All Roles Now Open To Females

Status
Not open for further replies.

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
In justifying why need an Army, as opposed to a better funded NHS or schools?
It's impossible to help anyone dumb enough to allow the discussion to be framed in those terms.
 
Why would it go to court?.. and in some scenarios, those things that I mentioned are considered in Court - but you knew that?

Genuine occupational requirement. The law allows employers to make limited exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination where the job has genuine occupational requirements (GORs). These requirements relate to characteristics which although protected are necessary for the job under consideration.
I was using the lowest form of wit. Anyways, I'm pretty sure a well written OPS trumps your GOR.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It's impossible to help anyone dumb enough to allow the discussion to be framed in those terms.
In fairness it's an argument that can always be made, and often is. It's the government's job to articulate why any given spend needs to happen rather than 100% of government spending going on more nurses. Defence is way ahead of some other areas in this regard: the FCO has a hell of a job articulating why it should exist and they've seen massive funding cuts in recent years. I imagine the arts council has similar challenges.

I think what's missing from @Kroneit44's argument is an explanation about why the inclusion of women in the combat arms makes any material difference to that argument. I don't think it does. I'd guess that 95%+ of the public have never thought about the inclusion, or otherwise, of women in GCC.
 
I think what's missing from @Kroneit44's argument is an explanation about why the inclusion of women in the combat arms makes any material difference to that argument. I don't think it does. I'd guess that 95%+ of the public have never thought about the inclusion, or otherwise, of women in GCC.
In my opinion, its all about the media. If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public, it would be harder to call us a sexist or racist or agist organisation, thus putting the government in a good light. Anything tending towards those ratios is positive, and allowing women in GCC is just that.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
In my opinion, its all about the media. If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public, it would be harder to call us a sexist or racist or agist organisation, thus putting the government in a good light. Anything tending towards those ratios is positive, and allowing women in GCC is just that.
Sure, but I think there's a big disconnect between that and the idea that this will affect funding. I think the government are concerned about negative media stories concerning certain capabilities being scrapped; I've seen no real evidence that the army's media image enters into the equation particularly.
 
Sure, but I think there's a big disconnect between that and the idea that this will affect funding. I think the government are concerned about negative media stories concerning certain capabilities being scrapped; I've seen no real evidence that the army's media image enters into the equation particularly.
I equate it to walking into a unit placing board when your bloke is good but has fucked up/said something stupid in front of the RSM. You're one a hiding to nowhere, unless the opposition has fucked up on a greater scale.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
You've lost me. Roll back to you TESEX comment, how does that demonstrate why we need an army to the general public?
It doesn't. But if you want to explain the specifics on an issue - such as why women in GCC units is not a good idea, they will be more persuasive.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
In my opinion, its all about the media. If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public, it would be harder to call us a sexist or racist or agist organisation, thus putting the government in a good light. Anything tending towards those ratios is positive, and allowing women in GCC is just that.
And that's where you make your mistake.

You have no room for compromise but all I want is for you to meet me halfway every time. Accept my reasonable offer and guess where you'll end up.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
@QRK2 u ok hun? Only you've been chasing me across the site giving me dumb ratings on all my posts for several years now without once interacting with me, but tonight you seem to have gone off the deep end. Spending your Sunday night trawling through my posts on multiple threads from 6 months ago to give me 14 dumb ratings seems like a cry for help...

My PMs are open if you want to get something off your chest. Or you can just keep being odd. Your call.

Screenshot_20191208-230132.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was using the lowest form of wit. Anyways, I'm pretty sure a well written OPS trumps your GOR.
Ah, the lowest form of wit usually relates to some form of reality and often contains humour that others pick up on.

Your mentioned Court, I gave an example as to why it's not always clear cut - you mention Ops.

No worries, except a well written OPS will take into account who's doing what and why
 
Source - as in sample size and reported by who?

Or was it anecdotal evidence of both people asked?

Both people asked ?

Ha ha, You're taking all this a tad seriously aren't you?

Your opinion versus mine - your reasoning versus mine.

Your ego versus mine.

Years of War fighting and Campaigning over the centuries by the British Army versus your theories and dogma?

Meh
 
In my opinion, its all about the media. If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public, it would be harder to call us a sexist or racist or agist organisation, thus putting the government in a good light. Anything tending towards those ratios is positive, and allowing women in GCC is just that.
Do you think the Army is going to have 50% female ratio anytime soon? No? Then it won't be to hard to call them sexist.
 
Both people asked ?

Ha ha, You're taking all this a tad seriously aren't you?

Your opinion versus mine - your reasoning versus mine.

Your ego versus mine.

Years of War fighting and Campaigning over the centuries by the British Army versus your theories and dogma?

Meh
What the fcuk are you on about?

Matey boy claimed that most infantry NCOs were happy to have served with females in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I questioned what the source of that claim was.

Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Do you think the Army is going to have 50% female ratio anytime soon? No? Then it won't be to hard to call them sexist.
We don’t need a 50:50 ratio of men to women, we need to show that we are an equal opportunities employee and that we removing hurdles as we find them, the media like that.
 
We don’t need a 50:50 ratio of men to women, we need to show that we are an equal opportunities employee and that we removing hurdles as we find them, the media like that.
You said:
If the Army employed people in the same ratios that they exist in the public.
But you actually meant something else.


The media don't give a ****. Did they care about gays being banned? Where was the big media campaign to get women in the infantry?
 
What the fcuk are you on about?

Matey boy claimed that most infantry NCOs were happy to have served with females in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I questioned what the source of that claim was.

Nothing more. Nothing less.
Okey dokey, must have misread it or got confused with another thread as it seemed that you were pushing a more wimmin izt goot agenda.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
In justifying why need an Army, as opposed to a better funded NHS or schools?
If you allow the argument to be framed in those terms, you've lost already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top