In This Day Of Sexual Equality How Can This Be Fair?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html

Have the female RAF recruits in this picture been super imposed, because they are excessively out of step with the rest?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/23/article-2512412-19999EDF00000578-755_634x314.jpg

[jim360]

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.

[LazyGun]

What do see as being unfair in this, exactly? Did the RAF break its own rules/guidelines? Did injury occur as a result? If so, damages and compensation are surely a no-brainer. Blame the RAF, not sexual equality...

[Prudie]

If it's as written then it's disgraceful and seriously damages women's desires to join the armed forces alongside the fighting man. If I was a decision maker in the MOD I'd retaliate by refusing entry to women in the forces in combat roles. Just as unfair.

[pixie373]

That's horrendous. How incompetent are the RAF? Pelvis fractured in four places, because they didn't realise men and women are not identical.

[jackthehat]

I agree, AOG.
It's completely unfair of the RAF to ignore its' own rules to the detriment of the health and well-being of these recruits.

I would, however, take issue of the sums involved rather than the principle of compensation being awarded.

[vulcan42]

That's ridiculous,when I was in the RAF there were men who were as short as those women, they managed to keep up with the six footers and remain in step.

[jim360]

I tihnk the issue isn't that the women (and the short men) can't keep up and in step -- it's just that doing so is damaging.

[Gromit]

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.

[woofgang]

army screws up; army pays up. Once again what is the problem, apart from the military idiots.

[anotheoldgit]

The answer is in the headline.

*** In This Day Of Sexual Equality How Can This Be Fair? ***

There should be no separate rules!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Prudie]

I find it hard to believe that a difference of 3 inches would cause pelvic fractures. It is the compensation bit, long after the original pay-off that's sickening.

[anotheoldgit]

When I was in the RAF, men and women did not march together.

[Prudie]

Exactly AOG, so women fought for equality so that their colleagues could play this card? I think not.

[pixie373]

It isn't just leglength. Obviously women have differently shaped pelvises too, designed for other things. I'm shocked that the RAF are unaware of this.
aog, is sexual equality to you - working out what suits males and expecting women to be identical?

[LazyGun]

@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.

[Prudie]

If I've read it correctly they got compensation at the time. Some time much later a no-win-no-fee leech has got hold of them.

[jim360]

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.

[pixie373]

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.

[LazyGun]

@ 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.

[sandyRoe]

The service people in the photo look like raw recruits. I'm sure they'd all be marching in step after a few weeks square bashing.