If you are struggling to understand why Defence continually does stupid things (like banning Spartan symbols), I have some news that will help to enlighten you.
But it may not make you feel any better either.
Defence has paid just a tick under $4 million since 2012 to a feminist academic for ‘cultural change’ advice, including a whopping $817,960 for consultancy work on the next iteration of Pathways to Change (that’s the knife-in-the-eyeball policy document that basically says Defence should sack everyone who isn’t PC in the name of diversity).
Since 2012, Samantha Crompvoets has hit the jackpot, winning 19 contracts for social research, cultural studies, research services, organisational psychology and cultural reviews.
I am not sure why Defence would put itself through this pain when pretty much everything else in this world would be better, including NBC training in the full gear on a hot summer’s day.
But not only has it inflicted the worst form of torture upon itself (and there is absolutely nothing worse than wading through cultural research studies from a feminist academic) but it has paid up big for the privilege of enduring this agony.
And now the top brass are taking advice from a person who runs a business (that men don’t want to join) about how they should run the military (which is overwhelmingly male).
To make it worse, I’m happy to admit that some of the stuff that Crompvoets writes actually makes sense. But the conclusions that result from her research defy all logic.
For instance, Crompvoet’s research and writings demonstrate that:
- Male Defence members are less likely to request flexible or part-time work than females (meaning they are more likely to be able to deploy at short notice);
- Very few females are interested in working in front-line combat roles;
- Females have difficulties meeting Defence fitness standards after child birth and need more time to reach those standards than Defence policies dictate;
- Females are at greater risk of injury and even face loss of fertility caused by military activities and load carriage; and
- Females may face lasting and unknown health risks as a result of military service and that there are gaps in understanding these issues.
Yet the recommendations from Crompvoet’s research includes such inanities as applying a ‘gender lens’ (whatever that may be) to all Defence and Veterans Affairs products and making diversity publications more accessible to Defence members (ironic really considering The Australian reported last year that Defence would not release Crompvoet’s work because it might prompt ‘public speculation’).
Maddeningly, despite the problems identified above in ‘cultural change’ ‘research’, Defence continues to falsely claim that opening up front-line combat roles for women will increase capability.
What a waste of $4 million.
However, consistent with social categorization and similarity/attraction theories, the preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is most likely to impede group functioning. Unless steps are taken to actively counteract these effects, the evidence suggests that, by itself, diversity is more likely to have negative than positive effects on group performance.
Human conflict, or war, is proof that diversity does not work. You’d have thought Defence might have learnt that lesson after a century of fighting in which more than 100,000 Australians died keeping some very diverse people and ideas out of this nation.
So you can add blood to the wasted treasure thrown away by the PC loonies running the military…