Australian Defence Medal madness

A Defence spokesman (how very gender-specific) was quoted in the Daily Telegraph today stating that:

The length of service is determined by the required training needed to ensure the member is proficient in their role.

And I found this very interesting. After all, this statement specifically related to the fact that the length of service for female infantry soldiers is two years, whereas it is double that for the men.

So either men take twice as long to train as infantry soldiers as women, or the Defence spokesman just made something up to try and avoid answering why female riflemen have a shorter period of service and hence can receive the Australian Defence Medal in half the time as non-females.

And we all know that females are not 100% quicker than men at becoming trained killers because about the only thing we’ve heard from bunches of women since forever is how men are naturally-violent and are killing them all on a weekly basis due to domestic violence.

So that means the Defence spokesman just made it up. And along the way, in an effort to be politically-correct, he gave all males in the military (including himself) a whack where it hurts.

Because, whether he meant it or not, he just told the world that men take twice as long to train as women.

Even though they don’t.

And this is where political correctness and gender theory gets you: to the point where every word you say is contradictory blather and also an embarrassment to all reason and logic.

Of course, in the prevailing environment today I can understand why the poor bugger tasked with answering a simple question with a bald-faced lie did this. He wants a medal too and unless he toes the feminist-friendly party line he probably won’t be allowed to stay in long enough to get one.

Strangely enough, the On the record section of the Defence webpage got a little closer to the truth later today, even if it had to be dragged there after I told the Daily Telegraph that Defence should end its politically-correct social engineering.

Defence’s statement started with this:

Recent media reporting on eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal is misleading. Eligibility for the Australian Defence Medal has not changed.

Technically, the second part of that statement is true (claps all round).

Unfortunately, it is also a pointless technicality that attempted to hide a larger and far more important truth.

No one has said the medal criteria has changed. What has been said loud and clear is that the initial enlistment period for females in numerous positions across Defence has. And this means they get the medal early because the medal is given for four years’ service, or completion of an initial enlistment period, whichever is lesser.

Which, by the way, is what Defence all but admitted when it tried to ‘correct’ the record without answering anything at all. However, it still confessed that females are given reduced periods of service in a number of roles:

The vast majority of these are not gender specific, while eight of these categories offer reduced periods of service to women only.  This is to encourage greater participation of women in these roles.

And there you have it. ‘Women only’ were all the words that we needed to hear. Thanks for coming.

But just to stress the point, it is entirely possible that reducing the enlistment period for men may encourage them to greater participation in these roles as well. But, clearly, Defence does not want that which is why I’m happy to call it out for being sexist. And for probably breaching the Sex Discrimination Act.

Ironically, in all this medal madness, it has been the ladies who have spoken up with the most clarity.

This is just one of the more than 1,000 comments I received on Facebook about this issue in the last week:

This makes a f**king mockery of the woman who did their time and were awarded their medals like everyone before them. Enough of this radical PC BS. YOU’RE MAKING THE REST OF US LOOK BAD. When will this end?!

And it was followed up by this:

Don’t get me started. The worst part is no female in the Defence Force that I know has ever asked for this to happen. It will only further divide the genders. Enough of this nonsense!!


I don’t know one female in the military who wants this either. This ridiculous medal meddling is devaluing the awards that many women have worked hard to achieve (and I do acknowledge that hard work even if I am critical of the push for females in Defence).

That’s why it is important to note where this push comes from: the Australian Human Rights Commission and specifically Liz Broderick.

It was Stephen Smith’s hare-brained idea to give her the keys to the military and it was her hare-brained idea that it would be great for military capability to get more women in by getting them out just as quickly.

The Australian Defence Medal has been plagued with problems from the outset. However, as one wag quipped today, Liz Broderick’s plan has achieved something that no one would have dared possible: halving the value of a medal that most soldiers already deemed to be worthless.

To listen to my interview with Chris Smith today about the Australian Defence Medal click on the link below:

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. This article also fails to note that even amongst the four year lot there is a differentiation between soldiers. If you are a Special Reserve Officer your number of days required is a lot less than a young digger in an infantry unit.
    If you served in different decades the requirement again varies. It should have been a set number of years for everyone.

    Post a Reply
  2. Bernard, check out RAAF Pilots.
    11.5 years for men 3 years for women.

    Post a Reply
  3. What is the Australian Defence Medal awarded for? No-one should receive a medal for simply doing their job. Defence personnel already receive generous wages, plus an additional service allowance, plus extra pay for overseas service, plus free and/or subsidised clothing, food, equipment, transport, accomodation, housing loans, and medical and dental treatment, and so on etc.

    To be awarded a medal, you need to do something above and beyond the call of duty. The Australian Defence Medal devalues the meaning of “medal”. No-one should be given a medal just for turning up.

    Post a Reply
    • The ADM has become a joke when splashed about in this fashion. Given your sentiments, if you have one then hand it back. If you have never served – then you sound jealous & maybe you should get off your bum & do something about it….Or give up & shove another cream cake in your gob.

      The – “Thanks for coming” & “Thanks for Hanging Around” medals are a bit like the German award, “Iron Cross 2nd class” nearly everyone got one. Even people who failed basic training seem to get an ADM ???

      Post a Reply
  4. I received the Australian Defence Medal for four years’ service, though I did 10. Why should women get one after two? Just another example of PC (no, softening the Nation) gone amok.

    Post a Reply
  5. What defence is actually saying is that a female’s service is worth twice that of males. The ROSO is intended so that defence can re-coupe their investment they have spent training each soldier. What defence is saying is that they are able to re-coupe their investments in female soldiers twice as fast as males.

    Post a Reply
    • I don’t see this as a problem at all! …give the Gap year people a quarter of a medal and the women who complete two years a half a gong. This keeps the four year soldiers happy and separates the chaff from the wheat. It has the added bonus of employing a medal cutter ( gender non-specific)

      Post a Reply
    • That makes no sense. Please tell me how you determined that

      Post a Reply
      • Just pulling the hiss out of the entire shmozzle mate!

  6. I listened to your radio interview, and would like to know your stance (relating to sexual discrimination) of the humble BFA? Guys and girls, same job, different requirements – is this too in breach? Last I heard was that, informally, the BFA was to assess ‘health’, and therefore sidestepped. Thanks

    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