PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   New RAF TV advert for women (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/619866-new-raf-tv-advert-women.html)

air pig 27th Mar 2019 23:14


Originally Posted by Training Risky (Post 10431905)
Thanks all for the positive replies. I am not too proud to admit that sometimes I come across as an old dinosaur but so be it! I will pick this poisoned chalice up and carry it to the end. I left in 2015 so I am fighting a rearguard action against ‘progress’.

Of course I had the occasional female boss in the SH and J2 world, but those who got there, got there mainly without positive discrimination.

I have 3 teenage sons, and have just learned from them that at our school in Sussex there are no more places for them on a local engineering work experience scheme at a local employer, administered by the school, as the school wants more girls to make up the quota. Progress? You decide.

That is sex discrimination and illegal unless they have applied the sex discrimination act legislation exemptions and beinfg a school I suspect not.

Tankertrashnav 27th Mar 2019 23:58

Another vote for the ad which I thought was quite clever, particularly the "all day protection, with wings"!

Donkey9871 28th Mar 2019 00:10


Originally Posted by Training Risky (Post 10430727)
Just saw this rubbish on TV:

https://www.forces.net/services/raf/...types-screened

AVM Chris Elliot, hang your head in shame. I didn’t know we were setting quotas now.

In a country where applicants are being turned away from Police forces for being white men. What’s next...?

The RAF began setting quotas in the early 90s. Remember the ethnic origins survey that was supposedly anonymous? I do! Mine went back indicating that I was a black, female, (and by using the "other" option) one parent family with a strange affinity for large aquatic mammals and strong views on nuclear disarmament, much to the amusement of my colleagues and I. In the subsequent interview with the Chf Clk, who pointed out, had I failed to notice, that I was (and still am) a male caucasian, he revealed that the bar code on the back of the form contained my service number. My, how we both chuckled (not) as he supervised my completion of my "voluntary" resubmission of the form.

It is also worthy of note that the RAF Apprenticeship scheme, many years later, recieved an OFSTED rating of "satisfactory" (ie less than good) because of the lack of ethnic diversity in the schemes, despite the level of health and pastoral care etc provided by the service that will never be met by other apprenticeship providers. OFSTED refused to accept that certain minorities do not view military service as a prime option when it comes to career choice (a fact) and became somewhat aggitated when it was suggested (lightheartedly) that those minorities be subject to enforced recruitment in order to meet their unrealistec targets.

The military is a case apart and will, for numerous reasons, never be as diverse as society at large, especially not in a cosmopolitan society like the UK. Unfortunately, society (particularly the political correctionousness police) [yes, correctionousness it is a word, I just typed it, so there!] cannot get it's tiny little mind around that concept and therefore the powers that be are forced to attempt to comply with the dictats of sociocorrect buffoons, which leaves them open to criticism of this nature.

Vive le Diference!

melmothtw 28th Mar 2019 11:34


political correctionousness police
There's a new one.

Fortissimo 28th Mar 2019 15:58

It's an excellent ad that was aimed at challenging stereotypes and assumptions (none of those on PPrune, of course) in the wider community, which is probably why it won the Ch4 prize. If you think an organisation is going to provide you with an unsympathetic working environment or, worse, discriminate against you, why would you want to join?

Ethnic minorities are under-represented in the Services for a variety of reasons, one being that the family 'gatekeepers' often don't regard it as a proper career for their offspring. That happened to a university friend of mine, someone of Asian extraction who was offered a pilot slot and an IOT start date shortly after graduation. Whilst his mother was OK with it, his father was not; my friend decided he had to respect his father's wishes, turned down the offer, and has regretted it every day since.

I am reliably informed by a mate in the recruiting system that there are no quotas for females or BAME candidates, but there are recruiting targets, which is an entirely different beast. You do not leave posts unfilled because you haven't got the right number of women, nor do you accept applicants who do not meet the standard. None of the Services has gone down that line. As for basing the close combat argument on Rugby and boxing, I would much rather see it done on capability - if you meet the standard, you are acceptable. Or is that not acceptable?


Battlefields and our enemies do not make allowances for the type, weight, strength and gender of the soldiers they fight against. We cannot put our small soldiers against other enemy small soldiers... It is just a winner takes all fight.
This statement is quite correct until you use it as proof of your argument that women should not be in close combat roles. You might like to use that line with the Gurkhas, who are not known for being especially large? They seem to get by in most wars. History is also littered with the names of women who have excelled in wars where close combat meant a sword or a knife, not a rifle. And there is real truth in the phrase: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..."

That said, if you don't believe diversity is a positive thing, please ignore all of the above.

FarWest 28th Mar 2019 16:55

I spent many a year in the RAF training world, both at IOT and on front-line operational training. My experience is that the females were either excellent or rubbish, whilst the males covered the entire spectrum between these extremes. Having pondered this anomaly for some time, I came to the conclusion that there were no gender-related differences - it was all down to the individuals' desire to achieve.

FW

Steepclimb 28th Mar 2019 17:03

No use getting your knickers in a twist the fundamental reality is that no amount of well meaning encouragement will produce a situation where there's a 50/50 male female ratio. Look at airline pilots where the door has been wide open to women for a long time yet the percentage ratio remains stubbornly in single figures. Women, quite sensibly in my opinion take a look at it as a career option and reject it. Most female pilots I knew and flew with were following relatives into the job. Best pilot I ever flew with is a woman.
So all the straight white males really needn't worry. We're not in any danger of becoming a persecuted minority.
For what it's worth I think a lot of those ads are box ticking and will make little difference.

Tankertrashnav 28th Mar 2019 20:23


Vive le Diference!
That's "vive la difference", Donkey.

Once a French teacher, always a French teacher ;)

tartare 28th Mar 2019 21:46

Select on capability.
There are girls who can and do pole around fast jets with the best of the boys - and anything else that flies as well.
Sitting in the command chair - absolutely.
Where extreme strength and endurance is required - much more difficult - but the roles should be at least be open (Special Forces Operator etc).
But people shouldn't be getting the sh1ts just because of an ad...!

350 Driver 28th Mar 2019 21:57

Why would you try to recruit women on purpose?

dash2 29th Mar 2019 04:54

Because diversity and different backgrounds/views are healthy and result in better decisions and make more effective teams. Because more effective teams deliver better op effect. Because women are under represented in the military. Because previous adverts have been more targeted at men.

Vendee 29th Mar 2019 07:30


Originally Posted by 350 Driver (Post 10432896)
Why would you try to recruit women on purpose?

Why would you try to recruit men on purpose? Because that's what we have done for a very long time without any complaints from the misogynists.

mymatetcm 29th Mar 2019 07:49

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-...xual-offences/

articles like this just push against the pull of recruiting adverts. it is difficult to recruit females , BAME recruits for a vast variety of reasons. In traditional recruiting grounds in the north the white working class male age 14/20 make up less than 20% of the target audience for recruitment due to demographics.

typerated 29th Mar 2019 08:30

Great advert - very clever.

Teaching women to fly I found they were generally better coordinated (or at least gentler at handling) and listened more to instruction (rather than assuming)
But not as (over) confident.

Bob Viking 29th Mar 2019 08:50

Right, let’s try this...
 
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 five instructional tours to date I have taught many students. If I’m honest I would not place any of the females in the top twenty students I have taught. But I wouldn’t place them in the bottom twenty either.

I haven’t flown with every female pilot. Some of them may be the best there is and I feel sure many of them are better than me. That’s great. But why does it matter? In my opinion they were good pilots. Just like everyone else.

I think this modern trend of virtue signaling is not actually helpful. I would guess that the ‘minorities’ would rather just get on with their job.

If you truly believe that a woman was the best pilot you ever flew with then great, I won’t question it. I would suggest you remember her far more than anyone else because she stood out.

I understand the recruitment aims and I don’t have a problem with them. We just need to treat everyone the same and problem solved.

As I have said previously I have children of both genders so I want them all to succeed. But I don’t want any of them to expect special treatment.

BV


typerated 29th Mar 2019 08:59


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 10433185)
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 five instructional tours to date I have taught many students. If I’m honest I would not place any of the females in the top twenty students I have taught. But I wouldn’t place them in the bottom twenty either.

I haven’t flown with every female pilot. Some of them may be the best there is and I feel sure many of them are better than me. That’s great. But why does it matter? In my opinion they were good pilots. Just like everyone else.

I think this modern trend of virtue signaling is not actually helpful. I would guess that the ‘minorities’ would rather just get on with their job.

If you truly believe that a woman was the best pilot you ever flew with then great, I won’t question it. I would suggest you remember her far more than anyone else because she stood out.

I understand the recruitment aims and I don’t have a problem with them. We just need to treat everyone the same and problem solved.

As I have said previously I have children of both genders so I want them all to succeed. But I don’t want any of them to expect special treatment.

BV


Bob - you sound like my wife!

Bob Viking 29th Mar 2019 09:06

TR
 
Is that good or bad?!

BV

Pure Pursuit 29th Mar 2019 09:07

I like the advert. It’s defintely sticking two fingers up at the PC side of the world and imho, it’s basicslly saying that women in the RAF are equal in every sense. Good stuff.

LGBT quotas though.... don’t get me started. There is a definite push for positive bias towards recruitment in that area. Absolutely no need, just recruit on meritocracy and stop caring about the colour, age, race, sex or sexuality of those walking into the AFCO.

typerated 29th Mar 2019 09:21


Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 10433204)
Is that good or bad?!

BV

Ignorance is bliss!

But fair point you were making

350 Driver 29th Mar 2019 10:54


Because diversity and different backgrounds/views are healthy and result in better decisions and make more effective teams.
I hear this line of thinking fairly often. Is there some sort of data or legitimate research behind this? And is it true in all industries or fields of work? Honestly, I doubt it. But hey, it sure does sound good! It's like that line I always hear "A nation's military should be representative of the nation it defends?" Again I ask 'Why?" I want my military to be able to defend the country and win wars in the most efficient and effective way possible. Again, I'm looking for data and not feel good one liners.


Because women are under represented in the military.
So? Is that a problem? Is the goal of the military to make sure that women are properly represented or to be effective on the battlefield and win wars?

Because previous adverts have been more targeted at men.
Again, so what?


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.