"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:485f81f8.6782798@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jack Linthi*** <jacklinthi***@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 23, 6:49 am, eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:
>>> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> >news:485f7053.2621899@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>"CJ Adams" <blueb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> >>>news:k753j5-t35.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >>>> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>> >>>> .
>>>
>>> >>>>> Only as chattels, much like title and rights to other things
viewed
>>> >>>>> as
>>> >>>>> property.
>>>
>>> >>>> Is that why DF&E are lumped together?
>>>
>>> >>>;^)
>>>
>>> >> What happens when you and the missus are both awficers in the grey
>>> >> funnel line? Is she still a dependant? Or are only the sprogs?
>>>
>>> >Both spouses in the "married service couple" are members within the
terms
>>> >of
>>> >the NDA and QR&O. Only the sprogs are then the "D". Policy writers
wrote
>>> >reams
>>> >upon such things for policies about "married service couples" because
so
>>> >many
>>> >benefits (e.g.: entitlement to MQs) vary depending on family status.
>>> >Since I
>>> >left, they have legalized same-*** marriages, so I imagine the wonks
have
>>> >been
>>> >busy. They take MSCs into account in posting plots, usually as a
means to
>>> >save
>>> >money while avoiding jacking people about, but the needs of service
are
>>> >supposed to be paramount. It gets complicated as spouses rise in
rank, as
>>> >you
>>> >might imagine.
>>>
>>> I can remember the panic back here in the early 1970s when spouses
>>> were allowed to join permanent force. Until then they had had some
>>> sort of tem****ary status which meant lower pay and no benefits, other
>>> than that they receiced as spouses. However even before that we had
>>> spouses where one was serving in the medical corps - permanent force -
>>> and the other in one of the other forces also permanent. I think
>>> those cases were handled ad hoc and one of the couple had to declare
>>> themselves as the de facto head of the family and would get the
>>> deductions, etc. We had a case where I grew up that the matron of the
>>> hospital was a Major and her husband was a Sergeant-Major. Made
>>> social events rather difficult and great tact was exercised during
>>> mess nights, especially.
>>
>>
>>Must be a Brit thing, in 1963 I rode a ****p with an exec whose wife
>>was the base personnel officer for officers.
>
> Most probably. I know it was seen as a rather difficult situation
> because after WW2, when the SADF had thousands of women, the women's
> services were basically scrapped during the post-war downsizing.
> Except for medical services personnel. They then started creeping back
> during the late fifties and sixties in 'specialist' roles - ie: roles
> that men were unwilling to do. Then in the mid-sixties the Army
> started taking women in permanent force positions - with the proviso
> that marriage lost them their job. Basically by the early seventies
> it was decided to "normalise" the situation - but it took several
> years before the pay disparity between male and females disappeared.
>
> Going back to my experiences of female medical personnel in the
> sixties (all officers) - they were a fearsome gang of wenches.
> Matrons of hospitals were especially frightening - generals used to
> cower when the matron of Wynberg 2 Mil Hospital steamed onto the ward.
> I do mean "steamed" - nothing short of the prow of a battle****p
> cra****ng through the walls could have had anything like the same
> effect. I recall having my appendix out as a youngster and the matron
> doing rounds during lunchtime. A colonel had left some pumpkin on his
> plate - she stood over him and forced him to eat it. (old brit thing
> - you eat what's put on your plate.) Ok - she was a colonel too, but
> she would have done the same with a general.
My mother's cousin was a WOI in the CWAC (neat badges: the collar dogs
figured
the helmeted head of Athena) she was a formidable person, as was just
about
any Canadian who put up WOI insignia. Our service women were among the
first
in Canada to get wage parity, but they did not have access to all the
occupations until the early 90s. Weapons training for them started in the
early 70s. The only field still excluding them is submarines, and that is
to
change, AIUI.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
|
