News1 min ago
In This Day Of Sexual Equality How Can This Be Fair?
35 Answers
http://
Have the female RAF recruits in this picture been super imposed, because they are excessively out of step with the rest?
http://
Have the female RAF recruits in this picture been super imposed, because they are excessively out of step with the rest?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The entire marching in that photograph seems amateurish. Maybe it was staged in its entirety? Or, perhaps more likely, I know less about marching than I thought I did.
I think the slant you've put in your question almost answers it. As the article states there is a maximum stride length that women (who are on average shorter) can take without overstepping, and is shorter than men. True gender equality would respect that difference rather than ignore it. Because equality in this context doesn't really mean "being exactly the same", but "having exactly the same opportunities and being treated in the same way". That in turn means that you should respect and account for people's limitations.
All of that aside, the amount of money does seem rather excessive. But then it's not impossible that actually the injuries obtained through persistent overstepping are rather more severe than the article implies. Just because the manner of the injury is less dramatic than a combat injury doesn't mean that the consequences aren't as serious.
I think the slant you've put in your question almost answers it. As the article states there is a maximum stride length that women (who are on average shorter) can take without overstepping, and is shorter than men. True gender equality would respect that difference rather than ignore it. Because equality in this context doesn't really mean "being exactly the same", but "having exactly the same opportunities and being treated in the same way". That in turn means that you should respect and account for people's limitations.
All of that aside, the amount of money does seem rather excessive. But then it's not impossible that actually the injuries obtained through persistent overstepping are rather more severe than the article implies. Just because the manner of the injury is less dramatic than a combat injury doesn't mean that the consequences aren't as serious.
So the RAF broke its own rules and injuries resulted. Apart from the £400,000 compensation bill there is the waste of money involved in training them, and the loss of four recruits who now work outside the RAF.
I thought he military types were all sticklers for opeying the rules? Still, easier to blame the women that the brass cocking up.
The people in the picture all look out of step with each other, even the men. Perhaps it was early in their training or not a public display.
I thought he military types were all sticklers for opeying the rules? Still, easier to blame the women that the brass cocking up.
The people in the picture all look out of step with each other, even the men. Perhaps it was early in their training or not a public display.
@AoG - Why should there be "no separate rules"? Where does it say that equality of the sexes means that all rules should be identical?
The RAF ignored their own guidelines. They then attempted to refute the womens claims - asserting they were exaggerating their symptoms etc in an attempt to deflect those claims.
They do not have a leg to stand on - rather like at least some of the women consequent to the RAF ignoring their own rules. Compensation was necessary. You can debate the size of the payout, if you want, but the basic facts remain.
The RAF ignored their own guidelines. They then attempted to refute the womens claims - asserting they were exaggerating their symptoms etc in an attempt to deflect those claims.
They do not have a leg to stand on - rather like at least some of the women consequent to the RAF ignoring their own rules. Compensation was necessary. You can debate the size of the payout, if you want, but the basic facts remain.
In some sense there aren't any separate rules, if the rule is that "no person should be expected to do something that is damaging to their body." Perhaps this could be better expressed but the point is that the rule is then universal, but it turns out that expecting women (or perhaps just shorter people in general) to keep in step with people who have longer strides than they do is physically too demanding. So adjust accordingly.
When women were admitted, they should have got the scientists etc to work out how to deal with "humans" . That is equality, not expect half the population to "fit in" with the other half.
It's difficult to guess the amount that should be awarded, as you'd need to be an expert to know the long term effects. Presumably, could affect future pregnancies, as well as career prospects and arthritis, etc more likely with age.
It's difficult to guess the amount that should be awarded, as you'd need to be an expert to know the long term effects. Presumably, could affect future pregnancies, as well as career prospects and arthritis, etc more likely with age.
@ Prudie Well that becomes an issue over the compensation culture, although a shut up and go away payout of 3000 for what sounds like a pretty serious injury sounds rather insulting.
It seems to me that this story becomes more about the compensation culture rather than sexual equality which according to the DM and AoG it is.
It seems to me that this story becomes more about the compensation culture rather than sexual equality which according to the DM and AoG it is.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.