Based on the fuzzy and feel-good assumption that diversity increases capability, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is literally ‘de-manning’ itself.
That this assumption is baseless is patently evident: if diversity really increased capability then the most capable organisations would hire just as many idiots as intellects.
Gender diversity, especially, has not been demonstrated as a combat multiplier anywhere. It has not won a single war, much less a battle
Instead, studies conducted by the US Marines in 2015 showed that all male combat units outperformed mixed-gender units. The real shock is not so much what this study found but that it was conducted at all. In a sane world there would have been outrage that government funding was wasted on unearthing the blindingly obvious.
And the blindingly obvious will not change while ever male sporting teams can outmuscle female ones. Physical strength will never be an unwanted commodity on the battlefield.
And don’t let examples such as the need for women to act in specific roles like interpreters or in force engagement teams interacting with other females distract you. These requirements are necessary but limited: they can be provided by a small number of women with the requisite skills. The capability can be delivered without revolutionising the entire military force.
Regardless, the organisation tasked with defending our nation has absorbed this politically-correct mantra and decided that ‘gender diversity’ will defeat any enemy.
The Australian Army is now officially chasing 15% female representation by 2023 (although speeches by the former Chief of Army indicate that the target is 25%). Both the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) have targets of 25% female participation.
And the ADF is taking these quotas seriously. Very seriously.
It is an ironclad law of mathematics and logic that if you increase the number of women in the ADF without increasing its overall size, you will necessarily need to reduce the number of men in uniform too.
It means the ADF is in the process of getting rid of men. A lot of men.
To be precise, when this program was first dreamt up in 2013 it meant changing gender in 3,099 positions, or approximately 1,000 from each of the three services. This could be done by simply getting rid of a lot of blokes, or by getting rid of a few and filling the almost 1,800 jobs created since then with women.
And that is exactly what has happened.
Since 2013, the number of men in uniform has dropped by 505 and the number of women has grown by 2,300.
Unless the ADF continues to grow the ADF only has to replace another 1,106 men with women to meet its quotas.
Men are not being sacked directly. But they are simply not being recruited or given the same incentives to stay in the military as women. It is just as effective: blokes are walking out the door.
Thanks to ‘affirmative action’, every facet of Defence personnel management favours females, from recruitment to postings, and from promotions to professional development.
Defence even tables the Women in the ADF Report each year. It annually provides detailed statistics outlining this deliberate gender bias in hundreds of neat little tables and graphs.
Yet all three services publicly claim that they do not discriminate on the basis of gender. The program thrives behind a massive lie.
Defence has a dedicated multi-million dollar recruitment budget that focuses entirely on female-friendly advertising promoting a female-friendly concept of war.
A 2017 Defence Force Recruiting spreadsheet outlining priorities for various jobs, sighted by this webpage, showed that females were higher priorities for recruitment than men in more than half of the job categories for the Army, including every single front-line combat role.
Females were prioritised against males in all but seven positions in the RAN and the RAAF was not much better. For many of the jobs, the spreadsheet showed that Defence Force recruiters were told that there was no priority to recruit men for at least 12 months, whereas women were listed as ‘recruit immediately’.
And men were not a priority in a single employment category.
The RAAF now even has a direct entry program for pilots open only to women.
In May 2018, the former Chief of Army and now Chief of Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, personally briefed Senate Estimates that many Army positions were held open for women ahead of men. He added that these jobs would only be offered to men if no women had filled them shortly before the commencement of recruit training.
The Women in the ADF Report 2016-17 revealed that the process to recruit women was significantly quicker than that for men, especially in the RAAF. On average females received letters of offer almost four months before men who wandered into recruiting centres on the same day. The RAN also similarly rushed to recruit enlisted females over men.
Only the Army took the same timeframe to recruit male and female officers.
But soldiers? On average, men had to wait 11 weeks longer than women to be accepted.
Of course, it’s not good enough for the ADF to just get women in. Once through the door, they must succeed as well. It’s an essential self-validation of the program.
But success does not occur through merit; rather, different gender standards are applied.
Females recruited to be soldiers in the Army are given an opportunity that men are not: the Army Pre-Conditioning Program, now recently named the Female Initial Training Preparation, or, more sexily, FIT Prep. This program is designed to ‘assist women to meet the general entry fitness standards’.
But it would be wrong to say that it’s open to everyone. Obviously, it’s closed to men. It’s also closed to women who cannot do four push ups.
You read that right.
F.O.U.R or 4.
Entry barriers could not get much lower but, hey, at least the Army still has something.
Men are given no such support. Further, all three services require men to meet higher basic fitness standards than women throughout their careers.
The Army’s basic fitness assessment requires males under 25 years of age to complete 40 push-ups; females only need to do 21. In the RAN and the RAAF men of the same age must do 25 push-ups. The female requirement is just 10.
And women who join the Army or RAN are given the option of receiving a first posting to a location of their preference. Plus they can join when it suits them.
On the other hand, blokes must structure their lives around the military’s needs.
And all three services offer women jobs with shorter time commitments than men. As a result women who join the Army as infantry soldiers are only required to serve for two years, compared to the four year demand placed on men.
This also means that women in these roles will receive the Australian Defence Medal after two years of service. Men who join on the same day and do the same job must serve double the time before they receive their medal.
And while the RAAF has recently jailed a male pilot for refusing to complete his return of service obligation, females have a reduced service obligation according to the Australian Human Rights Commission report, Improving Opportunities for Women to Become Fast Jet Pilots in Australia.
When it comes to promotion, women are clearly favoured.
Across all three services, women are deemed more suitable for promotion, more likely to be promoted and promoted earlier, according to the Women in the ADF Report 2017-18.
The table below is derived from this report. It details the average percentage of men and women who were found suitable for promotion, as well as the average percentage of those found suitable who were promoted.
And it’s not good news for men hoping for a career advancement.
Women are more likely to be ‘found suitable for promotion’ at higher rates than men in all six occupational categories in the RAN, in eight of nine of the Army’s occupational categories and in half the RAAF’s occupational categories.
When it comes to promotion of those found suitable, women win out.
On a per capita basis, women are promoted at higher rates than men in 14 out of 21 occupational categories in the RAN, RAAF and Army.
In particular, if a male went up for promotion against a female in the area of aviation in 2017/18 they were likely to miss out.
In the RAN, 21.6% of eligible women were promoted in aviation roles, compared to just 8.5% of eligible men. In the Army, 50% of eligible women were promoted against 40% of eligible men. And in the RAAF the disparity is greatest: 52.4% of eligible women were promoted in 2017/18 whereas only 19.4% of eligible men were.
The average time served by a female promoted to commander is almost four years less than a male promoted into the same rank. Enlisted women are also favoured. On average, females will also be promoted to chief petty officer four years earlier than men.
The Army also slightly favours women at both the officer levels and enlisted ranks. While the RAAF’s officer promotion time frames favour women earlier but men later, women are promoted much faster through the enlisted ranks.
And this is all supported by ‘unconscious bias’ training measures designed to quiet unhappiness from men who recognise that policy settings mean their careers will not be shaped by competitive merit but will instead need to navigate a world of quotas and affirmative action.
On top of this is also a cultural issue: depending on service, women are between four and seven times more likely to be in a recognised relationship with a Defence member than men.
Approximately one in three female officers have a recognised partner serving in the ADF. Significantly less than 10% of male officers are in a relationship with a Defence member.
Often these relationships are between Defence members of similar rank. However, there can be no doubt that some of these relationships will involve significant differences in rank that may have beneficial impacts on career progression for the junior spouse or de facto, if for no other reason than the networking opportunities these relationships provide.
Based on the figures, it is likely that significantly more females are able to take advantage of this ‘relationship bonus’ than men.
So where did the recommendations for this feminist agenda revolutionising the ADF come from?
Not from anyone with any military experience. Instead they were driven by gender warriors who have never served and who mostly worked at the Australian Human Rights Commission. Millions of dollars have been spent and thousands of pages written by feminists such as Liz Broderick, Kate Jenkins, Samantha Crompvoets and others.
Defence is so proud of these reports that it refuses to release many of them to the public or even reveal their titles.
It’s not hard to understand why.
Defence’s own uniformed gender researchers have produced reports that are so ludicrous that they literally reference Xena and comic book characters as models for the future of the ADF.
Tomorrow I will outline the impact these radical policies will have on the ADF by 2030.
Stay tuned over coming days as the remainder of this series is published.
I would love to hear your thoughts and experiences about the feminisation of the ADF. Please comment below or email me at [email protected]