Whilst i’m not nornally the one to post (or engage in) fairly high brow topics (im a simple man). This one piqued my interest.
(Mods feel free to rename the topic if its “too clickbaity”)
Army officers ordered to cut ties with men-only members’ clubs
Along with the full the letter in question
What are the thoughts from members (if any) who may be (i’m certainly not) members of any clubs that may come under scrutiny.
I don’t like where this is heading one bit. The Army’s inclusivity includes secularism, so does this mean soldiers and officers will not be allowed to be members of organisations that favour one religion over others (such as a church, synagogue, or mosque, for example)?
What if they’re members of a religion that doesn’t allow women to worship with the men, doesn’t allow them in certain spaces, or at the same time as men, requires them to dress differently to the men, etc?
Have you read it and actually read your own comment?
The letter is regarding unit affiliations, not individual membership.
You’ve then suggested that a unit not having any religious affiliations (via a policy of secularism) is potentially problematic.
Your suggestion is that secularism, by virtue of being religion-inclusive, could be a slippery slope to religious discrimination.
Inclusivity is a risk factor for discrimination? You realise that’s what you’ve said, right?
You could spin Stevie Wonder around and ask him to throw a dart, and he would get closer to a bullseye than your comment is to reality.
It is correct that an organisation trying to be inclusive should not endorse or assist organisations which are not.
"You’re all welcome to join us. By the way, there’s this great club you should join as well that will be really good for you, oh but only some of you can join. We’re hosting an event for them on Saturday. That reminds me, Rebecca, you need to stay out of the Mess on Saturday night for the annual cloaked circlejerk of the Quid Pro Quo Men. Your CO may or may not discuss upcoming promotions with your cadre but boys rule girls drool so you’re not going to be able to talk to him. ".
All seems very sensible.
Considering just yesterday a former Sergeant Major went inside for 6 months for sexual assaulting a young woman who went on to commit suicide, you can see the context in which the Army really, really needs to up its game with regard to the treatment of women.
Ensuring that regiments don’t support clubs which treat women as second class citizens is an entirely sensible part of it.
Having the Service dictate the terms of our private lives was wrong when it had service police investigating what homosexuals were doing with other consenting adults in their own bedrooms and it would be equally wrong to dictate what clubs we can associate with (which is the direction of travel).
You understand what a slippery slope argument is, right?
And secularism isn’t anti-religion. We’ve talked about this at length.
Secularism is neutrality and creating an equal space for all, regardless of affiliations.
Secularism is absolutely aligned with inclusivity.
This letter is bang on the money. It’s about walking the walk at an organisational level, much like us saying we’re inclusive yet running ceremonial events as Christian services.
The policy and reality do not match there either and our organisation needs to take a stance to walk the walk.
Women deserve to be treated as equals, and that includes organisations not tacitly condoning sexist practices.
This letter isn’t doing that. It’s not saying individuals cannot be members of any club, it’s looking at unit affiliations.
Can you please read the letter, and actually discuss its contents? Otherwise I may just decide you’re arguing in bad faith, and delete further posts as trolling.
But surely if “Bloggs” is a known member of Unit X and is seen going into said private members club, regardless of a direct unit affiliation, the unit is indirectly still associated and X, Y, Z on the street will be outraged/dissapointed because “Bloggs” was seen at the Club.
Just because im not at work or cadets doesnt mean im not recognised as being a worker/CFAV.
Similarly to Police Officers stating an opinion of something, outside of working hours, at a pub… then being scrutinised/dismissed.
Arguably yes, but individual patronage is not the same as unit endorsed affiliation and support.
Imagine how it was being a female officer in the Guards before the Cavalry and Guards club allowed women to join?
You’re in the mess and suddenly all the men leave to go to The Club, and you have to stay behind, being cut out from any opportunity to socialise and discuss matters with the other officers.
The military is apolitical, but that doesn’t mean its personnel don’t vote for a preferred party.
The military now doesn’t endorse gendered (or otherwise discriminatory) organisations, but that doesn’t mean its personnel can’t be members.
Busy day so I’ll puta more detail response on why it’s both needed, not needed & a little woke.
For now, There’s an article in the spectator this morning about this which is a good starting point.
Again, as with many of the articles about this, the author is conflating individual membership with unit affiliation.
The word “rebuked” stands out to me as pretty unrepresentative.
Let’s not truth get in the way of a good clickbaity title.
