RAF REGT FEMALE RECRUIT LEAVES AFTER 2 WEEKS

[Bootra]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html

Not that I'm trying to get this debate going again, (and it is from the Daily Fail so will only be half truths anyway) but thought some might want to take a look.

 

[Banshee]

Seen

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

A few points for those wishing to dive headlong into a debate without having read the background (assuming it is correct - as observed, a "Daily Fail" article, so usual caveats apply).

This recruit was a branch transfer by a trained rank RAF steward, one of three females intending to enter into an 18 week RAF Regiment training course - possibly having transfered as a part trained transfer, skipping the basic training element (phase one training).

The issue of separate accommodation was mentioned as a contributing factor - something the Royal Marines have already identified as a critical issue and one which the RAF will no doubt revisit.

Rest assured, most Nods in RM recruit training consider quitting - particularly within the initial stages and many reasons are cited.

Long and the short of it is she had a go and is very much under the spotlight, a real human being, so let's not be too critical, particularly those of us who are not trained infantrymen (myself amongst them).

 

[dodgyknees]

Really difficult one...as Ninja says, she is not straight off the street and as such you would have thought the RAF would have set her up for success; maybe they did.

Troop, Flight or platoon cohesion is really important during training and I think one of the issues CTC will have to deal with is how do you integrate a female into a predominantly male environment, respecting her need for privacy while integrating her with her colleagues. PT is the easy bit, you either pass or you don't, it is the other issues that are much more tricky.

Having previously worked in recruit training for a number of years I am delighted I did not have to grapple with these issues.

 

[Chelonian]

I expressed my views on the general topic some years ago so I won't repeat myself. But some of the comments below the Daily Wail feature are a hoot

"She did a great job and I believe she should be given the role on merit, the best way to learn is from the front. Well done you."
Master OV Universe

 

[dodgyknees]

I expressed my views on the general topic some years ago so I won't repeat myself. But some of the comments below the Daily Wail feature are a hoot

"She did a great job and I believe she should be given the role on merit, the best way to learn is from the front. Well done you."
Master OV Universe

There is never a WTF voting button when you need one!

 

[arny01]

I do really feel for these females! First into the GCC role. All eyes will be on them and there will be a lot writing them off from the start. However higher up the chain of command a total opposite will maybe be true? The first CO of the first female to enter whatever unit, will undoubtedly shout from the rooftops and place the unfortunate female on a pedestal, for all to marvel over. Politicians, and news outlets also jumping on the bandwagon. If I was a female at this stage of the game, I would 100% avoid any sort of publicity at all costs.

 

[Illustrious]

My personal opinion on the matter has been steadfast from the start so I won't repeat it. With regards to media exposure, it's a massive sticking point for me.

The following applies regardless of gender;

The nail that sticks out, gets hammered.

To parade yourself to the media, or force a person into being a poster child can and does have career limiting effects that the naïve likely won't be aware of until they stumble upon that career path.

Ive not been one to get anywhere near the cameras, going so far as to exclude myself from photographs that the photographer cannot adequately answer as to what will be done with them.

 

[its_meg]

I expressed my views on the general topic some years ago so I won't repeat myself. But some of the comments below the Daily Wail feature are a hoot

"She did a great job and I believe she should be given the role on merit, the best way to learn is from the front. Well done you."
Master OV Universe

Browsed through the comments and was surprised to see the amount of people who aren't actually against it, just don't want standards lowered. Maybe because it isn't the RM, I don't know, but is a lot different to the opinions I have been faced with in general.

There is as of course as you said, some delightful entertainment to read through if anyone is bored!

 

[03092014]

This is the RAF Regiment PRMC/POC equivalent. I just don't understand when they talk of 'equality' and 'standards remaining the same' when females need vastly less to pass the press ups and MSFT elements. I assume there is no time limit on the 2.4km run as it would of said?

It's a shame for those serving and those females who want to been seen as equal that they are subjected to these unequal changes.

 

[Command_0]

I went to Westbury for AOSB last July (decided part way through the application that I'd rather go for RM, but that's for another time).

Because it was for a sixth form scholarship we were under 18 so we didn't have to do any press ups, sit ups or the 1.5 miler, but we still had the bleep test. The requirements were lower than for the over-18s: boys had to get 9.3 and girls 6.6.

The trouble with lowered standards is that it simply doesn't make sense - take the AOSB, for example. The candidates are all being tested to go on the same training course, so why should the girls have lowered standards? It's not as if 9.3 is too difficult to achieve without a bit of motivation and determination anyway.

On top of that, the lads don't like it because they have to work harder to achieve the same result and the girls don't like it because they end up feeling embarrassed and inadequate as a result. The girls weren't allowed to continue past 6.6, so they didn't even have the opportunity to match the boys' requirements if they were able to.

It's a simple fact that no woman who is worth the Army's/Navy's/RAF's time will be in support of lowered standards for females.

 

[dodgyknees]

The argument is slightly more nuanced than this. The point is that women and men should be judged by the same physical standards for the same role. Does a clerk in the Army need to be as fit as a Para...absolutely not, but female and male clerks should require the same standard of fitness (as should male and female paras). Remember Sandhurst is not an arduous course and as such can have the luxury of allowing 'gender fair' recruiting standards, sorting out the wheat from the chaff later on by putting candidates into physically appropriate roles; this is not true for the RM. Aspiring RMs are all required to reach the same standard of fitness, but that is not true of the Army or the RAF, where different roles require different standards.

Where the RAF Regiment have spectacularly failed this young lady is that they allowed her to progress onto a course for which she was not properly prepared. To have differing 'gender fair' standards against recruitment and selection, but then expecting both males and females to reach the same standard during their phase 2 training is doomed to fail. This reinforces the need for CTC to 'hold the line' against political pressure to get women through PRMC / POC unless they pass the gender neutral standard required of all candidates.