[News] diversity equality and inclusion

[The Clamp]

I think women should always be treated as if they were equal.

 

[abc]

I think women should always be treated as if they were equal.

Of course

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I preferred it when we wound up the lads on push bikes in their yellow tops who thought they were Lance Armstrong in the off season.

 

[dwayne]

You don’t think women voluntarily join the armed forces?

That is an interesting point of view.

That's not what I said.

I said a lot more men volunteer than women. 90% of volunteers are men.

Equality down the shitta in this instance.

 

[The Clamp]

That's not what I said.

I said a lot more men volunteer than women. 90% of volunteers are men.

Equality down the shitta in this instance.

It’s exactly what you said ..

Here;

“Women want equality yet they won't volunteer for the armed forces”!

It might not be what you meant or intended but it is EXACTLY what you typed.

 

[dwayne]

It’s exactly what you said ..

Here;

“Women want equality yet they won't volunteer for the armed forces”!

It might not be what you meant or intended but it is EXACTLY what you typed.

Ok but sounds like you knew what I meant first time.

 

[The Clamp]

Ok but sounds like you knew what I meant first time.

I didn’t really. But no matter. I get what you mean now.

 

[BiffyBoy100]

Chatgpt suggests otherwise

The percentage of women in frontline combat roles in the British Army is low, with only a small fraction of female soldiers serving in infantry and Royal Marine units. While women are increasingly represented in the UK Armed Forces overall, with 11.9% being female in regular forces as of October 2024, their representation in close combat roles remains relatively small.
Specifically, in April 2023, there were only 50 female other ranks and 10 female officers serving in the British Army's Infantry regiments, representing just 0.33% of the total Infantry strength of nearly 18,000 personnel. The Royal Marines have yet to have a single woman join their ranks. Since 2019, only 85 women have joined the infantry and 45 have joined the Royal Armoured Corps, with these 130 women representing about 0.5% of the total tank and infantry personnel, according to The Telegraph.
While all combat roles have been open to women since 2018, the current rate of progress suggests it will take over 100 years for the main close combat units to reach the target of 30% female recruitment across the armed forces.

The numbers in UK infantry are still tiny, but if a full-scale war broke out, it wouldn't stay that way.

Just look at recent conflicts like the fight against ISIS. Kurdish forces (YPJ) had entire all-female combat units on the front line, fighting just as hard as anyone else. In Ukraine right now, women are serving in both front-line and command roles.

Even historically, women have stepped into frontline roles when needed. WWII, for example - Russia had female snipers, pilots, and partisans. More recently, females in Northern Ireland involved in covert ops and surveillance, and female agents from the CIA and MI6 operating in some of the world’s most dangerous areas.

So, the UK numbers are low in infantry recruitment. But that’s a culture thing, not a capability thing. If push came to shove, those barriers would drop fast and women would be right there in the mix, like they already are elsewhere.

Also let’s be honest most women are just too smart to voluntarily sign up for the infantry peacetime anyway. I once met an infantry lad who got told if he put his army ID card in the cash machine and put in his last four (military number) he'd be able to get an advance on his pay.

 

[dazzer6666]

I might have a simplistic view but,

I'd give the job to the best candidate.

Theory is good and was always my philosophy but in practice it doesn’t work any more.

When I was in my last job, the department was being restructured. My function was being merged with another (larger) function, and the head of that group had already been appointed to lead the ‘new‘ function. In our first meeting he said he wanted to talk about DE&I in the newly-combined group (as well as the functional head he was also the ‘DE&I Champion’ on the Executive Committee. The irony of my team (I had an almost exact 50/50 split male/female management team of 14) merging with his (15/1) was completely lost on him.

When we put the new structure in place he kept a spreadsheet which he updated as each appointment was made to the new positions as he wanted to hit a ‘target ratio’. Joyous emails were sent to us each time the ratio ’improved’………but……infinitely better candidates were let go at the expense of this ratio. Interview panel decisions were ignored to improve this ratio.

I’ve got pals who are/were in other organisations in senior positions who have been explicitly told they won’t get another senior job, simply because they are male. Some organisations have rules in place now that mandate final shortlists (say of 3/4 candidates) must have at least one female - so if you get 50 applicants, one is female and would rank 50th on paper, she still gets an interview. It’s that stark.

It’s difficult to know what the right answer is though because I have seen many examples of ‘boys club’ mentality in senior groups in organisations too - I’m just not convinced forced selection/managed target ratios are always the right answer.

 

[cunning fergus]

The numbers in UK infantry are still tiny, but if a full-scale war broke out, it wouldn't stay that way.

Just look at recent conflicts like the fight against ISIS. Kurdish forces (YPJ) had entire all-female combat units on the front line, fighting just as hard as anyone else. In Ukraine right now, women are serving in both front-line and command roles.

Even historically, women have stepped into frontline roles when needed. WWII, for example - Russia had female snipers, pilots, and partisans. More recently, females in Northern Ireland involved in covert ops and surveillance, and female agents from the CIA and MI6 operating in some of the world’s most dangerous areas.

So, the UK numbers are low in infantry recruitment. But that’s a culture thing, not a capability thing. If push came to shove, those barriers would drop fast and women would be right there in the mix, like they already are elsewhere.

Also let’s be honest most women are just too smart to voluntarily sign up for the infantry peacetime anyway. I once met an infantry lad who got told if he put his army ID card in the cash machine and put in his last four (military number) he'd be able to get an advance on his pay.

I take the point about Russian women in WW2 and in other theatres, however they tend to be very clear existential struggles, and perhaps that’s the key underlying motivation for both males and females whereby it genuinely is a case of a country and/or ethnic group surviving or capitulating.

The current Russian Ukrainian war is a case in point, the Ukrainians are in an in an existential struggle with a powerful and aggressive neighbour. They are also culturally homogeneous ethnically and religiously. This means the population (male and female) will see the Russian threat through a consistent cultural lens.

The evidence, limited as it is indicates that the most diverse generation the U.K. has ever had (who would be called up to fight for the U.K. in a war) do not think homogeneously, with many considering the U.K. is not worth fighting for. That is the simple reality with multiculturalism, it will deliver the opposite of homogeneity.

https://share.google/YuMP5OdpkfU2lwEqQ

It’s not that long ago that approx. 1000 British citizens (male and female) went off to fight for ISIS, whilst around the same time approx. 450 British soldiers died in Afghanistan fighting for diametrically opposite objectives.

Perhaps for this country, male and female participation in a fight for for the future of this country would be at its greatest motivation in a civil war, as oppose to fighting some bogeyman adversary half way round the world.

Time will tell.

 

[Berty23]

That's not what I said.

I said a lot more men volunteer than women. 90% of volunteers are men.

Equality down the shitta in this instance.

Amazing that a sensible discussion has come down to a ridiculous argument led by Andrew Tate. “But 85 years ago we were involved in a world war so we should not have equality now” is how it essentially works right?

How many generations need to pass before we stop harking back to the war?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Amazing that a sensible discussion has come down to a ridiculous argument led by Andrew Tate. “But 85 years ago we were involved in a world war so we should not have equality now” is how it essentially works right?

How many generations need to pass before we stop harking back to the war?

This country would’ve ground to a halt without women during both world wars. Land Army, munitions, transport, pilots delivering aircraft to airfields, boat crew, nursing, radio operators, coders, messengers on motorbikes, radar plotters, degausers, engineers, drivers, mechanics, bakers, etc etc.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Theory is good and was always my philosophy but in practice it doesn’t work any more.

When I was in my last job, the department was being restructured. My function was being merged with another (larger) function, and the head of that group had already been appointed to lead the ‘new‘ function. In our first meeting he said he wanted to talk about DE&I in the newly-combined group (as well as the functional head he was also the ‘DE&I Champion’ on the Executive Committee. The irony of my team (I had an almost exact 50/50 split male/female management team of 14) merging with his (15/1) was completely lost on him.

When we put the new structure in place he kept a spreadsheet which he updated as each appointment was made to the new positions as he wanted to hit a ‘target ratio’. Joyous emails were sent to us each time the ratio ’improved’………but……infinitely better candidates were let go at the expense of this ratio. Interview panel decisions were ignored to improve this ratio.

I’ve got pals who are/were in other organisations in senior positions who have been explicitly told they won’t get another senior job, simply because they are male. Some organisations have rules in place now that mandate final shortlists (say of 3/4 candidates) must have at least one female - so if you get 50 applicants, one is female and would rank 50th on paper, she still gets an interview. It’s that stark.

It’s difficult to know what the right answer is though because I have seen many examples of ‘boys club’ mentality in senior groups in organisations too - I’m just not convinced forced selection/managed target ratios are always the right answer.

Why would the woman be 50th on paper, or was that deliberate to demonstrate your point? Asking for a friend.

 

[dazzer6666]

Why would the woman be 50th on paper, or was that deliberate to demonstrate your point? Asking for a friend.

To demonstrate the point. Candidates are scored on a matrix.

 

[TomandJerry]

Theory is good and was always my philosophy but in practice it doesn’t work any more.

When I was in my last job, the department was being restructured. My function was being merged with another (larger) function, and the head of that group had already been appointed to lead the ‘new‘ function. In our first meeting he said he wanted to talk about DE&I in the newly-combined group (as well as the functional head he was also the ‘DE&I Champion’ on the Executive Committee. The irony of my team (I had an almost exact 50/50 split male/female management team of 14) merging with his (15/1) was completely lost on him.

When we put the new structure in place he kept a spreadsheet which he updated as each appointment was made to the new positions as he wanted to hit a ‘target ratio’. Joyous emails were sent to us each time the ratio ’improved’………but……infinitely better candidates were let go at the expense of this ratio. Interview panel decisions were ignored to improve this ratio.

I’ve got pals who are/were in other organisations in senior positions who have been explicitly told they won’t get another senior job, simply because they are male. Some organisations have rules in place now that mandate final shortlists (say of 3/4 candidates) must have at least one female - so if you get 50 applicants, one is female and would rank 50th on paper, she still gets an interview. It’s that stark.

It’s difficult to know what the right answer is though because I have seen many examples of ‘boys club’ mentality in senior groups in organisations too - I’m just not convinced forced selection/managed target ratios are always the right answer.

Isn't that discrimination?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Theory is good and was always my philosophy but in practice it doesn’t work any more.

When I was in my last job, the department was being restructured. My function was being merged with another (larger) function, and the head of that group had already been appointed to lead the ‘new‘ function. In our first meeting he said he wanted to talk about DE&I in the newly-combined group (as well as the functional head he was also the ‘DE&I Champion’ on the Executive Committee. The irony of my team (I had an almost exact 50/50 split male/female management team of 14) merging with his (15/1) was completely lost on him.

When we put the new structure in place he kept a spreadsheet which he updated as each appointment was made to the new positions as he wanted to hit a ‘target ratio’. Joyous emails were sent to us each time the ratio ’improved’………but……infinitely better candidates were let go at the expense of this ratio. Interview panel decisions were ignored to improve this ratio.

I’ve got pals who are/were in other organisations in senior positions who have been explicitly told they won’t get another senior job, simply because they are male. Some organisations have rules in place now that mandate final shortlists (say of 3/4 candidates) must have at least one female - so if you get 50 applicants, one is female and would rank 50th on paper, she still gets an interview. It’s that stark.

It’s difficult to know what the right answer is though because I have seen many examples of ‘boys club’ mentality in senior groups in organisations too - I’m just not convinced forced selection/managed target ratios are always the right answer.

All of that behaviour is asinine and if it isn't illegal it should be. It maps exactly to what some of us were saying yesterday about people being too thick to understand what DEI means and how to implement it.

I had a dysfynctional family living down the street 25 years ago. I recall that one of the kids ('A') broke one of the other kids' ('B') toys. The mother, presumably attempting to operate fairness and equality, decided the solution was to tell kid 'B' to break one of kid 'A''s toys.

The problem with all systems, rules and rubrics is that they are interpreted and operated by human beings, and some human beings are f***ing idiots.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Isn't that discrimination?

Yes. See my post above