Your husband will never be promoted if you wear trousers
Yeah, yeah, I know. Whenever I've raised this before, people have looked at me as if I'd suggested marrying a rhinoceros. It appears to be deeply ingrained into the military psyche.
Officers, I mean. Not going down to Moss Bros for a rhino.
Officers, I mean. Not going down to Moss Bros for a rhino.
Phil_R,
What exactly do you mean by "..a differentiation between officers and other ranks.."?
Are you referring to:
Pay
Conditions, e.g. housing/messing/postings/office space...etc/etc
Qualifications
Responsibility
Selection
Etc
Etc
All of the above?
Are you seriously telling me that in civilian life there is no "differentiation" in at least some of the above list (e.g. pay/office size/perks/etc) between the very top and the very bottom in most companies?
Perhaps I'm being a bit thick today - it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm not quite sure what your exact point is? Are you just referring to some concept of perceived social status?
What exactly do you mean by "..a differentiation between officers and other ranks.."?
Are you referring to:
Pay
Conditions, e.g. housing/messing/postings/office space...etc/etc
Qualifications
Responsibility
Selection
Etc
Etc
All of the above?
Are you seriously telling me that in civilian life there is no "differentiation" in at least some of the above list (e.g. pay/office size/perks/etc) between the very top and the very bottom in most companies?
Perhaps I'm being a bit thick today - it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm not quite sure what your exact point is? Are you just referring to some concept of perceived social status?
Are you seriously telling me that in civilian life there is no "differentiation" in at least some of the above list (e.g. pay/office size/perks/etc) between the very top and the very bottom in most companies?
I'm just a little confused as to why there needs to be anything more than that. Even without that, without the differences in pay and conditions, in any well-run organisation everyone's fully aware of what the pecking order is in some detail, even without access to the financial records of everyone else.
What the military seems to do is to draw a line down the middle of the workforce and decide that part of it is such a vastly superior human being to the other half that it would be demeaning to even socialise together. This comes off as institutionalised snobbery. I appreciate that this was normal at the time the RAF was founded, but I'm not sure what the purpose of it is - especially as maintaining two (or three) sets of everything is clearly expensive. My father reports that large manufacturing concerns in the 1970s would often have separate silver-service dining accomodation for the high-level management, but this does not happen, at least not very much, anymore.
I am aware of the need for a certain remove between management and those they manage. This is often a problem in my field, film and television, because the atmosphere of a film set is generally informal but yet there is still a very well-defined pecking order to which those present must be sensitive. I get the impression the same is sometimes the case in the military (particularly the RAF which can sometimes seem extremely informal until it needs not to be).
But at the end of the day we don't pretend the rest of the crew are our social inferiors and wear a system of merit badges just to rub it in their face, if you see what I mean.
P
One point at a time....
Merit badges.
Two points to make here.
First of all regarding "badges" reflecting trade achievements - e.g. flying badges, para wings, submariners dolphins. These "badges" serve several purposes. Firstly it allows other people in the military to determine someones specialization at a glance. Secondly, these "badges" are usually earned at the end of very hard training courses. They represent a visual record and obvious reward for great effort and achievement on the part of the individual concerned - they have "earned" their wings, dolphins, etc. They are generally worn with great pride and help to generate "esprit de corps" - something that is probably sadly lacking these days in civilian life.
At the end of the day the military still go to war, fight, and die for their country. Quaint as it might sound, it is still the case that the military do not generally risk life and limb for David Cameron or the Queen, but rather for their friends, colleagues, regiment, Sqn, ship, etc. A strong esprit de corps can be the difference between winning and losing a fight - that's one of the reason for some "badges".
My second point. Some of the "badges" I assume you refer to are rank insignia. The concept here is quite simple. On meeting someone, whether it be in peacetime at an office meeting, or in a firefight in Afghanistan, you instantly know a persons rank, and also their likely responsibility, experience, who is in charge, etc. This also allows for the quaint concept of paying "compliments" to a senior rank.
I'm sure other people can add various comments on the subject of "merit badges", above were my immediate thoughts, and as a two fingered typist, who is being nagged by his wife to do something else, that's as much as I have to say for now...!
Merit badges.
Two points to make here.
First of all regarding "badges" reflecting trade achievements - e.g. flying badges, para wings, submariners dolphins. These "badges" serve several purposes. Firstly it allows other people in the military to determine someones specialization at a glance. Secondly, these "badges" are usually earned at the end of very hard training courses. They represent a visual record and obvious reward for great effort and achievement on the part of the individual concerned - they have "earned" their wings, dolphins, etc. They are generally worn with great pride and help to generate "esprit de corps" - something that is probably sadly lacking these days in civilian life.
At the end of the day the military still go to war, fight, and die for their country. Quaint as it might sound, it is still the case that the military do not generally risk life and limb for David Cameron or the Queen, but rather for their friends, colleagues, regiment, Sqn, ship, etc. A strong esprit de corps can be the difference between winning and losing a fight - that's one of the reason for some "badges".
My second point. Some of the "badges" I assume you refer to are rank insignia. The concept here is quite simple. On meeting someone, whether it be in peacetime at an office meeting, or in a firefight in Afghanistan, you instantly know a persons rank, and also their likely responsibility, experience, who is in charge, etc. This also allows for the quaint concept of paying "compliments" to a senior rank.
I'm sure other people can add various comments on the subject of "merit badges", above were my immediate thoughts, and as a two fingered typist, who is being nagged by his wife to do something else, that's as much as I have to say for now...!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St Albans
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXACOT quote: 'If I recall correctly he still wouldn't have been able to play cards though. Card Table: 'officer' for the use of.'
....nor would he have been issued with a 'Brushes, Crumb' and so would have been unable to freshen the tablecloth between courses at dinner.
These things count, you know.
....nor would he have been issued with a 'Brushes, Crumb' and so would have been unable to freshen the tablecloth between courses at dinner.
These things count, you know.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On commissioning boards one question we had to ask was 'what does your wife think . . . ' And I know one knocker who was commissioned and they separated not long after.
the OMQ were sold as private accomodation, the AMQ were sold to the council.
On meeting someone, whether it be in peacetime at an office meeting, or in a firefight in Afghanistan, you instantly know a persons rank, and also their likely responsibility, experience, who is in charge, etc.
My query was more about this whole officers/not officers delineation. As I say most of the military people I've spoken to about this tend towards a spluttering disbelief that things could possibly be any other way, which I suspect may be the reason!
Also:
I don't know if the council got the AMQ at Nocton Hall but the old OMQs grew white picket fencing, ornamental flower beds, conservatories, uPVC etc etc. The AMQ patch grew dumped cars, spare engines, long grass (at least DHE cut the grass) etc etc.
P
What the military seems to do is to draw a line down the middle of the workforce and decide that part of it is such a vastly superior human being to the other half that it would be demeaning to even socialise together. This comes off as institutionalised snobbery.
At the end of the day, all 3 Armed Forces are fighting forces whose aim is to defend the country and its interests, if necessary through the application of violence. To do that effectively requires, amongst other things, discipline and potentially a degree of objective detachment. We work hard and we play hard, but for the most part we play hard amongst our own ranks which allows officers, SNCOs and juniors the freedom to do what they want, when they want (all within the rules of course) without feeling as though they are constantly being watched or on parade. Doing so helps maintain degree credibility by not having all your social mistakes and outbursts on show leading to a potential loss of professional confidence.
Additionally, maintaining a sense of social detachment also helps you to make those difficult decisions, such as sending someone out to what could well be their death. It's much harder to take those difficult but necessary decisions if you are compromised by personal relationships. So by all means, we should socialise across the ranks - it's all part of getting to know each other, understanding what makes each other tick, and generally making for a more pleasant working environment. But to over do it risks professional compromise and that is one reason officers, NCOs and juniors are segregated; it helps maintain discipline and professionalism in a job that has very little comparison in civvie street where there may well be more vertical social mixing. Whilst it may have had social connotations way back when, it has nothing to do with officers being superior human beings and everything to do with maintaining professional standards, discipline and effective military capability.
Try telling that to some of the wives though and they would never believe it
Last edited by Melchett01; 15th Oct 2011 at 19:42.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall a friend who had recently been promoted to MACR commenting to the boss one day how delighted he was that since his promotion he and his wife were permitted to read books and drink sherry. Barrack Stores had been round to his quarter earlier to deliver the additional MQ inventory items to which he was now entitled: a bookcase and six sherry glasses.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One hopes the newbie will jog on swiftly.
Phil R asks a very valid question and one that would be difficult to debate in this sort of forum. A couple of random points however..
Don't let service tradition (pomp and ceremony), folklore and banter disguise service reality. There is a great deal of commonality between the leadership and management structures of the military and any other hierarchical organisations. The military just adds a lot of window dressing to the process, which in reality often counts for very little. And just as the military has its hierarchical peculiarities, so do many other large organisations.
Strict rank boundaries are not essential to an effective fighting force and in many cases are often detrimental. The British military has a long and proud history of delegating command downwards under operational conditions and in many instance does this far more effectively than a comparable civilian organistion would. Step away from the British way of doing things and you will some extremely effective fighting forces where rank structure is based almost entirely on military proficency and very little else. The PAVN in the Vietnam war springs to mind.
Phil R asks a very valid question and one that would be difficult to debate in this sort of forum. A couple of random points however..
Don't let service tradition (pomp and ceremony), folklore and banter disguise service reality. There is a great deal of commonality between the leadership and management structures of the military and any other hierarchical organisations. The military just adds a lot of window dressing to the process, which in reality often counts for very little. And just as the military has its hierarchical peculiarities, so do many other large organisations.
Strict rank boundaries are not essential to an effective fighting force and in many cases are often detrimental. The British military has a long and proud history of delegating command downwards under operational conditions and in many instance does this far more effectively than a comparable civilian organistion would. Step away from the British way of doing things and you will some extremely effective fighting forces where rank structure is based almost entirely on military proficency and very little else. The PAVN in the Vietnam war springs to mind.
"A friend of mine in the Civil Service was promoted to Principal Scientific Officer. The following day two workmen turned up in his office, replaced his piece of carpet with a larger one, replaced his chair with a more expensive version, replaced his desk with a much larger one and as they left one told my friend "We'll drop off the hat-stand tomorrow" "
Not the scientific Civil Service I knew! I spent almost all my career on RAF stations and, whereas I reached that same exalted rank, the accommodation was basic and not "to scale". Quite simply, the Met.Office had better things to do than fight for status symbols ........ the RAF we served alongside were not office-wallahs, and make-do and mend, 'be nice to the SWO, be nice to the MTO, be nice to the carpenters' was the way we coped regarding accommodation. Too busy to notice the surroundings!
Not the scientific Civil Service I knew! I spent almost all my career on RAF stations and, whereas I reached that same exalted rank, the accommodation was basic and not "to scale". Quite simply, the Met.Office had better things to do than fight for status symbols ........ the RAF we served alongside were not office-wallahs, and make-do and mend, 'be nice to the SWO, be nice to the MTO, be nice to the carpenters' was the way we coped regarding accommodation. Too busy to notice the surroundings!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the scientific Civil Service I knew! I spent almost all my career on RAF stations and, whereas I reached that same exalted rank, the accommodation was basic and not "to scale". Quite simply, the Met.Office had better things to do than fight for status symbols ........ the RAF we served alongside were not office-wallahs, and make-do and mend, 'be nice to the SWO, be nice to the MTO, be nice to the carpenters' was the way we coped regarding accommodation. Too busy to notice the surroundings!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then despatching workmen to "upgrade" folk
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I served with a JO stick-waggler who delighted in baiting wives who wore their husbands rank and felt the need to ram it down the throat of those they considered their 'subordinates' On one occasion, having being told that the ladies husband (a directional consultant) 'flew' something fast and pointy, corrected her by stating that her husband was actually 'flown around' by a highly qualified and talented pilot like himself. Off she went with an expression that suggested that she thought she had been insulted somehow, but wasn't absolutely sure...........happy days!