ADF pushing up female numbers
When it comes to boots on the ground, the first grade footie team analogy is spot on.
We're not talking about pilots, gents.
Seriously looking at factors contributing to the massive under-representation of women, I'm sure we can all come up with a bunch of them. For example:
1. Societally traditional gender roles influencing school subject and employment choices.
2. Physical demands making it hard for women to do a job - applicable in some cases, but not that many, particularly when you see some of the unfit woosy blokes at work in various roles.
3. Child-bearing and caring choices - applicable also, as anyone can understand that a woman who wants to have kids will necessarily be out of the workforce for a while - mabye years, maybe months depending on her drive to get back to work and the availability of someone to look after the kids. Can certainly be worked around depending on priorities and family arrangements, or kids delayed, as happens a lot these days anyway.
4. Entrenched resistance in the existing system, 'glass ceiling' etc.
Political correctness and reverse discrimination is bull****, but if a group representing 50% of the population only makes up 10% of a diverse workforce, it's far too simplistic to say "they're not suitable and can't do the job."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most trades in Army are open to all, the 'hold outs', or the 'exempt' were SOCOMD, RAInf, RAAC and RAA. Sappers have had wimmunz for years now - with some caveats.
In the trades that opened up in the 1990s or thereabouts women still make up nowhere near 50%, and are as capable or hopeless as the blokes. I'm losing my best soldier to a loggie mob in SOCOMD - she's awesome. Student of Merit on her IET, very fit, intelligent, reliable, never a disciplinary problem; she provides capability by the metric friggin' ton.
Sword of Honour for my grad class, AND the class before mine? Wimmunz.
So can female soldier do it? Yep, and if they meet the standards there is no need to drop the standards.
But two things:
First, this is NOT about capability, nor is it about fairness or equality of opportunity or whatever buzz-phrase the squeezers are using this year. It's all about 'culture change'. And where is that culture the most prevalent? SOCOMD, RAInf, RAAC and RAA ... Oh! Have we seen that list before?
Now, is the culture in those parts of the Army like it is because there are no wimmunz, or because it is a reflection of aspects of the job those blokes might in extremis have to do?
For those of you playing at home, Ms Elizabeth Broderick is the Strayan Gummint's Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She conducted an inquiry which released its findings in a six or seven hundred page document several months ago. One of the points that made a lot of us shake our heads in bewilderment was her observation that the ADF has a "Warrior Culture". Well bugger me with a fish fork!
Apparently it's this "Warrior Culture" that's at the heart of the problem. Imagine having an Army that inculcates a warrior culture in its ... ummm ... 'Warriors'?
Second thing: it may come to pass that the battalions of the Royal Australian Regt, 1 Armoured, 2 Cav, 8/12 Regt RAA etc and even SOCOMD start getting a trickle of female soldiers who get through their IET, or young subbies who get through the ROBC. The ones who get through will know full well what they're getting themselves into, and they'll know the proclivities of their platoon mates, the 'grubby younger brother' behaviour X 100, the practical jokes, the profoundly sexist and racist and ageist and redheadist and Barassi Line-ist commentary and eye-watering language (and that's just the Lieutenants
).
Oh, they'll know what they're getting into. But imagine the sh1t storm that Chief of Army, CDF, all the way down to the relevant Tp Ldr / Pl Comd will all find themselves in the first time one of the trailblazers finds herself in a three or four way that goes wrong.... let alone what the poor victim will have to cope with. We aren't talking about placing wimmunz in a 2nd year sociology tutorial, or med school, or the cops, or even an iron ore mine. Think HMAS Success on steroids .... or the bloody Skype scandal that kicked this whole thing off.
So, we'll get culture change, it may produce some massive interruptions to capability at local level in a few places and it WILL cost some commanders their careers. We might come out of it in better shape, with a better Army, with a much larger pool of potential recruits. But I have to say that I am glad I'm now a pogue, and no longer in an arms corps. There will be collateral damage along the way.
In the trades that opened up in the 1990s or thereabouts women still make up nowhere near 50%, and are as capable or hopeless as the blokes. I'm losing my best soldier to a loggie mob in SOCOMD - she's awesome. Student of Merit on her IET, very fit, intelligent, reliable, never a disciplinary problem; she provides capability by the metric friggin' ton.
Sword of Honour for my grad class, AND the class before mine? Wimmunz.
So can female soldier do it? Yep, and if they meet the standards there is no need to drop the standards.
But two things:
First, this is NOT about capability, nor is it about fairness or equality of opportunity or whatever buzz-phrase the squeezers are using this year. It's all about 'culture change'. And where is that culture the most prevalent? SOCOMD, RAInf, RAAC and RAA ... Oh! Have we seen that list before?
Now, is the culture in those parts of the Army like it is because there are no wimmunz, or because it is a reflection of aspects of the job those blokes might in extremis have to do? For those of you playing at home, Ms Elizabeth Broderick is the Strayan Gummint's Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She conducted an inquiry which released its findings in a six or seven hundred page document several months ago. One of the points that made a lot of us shake our heads in bewilderment was her observation that the ADF has a "Warrior Culture". Well bugger me with a fish fork!
Apparently it's this "Warrior Culture" that's at the heart of the problem. Imagine having an Army that inculcates a warrior culture in its ... ummm ... 'Warriors'?Second thing: it may come to pass that the battalions of the Royal Australian Regt, 1 Armoured, 2 Cav, 8/12 Regt RAA etc and even SOCOMD start getting a trickle of female soldiers who get through their IET, or young subbies who get through the ROBC. The ones who get through will know full well what they're getting themselves into, and they'll know the proclivities of their platoon mates, the 'grubby younger brother' behaviour X 100, the practical jokes, the profoundly sexist and racist and ageist and redheadist and Barassi Line-ist commentary and eye-watering language (and that's just the Lieutenants
).Oh, they'll know what they're getting into. But imagine the sh1t storm that Chief of Army, CDF, all the way down to the relevant Tp Ldr / Pl Comd will all find themselves in the first time one of the trailblazers finds herself in a three or four way that goes wrong.... let alone what the poor victim will have to cope with. We aren't talking about placing wimmunz in a 2nd year sociology tutorial, or med school, or the cops, or even an iron ore mine. Think HMAS Success on steroids .... or the bloody Skype scandal that kicked this whole thing off.
So, we'll get culture change, it may produce some massive interruptions to capability at local level in a few places and it WILL cost some commanders their careers. We might come out of it in better shape, with a better Army, with a much larger pool of potential recruits. But I have to say that I am glad I'm now a pogue, and no longer in an arms corps. There will be collateral damage along the way.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a female passes SOCOMD selection, either at IET level or
Officer level, good on them and if they want to do it, no problems.
I think the pressure will be on the male soldiers who "and they'll know the proclivities of their platoon mates, the 'grubby younger brother' behaviour X 100, the practical jokes, the profoundly sexist and racist and ageist and redheadist and Barassi Line-ist commentary and eye-watering language ............."
and when the first person complains about it.
FYI, a current female Lt Col passed Cdo Officer selection 20 years ago.
Officer level, good on them and if they want to do it, no problems.
I think the pressure will be on the male soldiers who "and they'll know the proclivities of their platoon mates, the 'grubby younger brother' behaviour X 100, the practical jokes, the profoundly sexist and racist and ageist and redheadist and Barassi Line-ist commentary and eye-watering language ............."
and when the first person complains about it.
FYI, a current female Lt Col passed Cdo Officer selection 20 years ago.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: east side
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my recent dealings with the ADF in two combat zones I have found the females absolutely brilliant and utterly professional.
The real incompetent clowns I regularly come across are middle aged males (middle-ranked officers) who spend their lives doing nothing more than protecting their backsides.
Combat these days for the most part ain't stabbing people with cold steel, it's running logistics, tasking drones and IT.
Oh - and piloting Chinooks on SF missions.
The more chicks the better I reckon!
The real incompetent clowns I regularly come across are middle aged males (middle-ranked officers) who spend their lives doing nothing more than protecting their backsides.
Combat these days for the most part ain't stabbing people with cold steel, it's running logistics, tasking drones and IT.
Oh - and piloting Chinooks on SF missions.
The more chicks the better I reckon!
Thread Starter
HH
Better candidates being passed over to bring in a female.
Mk1
Yes and at that time the lass’ did not get where they were without having the ability to do so. I have worked with some extremely competent, very competent and average to marginally competent women but all where were they were through ability. I am not saying that women should not be in the service or any job, I am saying we should employ people based on merit not race/gender etc.
7x7
Well said
AoA
Do not know about % figures for increase but even based on what you state from 10% to 12% its going to be a big ask. Have a think, if only 5% of the female population are interested in the ADF increasing the extra 2% is a big challenge. Combined with a normal % unsuitability reducing that 5% (this figure pulled out of bum so please don't use as fact but just to give an example) we end up employing people that would not have been accepted to met this required increase. Or is the ADF going to start a huge campaign to attract more female applications. So yes it is shock horror is probably appropriate. Happy to have a 50/50 split in any way shape form or any split for any job, but lets base it on merit. Believe the Canadian system is based on 25% employment of French Canadian due to that's what the French Canadian make up of the population (told this some time ago so maybe incorrect). Hence when 4 graduates are selected to go to fast jet one will be F/C even if he was last on course. How strong is a chain?
Like this-do that.
Yep. Was there not another comment some years ago about ADFA revolving around sports and physical ability and therefore was bias against females
Better candidates being passed over to bring in a female.
Mk1
Yes and at that time the lass’ did not get where they were without having the ability to do so. I have worked with some extremely competent, very competent and average to marginally competent women but all where were they were through ability. I am not saying that women should not be in the service or any job, I am saying we should employ people based on merit not race/gender etc.
7x7
Well said
AoA
Do not know about % figures for increase but even based on what you state from 10% to 12% its going to be a big ask. Have a think, if only 5% of the female population are interested in the ADF increasing the extra 2% is a big challenge. Combined with a normal % unsuitability reducing that 5% (this figure pulled out of bum so please don't use as fact but just to give an example) we end up employing people that would not have been accepted to met this required increase. Or is the ADF going to start a huge campaign to attract more female applications. So yes it is shock horror is probably appropriate. Happy to have a 50/50 split in any way shape form or any split for any job, but lets base it on merit. Believe the Canadian system is based on 25% employment of French Canadian due to that's what the French Canadian make up of the population (told this some time ago so maybe incorrect). Hence when 4 graduates are selected to go to fast jet one will be F/C even if he was last on course. How strong is a chain?
Like this-do that.
Yep. Was there not another comment some years ago about ADFA revolving around sports and physical ability and therefore was bias against females
The 10 - 12 % thing comes from here:
Push for More Women | Women of the ADF - Defence Jobs Australia
As you say,
I don't think anyone's proposing anything different. They want more women in jobs they're suitable for, so they're looking at ways they can make it happen.
As you say, a bum pluck. Who really knows? I would be against any favouritism that puts people in jobs ahead of others wrongly, but from that article it seems they're just trying to make work arrangements more flexible where possible.
Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I bet there's still a clause when you sign up that says all bets are off if you're needed to deploy or whatever, and arrangements would need to be made accordingly.
Push for More Women | Women of the ADF - Defence Jobs Australia
As you say,
Happy to have a 50/50 split in any way shape form or any split for any job, but lets base it on merit.
Have a think, if only 5% of the female population are interested in the ADF increasing the extra 2% is a big challenge.
Before anyone starts jumping up and down, I bet there's still a clause when you sign up that says all bets are off if you're needed to deploy or whatever, and arrangements would need to be made accordingly.
From Finestkind: Mk1
Yes and at that time the lass’ did not get where they were without having the ability to do so. I have worked with some extremely competent, very competent and average to marginally competent women but all where were they were through ability. I am not saying that women should not be in the service or any job, I am saying we should employ people based on merit not race/gender etc.
How do you reconcile this statement above which seems to say that provided women are employed in roles on the basis of merit and meeting the relevant standards then that is OK, with your original post that was claiming positive discrimination?
Do you have any evidence that better qualified males are not being selected for roles that could have been occupied by better qualified males? Or are you commenting on the report handed down by Elizabeth Broderick?
Yes and at that time the lass’ did not get where they were without having the ability to do so. I have worked with some extremely competent, very competent and average to marginally competent women but all where were they were through ability. I am not saying that women should not be in the service or any job, I am saying we should employ people based on merit not race/gender etc.
How do you reconcile this statement above which seems to say that provided women are employed in roles on the basis of merit and meeting the relevant standards then that is OK, with your original post that was claiming positive discrimination?
Do you have any evidence that better qualified males are not being selected for roles that could have been occupied by better qualified males? Or are you commenting on the report handed down by Elizabeth Broderick?
Thread Starter
Mk1
You have lost me, slightly.
There is no reconciling any statement. The first was that the ADF is now employing women in the ADF based on gender not merit.
The second was in reply to your have “I worked with women in the AD”. Which is a yes and based on then not the ones being employed (since the 28 Aug 12 article) and currently going through training.
Do I have evidence. Yes. Am I going to divulge that on this site. You have to be kidding. Which is also going to apply to the poor CO that has an incompetent female on staff. I guarantee that nothing will be done but a male will be handled accordingly.
You have lost me, slightly.
There is no reconciling any statement. The first was that the ADF is now employing women in the ADF based on gender not merit.
The second was in reply to your have “I worked with women in the AD”. Which is a yes and based on then not the ones being employed (since the 28 Aug 12 article) and currently going through training.
Do I have evidence. Yes. Am I going to divulge that on this site. You have to be kidding. Which is also going to apply to the poor CO that has an incompetent female on staff. I guarantee that nothing will be done but a male will be handled accordingly.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Troll or dinosaur?
Yes. Am I going to divulge that on this site. You have to be kidding. Which is also going to apply to the poor CO that has an incompetent female on staff. I guarantee that nothing will be done but a male will be handled accordingly.
You start this thread with an accusatory post about how the ADF wanting to increase the representation of women in the forces will result in people being placed into positions on the basis of gender not merit.
What follows is the predictable braying of dinosaurs about women in Defence. Some sensible comments, but generally dross.
Now you claim you have evidence to support your claim, but refuse to give general or specific details. Accurate so far?
If your allegation is true, it warrants further examination. However, without providing details you just sound like a troll, or maybe just someone becoming increasingly aware of their advancing age and dimininshing sense of connection with today's military.
Statements like chicks have it easier than blokes in training; that 'she' got that job just 'cos she's a girl; that girls don't belong on the frontline; that war fighting is a man's job have been made ever since the womens' branches of the ADF were abolished. In my years in Defence, I've never seen evidence of the type of discrimination you're claiming. What I have seen is endless examples of people serving in positions where they have neither the skills, the imagination or the professional integrity to deserve their incumbency. You might be surprised to hear that most of these were men, because there's many more of us than them.. Funnily enough, you don't always find the best person for the job is the one in the seat, male or female. If your mate the CO can't performance manage an under-performing staff member out of his unit, he deserves to keep them.
I suspect hysterical claims about the sky falling in were heard when women first went to sea, flew jets or served alongside men on ground operations. Predictable and pathetic.
Just to be clear I don't care what gender, race or sexual orientation you as long as you do your job.
As it stands, you don't have 'evidence', just a spurious allegation. Easy to make on in this forum.
I call bull$hit.
Thread Starter
My apologise to others reading this developing pissing contest (once more into the breach dear friends once more). I did seriously think about ignoring CW Pirates post giving it the due respect it deserves on a "RUMOUR" network but felt the impingement on my personal integrity and that of the post required a reply.
At least you acknowledge some "sensible comments". I saw it differently with a reasonable amount of support for females in the military.
To provide evidence to substantiate the "rumour"allows the investigation into that area which will then lead to an unfortunate individual being place in a difficult situation. Or CWP is that your intent?
Its great that in all you years that you have never seem evidence of females being given positions based on gender. Just a couple of points. Your years in must be significant to have had a view and be part of all the CORPS and Mustering to make such a wide sweeping statement. However just because you haven't seen it does not make it so. The second point which my post, apologise if its hard to follow, is about. The demand for increased female numbers NOW is bringing about recruiting female candidates based on gender. They either do not have the ability and more importantly have the ability but there are better candidates being passed over because they are not female. One criteria of employment any where was putting the best people in the slot. If you have two people, one has the ability and competence for the position and the other has more ability and competence for the position who are they going to pick NOW, the female of course.
Totally agree. There are numerous areas/positions being filled by "males" that questions the competency of the promotion boards and posting authorities. Does this than justify allowing the recruiting based on gender and not ability which would/could and shall further dilute the competency of that unit. And have you not contradicted yourself with "because there's many more of us than them" indicating that if there were more females there woulf be more incompetence?
My mate the CO's as good subordinates bow to their superiors and do as told. I have had the honour to know a few (never in the field of human conflict) that have stood up and said no, knowing full well that their career in the ADF was finished (only one I know of that got away with this and the gent was and still is a great officer/leader/bloke even with no children in the water)
On a more personal note. Firstly you cast dispersions about spurious allegation, really on a rumour site? Secondly you cast some derision on a personal level about age or being lonely. Attack the content not the individual.
Sorry must be the way my colostomy bag is sitting. The core of for this thread is that the ADF will employ females irrelevant of ability because they have been told to. Again two points. The first and worst case employing people who do not have any ability for that area. Secondly employing females that have ability but there are better candidates (who until we get a third gender are males) that are passed over because the ADF has been told employ more females.
Frankly my dear it matters naught whether you believe me or not because it won't change what is happening. Who was it that said for "evil to triumph it only needs good men to do nothing". Wait for the reply on this. No I am not saying that this is evil. I am saying is it wrong. However I dare say I am wrong because I have become a misplaced dinosaur in today's culture that is striving for the meek to inherit the earth and all to be equal. When that occurs we will not need a military or police force etc and I guess the quicker we place people in positions were they either do not have the ability to perform or do not place the best indiviual available in that position the quicker we can achieve this nirvana.
What follows is the predictable braying of dinosaurs about women in Defence. Some sensible comments, but generally dross.
If your allegation is true, it warrants further examination. However, without providing details you just sound like a troll, or maybe just someone becoming increasingly aware of their advancing age and dimininshing sense of connection with today's military.
Statements like chicks have it easier than blokes in training; that 'she' got that job just 'cos she's a girl; that girls don't belong on the frontline; that war fighting is a man's job have been made ever since the womens' branches of the ADF were abolished. In my years in Defence, I've never seen evidence of the type of discrimination you're claiming.
What I have seen is endless examples of people serving in positions where they have neither the skills, the imagination or the professional integrity to deserve their incumbency. You might be surprised to hear that most of these were men, because there's many more of us than them..
If your mate the CO can't performance manage an under-performing staff member out of his unit, he deserves to keep them.
However, without providing details you just sound like a troll, or maybe just someone becoming increasingly aware of their advancing age and dimininshing sense of connection with today's military.
I suspect hysterical claims about the sky falling in were heard when women first went to sea, flew jets or served alongside men on ground operations. Predictable and pathetic
Frankly my dear it matters naught whether you believe me or not because it won't change what is happening. Who was it that said for "evil to triumph it only needs good men to do nothing". Wait for the reply on this. No I am not saying that this is evil. I am saying is it wrong. However I dare say I am wrong because I have become a misplaced dinosaur in today's culture that is striving for the meek to inherit the earth and all to be equal. When that occurs we will not need a military or police force etc and I guess the quicker we place people in positions were they either do not have the ability to perform or do not place the best indiviual available in that position the quicker we can achieve this nirvana.
Seriously, finestkind, you've got to look at how you're trying to get your point across.
Your message, which I think boils down to something like 'I know of cases of discrimination where women are being appointed to positions in the ADF ahead of better qualified and suited men and I think it's wrong' is buried in a whole lot of emotive and confusing language. Here's your original post with what I believe readers would be thinking when they go through it:
Political correctness causing pro discrimination . (blanket statement - just something you think, or is it a headline or what?)
The ADF is pushing for a higher female numbers (wonder where this "push" came from). (Who knows? Say what you mean, don't be vague.)
Given it is not every ladies dream job (nor every man's) I doubt that large numbers apply. Hence to implement this direction it becomes obvious that those that do apply will be given the nod irrelevant of their ability. (doesn't follow - your opinion only)
Unfortunately this does not advance any of the calls for equality etc.
When an individual is given a position, that is not based on ability, it does not take long for peers, subordinates and superiors to note their inability to perform. (Fair enough) This than colour's (hmm can I say that) everyone's perception when someone of that gender is appointed and places them on the back foot as it is assumed, often correctly, that they are there not for their ability but to fill the quota. (Doesn't follow - you seem to be linking gender with inability to perform, when really it's only applicable to an individual)
Hence when an individual that has the ability to carry out their duties is given the position they are already pigeon holed as being their due to their gender.... and so the wheel turns
This comes across as basically a waffling rant. If you really want to discuss this issue rationally, you need to go away and think about what you want to say and say it clearly, with evidence and without implying that your own opinions are fact. This is not a personal attack on you but a criticism of what you've written.
Your message, which I think boils down to something like 'I know of cases of discrimination where women are being appointed to positions in the ADF ahead of better qualified and suited men and I think it's wrong' is buried in a whole lot of emotive and confusing language. Here's your original post with what I believe readers would be thinking when they go through it:
Political correctness causing pro discrimination . (blanket statement - just something you think, or is it a headline or what?)
The ADF is pushing for a higher female numbers (wonder where this "push" came from). (Who knows? Say what you mean, don't be vague.)
Given it is not every ladies dream job (nor every man's) I doubt that large numbers apply. Hence to implement this direction it becomes obvious that those that do apply will be given the nod irrelevant of their ability. (doesn't follow - your opinion only)
Unfortunately this does not advance any of the calls for equality etc.
When an individual is given a position, that is not based on ability, it does not take long for peers, subordinates and superiors to note their inability to perform. (Fair enough) This than colour's (hmm can I say that) everyone's perception when someone of that gender is appointed and places them on the back foot as it is assumed, often correctly, that they are there not for their ability but to fill the quota. (Doesn't follow - you seem to be linking gender with inability to perform, when really it's only applicable to an individual)
Hence when an individual that has the ability to carry out their duties is given the position they are already pigeon holed as being their due to their gender.... and so the wheel turns
This comes across as basically a waffling rant. If you really want to discuss this issue rationally, you need to go away and think about what you want to say and say it clearly, with evidence and without implying that your own opinions are fact. This is not a personal attack on you but a criticism of what you've written.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 8th Feb 2013 at 21:18. Reason: To get the colours in the right place
Thread Starter
AOA. Valid point and taken. It does become emotive when you believe something is incorrect and you also know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it.
Political correctness causing pro discrimination . (blanket statement - just something you think, or is it a headline or what?) It has happened. Better male candidates have not been recruited but a female of lesser ability has. Am I going to supply proof. No because someone would be in deep ****. Pro discrimination has been around for a while. Qantas many years ago asked applicants what positive discrimination meant as it was being applied in the commercial centre. To believe that the ADF is not pushing positive discrimination is in my opinion naive. Why do we need more women in the ADF? If they wish to join do so if they don’t so be it. But the ADF is trying to attract more, why?
The ADF is pushing for a higher female numbers (wonder where this "push" came from). (Who knows? Say what you mean, don't be vague.) Ok the Government has directed the ADF hire more females. My apologise for my poor attempt at sarcastic humour where I thought the audience could see the obvious which obviously was not obvious
Given it is not every ladies dream job (nor every man's) I doubt that large numbers apply. Hence to implement this direction it becomes obvious that those that do apply will be given the nod irrelevant of their ability. (doesn't follow - your opinion only). Yes but if you wish to dig into applications for the ADF you would find that females are not the same percentage, for population of applicants, as what males are. Why are there not more females in the ADF. Many will say they do not wish to join because of discrimination, fair point. However over certainly the last 10 years, this would be hard to support given all the training etc in harassment, bullying etc that is done in the ADF. I know it not ever man’s dream job but even more so for women.
Unfortunately this does not advance any of the calls for equality etc.
When an individual is given a position, that is not based on ability, it does not take long for peers, subordinates and superiors to note their inability to perform. (Fair enough) This than colour's (hmm can I say that) everyone's perception when someone of that gender is appointed and places them on the back foot as it is assumed, often correctly, that they are there not for their ability but to fill the quota. (Doesn't follow - you seem to be linking gender with inability to perform, when really it's only applicable to an individual) Sorry this is hard to follow. It’s not linking gender with an inability to perform its linking discrimination based on the previous person of that gender not performing. Hence the views of others are already set on this gender due to the performance of the previous person in this position and based on, in this case, gender. This is completely wrong as you have not had a chance to judge this person but based on previous experience have already done so. Not fair on the individual. The same as I know and worked with your brother/sister implying in a lot of cases I know what to expect from you, whether good or bad.
Hence when an individual that has the ability to carry out their duties is given the position they are already pigeon holed as being their due to their gender.... and so the wheel turns
This comes across as basically a waffling rant. If you really want to discuss this issue rationally, you need to go away and think about what you want to say and say it clearly, with evidence and without implying that your own opinions are fact. This is not a personal attack on you but a criticism of what you've written. See above for hopefully a better explanation without facts apart from the facts of life. Stating I know something without supporting facts or figures does not necessarily make it wrong or a weak opinion. For instance I know the SAS has over the years conducted numerous “operation” that will never come to light and only the ones in the know will know. You may request all the facts and figures you want but I do not have them. I think that it would be rather naive to believe that this has not occurred (I have only spoken to a few chaps that have been involved in some of these exercises).
The base line. The ADF has been told to employ more women. Given that there is a significant higher number of male applicants for the ADF it is reasonable to assume that, just based on numbers, there will be more suitable male applicants than female. 100 male applicants with 10 highly suitable and 20 suitable. 10 Female applicants with 1 highly suitable and 2 suitable. Unless of course you believe that females are better candidates for the ADF than males, however this would be discriminatory
Political correctness causing pro discrimination . (blanket statement - just something you think, or is it a headline or what?) It has happened. Better male candidates have not been recruited but a female of lesser ability has. Am I going to supply proof. No because someone would be in deep ****. Pro discrimination has been around for a while. Qantas many years ago asked applicants what positive discrimination meant as it was being applied in the commercial centre. To believe that the ADF is not pushing positive discrimination is in my opinion naive. Why do we need more women in the ADF? If they wish to join do so if they don’t so be it. But the ADF is trying to attract more, why?
The ADF is pushing for a higher female numbers (wonder where this "push" came from). (Who knows? Say what you mean, don't be vague.) Ok the Government has directed the ADF hire more females. My apologise for my poor attempt at sarcastic humour where I thought the audience could see the obvious which obviously was not obvious
Given it is not every ladies dream job (nor every man's) I doubt that large numbers apply. Hence to implement this direction it becomes obvious that those that do apply will be given the nod irrelevant of their ability. (doesn't follow - your opinion only). Yes but if you wish to dig into applications for the ADF you would find that females are not the same percentage, for population of applicants, as what males are. Why are there not more females in the ADF. Many will say they do not wish to join because of discrimination, fair point. However over certainly the last 10 years, this would be hard to support given all the training etc in harassment, bullying etc that is done in the ADF. I know it not ever man’s dream job but even more so for women.
Unfortunately this does not advance any of the calls for equality etc.
When an individual is given a position, that is not based on ability, it does not take long for peers, subordinates and superiors to note their inability to perform. (Fair enough) This than colour's (hmm can I say that) everyone's perception when someone of that gender is appointed and places them on the back foot as it is assumed, often correctly, that they are there not for their ability but to fill the quota. (Doesn't follow - you seem to be linking gender with inability to perform, when really it's only applicable to an individual) Sorry this is hard to follow. It’s not linking gender with an inability to perform its linking discrimination based on the previous person of that gender not performing. Hence the views of others are already set on this gender due to the performance of the previous person in this position and based on, in this case, gender. This is completely wrong as you have not had a chance to judge this person but based on previous experience have already done so. Not fair on the individual. The same as I know and worked with your brother/sister implying in a lot of cases I know what to expect from you, whether good or bad.
Hence when an individual that has the ability to carry out their duties is given the position they are already pigeon holed as being their due to their gender.... and so the wheel turns
This comes across as basically a waffling rant. If you really want to discuss this issue rationally, you need to go away and think about what you want to say and say it clearly, with evidence and without implying that your own opinions are fact. This is not a personal attack on you but a criticism of what you've written. See above for hopefully a better explanation without facts apart from the facts of life. Stating I know something without supporting facts or figures does not necessarily make it wrong or a weak opinion. For instance I know the SAS has over the years conducted numerous “operation” that will never come to light and only the ones in the know will know. You may request all the facts and figures you want but I do not have them. I think that it would be rather naive to believe that this has not occurred (I have only spoken to a few chaps that have been involved in some of these exercises).
The base line. The ADF has been told to employ more women. Given that there is a significant higher number of male applicants for the ADF it is reasonable to assume that, just based on numbers, there will be more suitable male applicants than female. 100 male applicants with 10 highly suitable and 20 suitable. 10 Female applicants with 1 highly suitable and 2 suitable. Unless of course you believe that females are better candidates for the ADF than males, however this would be discriminatory
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finestkind
“Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
It's the systems decision to increase the number of women, not the 'fault' of the (in your words), less able females. Women bring something else to the job.
You worked in Saudi, that's something that's denied to most females. It's a question of balance.
And remember - women are meant to be loved, not understood.
“Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
It's the systems decision to increase the number of women, not the 'fault' of the (in your words), less able females. Women bring something else to the job.
You worked in Saudi, that's something that's denied to most females. It's a question of balance.
And remember - women are meant to be loved, not understood.
And remember - women are meant to be loved, not understood.
*chocolates not included
Last edited by BEagle; 9th Feb 2013 at 12:53.
My take on this is experience based. My class was the second though Duntroon to have female Staff Cadets. There was I believe a form of positive discrimination in the selection process - around 120 blokes were initially selected, and 50 women. We graduated 5 women and 92 blokes.
* The vast majority of the women dropped out before the end of third class (within 6 months) in fact a great many dropped out after doing basic training at Majura. The male failure rate was better spread. There will always be failures - people, particularly smaller women were often physically broken by the training regimen, others just couldn't get their heads around tactics or command (no selection process is perfect), but the drop out rate among the women suggested that quotas were being filled - and possibly good male candidates that may have graduated missed a place as a result. Was this fair? No, was it the fault of the women? No.
Of the 5 women who graduated 3 I would have absolutely no hesitation in having them watch my back in an infantry combat situation, the other 2 were satisfactory officers. This is not to damn with faint praise - there were probably 30 odd blokes I would place in that same category - fine counting blankets, not preferred to calling in artillery fire on a danger close mission. The women who graduated did so because they met the physical, intellectual and leadership requirements of a modern Lt. I'm glad they graduated and would have absolutely no reservations in serving beside them in any corps.
All the arguments about strength, effect on morale, protective male syndrome etc is BS - if a woman meets the standard - she's in IMHO.
Where things do fall of the perch is when the system tries to manipulate a result (situating the appreciation was a good TEWT term). To give a little background, the equality commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was tasked to investigate women in the military from an equality perspective. In usual governmental fashion extensive and expensive inquiry's were undertaken and the results were at times worrying. The large numbers of existing military women asked about career progression simply stated all the wanted was an equal crack at progression to their male counterparts - nothing more, nothing less. However, the commissioner (a civilian remember) decided that the subject matter experts (the ADF women interviewed) were wrong, and there needed to be positive discrimination.
This is where I'm sure all will agree that this is a dangerous decision. If you do the same at another government department, say Treasury, and a less experienced or qualified woman is promoted over better qualified men, then at the end of the day, the budget figures may be out by a few billion, do the same in the ADF and people die and there could be operational or even strategic consequences. In short, PC doesn't belong in defence - then again nor does Misogyny IF a female and a male wants a particular job, then you select the best regardless of gender.
* The vast majority of the women dropped out before the end of third class (within 6 months) in fact a great many dropped out after doing basic training at Majura. The male failure rate was better spread. There will always be failures - people, particularly smaller women were often physically broken by the training regimen, others just couldn't get their heads around tactics or command (no selection process is perfect), but the drop out rate among the women suggested that quotas were being filled - and possibly good male candidates that may have graduated missed a place as a result. Was this fair? No, was it the fault of the women? No.
Of the 5 women who graduated 3 I would have absolutely no hesitation in having them watch my back in an infantry combat situation, the other 2 were satisfactory officers. This is not to damn with faint praise - there were probably 30 odd blokes I would place in that same category - fine counting blankets, not preferred to calling in artillery fire on a danger close mission. The women who graduated did so because they met the physical, intellectual and leadership requirements of a modern Lt. I'm glad they graduated and would have absolutely no reservations in serving beside them in any corps.
All the arguments about strength, effect on morale, protective male syndrome etc is BS - if a woman meets the standard - she's in IMHO.
Where things do fall of the perch is when the system tries to manipulate a result (situating the appreciation was a good TEWT term). To give a little background, the equality commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was tasked to investigate women in the military from an equality perspective. In usual governmental fashion extensive and expensive inquiry's were undertaken and the results were at times worrying. The large numbers of existing military women asked about career progression simply stated all the wanted was an equal crack at progression to their male counterparts - nothing more, nothing less. However, the commissioner (a civilian remember) decided that the subject matter experts (the ADF women interviewed) were wrong, and there needed to be positive discrimination.
This is where I'm sure all will agree that this is a dangerous decision. If you do the same at another government department, say Treasury, and a less experienced or qualified woman is promoted over better qualified men, then at the end of the day, the budget figures may be out by a few billion, do the same in the ADF and people die and there could be operational or even strategic consequences. In short, PC doesn't belong in defence - then again nor does Misogyny IF a female and a male wants a particular job, then you select the best regardless of gender.
Thread Starter
Lj101 so true but one must press to test.
To accept without question, to praise without knowing, to follow without thought is nothing more than weakness cloaked as wisdom.
Beagle so true but some nice knobs though.
HH
Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen I say and they should not nor ever express an opinion.
I still have contact with some of the ladies that are/were in. They have worked hard and their achievements are through merit. Each and every one of them is, putting it mildly, pissed off. None asked for special treatment. Their achievements/promotions etc were through hard work and often more so than male counterparts as they had to prove themselves not only as good but better to dispel any perception of gender bias. Now they see what they had to strive for, in order to be recognised as equals, totally corrupted and certainly not advancing the females cause for equal opportunity based on ability.
To accept without question, to praise without knowing, to follow without thought is nothing more than weakness cloaked as wisdom.
Beagle so true but some nice knobs though.
HH
Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen I say and they should not nor ever express an opinion.
I still have contact with some of the ladies that are/were in. They have worked hard and their achievements are through merit. Each and every one of them is, putting it mildly, pissed off. None asked for special treatment. Their achievements/promotions etc were through hard work and often more so than male counterparts as they had to prove themselves not only as good but better to dispel any perception of gender bias. Now they see what they had to strive for, in order to be recognised as equals, totally corrupted and certainly not advancing the females cause for equal opportunity based on ability.
