# Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:43:12 -0600*
Interesting, Dave, sez Ian Edwards:
I went down to Edmonton‘s CFRC a few days ago to get a copy of the
paperwork necessary to enrol anyone in the CF. Same forms for Reg Force,
PRes and Cadet Instructor Cadre CIC. I was doing this as a favour to
save someone time away from work who is planning on entering the CIC of
course the CFRC isn‘t open Saturdays or evenings, why that would make
them ‘customer oriented‘ and they really are just civil servants in
greens.
I wasn‘t able to hang on to the forms very long but I do recall seeing
that there was a self-test of physical fitness one takes on the honour
system before submitting the forms. Now this makes sense anyone
thinking of entering the CF should test themselves beforehand to make
sure there is a good possiblity that they will be able to pass the test,
thereby saving themselves the time and the CF the effort and money if
they are going to wash out easily.
But I did notice, Dave, that there were two tables: one for men and an
easier one for females at each age category.  Not so sure why older guys
should get off easier than those 18-24 for example. Does that imply that
older types are all chairborn, even in emergencies, or are just smarter
and know how to avoid all the routine jockstrapping :
Actually, easy for me to say now as I passed the CRA for the PRes a
couple of years ago.
Also of interest to me was the requirement, on the self-test, that one
should be able to run 2.4km in a certain gender/age given time. I asked
about when/where the test was given and was told that to enrol in any
part of the CF the "run" was not done. Now my candidate was going to
enrol in the CIC. He will never be tested for the run as far as I
know, however those who enter the PRes or the Reg Force will ultimately
have to take a much longer/tougher run on QL2?, and I don‘t have a
problem with that, since candidates on QL2 will be given the opportunity
to work towards the real standards, so we‘ve been told on this bb
several times, IIRC. But there didn‘t seem to be any, in my quick read,
notice in the documents of greater standards to follow "suck em in
first then tell them?", perhaps buried in the fine print?, nor that CIC
would never be required to take any form of run, such as on their BOQ
course.
I don‘t have a problem with requiring CIC to reach the same standards as
others who wear the CF uniform, but I can understand many others
disagreeing because of the difficulty finding potential CICs and the
fitness barrierssic being one more way of reducing the talent pool,
not being a job requirement some would disagree. It‘s tough enough
finding anyone to lead cadets in Rubber Boot, Alberta. I don‘t really
want to start a lengthy thread on the CIC but just mention this for
interest sake. Interested in other opinions about male/female and age
categories instead, and where I‘ve gone off half-cocked again that‘s a
reference to musketry, Joan and others. 
dave wrote:
> 
>     After all of the assurances given during the fight to incorporate women
> into the combat arms, NDHQ has now finally admitted that the overall
> standard of fitness has been compromised to achieve this. Gone are the one
> test for men and another for women. We now have a gender neutral test
> designed to allow all to pass in order to achieve the female quotas. When an
> officer who was responsible for achieving female quotas Maj Michitsch
> Ret‘d was questioned, "are we inherently getting rid of the warrior class"
> he reponded, "I think we are to a degree." So much for the high standard we
> once had and so much for the barrel of lies meant to assure us that the
> level of excellence would not suffer.
> 
>     Also, within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is written, "that
> one has a right to the security and safety of his/her person." This is a
> right. Can you imagine a commanding officer ordering his troops into battle
> then suddenly find that his troops are refusing due to their rights to
> safety of their person under the charter? The power of this charter would of
> course over rule QRO‘s. "Only in Canada" you say? PITY just doesn‘t cut it!
> 
> Dave Willard
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:03:01 -0700*
This type of policy is not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces, either...
not that it makes it right.. I know many law enforcement agencies‘ physical
tests are this way, are as Fire Departments, etc. A few years ago, I took
the test to try out for the Game Wardens in Maine unlike when I applied in
NB, for the game wardens, and was told to call my MLA.. but that‘s another
forum. The PT test was tougher than anything I ever ran into in the Army,
and it was age/gender adjusted. I could never figure that out.... you call
for back-up on the radio, and based on the problem, you may have to specify
"man under 35, or lady under 26" or whatever, to get whatever you
need....not only is it outrageous, but dangerous, too.. setting different
standards like that, and putting them all in one unit.
Ubique
MacF
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:01:42 -0400*
I have a question to ask of this forum...
Most of us have had some form of command experience in the Armed Services of
Canada.
Whether a Battalion or Brigade Commander, contemplating the value in human
assets to know what was on the other side of that hill, or the section
commander or 2IC picking which person to go forward and deliver a grenade to
a target or whatever.....
And I‘m sure that I can catch some flak over this...
Which of us picked "Combat Cathy"?
Probably few, if any.  Those that did made a concious decision to the
fighting value of our section, platoon or whatever, and wrote an individual
off, where that individual was a fellow voter/taxpayer/citizen.  The rest of
us wrote off some other poor sap, rather than expose someone that we
personally had been conditioned and educated to be shielded from such duty.
I hold that either is a poor decision.
Mentally, we are not conditioned as are the Chinese/North Korean armies of
1952, nor the Vietnamese of the sixties in regards the combat employmnt of
female personnel.
Okay?
Once we can accept this basic fact in our makeup, we can accept that female
fighters, no matter how individually good, in a western army are more of a
liability to the balance of the men than an asset to the service as a whole.
In saying this, I served with female personnel that were the very best you
could ask a service-person to be, but they served in administrative
positions, and made few if any pretences at being fit to serve in F-Ech.
Understand, I have no complaint with female service people in the Service
Corps, in Med Corp, in Sigs, or anywhere else...just not in the Infantry,
Combat Engineers, Armour or Artillery.
What would you reply?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "The MacFarlanes‘" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> This type of policy is not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces, either...
> not that it makes it right.. I know many law enforcement agencies‘
physical
> tests are this way, are as Fire Departments, etc. A few years ago, I took
> the test to try out for the Game Wardens in Maine unlike when I applied
in
> NB, for the game wardens, and was told to call my MLA.. but that‘s another
> forum. The PT test was tougher than anything I ever ran into in the Army,
> and it was age/gender adjusted. I could never figure that out.... you call
> for back-up on the radio, and based on the problem, you may have to
specify
> "man under 35, or lady under 26" or whatever, to get whatever you
> need....not only is it outrageous, but dangerous, too.. setting different
> standards like that, and putting them all in one unit.
> Ubique
> MacF
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:46:56 -0700*
I would say it is time to "Crash Harbour".  Head for the high ground, this
should open up a whole can of worms.  It was a reality in the early 80‘s,
women did not have to pass the same physical standards as men.  The
standards that were set for them seemed to be a mere suggestion..  The first
time I was exposed to females in the military, was on my JLC course, the
was 7 of them out of 21.  Each one of them opted out of the daily
uns yes, opted out.  they were able to pass without meeting any of the
physical PO checks on the course.  this was when they were all clerks and
rear-ech types.  They had a very negative affect on the morale of those who
did meet all the requirements.
I can‘t fathom being in a Regt. and having to bust my b*lls trying to earn
my capbadge, knowing someone was floating by beside me.  That can‘t have a
very positive affect on teamwork..........................
will they be able to perform in a operational situation, when the sh*t hits
the fan.  Or do they just "opt" out of the hard deployments???????????
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:06:03 -0400*
Gentlemen/Ladies
We have two intertwined issues here. One is women in combat, and believe me,
we‘ve beaten that horse into a mere stain repeatedly on this forum must be
time for someone to start compiling a FAQ.. The other, which seems to have
been presented as means to take another run at the women in combat issue, is
the lowering of physical fitness standards in the military.
I just want one question answered which readily establishes that these are
really separate questions.
If physical fitness standards were really lowered just to allow more women
to pass basic combat arms training, then why have the failure rates for MALE
candidates on basic infantry training not decreased over the same period?
Despite the recent allegations in the news by a retired NDHQ staff officer,
who probably got no closer to an infantry trainee than the distance from
Ottawa to Petawawa, the evidence that I have seen says that lowered
standards were matching the relative average capabilities of willing
candidates of both genders that the Recruiting Centres were able to
attract. When our recruiting campaigns can compete with the best offers in
the civilian economy, then we can chose a more fit recruit on average.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
----- Original Message -----
From: Gow 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> I have a question to ask of this forum...
>
> Most of us have had some form of command experience in the Armed Services
of
> Canada.
>
> Whether a Battalion or Brigade Commander, contemplating the value in human
> assets to know what was on the other side of that hill, or the section
> commander or 2IC picking which person to go forward and deliver a grenade
to
> a target or whatever.....
>
> And I‘m sure that I can catch some flak over this...
>
> Which of us picked "Combat Cathy"?
>
> Probably few, if any.  Those that did made a concious decision to the
> fighting value of our section, platoon or whatever, and wrote an
individual
> off, where that individual was a fellow voter/taxpayer/citizen.  The rest
of
> us wrote off some other poor sap, rather than expose someone that we
> personally had been conditioned and educated to be shielded from such
duty.
> I hold that either is a poor decision.
>
> Mentally, we are not conditioned as are the Chinese/North Korean armies of
> 1952, nor the Vietnamese of the sixties in regards the combat employmnt of
> female personnel.
>
> Okay?
>
> Once we can accept this basic fact in our makeup, we can accept that
female
> fighters, no matter how individually good, in a western army are more of
a
> liability to the balance of the men than an asset to the service as a
whole.
>
> In saying this, I served with female personnel that were the very best you
> could ask a service-person to be, but they served in administrative
> positions, and made few if any pretences at being fit to serve in F-Ech.
> Understand, I have no complaint with female service people in the Service
> Corps, in Med Corp, in Sigs, or anywhere else...just not in the Infantry,
> Combat Engineers, Armour or Artillery.
>
> What would you reply?
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The MacFarlanes‘" 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
>
>
> > This type of policy is not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces,
either...
> > not that it makes it right.. I know many law enforcement agencies‘
> physical
> > tests are this way, are as Fire Departments, etc. A few years ago, I
took
> > the test to try out for the Game Wardens in Maine unlike when I applied
> in
> > NB, for the game wardens, and was told to call my MLA.. but that‘s
another
> > forum. The PT test was tougher than anything I ever ran into in the
Army,
> > and it was age/gender adjusted. I could never figure that out.... you
call
> > for back-up on the radio, and based on the problem, you may have to
> specify
> > "man under 35, or lady under 26" or whatever, to get whatever you
> > need....not only is it outrageous, but dangerous, too.. setting
different
> > standards like that, and putting them all in one unit.
> > Ubique
> > MacF
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <davidwillard@home.com>* on *Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:30:07 -0400*
Michael, Good Question,
    Have you ever been caught in a situation where that drive across town
just seemed to be forever and by time you got to your destination you were
just about all in. When you started you knew how far it was. Now consider
getting into your car starting at the same time and place only this time you
are driving to a far off citydestination. When you finally get close to
this far off destination you get the same feeling of fatigue and then begin
to tire. But what‘s wrong here? You didn‘t begin to tire on this longer trip
until perhaps you were ten or twenty times further than the drive across the
city. Perhaps it‘s just what you had accepted in your head before you began.
    Maybe that was a bit of a complicated comparison, but one we all
experience. If the standard is set lower, the mind set and sense of
determination is adjusted accordingly, tenacity reduced. Of course the male
candidates won‘t do any better, why should they, they all know the standard
is lower and don‘t tend to muster the strength to prevail they otherwise
could or may have. Why bothering getting yourself all physced up, it‘s the
I‘m going to pass anyway syndrome. Something like those, "have attended"
courses.
    Could it be that matters like reduced standards are presenting our army
as a less than a fully world class professional military organization and
are subsequently turning off the type of young people that may have
considered enlistment? I believe that if our standards were top drawer and
we could shake off this web of political correctness coupled with a revamped
competent recruiting system, we could easily fill the ranks with people
aspiring to be the best that they could be forgive the cliche.
    It is true about this "women in the combat arms thing" being beaten to
death, not only this means but in every mess and regimental gathering I‘ve
been to since it‘s inception. But do we just forget it and throw in the
towel? This would probably be the "Canadian" thing to do with our
complacency about just about everything. Let me ask anyone who has taken the
time to read this who has been, or is a professional combat soldier to
answer one question, "Do you, in all honesty believe we can maintain our
traditional high level of operational effectiveness in all aspects as we
did, and still incorprorate women into the combat arms? Please don‘t be
frivolous, answer honestly.
Dave Willard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Oleary" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> Gentlemen/Ladies
>
> We have two intertwined issues here. One is women in combat, and believe
me,
> we‘ve beaten that horse into a mere stain repeatedly on this forum must
be
> time for someone to start compiling a FAQ.. The other, which seems to
have
> been presented as means to take another run at the women in combat issue,
is
> the lowering of physical fitness standards in the military.
>
> I just want one question answered which readily establishes that these are
> really separate questions.
>
> If physical fitness standards were really lowered just to allow more women
> to pass basic combat arms training, then why have the failure rates for
MALE
> candidates on basic infantry training not decreased over the same period?
>
> Despite the recent allegations in the news by a retired NDHQ staff
officer,
> who probably got no closer to an infantry trainee than the distance from
> Ottawa to Petawawa, the evidence that I have seen says that lowered
> standards were matching the relative average capabilities of willing
> candidates of both genders that the Recruiting Centres were able to
> attract. When our recruiting campaigns can compete with the best offers in
> the civilian economy, then we can chose a more fit recruit on average.
>
> Mike
>
> The Regimental Rogue
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
> 2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gow 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 8:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
>
>
> > I have a question to ask of this forum...
> >
> > Most of us have had some form of command experience in the Armed
Services
> of
> > Canada.
> >
> > Whether a Battalion or Brigade Commander, contemplating the value in
human
> > assets to know what was on the other side of that hill, or the section
> > commander or 2IC picking which person to go forward and deliver a
grenade
> to
> > a target or whatever.....
> >
> > And I‘m sure that I can catch some flak over this...
> >
> > Which of us picked "Combat Cathy"?
> >
> > Probably few, if any.  Those that did made a concious decision to the
> > fighting value of our section, platoon or whatever, and wrote an
> individual
> > off, where that individual was a fellow voter/taxpayer/citizen.  The
rest
> of
> > us wrote off some other poor sap, rather than expose someone that we
> > personally had been conditioned and educated to be shielded from such
> duty.
> > I hold that either is a poor decision.
> >
> > Mentally, we are not conditioned as are the Chinese/North Korean armies
of
> > 1952, nor the Vietnamese of the sixties in regards the combat employmnt
of
> > female personnel.
> >
> > Okay?
> >
> > Once we can accept this basic fact in our makeup, we can accept that
> female
> > fighters, no matter how individually good, in a western army are more
of
> a
> > liability to the balance of the men than an asset to the service as a
> whole.
> >
> > In saying this, I served with female personnel that were the very best
you
> > could ask a service-person to be, but they served in administrative
> > positions, and made few if any pretences at being fit to serve in F-Ech.
> > Understand, I have no complaint with female service people in the
Service
> > Corps, in Med Corp, in Sigs, or anywhere else...just not in the
Infantry,
> > Combat Engineers, Armour or Artillery.
> >
> > What would you reply?
> >
> > John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "The MacFarlanes‘" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 7:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> >
> >
> > > This type of policy is not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces,
> either...
> > > not that it makes it right.. I know many law enforcement agencies‘
> > physical
> > > tests are this way, are as Fire Departments, etc. A few years ago, I
> took
> > > the test to try out for the Game Wardens in Maine unlike when I
applied
> > in
> > > NB, for the game wardens, and was told to call my MLA.. but that‘s
> another
> > > forum. The PT test was tougher than anything I ever ran into in the
> Army,
> > > and it was age/gender adjusted. I could never figure that out.... you
> call
> > > for back-up on the radio, and based on the problem, you may have to
> > specify
> > > "man under 35, or lady under 26" or whatever, to get whatever you
> > > need....not only is it outrageous, but dangerous, too.. setting
> different
> > > standards like that, and putting them all in one unit.
> > > Ubique
> > > MacF
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:10:38 -0400*
We seem to be chasing a variety of ‘problems.‘ Recruiting, physical fitness
standards, women in the combat arms. We can choose to claim they are
inextricably intertwined, or we can even while acknowledging that they
overlap address them separately.
Regarding recruiting standards - if we were attracting large numbers of
‘top-drawer‘ candidates then would lowering of recruiting standards matter?
Wouldn‘t we still be choosing the best applicants and outstripping the ones
that the standards were lowered to fit?
The recruiting system has a hard enough time attracting candidates as it is.
How do we improve the image and simultaneously raise the bar for entry
applicants - it‘s a bit of chicken and egg problem, isn‘t it? Ignoring the
‘female problem‘ for now - how would you solve the recruiting/attraction
problem for men? Did the perceived higher standard in the past automatically
attract a better candidate? I don‘t think so. The CF‘s recruiting problems
are as much image based as they are in contention with the prevailing
economy and civilian job prospects. I really don‘t know if image is the big
problem, or if it our perception of what we see in the media - even 20 years
ago the prevailing theory in high schools was that "if I can‘t get a job, I
can always join the Army." For the few who have previously decided that it
is where they plan to be, whether it be from Cadet/PRes experience or from
watching Apocalypse Now, they‘ll be there anyway.
Physical fitness standards - I suspect an objective analysis of fitness
levels among youth to rates of failure in basic training would show a
correlation over time though it may have to be statisically adjusted for
the varying standard. Despite reductions in the expected standard for
formal physical fitness tests over the past few years, basic infantry
training didn‘t get significantly easier. Rucksacks weigh the same, marches
back from the rifle range are the same distance and a week of section
attacks over tank ruts is just as hard on the knees. It is, perhaps, easier
to quit given that the training can be for some such a significantly
different demand on their minds and bodies than they had previously
experienced i.e., the culture shock is greater than in the past. How do we
get over this problem, perhaps we need longer general conditioning periods
as well as a more clearly structured approach to the Army‘s socialization.
This would benefit both male and female recruits. We already have
introductory programs for the Inuit to lessen the culture shock aspect, and
the USMC allows longer basic training periods for females to allow more
general conditioning to meet the graduation standard.
Women in the Army - I think this matter is too readily argued from the
heart. Frankly, we haven‘t seen a statistically significant sample to judge
the actual effecton operational effectiveness. If we perceive there is a
degradation, can we honestly say it wasn‘t influenced by the attitudes of
the male supervisors/peers/subordinates as well as the mood and the group
mood the women were expected to work within. It doesn‘t take much of a
contaminant to poison a result.
>From Dave Grossman‘s "On Killing": "The Israelis have consistently refused
to put women in combat since their experiences in 1948. I have been told by
several Israeli officers that this is because in 1948 they experienced
recurring incidents of uncontrolled violence among Israeli soldiers who had
had the female combatants killed or injured in combat, and because Arabs
were extremely reluctant to surrender to women."
And this is the only assessment on the pro/cons for employment of women in
combat that I have found presented by a researcher that actually talks about
the affect on women within the group dynamic in combat. Sufficient for a
total ban - perhaps, but not necessarily conclusive, It is certainly a valid
point to support some detailed research into the matter and a comparison to
the effect on our society‘s values in the event of actual combat employment.
And if we‘re going to employ such detail of research into defining the
propriety of placing of women in combat units, let‘s ensure similarly
detailed anaylsis of the appropriateness of various male personality and
physical body types. If we restrict women because they generally lack upper
body strength, then set the standard so that NO woman can pass and only the
men that do get in. If we worry about relationships, how do we stop the men
from forming friendships that might affect their combat decision-making.
Why can‘t we "maintain our traditional high level of operational
effectiveness in all aspects as we did, and still incorprorate women into
the combat arms?"
The females I have met in the combat arms that survived the attention,
scrutiny and, at times, the misogyny, have been very good soldiers. And I
have yet to meet the instructor that freely admitted that HE ensured a lower
expectation in training was granted by HIM during training to ensure that
the women would pass. I have known male soldiers that should have been
thrown out of the Army long before I met them, and all around them knew it.
But, at the same time, individual errors by a female are indicatative that
every female is unsuitable in every combat arms job, and that their very
existence undermines the Army, core values, effecieny and capability.
We readily choose the slightly built but very intelligent male soldier to
become an Int Op, and the not so bright weight-lifter to heave jerry cans in
the POL section. But we want to expect every female soldier to be ready to
do either job at any time to the standard of the best soldiers in the trade.
Why don‘t we ever compare them to the guys that never get past being number
four rifleman under maximum supervision and that doesn‘t even get a
re-engagement offer. Why, because they were better than that by surviving a
basic course on which 30-40 per cent of the men FAILED. They‘re already
better, so we build other reasons to keep them out.
I don‘t think any of us can answer the "operational effectiveness" question
right now. We all have opinions, but none of us have proof. Unfortunately,
like the Israelis, it may take a catastrophic event to gain that proof. But
keep in mind it will also demonstrate how good out current training and
conditioning methods are for our male soldiers as well.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:30:08 -0400*
Mike, I‘m sorry, but I think you are chanting the "company line" here.
Some of what you say is undeniably true  ceratainly some of our male
soldiers and this is not restricted to enlisted ranks are less than what
we wanted.  Take from that that we have failures at all levels, both
enlisted and commissioned.  This in and of itself does not mean we have to
buy in to recuiting mistakes that are statistical failures, either.
We can, obviously, work to correct "physical unfitness" amongst soldiers of
either gender.  HOWEVER, if that was the point, those that failed to make
the standard should/would be fired as unable to meet the job requirements,
right?  Which is a failure in Recruiting to set them, right?
Are we tranin commanders at any, if not all levels, to accept front line
female enlisted casualties, as we accept males casualties?  If not, lets get
over the politically correct crap, because its a lie, and we cdan‘t take the
hard truth of what happens.
Be real on this, guys!
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Oleary" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> We seem to be chasing a variety of ‘problems.‘ Recruiting, physical
fitness
> standards, women in the combat arms. We can choose to claim they are
> inextricably intertwined, or we can even while acknowledging that they
> overlap address them separately.
>
> Regarding recruiting standards - if we were attracting large numbers of
> ‘top-drawer‘ candidates then would lowering of recruiting standards
matter?
> Wouldn‘t we still be choosing the best applicants and outstripping the
ones
> that the standards were lowered to fit?
>
> The recruiting system has a hard enough time attracting candidates as it
is.
> How do we improve the image and simultaneously raise the bar for entry
> applicants - it‘s a bit of chicken and egg problem, isn‘t it? Ignoring the
> ‘female problem‘ for now - how would you solve the recruiting/attraction
> problem for men? Did the perceived higher standard in the past
automatically
> attract a better candidate? I don‘t think so. The CF‘s recruiting problems
> are as much image based as they are in contention with the prevailing
> economy and civilian job prospects. I really don‘t know if image is the
big
> problem, or if it our perception of what we see in the media - even 20
years
> ago the prevailing theory in high schools was that "if I can‘t get a job,
I
> can always join the Army." For the few who have previously decided that it
> is where they plan to be, whether it be from Cadet/PRes experience or from
> watching Apocalypse Now, they‘ll be there anyway.
>
> Physical fitness standards - I suspect an objective analysis of fitness
> levels among youth to rates of failure in basic training would show a
> correlation over time though it may have to be statisically adjusted for
> the varying standard. Despite reductions in the expected standard for
> formal physical fitness tests over the past few years, basic infantry
> training didn‘t get significantly easier. Rucksacks weigh the same,
marches
> back from the rifle range are the same distance and a week of section
> attacks over tank ruts is just as hard on the knees. It is, perhaps,
easier
> to quit given that the training can be for some such a significantly
> different demand on their minds and bodies than they had previously
> experienced i.e., the culture shock is greater than in the past. How do
we
> get over this problem, perhaps we need longer general conditioning periods
> as well as a more clearly structured approach to the Army‘s socialization.
> This would benefit both male and female recruits. We already have
> introductory programs for the Inuit to lessen the culture shock aspect,
and
> the USMC allows longer basic training periods for females to allow more
> general conditioning to meet the graduation standard.
>
> Women in the Army - I think this matter is too readily argued from the
> heart. Frankly, we haven‘t seen a statistically significant sample to
judge
> the actual effecton operational effectiveness. If we perceive there is a
> degradation, can we honestly say it wasn‘t influenced by the attitudes of
> the male supervisors/peers/subordinates as well as the mood and the group
> mood the women were expected to work within. It doesn‘t take much of a
> contaminant to poison a result.
>
> From Dave Grossman‘s "On Killing": "The Israelis have consistently refused
> to put women in combat since their experiences in 1948. I have been told
by
> several Israeli officers that this is because in 1948 they experienced
> recurring incidents of uncontrolled violence among Israeli soldiers who
had
> had the female combatants killed or injured in combat, and because Arabs
> were extremely reluctant to surrender to women."
>
> And this is the only assessment on the pro/cons for employment of women in
> combat that I have found presented by a researcher that actually talks
about
> the affect on women within the group dynamic in combat. Sufficient for a
> total ban - perhaps, but not necessarily conclusive, It is certainly a
valid
> point to support some detailed research into the matter and a comparison
to
> the effect on our society‘s values in the event of actual combat
employment.
>
> And if we‘re going to employ such detail of research into defining the
> propriety of placing of women in combat units, let‘s ensure similarly
> detailed anaylsis of the appropriateness of various male personality and
> physical body types. If we restrict women because they generally lack
upper
> body strength, then set the standard so that NO woman can pass and only
the
> men that do get in. If we worry about relationships, how do we stop the
men
> from forming friendships that might affect their combat decision-making.
>
> Why can‘t we "maintain our traditional high level of operational
> effectiveness in all aspects as we did, and still incorprorate women into
> the combat arms?"
>
> The females I have met in the combat arms that survived the attention,
> scrutiny and, at times, the misogyny, have been very good soldiers. And I
> have yet to meet the instructor that freely admitted that HE ensured a
lower
> expectation in training was granted by HIM during training to ensure that
> the women would pass. I have known male soldiers that should have been
> thrown out of the Army long before I met them, and all around them knew
it.
> But, at the same time, individual errors by a female are indicatative that
> every female is unsuitable in every combat arms job, and that their very
> existence undermines the Army, core values, effecieny and capability.
>
> We readily choose the slightly built but very intelligent male soldier to
> become an Int Op, and the not so bright weight-lifter to heave jerry cans
in
> the POL section. But we want to expect every female soldier to be ready to
> do either job at any time to the standard of the best soldiers in the
trade.
> Why don‘t we ever compare them to the guys that never get past being
number
> four rifleman under maximum supervision and that doesn‘t even get a
> re-engagement offer. Why, because they were better than that by surviving
a
> basic course on which 30-40 per cent of the men FAILED. They‘re already
> better, so we build other reasons to keep them out.
>
> I don‘t think any of us can answer the "operational effectiveness"
question
> right now. We all have opinions, but none of us have proof. Unfortunately,
> like the Israelis, it may take a catastrophic event to gain that proof.
But
> keep in mind it will also demonstrate how good out current training and
> conditioning methods are for our male soldiers as well.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:35:08 EDT*
FYI,All, regarding age/gender normed physical fitness tests... In the US, 
they have been found to be in violation of the law, and thus are being 
dispensed with.  Now both men and women have to pass the same test to be 
certified as police officers.  The test is a little easier for men age 21-24, 
and a lot tougher on the geezers and women...but the pass rate seems to be 
close to what it was before. Guess if you raise the bar, motivated 
candidates will do what it takes to get over it.  I don‘t know if the 
military has followed suit yet, but odds are that they will.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *DHall058@aol.com* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:12:42 EDT*
John,
One of the units I commanded was a mechanized infantry brigade headquarters 
company, which had a small complement of females in the intel, signal, and 
maintenance sections.  Though we were not considered a frontline unit, we 
would have had significant exposure to hostile fire if deployed to war.  Some 
of the women were "gender neutral", and tough as nails.  They‘d likely have 
performed as well or better than some of the male REMF clerks in the unit.  
On the other hand, the remaining women, while competent at their MOS, did 
provide a problematic distraction to the infantrymen and tankers in my 
company.  This experience leads me to believe that women would not be a good 
choice for most combat arms roles. I‘ve known a few female artillery 
officers, and they kicked butt with the best of them...which will no doubt 
offend all Gunners on the list.  Women as combat pilots, or on ships of the 
line?  Seems okay to me.  Just like I‘ve sent female deputies through the 
door of an armed meth-maggot‘s house, I can envision sending female soldiers 
to take out a MG position...but it probably would cause more disruption than 
it‘s worth.
Dave Hall 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:35:02 -0400*
I‘m just an old broken down has been, buit it just seems you are making my
case
In which case thank you.
John
> John,
> One of the units I commanded was a mechanized infantry brigade
headquarters
> company, which had a small complement of females in the intel, signal, and
> maintenance sections.  Though we were not considered a frontline unit, we
> would have had significant exposure to hostile fire if deployed to war.
Some
> of the women were "gender neutral", and tough as nails.  They‘d likely
have
> performed as well or better than some of the male REMF clerks in the unit.
> On the other hand, the remaining women, while competent at their MOS, did
> provide a problematic distraction to the infantrymen and tankers in my
> company.  This experience leads me to believe that women would not be a
good
> choice for most combat arms roles. I‘ve known a few female artillery
> officers, and they kicked butt with the best of them...which will no doubt
> offend all Gunners on the list.  Women as combat pilots, or on ships of
the
> line?  Seems okay to me.  Just like I‘ve sent female deputies through the
> door of an armed meth-maggot‘s house, I can envision sending female
soldiers
> to take out a MG position...but it probably would cause more disruption
than
> it‘s worth.
> Dave Hall
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"C.M. Crawford" <cm_crawford@hotmail.com>* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:35:08 EDT*
Mike, 
You noted that the failure rate for males has not decreased , but the failure rate for females has. I think that I can shed some light on this. On my basic course there were no female instructors , but several female candidates. some of the females never finished a single PT period the whole course, even thought PT was a PO check they still passed the course. I found that the male instructors had a hard time diciplining any of the females, infact some of them failed several PO‘s, enough to fail the course, and yet they passed. A friend of mine did his QL2 recently and he had 2 female instructors, in this situation 5 out of 7 females were failed out of the course.This could just be fluke , but I think that female candidates do instill fear into male instructors. Many may feel that charges or alligations will arise a for harasment or sexual missconduct, and in todays more politicaly correct army it only takes an alligation or even a roumor to ruin ones carrer. 
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com.Share  information about yourself, create your own public profile at  http://profiles.msn.com  .
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:43:52 -0700*
A while back, I touched on the same thing. I had some hard-core female
Gunners in my battery, some of the best I had worked with. A couple went on
to be Number Ones Detachment Commanders. Generally, however, the female
Gunners in our Unit were a distraction, with even the good ones targets of
"affection-earning", etc., and caused a lot of strife, amongst the troops.
In a Civilian environment, and this is going to sound sexist, rarely is a
lady placed in a situation where she is the prettiest one around regardless
of what she actually looks like, and the ratio is 8:1, or 15:1, and you can
pick who if any will get to pay any attention to you. I hope that all made
sense. I have to agree, I guess, that the capability is there, but all the
extras make it difficult to manage.
Ubique
MacF
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
The reason most people fail instead of succeed is that they trade what they
want most for what they want at the moment.
--cited in the Best of Bits  Pieces
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> John,
> One of the units I commanded was a mechanized infantry brigade
headquarters
> company, which had a small complement of females in the intel, signal, and
> maintenance sections.  Though we were not considered a frontline unit, we
> would have had significant exposure to hostile fire if deployed to war.
Some
> of the women were "gender neutral", and tough as nails.  They‘d likely
have
> performed as well or better than some of the male REMF clerks in the unit.
> On the other hand, the remaining women, while competent at their MOS, did
> provide a problematic distraction to the infantrymen and tankers in my
> company.  This experience leads me to believe that women would not be a
good
> choice for most combat arms roles. I‘ve known a few female artillery
> officers, and they kicked butt with the best of them...which will no doubt
> offend all Gunners on the list.  Women as combat pilots, or on ships of
the
> line?  Seems okay to me.  Just like I‘ve sent female deputies through the
> door of an armed meth-maggot‘s house, I can envision sending female
soldiers
> to take out a MG position...but it probably would cause more disruption
than
> it‘s worth.
> Dave Hall
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Juno847627709@aol.com* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:31:42 EDT*
Everyone who has said something regarding gender\fitness obviously knows what 
they‘re talking about.
    I can‘t pretend to be as knowledgable as most of you are, but here‘s how 
I see it- Why not have one physical standard for one army? If the **** hits 
the fan we‘re all going to the same place fighting the same enemy, so why the 
different standards? The enlisted men\women and officers  haven‘t completed 
the physical tests that most other troops have are going to suffer, because 
they won‘t be able to endure as well as the rest, and the whole unit will 
suffer, because, from what I understand, that last little shove you have to 
give yourself to finish training is  the kind of motivation you‘ll need to 
keep up with the rest of your mates in combat. If yo‘re not made to push 
yourself that hard in training, how can you expect to be able to do it in 
combat?
    And as for females in combat, it‘s lose\lose no matter what happens. If 
they stay in the combat arms, undoubtedly some effectiveness will be lost, 
only because the women won‘t have met the same standards as most of the men, 
and if they‘re dissallowed in the combat arms, you have some very real 
patriots not allowed to fight for something they would die for. Not an easy 
choice, but on a personal note, if I were an infantry officer, I odn‘t know 
how I could send female troops in to combat. I"m a very traditional guy, and 
I don‘t know how I could do it, much less see one hit and not feel the need 
to protect her more than the males because, as said, I‘m a traditionalist. 
And besides all that, what the ****  happened to chivalry?
                                                -Matt
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:26:28 -0400*
----- Original Message -----
From: Gow 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Combat Arms Physical Standards
> Mike, I‘m sorry, but I think you are chanting the "company line" here.
>
> John
Now I‘m hurt.
I suppose it‘s my meek approach to my duties and my willingness to conform
to the system and chant the "company line" that has ensured my fourteen
years in rank as a Captain.
I do not object to your position, nor do I claim that any particular opinion
is intrinsically wrong. I do, however, want to see proof, in real time
within current Canadian societal bounds, etc., etc., etc. of the position
being taken. And, with regard to women in the combat arms, we haven‘t
necessarily seen that yet. To defend a right to opportunity is not the same
as proclaiming a blind right to do something without expectation of proof
that, at the least, the system is not degraded by it.
>From my experience the greatest degree of Clausewitzian friction against
women in the combat arms has not been the capabilities of the women, it has
been the open and covert activities of men working against giving them an
even chance. We let each man prove himself, and yet we want to proclaim a
blanket refusal to women.
The women we are talking about don‘t deserve to be measured by the standards
of our own youth. They at least deserve an opportunity to prove their own
value, as individuals, in today‘s society. And if a woman is the best man
for the job, then I‘m willing to let her do it.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"William J <andy> Anderson" <aanderson@sk.sympatico.ca>* on *Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:50:06 -0700*
on 22/10/00 10:26, my good friend Mike Oleary at m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca
wrote:
Once again Michael you‘ve managed to hit the nail on the head. Very well
said! I couldn‘t agree more with you.
arte et marte
anderson sends:
> Now I‘m hurt.
> 
> I suppose it‘s my meek approach to my duties and my willingness to conform
> to the system and chant the "company line" that has ensured my fourteen
> years in rank as a Captain.
> 
> I do not object to your position, nor do I claim that any particular opinion
> is intrinsically wrong. I do, however, want to see proof, in real time
> within current Canadian societal bounds, etc., etc., etc. of the position
> being taken. And, with regard to women in the combat arms, we haven‘t
> necessarily seen that yet. To defend a right to opportunity is not the same
> as proclaiming a blind right to do something without expectation of proof
> that, at the least, the system is not degraded by it.
> 
> From my experience the greatest degree of Clausewitzian friction against
> women in the combat arms has not been the capabilities of the women, it has
> been the open and covert activities of men working against giving them an
> even chance. We let each man prove himself, and yet we want to proclaim a
> blanket refusal to women.
> 
> The women we are talking about don‘t deserve to be measured by the standards
> of our own youth. They at least deserve an opportunity to prove their own
> value, as individuals, in today‘s society. And if a woman is the best man
> for the job, then I‘m willing to let her do it.
> 
> Mike
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:19:26 -0700*
>FYI,All, regarding age/gender normed physical fitness tests... In the US, they
have been found to be in violation of the law, and thus are being dispensed
with.
One issue often overlooked is occupational relevancy.  If it can be demonstrated
the fitness activities are required for the training to be undertaken or for
performance on the job, then well and good.  When the tests bear no resemblance
to the training regimen or are obviously not job requirements ie. serving
members aren‘t periodically required to take the tests then they can probably
be legally challenged.  The thought of overweight senior fire department members
attempting the "combat challenge" required for the local academy amuses me.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:23:31 -0700*
>Why not have one physical standard for one army? If the **** hits the fan we‘re
all going to the same place fighting the same enemy, so why the different
standards?
This is useful, but impractical.  In reality physical requirements vary widely
on the battlefield.  We recognize knowledge and learning differential, so we
should be realistic and recognize physical differential.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

