, the n-word is actually integral to the story of Huck Finn, bowdlerizing it changes the meaning of Twain’s work.

  22. imnobody00 says:

    Men going to death-> No protest, whine or complain. Only the image of a sexy woman to relief the loneliness, the exhausting days, the filth, the risk, the dangers, the bombs, the ditches…

    Women seeing a so-called “sexist” pictore-> OMG! This is oppression! We are oppressed! This is intolerable! Something must be done about it! I am a viiiiiiiiiiiiictim! The patriarchy is oppressing me. Why are men so privileged? Why don’t aircraft with sexist images of men exist? This is only another exhibit of the rape culture, of the oppression of women by men for millennia. Do something.

    Men hearing women complaining -> OK. I’ll do what you want if you scream high enough.

    And this is why MRA won’t go anywhere. Men don’t like to protest so they can be thoroughly oppressed and nothing happens. Women whine and complain and bitch and complain and whine.

  23. Toddy Cat says:

    Yeah, some of the WWII nose art was borderline pornographic, but most of it wasn’t, even by the standards of the time, and certainly not now. I’m not sure how slippery that slope was, anyway – after all, there is nothing wrong with young unmarried men enjoying looking at (non- porn) pictures of attractive young unmarried women, and most of those guys who flew those planes came home and built the “puritanical, boring, repressed” America of the 1950’s. I’ll bet most of those guys (who survived) never even looked at a “Playboy” magazine. I mean, Hugh Hefner wasn’t exactly a battle-scarred combat veteran. And, as always, GBFM is right, no matter how oddly his correctitude may sometimes be expressed.

  24. Peter Blood says:

    The sex industry in London in WWII boomed, mainly because of US servicemen. “Overpaid, oversexed, and over here” was a complaint many Englishmen had about Americans.

    Toddy Cat: did you actually look at the link I posted?

    Escoffier, “Deti, it’s worse than that, the word “nigger” is actually integral to the story of Huck Finn, bowdlerizing it changes the meaning of Twain’s work.”

    Fixed that for ya! Funny how you yourself bowdlerized it.

  25. GregMan says:

    Next I suppose somewhine will start bitching about the “Memphis Belle”. After all there’s a cute babe in that nose art, too. Just when you think thgis country can’t possibly get any more screwed up the loony left comes along and proves you wrong.

    Actually very little WW2 nose art featured full nudity. Much of it was text-only, like the Enola Gay, because getting the real fancy stuff depended in part on whether or not your squadron could get hold of a good enough artist to paint it on. B-24’s had some of the best nose art because those long flat fuselage sides made an excellent “canvas”. Google “The Dragon And His Tail” to see what could be done with a B-24.

  26. Dalrock says:

    alcestiseshtemoa that is pretty far off topic. I know Steve Sailer has written about the lack of precision with the demographic term “Hispanic”, and the different views on race, etc in Latin America.

  27. dannyfrom504 says:

    i actually recieved an official email informing all sailors of the policy. navy times ran an article on how the CNO ordered inspections of all navy exchanges to ensure there is nothing that could be deemed “offensive”. we have had 2 hours “inservices” on sexual assault for the past 4 months.

    i actually filed a complaint that i found the training offensive as it portrayed men as being cowardly bystanders or completely over the top and gratuitiously inappropriate. but just to be PC they do “mention” (albeit in passing) that men can be sexually assaulted as well. then they move right on.

    i can’t wait to be done with this orginazation in march.

  28. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Apologies Dalrock. I couldn’t e-mail you so I posted this here directly to communicate what I wanted to say. Now that it has all been said and done please delete my comments.

    Don’t want to mess up this thread and derail the comments. That’s a bad idea. Thank you. Have a nice day.

  29. greyghost says:

    dannyfrom504
    I got out in 96 and that stuff was starting up then. It must be open season on penis right now. I actually hope it get worse faster. I really want the senate to pass the bill into law undermining the chain of command to insure the military has all emasculated men just like modern marriage.
    Image all of the heterosexual white males daily and routinely referred to as racist, sexist, homophobes and rape culture followers. All because you are privileged wimps that can’t handle strong women and minorities. In the mean time get out there and meet the highest standards for your job and die for your country because we all hate you. BTW these guys back here are going to fuck your wife and if you don’t like it just kill yourself.
    For those of you with sons that is the military today.

  30. Toddy Cat says:

    “Toddy Cat: did you actually look at the link I posted?”

    Yes, absolutely I did. I think that my judgement that “some of the WWII nose art was borderline pornographic, but most of it wasn’t” pretty well stands. Maybe we have different definitions of pornography. By the way, some of that nose art is a lot later than WWII. As for the sex industry in Britain, yeah, any time two million unattached single men come into a country, the “sex industry” (I take it that this is a euphemism for prostitution) booms. Had two million Brits been sent to New York in WWI, I’m sure that NYC’s ladies of the night would have registed an uptick in business as well. No one is claiming that U.S. airmen were a bunch of sexless angels. But they were hardly a bunch of oversexed perverts, either. They were just a bunch of ordinary American guys, whose natural yearning for attractive young women in a dangerous situation is now being retroctively declared semi-criminal by a bunch of PC nitwits who would have pissed themselves had they had to fly one mission againast the Luftwaffe or IJAF. By the way, the American response to the “Oversexed, overpaid, and over here” comment was that the British were “Undersexed, Underpaid, and under Eisenhower”.

  31. Put this in the same category as book burnings. Destroy that which offends you. This won’t end with pictures of naked ladies but with the entirety of Western History. Our Western History is far too white male dominated to be deemed to be able to stay in existence. Just like the actual white male, it must be marginalised and destroyed.

  32. bridget says:

    Two things about this strike me as bizarre (or Orwellian):
    1. Demanding to be in the military because you’re a big, strong girl who can gun down the Taliban, but complaining that a few pictures of hot chicks makes you cry like a second-grader whose pigtails got pulled on the playground; and
    2. The attempt to re-write history.

    Onto the second: we don’t gain anything when we pretend that history is anything but what it was; at best, it confuses people, and at worst, it’s Orwellian. Yes, men in the forties liked looking at paintings of voluptuous women. In fact, men have always liked that – hence Le Dejeuner Sur L’Herbe (sorry if I mangled the title). If one is offended by those pictures, and think that feminism had a lot to add to the world, then why cover up those pictures? Why not leave them there to say, “This was how things used to be, and women didn’t like it, so they changed it”, rather than trying to expunge the things you think are bad, but explain why things needed to be changed?

    Assuming, arguendo, that said pictures are objectively offensive and inappropriate, why not leave them there as an object lesson? If you want to explain why slavery was bad, you would have someone read Uncle Tom’s Cabin; you wouldn’t ban it from the library.

  33. deti says:

    Sounds like you’re coming around, Bridget.

  34. bridget says:

    (I’m also amused by the notion that men shouldn’t desire women. This is related to the ridiculous notion that breasts aren’t sexual, and if we only changed society, men would stop ogling women’s chests. I would LOVE to see a woman who actually lived in a reality in which her boyfriend, lover, crush object, or husband ignores her when she’s in a slinky black dress or sultry lingerie.)

  35. If you think America can’t get any more screwed up, wait for the passing of the Immigration Reform Bill. Ha, the politicians all say it’s going to ‘reform’ the economy. What they forget to add is that is sure is going to reform it, straight outta your pocket and it to theirs.

  36. Casey says:

    All I can say is that I pray for true ‘equality’ when the next global conflict arises. Let them be marched off to die on some foreign rock; your know………so we’re all equal.

    Feminists are big on blathering on about wanting equality, and then demand lowered standards to allow them to enter the arena. Seriously?

    If women had to pass the EXACT same physical standards as men to enter the military, there would be ZERO of them elisted.

    Why haven’t feminists demanded a striking down on male/female lines in the Olympics?
    1) The Olympics committee would shit on their protest
    2) A female would never stand on the podium again for the higher strength competitions.

    Feminism may have an OUNCE of integrity if they pick up that sword.

  37. feerikers says:

    bridget said:

    Yes, men in the forties liked looking at paintings of voluptuous women. In fact, men have always liked that – hence Le Dejeuner Sur L’Herbe (sorry if I mangled the title).

    I would only add –AND ALWAYS WILL to the end of the second sentence of the statement above. I almost added “sorry, feminists and ladies who hate being ‘objectified’,” except that I realize that there’s no need to apologize for biological imperatives.

  38. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    “Have them repainted as fatties.”

    Ha!

  39. lzozozozozozozoolz

    porn is good is good is good

    but warriors fighting fiat warz on foreign shores posting photos of pretty women in swimsuits is bad bad bad bad bad

  40. feerikers says:

    If women had to pass the EXACT same physical standards as men to enter the military, there would be ZERO of them elisted.

    And this is why they never will have to meet such standards. Men in the services ALWAYS have been forced to “pick up the slack” for their female counterparts and always will be forced to do so as long as the feminine imperative infects all levels of government, including the military.

    I’ll never forget when I went through naval aircrew training in Pensacola, Florida over thirty years ago, the women who were part of my training class (they had just opened up naval aircrew billets to women to fly as crew on non-combat aircraft). The physical training for us enlisted aircrew was every bit as strenuous and demanding as that for the officer candidates in the school across the street. Indeed, we went through almost all of the same physical and survival training routines. One thing I do clearly remember, though, was the free passes given to the women when it came to things like the beach obstacle course where upper body strength was essential. Even those of us men with low upper body strength were made to run this course until we completed it in full. The women were “gundecked” through it, as none of them that I remember could complete the entire course. Luckily, I never had to fly with any of them as crew mates over the course of my career. I could only imagine what would have happened if any of the aircraft in which I was crew had suffered an emergency requiring ditching or bailout.

    Concerning the point that Admiral Benbow makes about women in the Rangers and Navy SEALS, the same thing is going to be the norm there and it’s going to get a lot of men killed – not that anyone in a position of authority cares.

    As to the question of why the Navy is obsessed with “offensive” heads, it’s for exactly the reason Ton states in his 8:17AM: senior officers are bad men, they get those jobs based on their politics not necessarily their ability to lead men.

    Senior (more correctly “flag”) officers are, first and foremost, politicians, NOT military commanders. They probably know viscerally that what they’re doing under orders from Rome-on-the-Potomac where “gender integration” is concerned is destroying the combat effectiveness of the forces they command, but ultimately they don’t care. You see, effectiveness as a fighting force really isn’t what the military today is all about. It’s a means to an end for the people who are in charge of it. It’s about their careers, their futures as privileged members of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) Establishment, both while on active duty and as “contractors” after they retire. The male flag officers are only too happy to sell their fellow men down the river in order to maintain their own privilege. The few female flag officers are mostly penis envy-infected man-haters or lesbians who see destroying male service members as an integral part of their mission, a perquisite in the form of a First Class ticket on their own way toward establishing privilege within the MIC.

  41. dannyfrom504 says:

    GG-
    i came in in 94 and the whole tailhook thing was going down. thats when it started. the PRT standards alone are laughable.

  42. Toddy Cat says:

    “Feminism may have an OUNCE of integrity if they pick up that sword.”

    I wouldn’t hold my breath…

  43. why is nobody upset that the family is being destroyed by porn and feminism?

  44. an observer says:

     MEN who fought and died in those planes and not a bunch of over promoted lesbians 

    Give it time. The wimminzfolk may yet have their day.

  45. Peter Blood says:

    GBFM: E. Michael Jones “Libido Dominandi: The Sexual Revolution and Social Control” is, pun intended, illuminating (but depressing, too). Leftist regimes push freedom–below the belt. Which is really a form of slavery.

    Our rulers call to us: “Rise up, O free slaves, and enslave yourselves some more to your love of freedom!”

  46. Peter Blood says:

    If you think America can’t get any more screwed up, wait for the passing of the Immigration Reform Bill. Ha, the politicians all say it’s going to ‘reform’ the economy. What they forget to add is that is sure is going to reform it, straight outta your pocket and it to theirs.

    Big Business really wants to break the white middle class labor market. Putting women in the workforce helped–Phase 1. Flooding the country with easily-controlled and low-paid third worlders will finish the job–Phase 2. Phase 3 is roll in the profits! Labor costs, which shiver the timbers of every bigbusinessman, will be broken!

    I have no idea how they expect us to buy all that crap from China then.

  47. Ton says:

    My son is a Ranger; I told him to go awol if they ever allow women

  48. Twenty says:

    I continue to be mystified as to why any man would surrender his liberty to such an organization, in the service of such a society. Why allow yourself to be used to prop up a society that hates you, by an organization that treats you as second-class?

    Participating in the society itself is bad enough, but at least you’re not subject to the blatantly arbitrary and totalitarian authority of the military.

    Military service, at most times and for many causes, is a fine and honorable thing, but today it seems like a sucker bet.

  49. lzozozlzozo

    http://www.americanretirees.org/horrors.htm

    this is what churchians get for hating da GREAT BOKKS FOR MENZ and the BIBLE and calling the words of Jesus “NOISE”.

  50. an observer says:

    Men in the services ALWAYS have been forced to “pick up the slack” for their female counterparts

    Lol. That happens everywhere. Lesser qualified and experienced women get promoted to jobs where they do less damage, according to the dilbert principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle

    I joined up in 1998 thinking it might be better than civvy workforces, but the culture had already changed irretrievably. In different circumstances, it would be comical. As it is, it is just dangerous to every man that has to work with them.

  51. Jeremy says:

    @bridget

    I’m also amused by the notion that men shouldn’t desire women. This is related to the ridiculous notion that breasts aren’t sexual, and if we only changed society, men would stop ogling women’s chests.

    No part of the female body will inherently, by it’s nature, turn a man on. What turns a man on is the promise of contact or selective unveiling of that which they desire. Women wearing clothes gives women more options to create desire, because there are now more ways of signalling acceptance of intimacy. Nudist colonies function just fine with boys and girls growing up knowing everything about how everyone looks without clothes on. Those boys who grow up in such a scene are not automatically aroused by unclothed women. They *are* however by a woman who appears to be interested in him. There’s plenty of stories on the web about, uh, “first-encounters” by boys who grew up within a nudist environment, find them, read them, they’re eye-opening. The female body is beautiful to them (as it should be) but they grew up in an environment where it was a non-sexual display. Because of this, basic naked ladies don’t do much for them. However if a woman talks softly to them, say in their ear… yeah.

    So yes, it is likely strange to everyone reading this, but it is not so ridiculous to consider any part of the female body as non-sexual.

  52. earl says:

    “why is nobody upset that the family is being destroyed by porn and feminism?”

    Because the media tells me to not be upset.

  53. ospurt says:

    If “Strawberry Bitch” is offensive then I don’t know what you would have to call the Nise Art collection at the American Heritage Air Power Museum in Midland, TX. Foul and Profane? Many of the pieces in their collection have full nudes and much more offensive slogans.

    http://www.airpowermuseum.org/

    Today we would call those 18~22 year olds “delayed adolescents”, but back then they were Men. What has western civilization wrought?

  54. Martian Bachelor says:

    My dad flew a B-24 off atolls in the Pacific theatre during our last legal/declared war.

    They had something like a squadron yearbook with all the flight crews posed in front of their planes. So I saw the nose cone art incidentally included in the pictures from the time I was a little kid. That sort of pin-up art had already been surpassed stylistically even by then, and so seemed quaint, not nefarious.

    It was really a sort of practical ID system to personalize the planes a bit, so the pilots could tell each other apart at a glance.

    Historians are somewhat fuzzy about exactly how it got started in this fashion, using babe art rather than something else. There is a lot of boredom during war, and so it may have begun as a prank, as grafitti. Then it got out of control, but the commanders just let it go, on the no-harm-no-foul principle, and in not much time it ran it’s course and all the planes but a few had it. There weren’t any Blue Stockings in the vicinity to get offended.

  55. James K says:

    1. We want equality – we’re just as good as you men.
    2. You raised your voice. You’re creating a hostile environment. You’re not fit to be here.
    3. Now that wimminz are the majority around here, we’re in charge. We excuse each other for our vices – we’re sugar and spice, after all – and if you want men and women to be treated equally, fuck you.
    4. Got a war to fight? Too bad, we’re only interested in the well-paid desk jobs. I’m a single mother. Can’t you send some men to do the fighting?

  56. Martian Bachelor says:

    A couple more thoughts… there were thousands of B-24’s made, like >18k, so cherry picking of a few unusual examples is bound to give the wrong impression; also, there were many non-babe examples, with comic book icons (e.g., Super Man and the Green Hornet) and other characters from pop culture appearing.

    There weren’t too many other available outlets for a little creativity and a humanizing touch inside the war machine. At least out in the middle of the Pacific, they barely had mail delivery at times, and no cold beer – AC and other refrigeration equipment was rare.

    It’s also worth mentioning another WWII/B-24 museum, in Pueblo, CO, near the municipal airport; if you’re ever in the area and have ~2 hrs to spare.

    Finally, if I’m not mistaken there are still some small all-volunteer groups of enthusiasts trying to keep a couple of B-24s air worthy; they may show up at a summer air show near you sometime.

  57. bridget says:

    I would only add –AND ALWAYS WILL to the end of the second sentence of the statement above. I almost added “sorry, feminists and ladies who hate being ‘objectified’,” except that I realize that there’s no need to apologize for biological imperatives.

    Not to ruin the man-fun (hey, men need their own spaces to vent), but most sane women understand the difference between being found sexually attractive and being objectified.

    It’s hard to explain directly, but works well by analogy: most men are happy when their wives or girlfriends appreciate how hard they work to make a stable, solvent home, and in fact, want to be appreciated for their efforts. Yet, men instinctively recoil when a woman treats him like a wallet, biological imperative for her to want a good provider be damned.

  58. Casey says:

    @ Bridget

    “It’s hard to explain directly, but works well by analogy: most women are happy when their husbands or boyfriends appreciate how hard they work to make a stable, loving, welcoming home, and in fact, want to be appreciated for their efforts. Yet, women instinctively recoil when a man treats her like a housewife, biological imperative for him to want a good cook & lover be damned.”

    If the modification to the above made YOU recoil……..hit the bricks. You are just another blue-pill woman intruding on this site.

    [D: Bridget is welcome here.]

  59. greyghost says:

    Casey
    Rebuilding that ant hill she was.

  60. imnobody00 says:

    Don’t worry Bridget. In a few years, nobody will objectify you. Then you will complain that you are invisible to men.

  61. Twenty says:

    Yet, men instinctively recoil when a woman treats him like a wallet, biological imperative for her to want a good provider be damned.

    Men are recoiling from the sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation, so I think you’ve got yourself a pretty terrible analogy there.

  62. Retrenched says:

    Sure, let’s make the US military a hostile environment for straight men. Since when have we ever needed straight men to win wars anyway?

    Uncle Elmer left this comment over at Chuck’s yesterday:

    When an organization becomes feminized, focus shifts from efficient production of goods and services to creation of rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

    This is where the military is headed now.

  63. Retrenched says:

    Related (sorta) – the ongoing assault on men’s due process rights in the military.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324021104578549891063938034.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

  64. Ton says:

    The sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation among women cannot be overstated, nor can the daily grind and harm it does to men/ female relationships of all variety

  65. feeriker says:

    Sure, let’s make the US military a hostile environment for straight men. Since when have we ever needed straight men to win wars anyway?

    Once again, people continue to assume that winning wars is the primary purpose of today’s U.S. military. It is not. The purpose(s) of today’s U.S. military is/are, depending on the whims of the Reigning Establishment at a given point in time, to serve as 1) a global social services provider, 2) a makeshift police force, domestically or internationally; 3) justification for shoveling buckets full of fiat dollars, via confiscatory taxation, into the maw of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) in order to continue to enrich the Top One Percent[TM] of the socioeconomic pyramid. Sometimes all three combined. Whatever the justification, women fit into this scheme perfectly, as both enablers and key actors.

  66. feeriker says:

    Bridget said:

    Not to ruin the man-fun (hey, men need their own spaces to vent), but most sane women understand the difference between being found sexually attractive and being objectified.

    I would argue that most women today make no such distinction. Having swallowed and internalized, consciously or unconsciously, the feminist catechism on male behavior from a very early age, they conflate the natural biological attraction men generally find in a woman’s physical attributes with malevolent objectification. The exception, of course, is if the man demonstrating such interest happens to be representative of the stereotypical Alpha Male[TM] group and gives the woman ‘gina tingles, in which case he can’t “objectify” her enough for her own satisfaction.

  67. Martian Bachelor says:

    Uncle Elmer left this comment… (Retrenched)

    If I recall correctly from other posts of his on other forums, UE’s dad flew in a B-24 in the European theater. I was hoping he might swing by here eventually.

    What he’s correctly saying is that when women show up they pretty quickly start wanting to rearrange all the furniture and paint the walls lavender, converting the workplace into a substitute family — for them, not for any men.

    If you watch any TV sitcoms that allegedly take place at “work”, it’s really just one big happy femi-commune. Very little actual work ever takes place, and what does get done seems to happen magically off-screen, with everything basically revolving around the woman/women and all her other concerns. It’s been a prominent theme in every such sitcom at least since the 70s, e.g. The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Even non-sitcoms, too, like Mad Men.

  68. Martian Bachelor says:

    The bluestocking is the most odious character in society…she sinks wherever she is placed, like the yolk of an egg, to the bottom, and carries the filth with her.
    – William Hazlitt (b.1778 – d.1830)

    Hazlitt, whose father was a student of Adam Smith (and a Unitarian minister), has recently been described as “the original blogger”.

  69. Opus says:

    Frankly chaps, it is all a bit unsporting. How can you expect to give the Nazis a fair chance of winning the war if you distract their fighter pilots with Airborne Porn. I must say I cannot recall that The Fleet Air-arm allowed their state of the art bi-planes (such as the Swordfish – which sank the Bismark and the French fleet) to be decorated with Graffiti.

    I once attended some sort of Disco at a country-house near a former RAF base and in the bar-cellar the Graffiti – extraordinary, wild, bizarre – had been left as it had been written on the walls by the fighter pilots in 1940 in between sorties to clear the sky of Messerschmitts. A memento of their bravery, knowing death was probably only hours away. Lets erase it in favour of better taste and sensitivity to female sensibility, I say.

  70. KimJongLulz says:

    OH NOES MUH FEELINGS!

    Feminazis please go.

  71. 30words says:

    This is so hyper-hypocritical and offensive to me because an image of a scantily clad woman- in painting or a photo- even a crude joke- is not truly offensive to MOST women. If you live day to day in the regular schooling/working world you are not phased by this kind of thing and its harmless.
    For These women who want to come Into a mans world, I dare say this is a draw for them.
    Give me a break ladies!

  72. Amazing similarities between the Taliban and feminists aren’t there?

  73. Revenge Weapon says:

    Amazing! The guys who flew and died in those B-24’s (the Liberator was a death trap) to protect a nation which spawned these critics , are now vilified! How many women would volunteer for operation tidal wave?
    http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/spotlight.asp?id=123224768
    Answer: None!
    The great commision for American Christian women:
    Go ye unto the ends of the earth having fun in your own name. As for the poor the crippled and the sick, ignore them. God loves them so you don’t have too.

  74. feeriker says:

    As for the poor the crippled and the sick, ignore them. God loves them so you don’t have too.

    Ah, yes, the churchian benediction. It’s been a while since I’ve heard it.

  75. bridget says:

    feeriker: if that is your experience with “most” women, then you need to hang out with a different group of women. Just saying.

  76. tm says:

    No worries. It’ll happen even in the Afghan air force too. Here’s a story about wimminz helicopter pilots, complete with special (safer) missions, requests for accommodation, and even a March 8 group photo shoot:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22943454

  77. bridget says:

    Yet, men instinctively recoil when a woman treats him like a wallet, biological imperative for her to want a good provider be damned.

    Men are recoiling from the sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation, so I think you’ve got yourself a pretty terrible analogy there.

    (Laughing) I think YOU need to understand women better, because the sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation is EXACTLY what distinguishes being objectified and being found attractive.

    Or rather, understand women at all. Because “entitlement” is a word that comes out of a lot of women’s mouths when used to describe crass male behaviour.

  78. greyghost says:

    I’ll leave this alone Dalrock, gotta take the dogs out. The old one needs to walk to keep the joint problems at bay

  79. Love's Orphan says:

    So the feminists are comfortable with being surrounded by half naked women at the slut walks and they fight for women’s right to wear anything they want. BUT they feel uncomfortable being near a plane with the painting of a woman wearing a bathing suit. Makes sense.

  80. From what I’ve seen bridget, most objectification is what many women do to themselves in the presence of a wallet. The ones who don’t objectify themselves are jealous of the ones that do and very often blame the man regardless of his response. Throwing themselves at alpha c@ck and alternatively at beta wallets (as crash pads) does little for a ladies argument that women aren’t objectifying themselves (and everyone else in the process).

  81. Twenty says:

    @bridget

    A classic feminist statement, equal parts solipsism and equalist poppycock. (A specific: “crass male behavior” seems, in point of fact, to go over quite well with women. And anyone who’s lived a day in his life knows that what women say is meaningless as against what they do.)

    Why don’t you run along to gawker where that “(Laughing) I think YOU need to understand women better…” nonsense might cut some ice. As a stylistic point, note that the “YOU” is apropos of nothing. It indicates a stressed word, which would make sense only in the context of a response to a earlier, similar claim by me, directed at you, which is not in evidence.

    You are a either a fool or a troll, and there is no purpose to engaging with you further.

  82. Casey says:

    @ Bridget

    Bridget said:
    “(Laughing) I think YOU need to understand women better, because the sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation is EXACTLY what distinguishes being objectified and being found attractive.”

    So, if I understand you correctly…..you are saying that a woman’s sense of entitlement, and lack of appreciation for her husband (or boyfriend) makes her more attractive; and not objectified.

    ????
    Where do I sign up for that deal……(sarcasm added).
    You have encapsulated the problem with western women with your own post.

    I had it right the first time…….take your blue pills with you, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

  83. Casey says:

    @ Bridget

    Bridget said:
    “Or rather, understand women at all. Because “entitlement” is a word that comes out of a lot of women’s mouths when used to describe crass male behaviour.”

    If anything, the men on this site understand women all too well, and certainly better than you understand yourselves.

    Why not give us some examples of that “crass male behaviour”. Would they possibly include painting a clothed feminine mural on the side of a plane, before being given orders to go off and die in a WWII air battle?

    Put down the Blue Pill Rx…….you’ll feel better.

  84. Uncle Elmer says:

    “If I recall correctly from other posts of his on other forums, UE’s dad flew in a B-24 in the European theater. I was hoping he might swing by here eventually.”

    Thanks, it’s true. Pops flew 30 combat missions over Germany in 1943 before being pulled back to train new aircrews. He told me Jimmy Stewart was highly regarded by the aircrews as an operations officer and pilot. I wrote this up some time ago in “Air Force to Scrap the Strawberry Bitch?” Otherwise he never said much about the experience, other than he had misgivings about the rain of bombs visited upon the Germans. Later he was stationed in Germany and had a lot of photos of Mainz, which had been reduced to rubble in one of the raids he participated in, and was still destroyed some 8 years later.

    So I have moved back to Dayton indefinitely because Dad is in a nursing home. My sister compiled a scrapbook of his photos, with the cover being his official CIA portrait taken in 1950.

    I wouldn”t make a pimple on his ass. I am glad I moved here though as have had a chance to talk with him a lot. His mind is strong but his body is giving out (he’s 92).

    Anyway I am about 2 miles from the Air Force Museum right now. When my family moved here in 1969 I went with my mom to the base commisary. I was 12 at the time. The old museum was next door, so I went inside thinking it would be a short tour. 5 hours later I came out and my mom was standing alone in the empty parking lot. Said she had the MPs out looking for me. I caused my folks so much grief until I shipped off to the Army that I am trying make amends for all that.

  85. Uncle Elmer says:

    Uncle Elmer left this comment over at Chuck’s yesterday:

    When an organization becomes feminized, focus shifts from efficient production of goods and services to creation of rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

    ——————–

    OK, full confession here. The words are mine but the delivery is my dad’s, who was a professor of economics and logistics at a noted Air Force graduate school. I have used his cadence and gravitas to spew complete nonsense, which sounds plausible on first hearing but causes people to become enraged when they realize I am yanking their chain. I coulda been somebody at Emcorpera, if I had only taken it seriously.

  86. Uncle Elmer says:

    By the way Dalrock, the original Strawberry Bitch was nude; some civic-minded ladies complained decades ago and the museum covered her with the blue nighty. I mean, imagine groups of schoolkids coming through the museum and seeing that. The boys being especially enthralled with all the militaria.

  87. Casey says:

    @ Bridget

    feeriker said @ June 20, 2013 at 3:25pm:

    “I would argue that most women today make no such distinction. Having swallowed and internalized, consciously or unconsciously, the feminist catechism on male behavior from a very early age, they conflate the natural biological attraction men generally find in a woman’s physical attributes with malevolent objectification. The exception, of course, is if the man demonstrating such interest happens to be representative of the stereotypical Alpha Male[TM] group and gives the woman ‘gina tingles, in which case he can’t “objectify” her enough for her own satisfaction.

    Bridget replied @ June 21, 2013 at 9:32 am

    “feeriker: if that is your experience with “most” women, then you need to hang out with a different group of women. Just saying.”

    That is what you gleaned from Feeriker’s post?
    Seriously?

    Are you here to learn? Or are you here to preach?

  88. DEN1 says:

    Next outrage on the feminist hit list : Truck mud flaps with the naked girl silhouettes

  89. Solomon says:

    @ Bridget- you said:

    “if that is your experience with “most” women, then you need to hang out with a different group of women. Just saying”

    so, not all women are like that, huh?

    your NAWALT arguments will gain no traction here.

  90. Lovekraft says:

    By now, everyone must be able to recognize that feminists are thugs with skirts.

    Backed by legions of opportunistic, power-hungry lawyers and bureaucrats.

    Progressives are all about breaking/destroying with no sustainable replacement.

  91. Casey says:

    @ Lovekraft

    Speaking of lawyers………..our intrepid Bridget appears to be a Massachusetts based lawyer.
    Tread carefully fellas, you don’t want to give her any fodder for a libel suit.

  92. dannyfrom504 says:

    today i posted about sexual assault training and reporting (SAPR) in todays military. there’s a lot Dal’s writed about that i can provide truth to.

    http://dannyfrom504.com/2013/06/24/a-neutered-military/

    i can’t make this crap up. i can’t wait to get out in march.

  93. Pingback: Steynian 476rd | Free Canuckistan!

  94. dannyfrom504 says:

    Meant to say, ” what Dal’s written”. I need my hands smashed with a hammer. Seriously.

  95. Lovekraft says:

    Casey: Speaking of lawyers………..our intrepid Bridget appears to be a Massachusetts based lawyer.
    Tread carefully fellas, you don’t want to give her any fodder for a libel suit.

    Perhaps. But then again, i am sure going after a lone blogger would not be received well in this area of the manosphere. Much worse things have been written.

    Also, wouldn’t her using the power of the state to crush dissent be exactly what I am charging?

  96. Casey says:

    @ Lovekraft

    “Also wouldn’t her using the power of the state to crush dissent be exactly what I am charging?”

    True enough, sir……..and well said.

  97. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Now I know my ABCs Edition | Patriactionary

  98. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/26 | Free Northerner

  99. Alogon says:

    So war, death, dismemberment, bombs…a soldier is expected to endure these horrors. But you can’t let female soldiers see a “workout poster” or pictures of “1940’s historic nose art”?
    Makes sense because everyone knows what little, innocent angels women in uniform can be – http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/watch-half-naked-israeli-female-soldiers-1948439
    That abhor objectification!

  100. Feminist Freedom Warrior says:

    This is just another example from the Air force long herstory of wimym oppression and it should not be alowed to go unpunihsed. The men who created this vile “art” are not heroes they are vile sex criminals who perpetuate sex crime against all wymin and they need to be found and brought to justice. Old age is not an excuse. The crimemals who did this vile phallo symbolic wymin objectifying ” nose” art need to be found and punished for this act of wymin objectification, and every one assiciated with perpetuating it in public place requires outing and punishment.

  101. Maximo Macaroni says:

    “Bitch” is not profanity. It is, at most, an obscenity, meaning it would, in the civilized era, not have been allowed to be used on a public stage. It has nothing to do with religion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s