Author Topic: GBA+ training  (Read 4570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,902
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,371
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2017, 16:52:21 »
It seems to me, however, based upon comments posted in various threads, that the CF has taken major steps lately to address the kit-fitting problem for women and short men: stocks of all sizes are approaching, or have reached, non-existence.

Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.

Progress.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,781
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,626
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2017, 17:22:34 »
Unfortunately it's that mentality that disregards that the shoulder and hip ratio of women is different to men, so just shrinking the height of a ruck will not make it fit a woman better.

It's also forgetting that every month (more or less) a woman's body goes through menses so keeping people in the field with only a bush or long flights in a plane with only a curtain for privacy is less than ideal.
You're forgetting men can menstruate too (and women can get prostate cancer).   ;D


Do the 70 some new genders that popped up mean we need to take Gender Fluid, Gender Bender, Genderqueer and Androgynous people into consideration when planning policies and such?


I find the example of the RMC cadet a pretty good one. Her kit doesn't fit. How viable is it to make rucksacks boots and uniforms for someone who weights 90 pounds? How many 90 pound service members do we have?  When there is a shortage of average sized uniforms (won't even mention boots), average sized body armor, rain suits, rucksacks and such how much money should we put into designing and supplying extra extra small or quadruple large sized kit for a small percentage of soldiers?

As far as the first generation Japanese guy, should he get preferential treatment with postings over a Caucasian male because of his culture? It might affect recruiting but I guarantee it would affect morale and not in a good way.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,368
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2017, 17:43:13 »
As far as the first generation Japanese guy, should he get preferential treatment with postings over a Caucasian male because of his culture? It might affect recruiting but I guarantee it would affect morale and not in a good way.
According to the charter of rights, we cannot discriminate on those factors.  So, no.  He should not get preferential treatment.

But, let's say the CAF is forming a new unit.  Should we not consider the attraction. And retention of first generation Canadians when deciding where to base the new unit?  Or maybe this is relevant when we define relocation benefits and the extension of cost coverage to what is typically seen as extended family from a western perspective?

If you understand GBA+ to be special treatment to individuals in specific circumstances, then you probably did not do the training.  If you understand GBA+ to be about considering those individuals when developing policy or making decisions that impact on everybody, then you are getting close to understanding GBA+.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 17:46:28 by MCG »

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 558
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2017, 19:09:17 »
I have some time now so I will elaborate on the problems inherent in GBA+.

1. Look at the source. It is the Ministry for the status of women. It's entire mandate is predicted on advancing women's issues. The source comes with an inherent bias.

2. It is called Gender based analysis not outlier bases or human factor analysis. It can claim it is not about gender but if you ask anyone to do a gender based analysis what factor do you think will be at the forefront? You can argue that it shouldn't be this way but by naming it as such it introduces an unconscious bias.

3. Despite claiming it isn't about gender, the coursework goes on the primarily focus on gender. Again, reinforcing a bias.

4. Being that it primarily focuses on gender, it cones of the Status of Women department and that it is routed in the early 90s idea of gender equity, it is no surprise that the focuses on enhancing things for women. This necessarily leads to not  focusing what is still the majority of the CAF and that could have unintended consequences down the line.

5. Anyone who doesn't plan for the reality of their staff is a poor leader and should be fired. If someone thinks the 72 percent of CAF members wear a size 8 to 11 boot, so I am just going to buy those sizes they are an idiot. No amount of training can fix that.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 558
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2017, 19:13:08 »
It seems to me, however, based upon comments posted in various threads, that the CF has taken major steps lately to address the kit-fitting problem for women and short men: stocks of all sizes are approaching, or have reached, non-existence.

Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.

Progress.
How very Stalinist of them.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2017, 22:09:31 »
Quote
It's that the first generation Japanese guy that you just recruited is also taking care of his parents, as is the custom, and posting him to the middle of nowhere where there are no other Japanese speakers for his parents to mix with is a recipe for failure and that guy is only going to be in for a minimum time if nothing better comes along. (yes, I understand this is culture, not gender, but some of the things that need to be considered)

The first part is reasonable, though not for the reason you state. It shouldn't matter if the soldier is Japanese, if any soldier is looking after their parents that is a consideration that should be kept in mind.

As far as posting someone into the middle of nowhere... Should considerations be made for those who have always lived in a city and therefore do not like the rural life or the rural folks dialect? At what point do we draw the line and say that you knew what you were getting into? Obviously I am not saying we should just simply use that line all the time as there are times where we must take into account a soldiers situation. I just find it bullshit that someone will get a "preferred" posting due to their parents not wishing to live in an area with a low/nil concentration of Japanese speakers.

I know that this next bit is going to be a touchy subject. At what point do we draw the line for "field amenities"? The concern about how good we are at erecting massive immobile command centres has already been brought up. Part of doing the job means that you are going to be away from shower facilities, warm meals and you therefore must be able to look after your personal hygiene. It has been pointed out that we have this habit of dropping blue rockets wherever a decent biv site is and near every occupied defensive position. At what point do we say, "well folks you have all been taught how to properly care for yourselves in the field, go mark your shitters and here's a shovel, tickets and handsanitizer". Perhaps I am swinging too far in the other direction, I just feel that we have become lax towards being able to operate in an AO occupied by a peer (or near-peer as the propagandists like to say) enemy.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,025
  • Freespeecher
Re: GBA+ training
« Reply #56 on: April 01, 2017, 00:33:35 »
My overall comment on this is we are seeing yet another example of embedding "process" without considering "outputs".

Does anyone really believe that we will be getting sufficient boots (of any size) because we now have another "tick in the box" to add to the planning process? Human factor analysis and ergonomics can be traced as far back as Fredrick W Taylor in the early 1900's, so suggesting we need GBA+ because a female cadet in RMC has ill fitting equipment is, sad to say, crock. Designing equipment for the 95 percentile is decades old science, and we are now in an era where it is both practical and possible to custom tailor equipment for the people who fall outside of the 95th percentile, should anyone be willing to make the time and effort to do so. Human Resources is also a decades old process, so factoring in things like family location, language preferences and so on isn't some arcane new idea.

Frankly, this is resembling self licking ice cream cones like the old "Expres Test", which were "scientifically validated", yet never factored in the basic idea that military equipment like GPMG's don't stop weighing 11Kg just because the person carrying it in your platoon is a woman, or overweight, or is (insert ethnic origin here). It was always sad to see people who had passed being totally unable to function in the field when draped with weapons, ammunition and other gear.

It is long past time that we work our way backwards from what an operationally effective force looks like and needs to be able to do, then build training, testing and standards towards achieving that aim. It is also sad that a statement like that will likely be considered radical by the powers that be in the political or academic world.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.