Gender free or gender fair...

[ORAC]

D*mned when don't, d*mned when do.......


The Times: Women pay painful price for equal military training
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

YOUNG female recruits to the Armed Forces are not tough enough to be treated on a par with their male colleagues, a report claimed yesterday.

Too many young women were being injured in training, the independent Adult Learning Inspectorate said, and called for a rethink of the “gender-free” policy. The previous “gender-fair” policy, which took account of the “weaker sex”, was reckoned to be contrary to equal opportunities legislation.

In a report that criticised much of the culture behind Armed Forces’ training, the inspectorate, which carried out checks on all the training establishments, said that the military’s interpretation was to treat everyone the same. In the case of female recruits, the gender-free approach had led to record levels of injuries. It recommended reverting to gender-fair training. The injuries had also coincided with the fact that recruits often joined the Armed Forces “unfit, overweight or poorly nourished”.

In women, fractures of the tibia (shin bone) had risen over a five-year period from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2. Stress fractures of the feet also increased significantly among female recruits. During the gender-fair period of training, which ended in 1998, female trainees suffered 467 injuries per 10,000, compared with 118 among their male colleagues. After gender-free training was introduced, men’s injuries rose to 147, but women’s injuries went up to 1,113 per 10,000.

After the publication of the inspectorate’s report, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to examine training across the Services, Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel), said that the issue of gender-free training was being reviewed.

The report said that the problem of injuries in the Services had been “exacerbated by change from a gender-fair policy, in which women were set training goals appropriate to their physique, to a gender-free approach, prompted erroneously by a conviction that equality of opportunity demands it”.

When gender-free training was introduced in 1998, the Government declared that it was another step in efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all. The old system, which required men to run 1.5 miles in 13min 15sec but allowed women 15min 15sec, was perceived to be no longer legally defensible on the grounds of discrimination.

General Palmer said that it was the Services’ responsibility to ensure proper duty of care for all trainees, including “protecting them from injury”.

Military sources said that a reversal to the gender-fair approach was unlikely to affect the promotion prospects for female officers, because they required “more brain than brawn”. For non-commissioned officers, there might be fewer openings for jobs that needed physical strength. Seventy per cent of jobs in the Army are open currently to women.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Let's hope the enemy employ gender fair principles when they undertake offensive action against BritMil. Hopefully terrorists and enemy armed forces will restrict their offensive action to ensure that when attacking female personnel in ambushes, E&E scenarios, mortar attacks, riots etc, the levels of physical stress/effort required survive to operate are proportionately reduced and compliant with Equal Opportunities legislation.

Let's hope that putting up tents etc when it's +55C in the shade is also made easier for women.

I have no problem with women, or any other particular group, working in the forces as long as they can meet the standard and do the job. Lowering the standards for certain people, to make their trg easier, is in my opinion a very dodgy move.

It's the same as decent universities being forced to accept a quota of academically inferior candidates from deprived areas and failed schools. The forces and universities are becoming an extension of the social services and the Government hjas lost sight of their real purposes ie to win wars and produce well educated graduates.

There is a standard to reach and we welcome anyone who can achieve that standard. ANyone who cannot - goodbye.

[skaterboi]

There is a standard to reach and we welcome anyone who can achieve that standard. ANyone who cannot - goodbye.

Gets my vote 100% :ok:

[J Urby]

Skaterbi,

pse just confirm are you endorsing the sentiment or trying to highlight the spelling error (hence standards)?

:ok:

[airborne_artist]

But what happens when (as related by a friend only today) you want to chop/back course someone who is clearly below the borderline, and you are told that quotas have to be met, and let the individual through?

Targets are fine, but as a guide, not a mantra.

Sorry Mr. Enemy, we've only deployed our 3rd class people this morning - can you send your nearly-rejects out to bat against them? The practice will do them good ....

[Fg Off Max Stout]

J Urby, thank you for your attention to detail and for bringing my error to my attention. Please note, however, that 'ANyone' is not a spelling error, as you claim, but could reasonably be described as a capitalization, grammar or punctuation error. In actual fact, this error and also 'hjas' can be put down to having SHIFT, h and j keys coated in beer residue. I hope you find this helpful.;)

Do you agree with the sentiment?

Incidentally, before being accused of intrinsic sexism, my philosophy on physical and academic standards applies equally to blokes.

[Training Risky]

Hey Max, how's it going? Any news?

Incidentally, I agree with your sentiments, I just think that there is too tight a grip on policy-making by the wet liberal elite in this country for any real change to be made.

The PC crusaders march on, raping and pillaging the citizens of Common-Sense and Fun as they go:mad:

[pr00ne]

TrainingRisky,

"The wet liberal elite??????????"

Hah!

These folk make some good common sense points and you have to come in and trash it with this purile nonsense!

What the hell has PC got to do with it?

Anything you don't like or disagree with you class as PC, what the hell did you people do before the term was dreamt up?

Agree a standard, accept those who pass and no others, fine and dandy but what do you do when you find that you are not getting people through in the required numbers, I guess you lower the standard or simply go without people................................

PC?

[16 blades]

Headline:

"WOMEN FOUND TO BE THE WEAKER SEX SHOCKER"

I wonder how this is going to pan out?

Along with all the other "What worked well for centuries (until the widespread availability of narcotic drugs "changed social attitudes" by frying the brains of the 'thinking' classes) still found to work well shocker" stories.........

Don't get me wrong - I have worked alongside many women who could easily out-fly me and, if it came to it, could probably out-fight me as well. But it is rapidly becoming obvious that a very large proportion of women simply aren't up to the job.

To go back to the days where females are treated with a 'light touch' would cause mayhem. Those who can and have hacked it would be justifyably offended; for the card-players, it would be a compensation field day. So what is the answer?

There isn't one - not an easy one at least. To quote a great film, this is a huge sh1t sandwich; one that has been buttered, spread, and cut into neat little triangles by the evil disease of political correctness that has infected this society. And it DOES exist, pr00ne. Every day, tried and tested methods of preparing men (and women) for the job of waging war are sacrificed on the all-knowing altar of "equality". The idea that no one person is any better than another is the complete antithesis of what we need to form an effective fighting force. You have a standard that must be reached - those who hack it, well done. Those who don't - p1ss of and stop wasting our time, whoever and whatever you are.

On top of all this, a return to lower standards for women would now be unlawful, and could invite compensation claims and employment tribunals up the yin-yang from p1ssed-off blokes who had seen girls pass a course by achieving less than they had, whilst they had been chopped.

Will we also return to the days of separate (read reduced) pay scales for women, to reflect the fact that less would be expected of them? Ironically, this would NOT be unlawful (nor was it ever), since the law only demands equal pay for equal work.

I can sum this up in one word - CLUSTERF**K.

What say you, cuddly-fluffy lefties? - this is your legacy, after all.

I hate to say "I told you so!", but....

16B

[Lafyar Cokov]

Anything you don't like or disagree with you class as PC, what the hell did you people do before the term was dreamt up?

errr Lefty Nonsence, Wimmins Lib, total Ar5e????

:O

[Blacksheep]

While pontificating on the fighting ability of women it would be as well to consider the Russian experience of female soldiers. Half of the army that really won the war in Europe were women. They fought in all female battalions and acquitted themselves honourably. I don't know if they could put up tents in temperatures of +55 in the shade but they did a pretty good job of slaughtering German infantrymen in temperatures of 30 below.

For infantry soldiers the ability to shoot is more important than the ability to run 1.5 miles in 13.25 minutes and I've never forgotten that the sharpshooter who beat me into second place in the Karachi Cup all those years ago was a pretty SACW storekeeper from RAF Shawbury. Then there's my uncle Louis who could never have run 1.5 miles in 13.25 hours let alone 13.25 minutes, yet he slogged all the way from Gold Beach to the Rhine with the DLI, carrying his trusty .303 Lee Enfield, field kitchen and recipe book. Usually on the back of a truck.

Are the MOD applying the right standards? The physical standards for entry to 40 Commando or 2 Para aren't quite the same as for Shawbury Control Tower, now are they? Perhaps the standards are what really need attention.

[Training Risky]

Oh dear Pr00ne, you do get defensive don't you?!:p

'Purile nonsense'? I don't think so... you'll find a large proportion of the guys in HM Forces agree with me, and we're in the majority, so stuff that in your Tony Benn pipe and smoke it.

You are outnumbered on this one.

Young recruits should have had physical fitness drummed into them at school, but aren't competitive (therefore physical) sports banned at state schools? We are not getting the calibre of recruits we need.

If they join, then get biffed halfway through training through no fault of the DS then they should be barred from making compensation claims. But then there will always be shyster lawyers/barristers (right Pr00ne?) on the make to advise them on how to claim a good settlement with the MoD.

And PC has everything to do with it. To coin an overused phrase, this is PC gone mad. Why should there be ANY difference between the Training Performance Standard for either sex? There should not. It is only the rampant march of PC that allowed it to happen... and look what it caused!

Look at the Doris who was pushed through the All-Arms Course after 3 attempts... anyone else would have been chopped!

Look at this 'RAF' magazine: http://www.titanbooks.com/raf/

It's fairly new, but there have been at least 2 centrespreads showcasing a couple of female pilots doing exactly the same job as their 'un-newsworthy' male colleagues.

And what do we do when we don't have enough people who pass to a common standard: We train better, we learn from mistakes (Deepcut), but there's no need to drop standards.

The legal profession make a parasitic living off reels and reels of petty legislation coming out of Parliament and Brussels. I'm not surprised that they pooh-pooh any criticism of PC'ness.


PC?:yuk: :mad: :confused: :rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

Training Risky,

You just don't get it do you? This is NOT PC, this is a hard nosed realisation that we live in a changing world. If you insist on the same standards you are going to end up with far too few people in the armed forces, FACT. It's a shame, I wish it were not the case, but it is.

Competetive sport is NOT banned in state schools, get your head out of the Daily mail and have a look around you!

You may not like the fact but female pilots, especially of the FJ variety, are still unusual so are therefore of interest, it may upset their male bretheren but male pilots are NOT of the same interest and therefore do not get the same coverage.

As for recruits who are binned for not being up to a pyhsical standard, I cannot imagine WHAT law could be used to support a case, if a female is put through an all arms course 3 times and it is a fact that not one male has ever had this level of consideration then that surely is the fault of the folk who run the course!

[Training Risky]

RE the point about excess coverage of female pilots: there should be NO spotlight thrown on the few there are, just because they are unusual and of interest.... it shouldn't be like that.

The sooner we see no difference between a female and a male pilot, the better. Why should the media do these 'exclusive' stories targeting minorities?:yuk: :mad:

[Red Line Entry]

"If you insist on the same standards you are going to end up with far too few people in the armed forces, FACT."

Interesting statement pr00ne, care to substantiate this "fact"?

If recruitment is really an issue, why can you not have the same standards for ALL, albeit lower (for ALL). Thus you have sufficient personnel to fill the vacancies. Your argument is clearly flawed.

But you make the further assumption that we are faced with a significant recruitment problem. According to the Feb issue of the RAF Manpower Monthly Pocket Brief, ground trades in the RAF have a deficit of 265 against a requirement of 38,380. That is less than 0.7 %. When you consider that for financial ceiling reasons we cannot aim to recruit to over 100% and this results in some inevitable wasteage, I think 99.3% is pretty good going.

On top of that, we are a REDUCING air force within a GROWING population.

So please, provide some evidence for your assertion.

[pr00ne]

Red Line Entry,

I make no assertion, I was merely commenting on the threads above about lowered standards, I agree entirely that they should be to a common standard. If you can't make up the numbers you may have to think agaian, as females can't join the Regiment or infantry, why SHOULD the standard be common? The branch being joined should be the reason for the standard though, NOT the gender of the recruit.

TrainingRisky,

The media satisfy a demand, there is an interest in female pilots that does not exist to the same degree for male pilots, why do you think Page 3 of the Sun is exclusively female?

[lineslime]

In this world of equal ops, etc, would it not be prudent for the girlies to have to reach the same standards as the boys who do the same job? Look at the rozzers, they have a set standard for boys and girls of all ages (beep test level 5-4 and only 15 metres not 20 if my memory is working properly). Who knows if this happens some of the pie monsters may even pass.