ADF pushing up female numbers
 

Political correctness causing pro discrimination .

The ADF is pushing for a higher female numbers (wonder where this "push" came from). Given it is not every ladies dream job 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.

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. 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. 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

The more I hear of Stephen Smith as Minister of Defence, the more concerned I become for the future of this country.

The following analogy, to anyone who has served, is accurate. If female quotas apply to fighting arms, they should be forced upon selected first grade football teams - but most importantly, only YOUR football team, and not any of the opposition teams.

How do you figure that?

Trying to boost numbers of an under-represented segment of society is always going to create comment, but if we're talking about flying, the women who've moved through as ADF aircrew in the last 20 years (or whatever it's been since they were allowed in) have often proven themselves very capable and determined, the more so in my opinion because of the resistance they encounter on the way.

"Quote:
Hence to implement this direction it becomes obvious that those that do apply will be given the nod irrelevant of their ability.
How do you figure that?"

he's scared of the competition...................

Finest Kind - Have you served in the ADF alongside women?

Arm out of the window.

I am not surprised at your comment about women pilots. Now centrifuges are in widespread use we know that on average women can stand some 0.5 g more than men. Plus we know that when a woman's corner is seriously threatened they are more ruthless and vicious than any man. Ideal fighter pilot material.

OK, that is one job, that has been proved over the years
- US, UK and Aus are the pilots (including fighter pilots) I have seen.

But what about the rest of the jobs, fighting jobs ?

I have seen two women try to pass SF selection courses without
any luck, one I thought might do it, had the determination but
not the strength.

Do people expect the standards to be lowered to fit the quota
- as per Dempsey's latest comment in the US ?

I have been involved in the flying training of, literally, hundreds of pilots. Among them a future world gliding champion, an international display pilot and two test pilots. And the best pilot I ever had my pleasure to train was a woman. Changed my views on the equality subject, that's for sure!

We're not talking about pilots, gents. Bringing that up great debating technique, but it's false, and I suspect that those who are using it know it. In services as small (and "growing" smaller!) as the ADF, surge capacity is vitally important. This allows movement of people out of their primary speciality into other roles, if only on a short term basis, in times of crisis.

Whether those-who-must-be-obeyed like it or not, this political correctness imbecility of jobs for the girls reduces that capability.

When it comes to boots on the ground, the first grade footie team analogy is spot on.

Yeah, but what the heck.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8...82327lojs1.jpg

Whether you're male or female doesn't bother me, if you can do the job to the standard required, welcome aboard. The required standard should not be lowered.

What I do object to is 'positive' discrimination in the furthering of anyone's careers. By definition, 'positive' discrimination means that somebody will be 'negatively' discriminated against.

When times are tough like now any armed forces "discriminates" because they only have a few jobs - once you decide to fight the Somme or the Battle of Berlin mysteriously standards change..................

I'm not convinced that the girls can't do it all well as the blokes. With both genders, you just have to select the right ones.

CM

I agree, but do enough of them want to do it and at what cost
of having to integrate the few ?


I have heard, just before Xmas that a woman had passed the SAS Selection course although this hasn't been confirmed.


What females do the Israelis have on the front line as in fighting troops ?
I have seen plenty of photos but not which arms or units.

As ever, 500N, I take your point. A lot of the girls I've seen come through the system didn't really ask for much different to the blokes, so I didn't really see much in the way of integration costs. They all just seemed to muck in the same as everyone else.

I know I'm probably missing something here, though.

Agree, those that want to do it muck in just like everyone else.

So why is General Dempsey saying that if females don't pass
a criteria, it is up to the unit / corps or whatever to justify the
standard and why the standard should not be lower so they
(women) can pass.

Yeah. I guess my experience of recruiting and training female aircrew doesn't read across to land forces too well. My step son's reports of the girls on his course at Sandhurst would certainly indicate some differences.

CM

That Aussie female officer is an engineer.

Quite a few female engineer officers served out there,
including a mates daughter and in more forward combat
areas than where that photo was taken.

Now that the novelty of female aircrew has, fortunately, worn off, regrettably one needs to consider the practicalities.

There is no doubt that female aircrew are just as skilled as their male counterparts, if not more so in many cases. But, nature being what it is, they might well need to take time off to twist out the odd brat or two. Nothing amiss with that - except in the eyes of the cost/benefit beancounters....:uhoh:

If you invest £M in training your aircrew, you might reasonably expect a return of service on your investment. Certain airlines manage this by granting aircrew (of either gender) the right to 50% work / 50% pay once they've achieved 5000 hours (perhaps 6-7 years of line aircrew time). However, that's probably vastly less achievable in the Mil; nevertheless, it must be accepted that female aircrew might prove rather expensive if they suddenly need to leave to breed.

That said, it was always much more pleasant teaching the girls to fly at the UAS (and elsewhere). Not only did they usually try harder than the blokes, but they did actually wash their flying suits more than once per term!

Mind you, flying on multi-crew aircraft with female aircrew was also great fun.... And yes, I did actually know that VC10 crewing was often manipulated when I was due to check a male pilot, so that we had a female navigator - but that just added to the fun....:ok: