New RAF TV advert for women
 

Training Risky,

That's right mate, you ignore just over half the population!

And as someone who has been rather closely involved with the Home Office this past year, I can tell you for a fact that white men are NOT being turned away by ANY UK Police service, certainly not for being white men. Look at the % of non white men in the Police for goodness sake.

I suggest that you talk to Cheshire Police then as they have just lost this case in an industrial tribunal. In how many other forces has this happened in the past 20 years, just nobody has had the evidence to take this to a tribunal. I suggest that your so called facts are wrong.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/28/fire-...e-men-8402291/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-47335859

I saw it today and my immediate thought was that it was a clever advert.

Best boss I ever had was female just as the worst was. I don't discriminate on gender etc, just are they able to perform at a standard required for the job, that is better than mine with more knowledge that I posess and an ability to lead, if they can't do that then get out of the way. Don't appoint on the grounds to fulfill a quota as that way lies disaster and don't lower your standards to meet a quota..

Agree.
F*cking great ad.
I thought I had another window running audio and was fiddling with the computer - then I realised.
Training - from some of your posts, you appear to have a problem with women mate.

I suspect that the op would not have had those opinions if they had ever had dealings with the Irredoubtable Air Commodore Hopkins, and if they had silence would have been the best policy.

I too started moving windows around around looking for the offending popup ..... :}

My last three COs are women, all different, all friggin' great bosses. Training if you want to channel Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, take a looky-see at this: RAAF Pilot - Defence Jobs

I thought it was a very good ad. It made me think back to the 60s and a recruiting ad for ATC officers, with fine print pointing out that women would be paid "slightly less".

Proone et al
 

The pendulum swings, quota based selection, affirmative action, or any other discriminatory initiative usually means that somewhere, sometime, the best trained, qualified and experienced person does not get selected.

Anger, bitterness, corruption. nepotism and the decline of capabilities quickly follow. People are not joining because the conditions of service are poor, and I recognise that it is necessary to try to recruit from an underutilised pool however it must be clear that discrimination is not happening.

Been there, seen it happen, and the outcome is not pretty.

IG

Is there any evidence at all of quotas being filled here, or is it simply a case that one advert has been designed to appeal to women..?

Does anyone here really think that the production of this one advert means that men won't be in the majority of new recruits to the RAF? Or that, even more absurdly, men will be denied the chance to apply?

In the majority of cases in the workplace, men and women can compete on a equal footing. In some cases - where compassion and emotional intelligence are required, women are usually better. In other cases, for example when brute strength and resilience to cold are concerned men are usually better. But combat is not an equal opportunities employer.

When we have women competing against men on an equal basis in combative sports, and winning - Rugby, Boxing, MMA - then we should accept women in an infantry (close with the enemy and kill them) role. Until then, it is just PC rubbish.

A women boxer in a ring with a male heavyweight boxer would die. The best female woman Rugby players, being tackled by an All Black, would equally be badly hurt and might die. 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.

Natural selection and evolution has not caught up with our political agenda...

I saw it and I think it's probably the best one since this relatively vintage production https://www.luerzersarchive.com/en/m...rce-25276.html

Yes a good advertisement but not technically correct, in that not all trades are open to women, they still can't be a Catholic Priest....ok I'll get my hat and coat.

Look at what blunties have done to the Air Training Corps.

I, too, agree.

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

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

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!

There's a new one.

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?

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.

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

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.

That's "vive la difference", Donkey.

Once a French teacher, always a French teacher ;)

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...!

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.

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.

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.

Right, let’s try this...
 

Bob - you sound like my wife!

TR
 

Ignorance is bliss!

But fair point you were making