Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

bobbified on 18/05/2021 - 14:30
Last edited 18/05/2021 - 14:37

Has anyone else seen the articles about the QLD Police's discriminatory hiring practices?

https://7news.com.au/news/qld/queensland-police-union-labels…

I work in the private sector in middle management and I know for a fact that in my current and previous companies, the 50/50 quota gets discussed behind closed doors when making decisions on who to hire, but I never expected to see such a public reveal from within a government agency.

For the record, I don't agree with a simple 50/50 quota and think that people should get hired based on merit only. I get that there are certain positions where having a particular sex may be more desirable (such as a counsellor or health professional that mainly deals with female patients or vice versa), but for the majority, whoever has the experience or capability should get the role rather than aiming for a 50/50.

It'd be interesting to see how many others have experienced this kind of thing at their place of employment. So fire away and share your stories about your employment and quotas!

Education & Work

Comments

- SlavOz on 27/05/2021 - 16:03
  
  Different people bring different perspectives and stop a kind of group think happening
  
  Except the group think that gets created by exclusively hiring people that fit into a company's pre-set social standing.
  
  Diversity of thought is more important than diversity of genitals. True diversity cannot come from selective hiring, because it means you'll always be hiring with an embedded bias or criteria in mind.
mskeggs on 18/05/2021 - 15:02

-2

I guess the police force must be overwhelmingly female, with all this discrimination.
Obviously, the police should reflect the community, so if there are not enough males in the police to do so, they will need to change their recruitment practices.

I'm not in QLD, in case I got any of this wrong.
- GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 15:08
  
  My read of the article is that it has already been addressed.
- SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 16:06
  
  +11
  
  What nonsense. You're staring open discrimination right in the face and welcoming it into the door. Please get a clue.
  
  Why does the police force need to represent the community? Police are there to uphold laws, not play identity politics with the people breaking them.
  
  Even if you do make the case that the police force needs to represent the community, why does it need to be based on gender? Why not another trait like age, height, religion, hair colour, or weight?
  - mskeggs on 18/05/2021 - 18:01
    
    +12
    
    Yes, the reflect the community thing should include things like background and religion.
    Do you think policing outcomes will be improved in an Aboriginal community if the police force includes indigenous officers, or not, for example.
    Do you think a domestic violence situation might be better handled if there are both male and female officers working to resolve it?
    Would you feel confident being policed by a police force that was 100% drawn from private schools, or people of Asian background or women?
    
    There are very strong reasons related to effectiveness (what you might call merit) why a police force should be diverse.
    - SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 18:35
      
      -5
      
      Do you think policing outcomes will be improved in an Aboriginal community if the police force includes indigenous officers, or not, for example
      
      No, absolutely not. Because Aboriginal outcomes have little to do with police and almost everything to do with the actions of the Aboriginals. You break the law and you get punished. I don't see how much more complicated things need to be.
      
      What do you expect - for Aboriginal cops to let fellow Aboroginals get away with crimes?
      
      Do you think a domestic violence situation might be better handled if there are both male and female officers working to resolve it?
      
      Again, the law doesn't change regardless of who is enforcing it. The law is not open to interpretation. We need police officers who are capable of enforcing the law. What body part they pee out of is irrelevant.
      - raptormesh on 19/05/2021 - 18:31
        
        @SlavOz: I'm not for quotas but if you think biases don't exist especially in the police force…
        
        SlavOz on 20/05/2021 - 17:14
        
        @raptormesh: I'm not saying bias doesn't exist. It's a natural human trait.
        
        What I'm saying is that if you follow the law, bias doesn't matter. Every argument that tries to use bias as a criticism against the police basically goes like this - "I know this guy killed someone, but if only he was white, he would be statistically more likely to get acquitted".
        
        Aboriginals should not commit crimes with the expectation that leniency will be given. They should not commit crimes PERIOD. Committing a crime and then complaining that the system is biased is just the height of immaturity.
        
        sleekbrain84 on 20/05/2021 - 18:36
        
        @SlavOz: I agree that recruitment generally should be based on merits, and not hair colour or other factor… however you are also simplifying it a bit too much.
        
        It's not a simple black and white "don't do the crime don't do the time" position…
        For example - having an Aboriginal police officer would likely be better suited at defusing a serious situation where aboriginals are involved than a non aboriginal, simply by having more empathy / understanding of their circumstances. Not always the case, but it could certainly be a factor.
        
        And no - it's not because the aboriginal police officer is going to shiftly glance around and let an aboriginal thief steal an iphone.. it's more likely that in a serious domestic situation the aboriginal officer, having those connections/similar backgrounds with the offender MAY (not always) have a better result… you can't simply dismiss benefits of having that kind of empathy as a load of hocus pocus.
        
        SlavOz on 20/05/2021 - 23:13
        
        @sleekbrain84: Sure, someone with empathy could potentially defuse a domestic disturbance before it turned into a shitstorm. But domestic disturbances aren't sending Aboriginals to prison. Aboriginals are in prison because they commit serious crimes, namely violence, and those crimes can't be prevented with empathy.
- Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 16:31
  
  +25
  
  Why should the police 'reflect the community'?
  The Australian community has about 1 in 6 disabled people - do you want a police force with 16% disability?
  The Australian community has about 22% of people over the age of 60. Do you want that reflected in the police?
  I want a police force who can protect the community and enforce the law.
  I don't care what their gender/racial/sexuality are - I only care if they are good at doing their job.
  The drive for diversity over ability inevitably results in lesser capable people being preferred over more capable people based on ridiculous and arbitrary grounds. And, as in this case, it is unlawful.
  - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:37
    
    -6
    
    Why shouldn't the police have people with disabilities, or over 60? Would they not be good at their job?
    - Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 16:39
      
      +10
      
      That would depend entirely on their job - and the candidates' abilities.
      However, 16% of the police force having a disability, or 22% of the police force being over 60, would severely hamper their ability to perform the functions we expect of them.
      - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:45
        
        -1
        
        @Almost Banned: I don't know if this is accurate, but there are a lot of 'the police' working on a range of different services:
        (Note: this is the Vic police)
        
        Capability Department
        Counter Terrorism Command
        Crime Command
        Family Violence Command
        Financial Services Department
        Forensic Services Department
        Gender Equality & Inclusion Command
        Governance and Assurance Department
        Human Resource Department
        Information Systems & Security Command
        Intelligence & Covert Support Command
        Investment Management & Reporting Department
        Legal Services Department
        Media & Corporate Communications Department
        Operational Infrastructure Department
        People Development Command
        Police Enquiry & Data Sharing Department
        Professional Standards Command
        Protective Services
        Regulatory Services Department
        Road Policing Command
        State Emergencies & Support Command
        Transit & Public Safety Command
        
        Surely there is room in there for some with disabilities, or aged over 60. They don't have to be the same % as the general population to be a representative of their population sub-sector.
        
        mskeggs on 18/05/2021 - 18:12
        
        -2
        
        @GG57: No, only men.
        Fully able men.
        
        They’re not called a police-person. It couldn’t be clearer. Only a man can be a policeman.
        
        sakurashu on 20/05/2021 - 11:57
        
        @GG57: He was never saying don't hire any - just that hiring them at a representative percentage as a quota would be a terrible idea - which it would be
        
        GG57 on 20/05/2021 - 13:10
        
        @sakurashu: And I said "Surely there is room in there for some with disabilities, or aged over 60. They don't have to be the same % as the general population to be a representative of their population sub-sector."
  - Quantumcat on 18/05/2021 - 17:32
    
    +1
    
    It should reflect the community so that the people in leadership positions hear from staff with similar backgrounds to those they are policing, so that policy is made that keeps their experience in mind. You don't have to deliberately hire disabled police officers, but a police officer with a sibling or child with autism is an asset for example. There is plenty of police work that does not involve being on the streets. There are desk jobs. Something they could do (if not already done) is have a pathway to police office jobs that don't involve physical aptitude tests to allow someone who has for example cerebral palsy to apply. They could be fantastic at the job but never get a chance. Which leaves their valuable voice out of the organisation. Plenty of physically and mentally disabled people have been treated badly or killed by police because they simply didn't understand their behaviour. The police involved might have had the ability to empathise (understand why they are feeling as they are and are behaving as they are) but didn't have the experience to put that ability to use and it ends tragically. It isn't a bad thing to make it easier for those with disabilities to apply for work they can do, and realise an applicant with experience of disability has extra value to the organisation. (And ditto for any other groups of people out there in the community whose experience is not shared by anyone in the police force)
    - Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 17:51
      
      Firstly, the police do not only obtain feedback from their commissioned staff. They regularly engage in community consultation. They do not need to commission people with quadriplegia to listen to what their needs are.
      Secondly, as I have said below, people on this site do not seem to understand the difference between 'civilian' police department employees who do not need to be commissioned, and commisioned police officers who go through the academy and are commissioned. Plenty of civilian jobs can be done by people with disabilities or are older, however we do not commission people who are incapable of passing the academy just to have disabled people on the force. It is a risk to the candidate, their partner, the force, and the public.
      That is why there is a physical requirement for entry.
      - Quantumcat on 18/05/2021 - 19:53
        
        @Almost Banned: Consultation of public is not the same as having those voices from within the organisation.
    - SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 18:53
      
      I'm sorry, but if a mentally disabled person was shot dead, it's because they posed an imminent danger to others. I don't see how that would've changed if there was a compassionate police officer attending the situation.
      
      Police have to fill out a ton of paperwork when they shoot someone dead and most officers, like most people, don't want to see others killed. It's an unfortunate part of the job and if it was done I trust it was because the situation called for it.
      
      This really reminds me of the Mikhela Bryant shooting in the US recently. Everyone pointing to another black girl getting killed because the cops must be racist - the girl had a knife and started lunging at someone with the intent to do harm. That's not the time or the place for compasdion or black-on-black empathy. It's the time for action, and the attending officer made the right one.
      - Quantumcat on 18/05/2021 - 19:25
        
        +4
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        I'm sorry, but if a mentally disabled person was shot dead, it's because they posed an imminent danger to others
        
        I'm afraid this isn't true. There's hundreds of stories about police injuring or killing disabled people who are unarmed and no threat, just behaving oddly or not able to follow police directions and the police kill them or treat them barbaricly.
        
        Here are two but there are loads more if you want to read them.
        
        https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45739335
        
        https://7news.com.au/news/world/new-details-after-disabled-m…
        
        SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 20:01
        
        @Quantumcat: Those are 2 isolated examples with very little actual details of the incident or evidence outside of hearsay recounts.
        
        Eg -.one occurred at a BLM protest in the US. In case you missed the news, those protests sparked mass arson, looting, murder, and violence all over the country for 7 months straight. Someone being shot there is hardly a mystery.
        
        Quantumcat on 18/05/2021 - 20:04
        
        +2
        
        @SlavOz: There are about five incidents in the first article. I recommend you actually read it.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 00:08
        
        +2
        
        @Quantumcat: SlavOz is a troll who isn't remotely interested in learning or discussing anything on this subject. I mean, look at this ridiculous statement he made:
        
        "I'm sorry, but if a mentally disabled person was shot dead, it's because they posed an imminent danger to others. I don't see how that would've changed if there was a compassionate police officer attending the situation."
        
        Unless SlavOz is Doctor Strange and plugging themself into some sort of unified time stream to personally witness and know everything about every event whereby a mentally disabled person was shot dead, this is clearly not true.
        
        He's saying "the only possible reason for a mentally ill person to be shot dead is because they were an imminent threat. It's literally impossible for a police officer to make a mistake because of stress ('oh god, what's in their hand??') or a weapon to accidentally discharge, for instance".
        
        Either that's a reasonable stance to make ("Well, the rest of us make mistakes or occasionally commit homicide, but cops absolutely can't do either of those things, neither has ever happened or could happen"), or it's trolling.
        
        SlavOz on 19/05/2021 - 07:51
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        He's saying "the only possible reason for a mentally ill person to be shot dead is because they were an imminent threat. It's literally impossible for a police officer to make a mistake
        
        Nope, never said this. Please check the facts and troll.again.
        
        CrowReally on 19/05/2021 - 17:17
        
        @SlavOz: Anyone who wants to see what you asserted can either read my quote (above what you typed) or your original post (above what I typed responding to what you typed). I don't know whether you lack object permanence or you're hoping people will believe what you say over their own eyes, but it's really not working.
        
        You made a follow-up post saying "None of incidents go into enough detail to accurately determine what happened. It's all just speculation" which makes me think, 'Huh, he's actually learned his lesson, he's realised speculation isn't a reliable 'authority' to rely on for a discussion' but then it's all "look, how are police meant to know, of course they have to make a split-second decision, this is the only way to de-escalate, how would a compassionate officer help out anyway???" and you're right back on the speculation horse.
        
        You have zero police training and zero crisis-resolution/armed incident police response knowledge. You've never done it for a day in your life, and you don't know how it works. Neither have I - but I'm not on here telling people what the police had to do or why it was the only way or any of that. Why are you so comfortable lecturing people on things you have absolutely no idea about?
        
        SlavOz on 19/05/2021 - 07:49
        
        +1
        
        @Quantumcat: None of incidents go into enough detail to accurately determine what happened. It's all just speculation. Every death in police custody gets investigated and the offending officers punished if found guilty - look at the George Floyd incident. This article doesn't mention the findings of any such investigation.
        
        In at least one of them, the subject was holding a weapon which police couldn't identify, which led to him being shot. Sure, it's unfortunate that he was deaf and couldn't hear commands, but how are police officers supposed to know that, or how would a more compassionate police officer go about disarming someone with a weapon ans refusing to follow instructions?
        
        Shootings occur as a split-second decision mate. It's easy to tall up some arbitrary process of defusing the situation with hand-holding and singing kumbaya around the campfire, but in the real world, an officer with a family and kids who deals with violence everyday doesn't have the luxury of hindsight. A threat is presented and they need to de-escalate it instantly. If they don't, the join the thousands of police officers who are killed every single day doing their job.
- bobbified on 19/05/2021 - 11:32
  
  +2
  
  The issue raised in the article is about the advertisements leading applicants to believe that their sex/gender had no baring on the intake.
  
  What actually happened was that female applicants were favoured over male applicants even though some of the females didn't meet the criteria to begin with and the males, even though they met the criteria, were rejected.
  
  This is separate to other recruitment drives where the advertisements were targeted at female applicants only and specifically say "female applicants only" - which, in itself is descriminatory.
  
  This is one instance where it's been made public. I was wanting to get an idea as to how often it happens in the real world. Like I said, I know it happens in the private sector. It's not a push for 100% women, but an artificial push for a 50/50 ratio.
onetwothreefour on 18/05/2021 - 15:08

+6

I work for one of the biggest companies in the world and I have to hire people in my role, not often, maybe 1 or 2 a year but we don't have any quotas on male/female, black/white etc we just hire who we think is best for the job.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 19/05/2021 - 14:36
  
  That is probably why you work for one of the biggest companies in the world….
Ponsonby on 18/05/2021 - 15:14

+14

The problem is whether what we think of as 'merit' decisions about recruitment actually involve preferences and assumptions that amount to bias against categories of people. Organisations can over time build up culture and practices (including when recruiting) which amount to bias. Or people working in an organisation may just have a tendency to recruit people like themselves - perhaps believing they are reducing risk by doing what was done before. As individuals, we all know that some of us are quite consciously biassed (gender, race, etc) when making choices and decisions. Those of us who think we are free of all that may suffer from unconscious bias in our decision making.
https://www2.monash.edu/impact/articles/leadership/how-uncon…
- Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 16:33
  
  +2
  
  So, when several successful candidates cannot pass the basic physical assessment for entry into the academy - let alone entry into the position - for a job which can be highly physically demanding, what 'unconscious bias' exactly is at play?
  - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:38
    
    +2
    
    Some roles in the police can be highly physically demanding; not all.
    - Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 16:41
      
      +1
      
      Agreed.
      However, many of the not-so-physically demanding parts of policing do not need to be performed by commissioned officers - should not be, and often aren't.
      Commissioned officers need to be able to do the stuff that they are there for - which is why they have the physical test in the first place.
      - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:47
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: I haven't seen the Qld police report into this matter, but does it suggest that the 'operational' roles in the force were impacted by this (wrong) bias?
        
        BobLim on 19/05/2021 - 00:12
        
        +1
        
        @GG57: I would think that commissioned officers are the only ones that go to the academy, so yes, at least partially?
        
        six women identified in the report who were recruited despite failing to meet the minimum entry standards had successfully graduated from the academy
    - [Deactivated] on 19/05/2021 - 19:28
      
      So your idea of diversity is the women get the cushy air conditioned jobs and the blokes get the pointy end - because 50/50 equality.
- lunchbox99 on 18/05/2021 - 18:19
  
  +3
  
  Yes being relatively fit and not dumb are clearly biased criteria. What we want is more unfit and dumb police.
Porker on 18/05/2021 - 15:19

Women in Uniform

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLZaxSpTUHg
DingoBilly on 18/05/2021 - 15:39

+7

Haven't really come across it in my 5 or so years of management. We just select whoever is fit for the job, have never even raised the topic of whether we'd want to hire a minority or female etc. (although ironically, I did have to tell off a female co-manager who did suggest we discriminate against a female as she may leave in a few years to have a baby… pretty dumb).

This seems like it was an issue, was picked up as an issue and then rectified. There's really no news here, just 7News trying to generate some outrage amongst certain groups who don't like change/are a bit racist/sexist themselves (see some of the above posts).
- [Deactivated] on 18/05/2021 - 16:08
  
  I agree, if you watch 7 news these days, you would swear it was owned by Murdoch media.
- SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 16:10
  
  200 applicants were openly discriminated against because of their gender.
  
  No news here…I wonder what the reaction would be like on WokeBargain if 200 women were denied a job because of their gender. It'd be outrage city
  - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:15
    
    +1
    
    No-one is denying it happened. But most here are acknowledging that it happened in 2016/17, under a former commissioner, and that action appears to have been taken against those that perpetrated the discrimination.
    So, it is old news, not new news?
    - DingoBilly on 18/05/2021 - 16:37
      
      +1
      
      Exactly this.
      
      The correct outcome seems to have been achieved, so everything seems ok (definitely sucks for those affected of course though).
      - GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:39
        
        @DingoBilly: Yep, it should never have happened.
        There are plenty of examples from the past where the actions / outcomes were less than ideal.
    - brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 17:18
      
      So, it is old news, not new news?
      
      If only we could apply this to other things.
    - SlavOz on 18/05/2021 - 23:12
      
      So it happened like 3-4 years ago, what makes you think it can't happen again? Unless there is some clear evidence that the former commissioner was a hard-line anti-male sexist, it's very likely that the problem will re-occur even with new management.
      
      The cause of this problem is very clear - it's political correctness pushed by radical left-wing thintanks who are undoing the fabric of our society. This has not gone away in the last 3-4 years. If anything I'd say it's continued to grow, so yes, it's still noteworthy to point out the effects of it.
  - [Deactivated] on 19/05/2021 - 19:34
    
    It's still happening now in the NSW Fire Brigade. Chose the wrong gender and you're booted off the selection committee. Too bad if you're expecting the 50kg F officer to carry an average adult male with smoke inhalation out of a burning building whilst wearing protective equipment - not happening - you will die in the name of diversity and gender equality.
  - siresteelhell on 20/05/2021 - 02:16
    
    +1
    
    the aussie army has been doing this for years… "sorry try later, we are on a recruitment drive for more women"
- drprox on 19/05/2021 - 07:18
  
  That must be a fairly small business? I work in a very big one and hear about this sort've behavior weekly. Most of my friends in larger corporates do to including friends in government. It's everywhere
  - DingoBilly on 20/05/2021 - 06:21
    
    +1
    
    It's government, agency of 10,000+.
    
    Maybe am just lucky but have worked different roles, different agencies and hired a few times. Gender issue never raised once.
ThithLord on 18/05/2021 - 15:57

+2

The QPS hired the fricken potato, Dutton, so their hiring practises aren't exactly anything write home about!
Drakesy on 18/05/2021 - 16:10

+25

Me being an engineer this gets thrown around a lot.

I remember having a discussion behind the logic of enforcing a 50/50 gender hiring policy when it came to hiring new grads etc with HR. Pointing out that it's not reflective of what was coming out of university. They just said they enforce it to promote a more gender equal workplace, and yes they actively tried to achieve their quotas, blocking highly qualified male grads in place of females so as to obtain their 50/50 split

When i challenged them as to why the HR department was 90% females, their simple response was that it was representative of the job market and that if they pushed for a higher number of males then if would be unfair on the highly skilled female graduates.

I just looked at her and had a facepalm moment.
- GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:19
  
  +1
  
  Seems crazy. Is this still the case at your place of work?
  - Drakesy on 18/05/2021 - 16:23
    
    +6
    
    Thankfully no
    I'd just like to point out i'm all for more females in the workplace, especially engineering where it can be dry and dull, where females tend to be better communicators and help balance out the workplace.
    
    Moved to government where surprisingly its not as enforced as it was in private
    Although we are going for a new 5% of our employees are to identify as having a disability quota which i feel is a bit hectic.
    
    But then again us engineers have an emotional IQ of -1 according the the other half so maybe that counts.
    
    Unfortunately in many cases it's the HR department running companies these days and not the actual managers/executives. Basically ego filled people on huge wages (as they're the ones in charge of wages) with no qualifications required.
- Almost Banned on 18/05/2021 - 16:37
  
  +8
  
  This is absolutely typical of the 'diversity' movement.
  They care very deeply that certain levels of certain fields are not diverse enough. They bleat long and hard about the number of men who are judges or partners in law firms, about the number of men in politics, about the pay of certain male sportspeople.
  However, they are completely silent about the fact that school-teachers are three-quarters female, that women have been entering and graduating law schools in far larger numbers than men for many years now, and that boys are an ever diminishing percentage of university students.
  - trapper on 19/05/2021 - 11:32
    
    +6
    
    Also strangely seems to be no big push to get 50/50 female representation in rubbish collecting and drain cleaning…
    - SlavOz on 20/05/2021 - 09:53
      
      -3
      
      How anyone still supports the modern-day theory of gender equality is bemusing to the human condition. It's a complete sham for many reasons, one of them being what you mentioned.
      
      They only want equality in the most prestigious, cushy, safe jobs. When it comes to the dirty, physical, and dangerous jobs, they're happy to let men do all the dying.
      
      The only gender gap at work is that men make up around 91% of workplace deaths. Somehow we're supposed to believe that this horrific imbalance of loss of life is less important than women at the top having a slightly lower salary. Boo-hoo. Nobody thinking for themselves could possibly come to this conclusion. It's 100% unfiltered indoctrination.
      
      Funnily enough, it's these people who actually think less of women. They believe women are incapable of succeeding on their own and the only way they could succeed is through aggressive regulation and gender quotas. It's deep-rooted misogyny disguised as compassion. Women on the other side of the social spectrum never see themselves as victims and never ask for handouts. That's real feminism.
- JungliChilli on 19/05/2021 - 08:12
  
  +5
  
  Generally do not like people in HR. They generally contradict themselves and this example highlights it perfectly lol
- original15 on 19/05/2021 - 08:39
  
  +1
  
  Can confirm I’ve seen workplaces with gender targets, and within divisions HRs target was to reduce female % lol
EightImmortals on 18/05/2021 - 16:47

+16

Same with the ADF too. Been going on for a while. This page makes for intersting reading.

https://www.bernardgaynor.com.au/tag/feminism/

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.

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.

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.

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.

etc etc, clownworld, the gift that keeps on giving.
- GG57 on 18/05/2021 - 16:53
  
  Devils advocate here - is the role of a 'soldier' etc. changing (with technology etc.) away from physical strength, to allow for more females to take up roles than were previously possible?
  I'm not supporting discrimination, or quotas per se, but things change.
  - EightImmortals on 18/05/2021 - 17:16
    
    +2
    
    Yeah it may be something like that. If you read through a few of the articles at that link you'd definitely get that impression. Maybe a move to push-button warfare or drone/remote warfare? I'm not up defence matters like that so couldn't say for sure. Good observation though, not sure it justifies the discrimination but it's a good point anyway. :)
- SlavOz on 20/05/2021 - 10:09
  
  -1
  
  All this occurred despite Australia having a conservative, allegedly anti-female government for almost a decade.
  
  Imagine what it would look like if we elected a party that actually believes men are the enemy and need to be banished from their throne of the patriarchy.
  
  No morally grounded human being can, in good conscience, vote for the Greens.
Pelicannn on 18/05/2021 - 16:49

+7

If you think the Police Force has it bad for recruitment policies, you should see the military.

I see plenty of advertisements to get women into combat roles, I don’t see the same for males into nursing or teaching. I’m unsure of Australian statistics but in the US, 99% of garbage truck drivers are male… Funny how you don’t see any big push for equal employment in that field of work 🤔
- Pelicannn on 18/05/2021 - 17:01
  
  +1
  
  To be fair though, my partner is in a job that has very low female representation. Even her grandmother said she couldn’t do that job (old fashioned). I don’t have an issue with targeted recruitment campaigns to increase diversity. It’s been well documented that diverse teams are better problem solvers, but I will always believe in the right person for the right job. Advertise to target audiences sure, but don’t knock someone who is capable of the job hoping to meet a quota for someone who might not do the job as well.
- [Deactivated] on 18/05/2021 - 17:07
  
  +1
  
  I know a female nurse (hospital/aged care - if that's what you meant by nursing) and she has confirmed there is definitely a drive to recruit more male nurses to balance out gender disparity.
  - dogboy on 19/05/2021 - 10:45
    
    I think this very much depends on the hospital. I have male friend nurses and they are constantly discriminated against for permanent roles and promotions where they work over less experienced and capable women (according to them anyhow).
studentl0an on 18/05/2021 - 16:59

+7

What a clown world we live in nowadays.
- brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 17:22
  
  +5
  
  clown world
  
  Oh no. Someone will be along to call you an alt right nazi very shortly.
  
  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10364826/redir
  - studentl0an on 18/05/2021 - 17:30
    
    +2
    
    I don't care what other's say about me, online or off. I just continue to better myself and laugh.
    
    That's my advice to anyone else who sees the clown world. Better yourself. Eat better, exercise and meditate.
    - brendanm on 18/05/2021 - 17:31
      
      +1
      
      Neither do I usually, simply pointing out how upset people get over words these days, just because twitter told them it was bad.
  - Gnostikos on 18/05/2021 - 18:15
    
    Someone
    
    … whose username rhymes with wretch-ry, perhaps?
  - miicah on 19/05/2021 - 10:42
    
    +2
    
    Just goes to show how dog whistles end up in the common vernacular and people have no idea where they came from.
    - brendanm on 19/05/2021 - 11:19
      
      -1
      
      😂
    - Autonomic on 20/05/2021 - 14:27
      
      +1
      
      Takes a certain kind of person to continue using dog whistles after they've been pointed out to them.
SF3 on 18/05/2021 - 17:54

+1

Interventionism gone wrong.

The question is, when will they know this is "program" is successful. If it isn't, how long and how much $ to undo the change… This maybe another cane toad solution, where 2nd order effects are not identified or ignored. Could be this like the "stolen generations" saga.
- MessyG on 19/05/2021 - 12:55
  
  +1
  
  Is hiring more women into Queensland police like forcibly removing babies and children from their own mothers?
  
  No. That is not alike.
  - SlavOz on 20/05/2021 - 17:22
    
    -1
    
    The stolen generation was rooted in discrimination and misguided beliefs about one group of people over another.
    
    That is the exact same cause of what's happening with the police force hiring more women at the expense of men.
    
    The effects go wider when you consider that the men who are being rejected are being denied a livelihood because of their gender.
    
    It's not as notorious and widespread as the stolen generation but history tends to repeat itself if we don't learn from it.
pegaxs on 18/05/2021 - 19:09

+4

Ahhhh. let 'em do it. And after only an 8th of the positions get filled and all this "woke" shit blows over, it will return to the status quo.

These employers don't realise that there is a gaping chasm between who "wants" the job and what the balance is against the population. If only 3 in every 1,000 women want to join the police force but 30 in every 1,000 males want to join, it is going to take forever to get to that 50:50 balance.

This goes both ways in female gendered sectors as well, ie: teaching, nursing, child care, etc. You are never going to 50/50 balance these out. Same with garbage truck drivers, sewerage treatment plant maintenance or diesel mechanics.

It's not that either gender cant do these jobs, it's more to the point that they don't want to do them. And no amount of quota manipulation is going to fix that. All you end up doing it turning away the right candidates to appease woke politics at the expense of filling the positions with possibly less that able employees, just so as to not offend some vocal group usually made up of people who would never take on that job themselves.
- peterpaoliello on 19/05/2021 - 07:24
  
  +2
  
  I don't think garbage truck drivers, sewerage treatment plant maintenance or diesel mechanics.. Linesman etc are part of their equality quotas weirdly enough.
  
  And this whole equality of outcome vs. Equality of opportunity. No childcare is not worth as much as GP which is the core of wage inequality debate,if that's still a thing.
[Deactivated] on 18/05/2021 - 19:11

There's this popular self-justifying excuse of "Imposter Syndrome" that says that if you don't feel like you can do the job, don't worry, you probably can but you just feel insecure. It's how diversity hires tell themselves they're not diversity hires.
- MessyG on 19/05/2021 - 12:54
  
  What do those hired based on who their Dad was/what private school they went to tell themselves?
TEER3X on 18/05/2021 - 19:37

Women in other states get fast tracked to join the police force and there are quotas in other industries were the attempt is to balance senior staffers by hiring more women

A big four bank I worked for almost 20 years ago had that policy and I was pretty pissed off about it. I left for other reasons, and actually had a chance to tell the CEO how I thought he was wrong, but it was during a meeting and didn't seem like the right place for it, plus I was angry and didn't feel like I could talk sensibly

Fast forward to today, the females in my group now have very senior positions, but they were actually worthy of them, not sure the same can be said across the board though
Hardlyworkin on 18/05/2021 - 19:48

+3

This will give something for Sky News and talk back radio to cover.
GrueHunter on 18/05/2021 - 23:07

-5

I love these sorts of posts. So many MRA tears from so many semi-literate underachievers convinced that if it wasn't for the global feminazi pinko commie conspiracy they'd be millionaires drowning in poontang, as is their incel birthright.

Welcome to the 21st century. You lost.
- misu p on 19/05/2021 - 09:19
  
  +3
  
  It is tough when privilege ends. The strategy is to keep it a boys club through toxic culture, make the workplace not desirable for any woman, then complain about they are not qualified when somebody tries to break it up.
- warkolm on 19/05/2021 - 10:59
  
  -1
  
  sooo many man babies in this one
- MessyG on 19/05/2021 - 12:52
  
  -1
  
  This isn't the right response either you know. We just need to get on with fixing some very broken systems and workplaces, I'm actually (happily) surprised that QLDpol has done this given the level of DV-related murders up there and the complacent force. I really hate the simplistic sh***y labelling everyone online is into, it's just immature and doesn't help anyone. There's a lot of guys genuinely worried about losing their livelihoods, and this fear is being stoked by other guys with vested interests. The only people 'losing' here, are the bad ones who shouldn't be there anyway and who definitely did not get there on merit. All the good hard working guys do not need to worry.
- FireRunner on 19/05/2021 - 14:52
  
  +2
  
  I love these sorts of comments. Just name calling and labeling, adding nothing of substance to the discussion
- GrimCheaper on 20/05/2021 - 12:13
  
  Bet you were just waiting for the perfect post to unleash that diarrhea monologue.
Freitag on 19/05/2021 - 05:58

+2

In a world where gender is fluid and merely a social construct while also #bornthisway, would they have assumed each applicants gender at the time of application? /s
Poor Ass on 19/05/2021 - 07:15

+1

Yet to see any childcare centres have majority of their staff male. It's one of those industries you just can't due to views of society.
peterpaoliello on 19/05/2021 - 07:20

I'm sorry this is a surprise for you but it was never about equality. What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine.

I've literally sat in on calls with CEO of top 5 fortune 500 companies using the term "posative discrimination". I agree should make the hiring process completely anonymous.
Herbse on 19/05/2021 - 07:57

+1

You guys make it sound like prior to quotas that every job was filled by a fully qualified candidate.. I don't remember living in this fantasy world?
- JungliChilli on 19/05/2021 - 08:15
  
  +2
  
  Just because things were not done 'fairly' prior to quotes doesn't mean it should continue to be unfair….
- bobbified on 20/05/2021 - 11:36
  
  Yes - not every job may have been filled by a fully qualified candidate, but the aim was there. If finding a fully qualified candidate wasn't difficult enough, we're now talking about potentially ditching the closest suitable candidate for one that's less suitable simply because one has a penis and the other has a vagina.
  - Herbse on 20/05/2021 - 12:53
    
    +1
    
    Why are you assuming they are so desperate for people and females that they'll take just anyone?
    
    Police role positions are ongoing and they can wait until suitable candidates apply or train themselves to become suitable with the knowledge that they are looking for females.
    
    Which is the point of the quotas.
    - bobbified on 20/05/2021 - 13:30
      
      Police role positions are ongoing and they can wait until suitable candidates apply or train themselves to become suitable with the knowledge that they are looking for females. Which is the point of the quotas.
      
      Did QLD police wait until suitable candidates applied like you say? No, they selected ineligible females over males to enter while rejecting males who had performed to a higher standard across entry assessments.

Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

Comments

Interventionism gone wrong.

New Forum Topics