Gold nuggets within Army’s sea of gender blah

The Army has a new webpage. It is called The Cove. And it allegedly exists to help improve something.

The webpage talks about the ‘learning theory for the digital age’, ‘connectivism’ and recognising ‘developing communities of practice’.

Whatever that means.

A recent article in The Cove also says this:

While International Women’s Day 2018 last month was an occasion to celebrate women’s achievements in Australia and internationally, it was also used by many to denigrate women in the military. I was pumped in the morning after speaking at an event in Melbourne about the United Nation’s (UN) approach to gender equality in peacekeeping, and UN Women’s efforts in peace and security and security sector reform. By the evening, I was deflated after reading some ill-informed, biased and downright crude comments on a Facebook post relating to the targeted recruitment of women, specifically for combat / infantry roles, in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

In shorthand, I think this means someone left a ‘Punisher’ symbol on an #IWD post (that’s International Women’s Day for those who are not yet connectorated into the digital age) and so unit logos have been banned in order to close the gender pay gap in an institution where there are no pay scales based on body parts.

The article also says this:

Special measures, such as targeted recruitment of women, are merely righting the historical disadvantage suffered by women in the preceding decades of military service.

But it also say this:

The removal in 2016 of gender restrictions on ADF combat role employment categories (the final barrier to women’s full participation) has been instrumental in creating an environment that supports the aspiration of all members to contribute fully to ADF capability.

Take note. Our Army has special measures to recruit women even though there are no gender restrictions on any role within the ADF. It has also developed a top secret square circle that is what it isn’t and isn’t what it is.

I guess that’s why Defence helpfully gives females shorter periods of service in the name of equality:

Gender service

Screen shot of Defence’s recruiting webpage showing how males and females are treated equally such that females only have to provide half the service of males…

The article helpfully explained that females were now treated the same as men by stating:

No one has suggested lowering the physical fitness standards for women (and men)…

And it even more helpfully reinforced this point by failing to include the basic physical fitness standards for service in the Army, which you will note below are separated into standards for men and women (complete with a real gender fitness gap that far exceeds the mythical gender pay gap):

BFA tables

But what I liked most about the article was not what was said officially (which also included a dig at Anglo-Australian males). But unofficially. On its official Defence Facebook page.

By a male instructor who actually worked at the School of Infantry and had these points to make in a comment he left on The Cove’s Facebook page in response to the gender-blah article:

SGT statement

You heard it first here. I mean you heard it first on the Army’s own page, The Cove.

PESA fitness tests (the not-so-basic fitness test) have been removed in some instances to officially ‘prevent injury’ but everyone knows that the real reason is to increase the number of females in this combat role.

Furthermore, female riflemen are slowing sections down during attacks, cannot carry three days of supplies and cannot recover as quickly as the blokes. The end result is undermanned (every pun intended) battalions.

But the Chief of Army has more important things to worry about. Unit symbols are too nasty…

And kudos to the bravery of the man who wrote the above. No doubt, he will now be disciplined for using language that does not accord with the Army’s value of ‘respect’ on a public webpage designed to generate discussion and increase professional development (as long as it is politically-correct).

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. As I’m a recent retiree from the ADF I see many young currently serving members (many with less than 4 years service) cycle through the hospital system. I have to wonder at why so many of these people are getting through Recruiting in the first place. When clearly they weren’t ever suited for military life. This article explains a significant number of those people.

    Post a Reply
  2. As a three score years plus ten pensioner, I am appalled by the fitness levels now required of army men, based on age.
    I can comfortably achieve the level required for a 41~45 year old and I consider my fitness and strength as mediocre at best.

    Surely we have not only downgraded the minimum fitness for men, we have made the level for women a joke.
    What happens when these soldiers have to cover an assault course with full battle gear?

    Please tell me that our soldiers are much tougher than this.

    Post a Reply
  3. Increasing the number of women in front line units is not about increasing their effectiveness but about implementing Sex Discrimination Commissar Elizabeth Broderick’s implicit recommendations to increase the number of female flag officers and Army would have been directed to do so by Minister Marisa Payne.

    Post a Reply
    • Yep, implementing the recommendations of a moron at the direction of a fat lesbian.

      Post a Reply
  4. Our “leaders”, political and uniformed, will ignore the facts and the consequences, sadly!

    Post a Reply
  5. We used to carry ten day’s rations in the Battalions in the 60’s when out on “Op’s “

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest