New RAF TV advert for women
Daughter, as a flt Lt, was selected as SME logie in a Purple CPX.
Googling logie comes up with :
the name of several villages in Scotland
an Australian TV award (named after John Logie Baird)
a gob of spit running down the chin (cf "bogie)!
I take it none of these apply.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I first came across the term SME when we went purple 😀
The Army used the term Subject Matter Expert (specialist in RAF speak) and Purple when you add light blue elements to green also known as the Purple Veneer. Army speak for Joint but really Army.
As for rank/gender, indeed some of that possibly but that was not how he said it.
The Army used the term Subject Matter Expert (specialist in RAF speak) and Purple when you add light blue elements to green also known as the Purple Veneer. Army speak for Joint but really Army.
As for rank/gender, indeed some of that possibly but that was not how he said it.
The advert has landed very well among people I know in its target audience.
If you are so offended and sensitive that you find a single advert aimed at women, after the RAF has been around for over 100years worthy of being something to get offended and upset about, then perhaps you are a snowflake?
If you are so offended and sensitive that you find a single advert aimed at women, after the RAF has been around for over 100years worthy of being something to get offended and upset about, then perhaps you are a snowflake?
FB
)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
When you end up stratifying teams into Gender, Sexual orientation, Ethnic origins etc tec then you spend more time on trying to make a team to fit to a stereotype that someone has thought up than something that actually works.
Working with an Irish guy years ago another Irish guy joined in a completelty different function. HR introduced them to each other. Guy I knew said WTF are they doing that, "am I supposed to be best friends with someone because they happen to be the same Ethnic F****** origins ? Do they do it if someone is Black or Female or Gay". HR director got both barrels from the guy who to be fair had a good point.
Of course everybody could go around wearing badges indicating the Religion, Sexual orientation, Ethnic origins, etc etc BUT wasn't this used in 1930's and 40's as a means of selection of people with disastrous consequences.
I can proudly say I have never hired anybody who was black, white, gay, straight, female, male. I just hired people. Their colour, gender orientation, sex was something I cared little about. HR and I had difference of opinions all the time, they believed they were competent.
Working with an Irish guy years ago another Irish guy joined in a completelty different function. HR introduced them to each other. Guy I knew said WTF are they doing that, "am I supposed to be best friends with someone because they happen to be the same Ethnic F****** origins ? Do they do it if someone is Black or Female or Gay". HR director got both barrels from the guy who to be fair had a good point.
What if I said:
In my experience men make much better students than women. They are smarter, more aggressive and work much harder.
Or:
In my experience white students are far better than BAME students.
Or:
Straight students are for better than homosexual students.
Those statements are clearly rubbish and not true (for the record I do not believe any of the above and anyone who chooses to selectively quote me without reference to the whole post is an idiot).
In my experience men make much better students than women. They are smarter, more aggressive and work much harder.
Or:
In my experience white students are far better than BAME students.
Or:
Straight students are for better than homosexual students.
Those statements are clearly rubbish and not true (for the record I do not believe any of the above and anyone who chooses to selectively quote me without reference to the whole post is an idiot).
IF you are giving your opinion based on "YOUR" experience then it is your experience. It doesn't mean it is right or wrong just your opinion based on factual evidence you have to hand.
The danger is because you are giving this as "factual evidence" then you will be labelled and pushed aside because it is not the story people want to hear.
I am against stereotyping based on someone origins, gender or orientation. As Armd forces cannot attract enough irrespective of advertising then maybe its not the advertising that is the issue.
Maybe it is people seeing things like "Help for Heroes" when you need a charity to look after people who have been injured in the services. People wondering IF I give parts of my body for my country, "Should I have to rely on a charity for help".
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Not of this world
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it’s worth, I think it’s a good advert. I have two sons and a daughter (all very young). I want them to grow up in a world where their gender doesn’t hold them back.
I think that throwing spears at TR for his opinion is not actually constructive. I believe you would be better served by addressing why he holds that opinion.
You accuse him of ignoring half the population but maybe there is a real risk that by deliberately targeting a particular half you then disenfranchise the other half from which you currently draw the majority of your applicants. This may prove to be counter productive in the long run.
Conversations about race/gender/sexuality etc often end with someone who dares to hold the ‘un-trendy’ opinion being accused of racism/sexism/homophobia. This is not grown up debate and it stifles the real conversation.
Let me restate that I fully support campaigns to recruit women/ethnic minorities etc but I firmly believe that we need to acknowledge the fact that our forces are currently made up of a lot of white men who are doing just as good a job as anyone else and are equally deserving of recognition.
My wife has probably put it best when she says that we have a history where people were discriminated against unfairly. We are currently in a period of readjustment hence we hear and read a lot of discrimination based stories in the media. Once the problems have been addressed we may start to hear less about it.
There are a lot of areas in our country (and most other countries) where more work needs to be done to level the playing field. Ironically, from where I’m sitting the UK Armed Forces are probably already far ahead of anyone else.
BV
I think that throwing spears at TR for his opinion is not actually constructive. I believe you would be better served by addressing why he holds that opinion.
You accuse him of ignoring half the population but maybe there is a real risk that by deliberately targeting a particular half you then disenfranchise the other half from which you currently draw the majority of your applicants. This may prove to be counter productive in the long run.
Conversations about race/gender/sexuality etc often end with someone who dares to hold the ‘un-trendy’ opinion being accused of racism/sexism/homophobia. This is not grown up debate and it stifles the real conversation.
Let me restate that I fully support campaigns to recruit women/ethnic minorities etc but I firmly believe that we need to acknowledge the fact that our forces are currently made up of a lot of white men who are doing just as good a job as anyone else and are equally deserving of recognition.
My wife has probably put it best when she says that we have a history where people were discriminated against unfairly. We are currently in a period of readjustment hence we hear and read a lot of discrimination based stories in the media. Once the problems have been addressed we may start to hear less about it.
There are a lot of areas in our country (and most other countries) where more work needs to be done to level the playing field. Ironically, from where I’m sitting the UK Armed Forces are probably already far ahead of anyone else.
BV
In the the ideal world any recruitment campaign should/could start with a simple line such as 'we don't care about your sexual preference, gender, race religion or other criteria, what we are interested in is can you do the job we need you to do...blah blah blah'.
As I said in an ideal world where quotas are not important, there is no discrimination or bigotry then that is what we should see, but life is not ideal and there will always be those with alternative or hidden agendas, which is a real shame.
I for one can happily say I spent nearly 20 years in the military and have know men women from all backgrounds, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion and the one thing that has been clear is none of those have really ever been what made the person good or bad at their job. it was their personality, their ability, their skill and their aptitude that defined that. I have personally known 3 men that have completed a gender reassignment in the military and while one did not continue in the military the other two did. They were capable and intelligent people before and funny enough, after they still remain the same capable intelligent people. I have also know lots of other people who for one reason or another were complete muppets, but it was not their sexual preference, race, gender etc that defined that, it was their own innate personality and aptitude.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Well put Bob!
In the the ideal world any recruitment campaign should/could start with a simple line such as 'we don't care about your sexual preference, gender, race religion or other criteria, what we are interested in is can you do the job we need you to do...blah blah blah'.
In the the ideal world any recruitment campaign should/could start with a simple line such as 'we don't care about your sexual preference, gender, race religion or other criteria, what we are interested in is can you do the job we need you to do...blah blah blah'.
Finningley Boy,
"The question I would ask is; why was 50% of the population, across the Globe, ignored in the first place? "
I really can't believe that you are serious, but JUST in case you are, maybe because for hundreds of years women were treated either as second class citizens or non citizens with no rights at all. They were not allowed to own property, not allowed to vote, could not enter a public library and were seen as the property of men. THAT is the legacy that has left so much discrimination and under representation in this world and even in this country. And that is why this attempt to appeal to the just over 50% of the population is a terrific idea and should be applauded.
There are an awful lot of men, and many on this forum, who see a 10% female representation as being OK, anything over that and the "wimmin and femmministas are getting bolshy..."
"The question I would ask is; why was 50% of the population, across the Globe, ignored in the first place? "
I really can't believe that you are serious, but JUST in case you are, maybe because for hundreds of years women were treated either as second class citizens or non citizens with no rights at all. They were not allowed to own property, not allowed to vote, could not enter a public library and were seen as the property of men. THAT is the legacy that has left so much discrimination and under representation in this world and even in this country. And that is why this attempt to appeal to the just over 50% of the population is a terrific idea and should be applauded.
There are an awful lot of men, and many on this forum, who see a 10% female representation as being OK, anything over that and the "wimmin and femmministas are getting bolshy..."
An opinion from someone (me) who joined when 'WRAF girlies' only did lightweight type jobs and when married were routinely forced to leave the service....
This is a very clever advert - and also very good.
Sensibly no suggestion of 'quotas' either.
Nice to see.
This is a very clever advert - and also very good.
Sensibly no suggestion of 'quotas' either.
Nice to see.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: England
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't like it, and it has not been well received by those serving that I'm working with. Having worked with some of those in the advert I know that they are simply another vital part of the team - albeit it can't be ignored that it is sometimes clear that they are held on a bit of a pedestal because of their gender due to the perceived importance of them for the (out of control, in my opinion) RAF PR machine.
We should simply be recruiting the right person for the job in my opinion. Given current manning issues I hope that men aren't put off applying!
We should simply be recruiting the right person for the job in my opinion. Given current manning issues I hope that men aren't put off applying!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Devizes
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put the whole thing in context - this was the RAF's entry into a C4 competition which required a 'Brand' to produce an advert that confronts the portrayal of women in advertising. In doing so it did its job and won the RAF £1 million of free airtime on Channel 4.