# Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]



## the patriot

Hello,

Just for the sake of discussion... how are females coping with Battle School?!!!  Are there any out there that would like to share their feedback and experiences at the Reserve or Reg Force level.

-the patriot-


----------



## Garett

Well from what I‘ve seen in the reserves it varies just like with males.  I‘ve met some pretty tough females from Newfoundland who are damn good at the job.  I‘ve also met females who are a waste of money.  The same things goes with males though...


----------



## fortuncookie5084

I‘ve found that a soldier‘s reproductive function has nothing to do with their ability to get the job done.  The argument that they‘re physically weaker than men is bunk----we all know the five foot tall, 120lb soldier who smokes too much yet is just buzzing with energy and can do seemingly impossible feats.


----------



## enfield

> Originally posted by fortuncookie5084:
> [qb]we all know the five foot tall, 120lb soldier who smokes too much yet is just buzzing with energy and can do seemingly impossible feats.[/qb]




I would say that describes the entire British Army to the letter. 
The day the NFL and NHL are made co-ed is the day I will support women in the combat arms.


----------



## Disturbance

I was trying very hard to resist posting in this thread....but I cant. I have said time and time again that if a women is going to be able to do the exact job as the men are then what is the problem. I want to know that that woman is going to be able carry me to safety when I get hit, that she is going to carry her load just as well as anyone else. However with my personal experience from the women on the ql2/3 INF courses this summer I am pretty upset. I have complained before so I wont repeat those incidents but when a girl is blaming the low CF standards for her being out of shape is really really pathetic.  "I know I mean we had to do only 10 pushups and now they expect us to run 4km how can they do that???" I was thinking to myself "yeah its their fault"


----------



## Jungle

How can we even think that women can do the same as men ? I‘m talking about the average man vs the average woman. There are even different standards on the CF EXPRESS test... so how can we pretend we can all do the same ? In the olympics there are records for men and records for women. We should be mature about this and admit there are differences and live with them... the vast majority of women would not go near a combat trade, so keep all of them out of those trades and save us the trouble of mixed sub-units in first-line combat trades.      :sniper:


----------



## Disturbance

But what about the POLITICIANS!!


----------



## bender

Touchy subject but i couldn‘t resist commenting. In my opinion the females i‘ve worked with should definatly NOT be working as an infantry soldier. In the CF females are not on the same level as men. The standards for the physical are lowered so more will be eligible. I‘ve seen females drop out of 3km ruck marches time after time, not be able to carry a hundred pound person for 5 ft and yet have still passed their infantry training and come out being considered an "able soldier". What good is a soldier you can‘t even complete a 3 km ruck march? Also ask yourself would you want to fight along side a person who thinks the C7 is a heavy peice of equip, and couldn‘t carry you a 100 ft to safety? Another thing i have seen which has pissed alot a people off, is a female who has progressed incredibly fast up the ranks when they can barely do their job, also coming off courses saying to other males, " woo, i‘m so glad i‘m not a guy they would have failed me long ago." With my experience with females in the infantry they are just standing by so politicions can please the public. It seems that‘s what the CF is all about!    :evil:


----------



## Roko

Aren‘t they also a distraction to the male infantry soldiers? I mean hell.. lots of recruits (such as myself) are still very young, and still have all those hormones running in overdrive.. (that was a serious comment)


----------



## Disturbance

HA....distraction only cause you are wondering why they are lagging behind. Of the 4 on my course 3 were fat and dirty and the other pretty tiny actually. The only attractive female was of course on the armoured course and everytime I saw her outside WATC she had about 30 guys around her.


Still this is just from what I have seen first hand, if the day comes and I meet a hardcore switched on female INF then I happily admit that. I am trying not to stereotype but it honestly doesnt look good.


----------



## Roko

heh heh heh.. distracted rtying to figure out who‘s the dead weight...

btw, that 3k ruck march mentioned before, is that a double time march, or just regular walking march? and is the 13k forced march still in reserve training (ql2 or infnatry ql3), or is it gone? (I want to do it!)


----------



## Disturbance

3km march is not running but you walk pretty fast , you would blow your knees if you ran with a fully loaded ruck on.

13km march...I wish...its now changed to a 9.6 km webbing march at the end of your ql2 portion. Infanteer and I were gonna try and convince everyone to wear their rucks anyways but got cut down pretty bad. It has to do with the fact that there isnt a lot of time for pt while doing the ql2/3 course over the summer because there is a lot to learn...so if they did make you do a 13km march out of the blue most ppl would be eatin up by the green monster in the rear of the platoon. However just because you will not do a 13km ruck on your course doesnt mean you arent gonna do 30km at your home unit because you will. In the mo a lot or actually all of your physical preparedness comes from you yourself working out on your own time. feel free to grab a buddy and go on your own ruck march whenever you can.


----------



## Roko

That‘s too bad.. Was looking forward to a 13k forced ruck march.. nuts...

Yeah, I‘ve just handed in my application last weekend, and I‘m already working on my PT.. I go running every mon wed fri before class, swim, weight train, spontaniously drop off and do pushups, etc etc...

I‘ve got a buddy who‘s joining the reserves soon, but he‘s going for medical (because he wants to do DOTP later on). Nonetheless he places a high priority on physical fitness.. We‘re planning on goin on ruck marches, just for the hell of it.. I really enjoy physical challenges..


----------



## the patriot

Just curious to see if we have any female members in the Reg Force infantry units that have any comments that they‘d like to share.  Apparently the RCR have some (they‘re running around somewhere in the woods in CFB Pettawawa).

-the patriot-


----------



## Gung_Ho20

The percentage of women in combat trade is only 1.6 %, and 0 % of women who have done their fist contract resign for another one with any of the combat trade(Esprit de corps 2000). In the same subject the Canadian goverment wants to raise the percentage of women in the infantry to 25 %. It‘s almost impossible when you think that infantry reserve units are far from having 25 % of women in their ranks.


----------



## Disturbance

I find it odd that they actually have a % of women they want in the INF.


----------



## JES_12

Hi,

I want to know your opinion about the women in the army?

    HONOUR_12   :tank:


----------



## the patriot

Women have been more than welcome to join the military and have been permitted to apply to the Combat Arms trades since 1989.  

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot

I don‘t think that % quota is going to help.  First there was the issue of gender equity.  Now that the issue has been addressed with a quota, more of them are not enlisting.  What seems to be the problem?!  Well, they could stop politicizing the whole damn thing and let things work themselves out.  What they fail to understand is that the women in the system end up leaving just like everyone else, faster than they can replace them.  Now if you look at the police forces accross the country, a lot of people see nothing but overweight and ineffective women being brought on to the police departments.  This will not happen in the military.  You either meet the standard of fitness or are kicked out.  Stop lowering standards so you can have a token military.

-the patriot-


----------



## Infanteer

Raise the amount of women in the infantry to 25%....
HA!
My eyes are watering here.
If I was CDS I would bust whoever came up with this fantasy down to private and send them to a battalion to sort them out.


----------



## Jungle

Right now, i think we would have a hard time raising the number of MEN in the infantry 25%, so it is not going to happen with women... Let‘s face it, the statistics prove it does not work. But the jerks in the "great ivory tower" in Ottawa will make it work... on paper !!! We‘re very good at that... remember the 10/90 Battalions ?


----------



## Alfreda

You guys have hurt my feelings.  I think I‘ll go to my bunk and cry.
Seriously, my sister was in Cornwallis.  I think she lasted about 3 weeks, couldn‘t take the heat. Kept doing exactly what I said in my open. They discharged her and sent her home.
What is wrong with women giving support.  I certainly would rather nurse than get my head blowen off


----------



## ender

I am a female and have been in the reserve engineers for 2 years now.  As a girl, you have a bit more to prove, but my experience has been mostly positive, and the guys will accept you as long as you can do the job.  Of course there are a few idiots, but you find those everywhere.  Anyone who says women can‘t be soldiers should open their eyes.  There are plenty of good female soldiers in the CF that I proud to know.


----------



## peanutshel

The average woman does not have the upper arm strength that men have. Our bodies are just built differently and we are incapable of doing the same things. Of course, there are always exceptions to the ‘normal‘  This is why everyone should have an equal chance to be whatever trade they wish to be.  However the standards should not be lowered to accomodate the ‘average‘. The world was much simpler when I joined the Militia 30 years ago.  Our roles were clearly defined.  However, along with the good parts were the bad, like sexual harassment.  Today‘s Army is getting better in that respect.


----------



## ender

I am a female Engineer, physically much more demanding than infanteer.  I can be panel party for an MGB and an ACRO bridge.  That‘s all upper body work.  I suck at running but I can out-ruckmarch a lot of my male counterparts.  I‘ve carried the C6 on weekend ex‘s.  I can do 50 pushups, even when I‘m not on course.  Don‘t tell me I can‘t physically do the job, becuase I can and I have.

Yes, there are a lot of wussy girls in the army that shouldn‘t be there.  No one is more offended by them than me.  These people should get out of the combat arms.  If you don‘t want to do the job, don‘t even try.

I have never used my gender as an excuse for anything.  Yes, the recruiting tests are different for men and women.  But on the first day of QL2 everyone does the pushups together.

There are only 4 female sappers in my Regiment.  But all of us are good, we don‘t have tolerance for people that use being a girl as an excuse not to do anything.  I disagree with a 25% quota in the combat arms.  I disagree with quotas of any sort.  
If you can do the job and you want to, you should be able to.

PS. XCameron,
i really don‘t think that I physicaly fit on the ‘abnormal‘ spectrum.  (mentally is another issue- joke)  I wasn‘t really into sports in high school, nor am I heavy duty into weightlifting. (I mostly just do pushups and stuff)  I think that in the combat arms takes a lot of mental toughness and stuborness, (especially if you are a female) and that not everyone has this.  But I think that physically it does not take freakish abilities to be a soldier.  It‘s mostly mental anyway.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If it‘s all about physique, someone will have to explain to me why slightly built peasants subsisting on meagre diets and operating in difficult terrain (jungle, mountain) can give well-fed, well-equipped western soldiers a run for their money even when not all the technological advantages are stripped away.


----------



## enfield

..the same rough, tough lifestyle that will kill most of them before midle age due to sickness and injuries. They‘re hardened (in a way I never want to be) to physical discomfort and labour.

Ender- Engineer trade harder than Infantry? You in the same army? 

Some of my buddies were telling me about working with a battery in Bosnia last year, and how women are phsyically incapable of loading the  shells into the self-propelled guns. Can a gunner expand on this? Apparently the shells are stored above head height to the right, and the breach is about shin heiht on the left. The shells (what are they 50? 100 lbs?) have to be moved by one person in one movement from the storage racks into the breach. 

I can say from personal experience that I‘ve only met one female soldier who can keep up - the rest are embarrassments. I‘m sure there are women out there that can do the job great - but how many of them WANT to join the infantry?? (or army)


----------



## towhey

I‘ve tried to avoid this thread because it‘s just.... silly.

What hangs or doesn‘t hang between your legs has very little to do with effective soldiering.  I‘ve known damn fine female soldiers and damn fine male soldiers.  And, I‘ve known soldiers of both sexes who were lacking.  Their sex had nothing to do with their competence.

Kudos to ender for an on-target post.


----------



## Infanteer

Sure we are all looking at it from a strictly physiological view, but there are also social and psychological aspects to this argument.


----------



## RCA

Around and around we go. The "quota" is a red herring. It only means something if the supply is greater than the demand. Not an issue here. 

And has anyone had a conversation with someone else about you with you standing there. Kind of uncomfortable isn‘t it. Kind of what is happening here.

The only ones who generalize about women in the combat arms are the ones who prefer "them" barefoot and in the kitchen". Those times are over. The militia has had females within the combat units for years with few problems, well before the Reg F started to fret about sleeping arrangements etc.

What the Army requires are soldiers regardless of gender. As with all types (whether gender, orientation, race or what have you) you will have some that excel and others will be unable to cut it. Let’s not generalize. As to the "warrior" who is worried about his hormones, if your a professional, its not a problem. If it is it is you who is too easily distracted.

As to the gunners in Bosnia, couldn‘t have been Canadian, because they have LG1s over there. However it is true that the M109 have rounds in the bustles. These are in the back door and are appox shoulder height. You pull the rd out swivel around and place it on the loading tray (without catching your fingers underneath.) The bullet weighs appox 90 lbs. Not an easy feat for anyone. Dropping it could be hard on the feet, not to mention the #1 ripping you a new one. 

And remember this, soldering is as much mental as it is physical and that is gender neutral
.


----------



## King

Of course in implementing the idea of women in combat, things aren‘t so clear cut as "selection should be based on ones ability to do the job, not their gender."

Things aren‘t based on ability to do the job, with lower standards for women and the 25% quota. For anyone who isn‘t policy director of the NDP, the government makes it look like a social engineering project, rather then a rights driven one. If you want true equality then why not push the quota up to 50%? But I guess the burreaucrats at NDHQ, being the realists they are, left it at 25%. There might be less hostility to women in the infantry if the CF‘s policy of equality was actually a policy of equality.


----------



## ender

Enfield ,

I didn‘t say Engineer was a harder trade than infantry, I said it was a physically more demanding trade.  As far as upper body strength goes, and heavy lifting Engineer uses a lot more.  You can‘t argue that one.  Probably infanteers can beat us on endurance, but the fact our secondary role is as infantry means that we have to be able to do patrolling as well.  This should probably be a new topic if you want to into it further.

PS. I can lift 100 pounds.  Kind of hard to build a bridge if you can‘t.


----------



## Canidule

I was watching tv and there was a show like survivor where there was a women who was a former marine....and she was pretty damn hot....but she got voted off the first day because she was the only 1 who failed an event....well anyway....is there any hot girls in the CF?


----------



## Sharpey

Does it really matter? Yes the Army should/will become an extension of your family, but it‘s not a night club! Just remember, you will be trained to put your life on the line for these "hot girls", as they will do the same for you. Just be careful thats all.
I enjoyed Infanteer‘s comment though.

OK, I sound like a Dad...wait....I am!


----------



## bc_railfan

yeah i have the same question...are there many/any good-looking women in the forces?? 

though some may not agree with me, young, good-looking women (and men for the opposite sex) would probably attract more young people to the forces.   i‘m not saying this should be a reason for joining, but if i join i want to work with people my age....

on the topic, are there many young people in the regular forces (20-30 years)?  i‘ve looked at the pictures and recruiting posters, but they never really show young people.  the u.s. forces seems to have a great deal of young people in the ranks, and in my opinion this raises the appeal of joining the forces.

this is 100% not-important info, but the woman featured in the recruiting video for air traffic controller (i think) on the dnd website is real cute    .

-brad


----------



## Korus

Maybe it‘s just me, but I think it would be really, really wrong to chase tail within your reg‘t... It unbalances things... distracts the soldier.. not a good thing, I assume.

heh heh heh.. besides... Army chicks aren‘t my type


----------



## Marauder

Even if there were any "hot chicks" in the Forces, the laws preventing fraternization would prevent you from doing anything about it. Besides, given the females I had to put up with on course, you would be more likely to end up with a law suit from them than an STD.

The Forces aren‘t a ****ing social club... you may wish to re-evaluate your reasons for joining.  A fair amount of our American brothers just proved how deadly ****ing serious this job can be when doing it for real.


----------



## Canidule

haha.....i was just asking    i heard so much rumors and im not joining because of girls....well anyway im already in a social club(also called school) and im really not interested at all in going into another 1.... and im serious about this job


----------



## bender

If your joining the army for some ***  your looking in the wrong spot! 

 But as a side note i did an exercise with the navy a little while back and the chicks there where unreal! They where everywhere and all hot, even the cook was a peice of *** !!


----------



## ender

Joining the army to meet girls is pretty stupid, I mean the ratios just arn‘t in your favour.  If there‘s one girl to 20 guys chances are she‘s already taken or not intrested.  Besides, it‘s a bad idea to date inside your unit. (or, put more cruedly, don‘t s*** where you eat)

There are rules against fraternization? You wouldn‘t know it.  They must have skipped that on my 2‘s.  What are the actual rules?  (I mean, obviously you keep it out of your chain of command, but other than that?)


----------



## Sapper Bloggins

If woman choose to be in the combat arms , all the power to them. There are standards which are expected of everyone, regardless of gender. If they pull their own wait, hey,climb in. The only easy day was yesterday.


----------



## enfield

There are rules against fraternization?? I‘ve seen no evidence of that.

I‘ve seen instrcutors having affairs with students. Everyone that goes overseas seems to have stories of fraternization. A quick check of The DND Op Apollo photo archive shows many in-service couples (including officer‘s and enlisted), either saying goodbye or deploying together - all proudly displayed by the military. If there‘s a rule against fraternization, somebody didn‘t tell NDHQ.

Joining the military to meet girls is stupid, the odds just aren‘t in your favour - and If It‘s In Green, It Ain‘t Clean (that goes for both sexes). However, DEU‘s and a kilt go a long way in a nightclub....


----------



## Marauder

OK, for clarification purposes:
On course we were told you should‘t be dipping yer wick in the platoon inkwell, as it were. But yah, for the most part that was ignored. Personally, I didn‘t see anything I would wanna stick it in. They were all either fat and ugly, had "issues" (    ), or were so damn dirty I wouldn‘t touch them with a twenty foot pole.
I also think that sorta **** being carried on within a platoon is wrong, given the fact that if it goes wrong (and it invariably does) there‘s gonna be a lot of unneccesary drama going on on parade nights. You wanna roll the dice that she isn‘t going to "forget" (  ) to take her pill or isn‘t all disease ridden, well have fun, but don‘t expect any sympathy from the medics when they shoot you full of antibiotics. 
But I‘m justly a lowly private, what the **** do I know.


----------



## jaycee

to maurauder
funny about all that stuff your saying about women.we tend to say the same things about you men.and after some of the stuff iv heard about overseas and what people have done there ,im surprised anyone dates military period.military women are no worse or better than civilian women.same goes for men.there are no real rules against fraternization but you can be charged if your caught at work or in the field doing the nasty.we had a couple  that got a bunch of extras when they were caught at work.but other than that anything goes.


----------



## Spr Earl

In my 26 yrs as a Sapper I have seen many women come and go and use the system to their own advantage and advance and there are only two female‘s to date who  work ,drink,and mix and who are still Sapperet‘s (My choice of Word) and both of these girl‘s Engineering knowledge has caught many a Sr. N.C.O. out (me included)and both were excepted by all of us because they could hump panel‘s,dig,lay fence,mine‘s,and all the rest we Enginerer‘s do and if I was younger I would have them in my section any day,they even shamed a few male‘s!!!!!!!

 It‘s to bad we could not have more female‘s like these two who take the job to heart!

                           (Retireing Soon)


----------



## JRMACDONALD

Candidule- you must remember TV adverts are , exactly that, TV Adverts. i ‘ve never seen old , bald, fat,CSMs/PL WOs in the adverts, just young, fit, CUTE people!
Infanteer- your first answer WAS on the the MARK!
Enfield/Disturbance- NO fraternatization rules?? I guess you have never signed THAT document on in -clearance to WATC, HUH!????


----------



## snooprobbiedog

Imagine if the folks who make the beer commercials did the ads for the CF!!!

And don‘t go telling me that hotties and buff dudes in the beer ads aren‘t real... Next thing you‘ll be telling me is that there is no Santa Claus!  :crybaby:  

Rob


----------



## Brad Sallows

The hotties and buff dudes are the way the world looks _if_ you drink the beer...


----------



## bossi

> Originally posted by ender:
> [qb]There are rules against fraternization? You wouldn‘t know it.  They must have skipped that on my 2‘s.  What are the actual rules?  (I mean, obviously you keep it out of your chain of command, but other than that?)[/qb]


Ender,
From reading your numerous posts, it seems they‘ve skipped quite a bit during your trg (or else you missed it).

However, since I‘m in a gratuitous mood today (albeit cranky), I‘m only too happy to answer your question (actually, it also falls under the heading of "never pass a fault", but I digress ...):

CFAO 19-38 pertains to "Personal Relationships" (i.e. fraternization)
CFAO 19-36 covers "Sexual Misconduct"

Also, a recent court martial in Toronto provided an example of military justice in this regard (and, yes - I do mean "justice", as opposed to "the legal system" - it resulted in a conviction on two counts of sexual assault, and it should be known by all and sundry that the chain of command definitely did not turn a blind eye). - you‘d do well to read up.

Here is a link to an informative JAG briefing:
Sexual Offences and Sexual Harassment 

If anybody needs more info, advice, or whatever - y‘all know where to find me.

Dileas Gu Brath,
M.A. Bossi, Esquire


----------



## Robert Bickle

The front page of the Toronto Star news paper Sat. edition has picture of a Canadian woman soldier crawling out of her sleeping bag in the open on a mountain side in Afghanistan.
  The report below the picture says she is with our troops in the battle with the rest of them.The look on her face looks like she is thinking 
 "what have I got myself into". I know many countries have women in their forces but I didn‘t think they were allowed in ground combat.
   How many countries do this ???


----------



## enfield

I saw the same photo, and I don‘t know if she‘s actually in a combat trade. Most of the women I‘ve seen in photos so far are support trades - even some air force clerks. (why AF clerks are there I don‘t know.) I hate how the press always publishes the pics of females - if there are 20 guys and 1 female working, I guarantee the female will end up in the paper.

Women still make up a miniscule portion of the Reg Infantry, and I would be surprised to find any that have gone into the NCO ranks and stayed there. Right now 1.9% of the Combat Arms are female.

No nation that I can think of that plans to fight a war has women in it‘s combat arms.
Israel and Russia tried it out of desperation, and it didn‘t work in the long term for them and was discontinued.  

Here‘s a recent NATO article.
www.nato.int/docu/review/2001/0102-09.htm


----------



## Jungle

Very interesting article Enfield, but they forgot to mention that we also have 2 physical fitness standards based on gender, but only 1 set of combat functions to base them on. I was told once that it depends on the effort: a female running to level 5 did the same "effort" as a male running level 8... at the end of the day, if a person‘s effort cannot lift a sandbag, is that person useful ?


----------



## Gunner

I saw the picture of the soldier.  She is a combat engineer and the picture reflects a person just waking up vice "What have I got myself into". Maybe you think she‘s waiting for the Sgt to bring her a coffee?  There was a picture of a male infantry soldier in a similar pose and he has the same expression on his face...exhaustion.

I don‘t have a problem with men or women, gays, lesbians, or heterosexuals, whites, blacks, red, yellow or poke a dot individuals.  If someone wants to serve their countrty, fine.  There must be one standard as there are no pink road wheels when you are changing track.  You can either do the job or you can‘t.  Not all women can or want to do 
it...but then again, very few Canadian men want to do it either.


----------



## enfield

That‘s a good point Gunner.
However, I think it has to be balanced. If there was one standard across the board, how many women would make it in? Since it‘s 1.9% with two very different standards, I would suggest the number would be a lot lower. The stats for police tactical teams and fire departments that maintain a single standard would, I think, support this. In a highly-publicized event, the British allowed several Navy and Army women to go through the Commando course to serve in Royal Marine support units. Not a single one passed. There is what, one female SAR Tech? 

Now is it worth the radical changes necessary to a combat unit to welcome that tiny group of women? There are obviously issues with having women in combat units - the European Court even agrees on this - so is it worth the changes for the small gain we get?
In an overall sense, I am in favour of allowing everyone the oppurtunity to serve in any trade or unit they are able. But changing an entire battalion or battery or squadron just so one or two GI Jane‘s can serve doesn‘t seem right.


----------



## FredDaHead

IMHO, there should be one standard for combat arms. I mean, if the woman gets the same pay and is  _supposed_ to do the same job, why should it be easier for her to get in? If she can‘t do what a man has to do to get in, how will she do what a man has to do on the job?

I don‘t have a problem with blacks, yellows, blues, greens, woman, man, gay, straight,  _as long as_ they can do the same job as the other guy. (or gal)

Anyway, just my two (canadian) cents.

Fred


----------



## rceme_rat

While a few dinosaurs would continue to exclude women merely b/c they are women, most of us would agree that if they can meet the (single) standard that would be good enough for us.

The problem then becomes defining the standard:

- should it be based on a set of easily measured physiological tests?  Problems - what is the "right" heart rate (and why is it so), and is it the same for men and women?

- how about physical tests?  Problems - what tests (and why) are suitable proxies, and do similar results by men and women indicate that they are similar soldiers - or that the women is better?

- perhaps tests based on battle skills, such as lift and lower a 105 round a certain number of times?  Problems - need specific tests for every trade, need to determine what is suitable - e.g., do we tets based on typical rates of 105 fire, max rates over short durations, etc.?  The tets would also have to be conducted as the skills are - which is not always in single-person tasks, but as parts of teams.

- on all of these physical fitness tests, we also have to ask what we are trying to achieve -- limiting the military to a few super-soldiers, setting a minimum fitness level suitable for combat, setting a fitness level representative of a certain percentile of the population, etc.

And then after all that is done, we have to accept that there are other standards that are not as easily quantified. Think back to the last time you were assessed on a task that you did differently than your evaluator -- maybe you do it differently b/c it is faster, more precise, cheaper, etc. when you do it your way.  Maybe you think your way through processes differently, etc -- since we are not all robots and we think and do physical activities differently.

It is a complex task to determine what the standards should be, how complex they should be, etc.  -- also a very expensive task.  And if the determination is for different tests for different trades, it becomes even more expensive.

All of which is to say that the current testing is probably a cost-effective physiological assessment of fitness using simple tests and aimed at ensuring similar levels of fitness.  A chin-up is hardly a test of capability in battle and there is no reason to think a women should be able to do as many chin-ups as a man.  What she must be able to do is hump a pack, aim, shoot, and think like a soldier.

My experience is that most of the women I worked with could -- and some of the men couldn‘t.


----------



## Harry

Hi Gunner,

Good too see you are fixed on the aiming posts and still shooting straight.

For the dino soldiers, the AF Clerks in Afganistan are members of 3 VP, they had too do all the unit training   :mg:  prior too deploying.  PERIOD.

Get with it and stop lamenting on the days of old, from what I remember from my rusty bio-puter, I really don‘t miss the good old boy,   :rage:  slap happy knee jerk days.

I have worked with women since 1989 in field roles (all aspects), I have not had the opportunity too have a women let me down on a deployment (operational or training) yet.  But I can recall many a man who dropped the ball out of slovenlieness, drunkeness, or incompetence  :evil:  . 

There is a lot of pressure on women too perfrom in all roles within the CF, and in my humble experience and opinion, they are up too the challenge    .  

Get off the double standard high horse and worry about doing a good job yourself (lead, follow or get out the way), or at least if you are a Monday Morning Quarterback, ‘can you still get off the line without breaking a sweat‘  :skull:  .

Ubique


----------



## Recce41

Well
 i had a Female Gunner for my Bosnia tour, Damn she was so useless. But she got on most film shots. One time we were being shot at and she was more worried about her damn camera then the a**hole with the AK. Reality set in when she saw the holes in the Cougar doors and side. We have 7 Females in the Regt that are Cbtarms and 6 are just as poor. We‘ve had two female troop leaders and ones gone Pafo and the other ? Most are pushed through just because their a female, I‘ve been at the school and seen it. so go on a tour and find out boys.
 SGT   CD,CDS com


----------



## Fishbone Jones

[No message]


----------



## Infanteer

Not being from the "old-boys" army, I try and remain open-minded.  However, the evidence seems overwhelming...
***
Women In Combat 
Facts From A Closet 
Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable. Predictably I‘ve gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can‘t get a date. A few, with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data. 
OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my days as a syndicated military columnist ("Soldiering," Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time. 
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey‘s in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men." 
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows: 
"Women‘s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. 
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man." 
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes: 
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. 
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260. 
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it. 
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…." 
The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had been hit. 

"Test .....................................................................% Women failing .................................................% Men failing 
.................................................................................Before training /After ............................................Before training/After 
Stretcher carry, level ..............................................63 .......................38 .................................................0 ............................0 
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder ..............................94 .......................88 .................................................0.............................0 
Fire hose ...................................................................19 .......................16 .................................................0 ............................0 
P250 pump, carry down .............................................99 .......................99 .................................................9.............................4 
P250 pump, carry up ..................................................73 .......................52 .................................................0 ............................0 
P250, start pump .........................................................90 ......................75 ..................................................0 ...........................0 
Remove SSTO pump ..................................................99 .......................99 .................................................0............................0 
Torque engine bolt ......................................................78 ........................47 .................................................0 ...........................0" 
Our ships can be hit. I know what supersonic stealthed cruise missiles are. So do the Iraqis. 
Also from the Commission‘s report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead‘s testimony before the Commission, ‘the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.‘" 
Maybe we need armored strollers. 
My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I‘m not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader‘s Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest‘s archives. 
She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn‘t. It wasn‘t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries. 
"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren‘t allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them ‘Battle Buddies.‘ It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn‘t go to the bathroom by myself." 
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies‘ room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating. 
When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission: 
"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1. 
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon‘s library: 
(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing. 
Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera. 
The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country. 
Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is. 
©Fred Reed 2002


----------



## Disturbance

Get them all out of the combat arms. Make one HIGH standard for everyone and then open the gates again. I am sick of writing the same stuff over and over so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Infanteer

I think we know what would happen if *that* happened....


----------



## ender

Disturbance,

I too am sick of writing the same thing over and over again.

I am in the Combat Arms.  I can do my job.   I can build a bridge.  I can can hump a rucksack and a C6 as well as anyone.  I can do 50 pushups.  I am a member of my section and have been so for 2 years.  I‘ve been through the physical and mental he*ll  of an Engineer QL3 in Gagetown.  I‘m also female.  Doesn‘t make me any less of a soldier.

I don‘t care what the percentages are.  I know I can do it, because I have.

Make one high standard.  I agree.  Anyone who makes it, makes it.  Male of female.


----------



## Harry

Thank you Ender.


----------



## bossi

(here‘s another perspective, from Britain):

Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:26 GMT 
Women soldiers ‘face frontline ban‘

Many women want to be able to fight 

Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a study found they were not physically capable, it has been reported. 

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper. 

Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the Human Rights Act. 

But a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average male soldier, the newspaper says. 

The study also suggests women are up to eight times more likely to be injured. 

‘Barred from units‘ 

The MoD is already facing a number of compensation claims from women who were injured during "unisex" basic training, introduced four years ago. 

The paper says Mr Hoon‘s decision would mean women could keep serving in units in wartime as long as they did not risk close combat. 

This will bar them from special forces, commando units and armoured regiments. 

The Independent says the report was based on an "exhaustive" series of tests. 

Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a colleague for 50 yards. 

Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the newspaper reports.


----------



## mlabonte

Take a look at this site...   

go to :  

http://www.d i c k inson.edu/~lessards/Page4.html

thanks

(ed.  Unfortunately the automated profanity editor has played havoc with this URL - you‘ll probably have to manually type in the offending four letters ... MB)


----------



## Infanteer

Har har har....


----------



## Pugil

Canada is the only Nato country that allows women in the combat arms. A recent study made by the Mod in Uk confirms that  women in combat arms would unbalance the group cohesion giving more risks than assets.
 http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=1723


----------



## combat_medic

And here‘s another study that proves the opposite:

"Army researchers came up with a new study that concludes that, when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man. The report by the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don‘t need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape. They were unaware that their performance might eventually be used to topple one of the last citadels of bias against women in both the military and society. The 24-week training study began in May 1995 with women spending 90 minutes a day, five days a week, building themselves up for endurance tests. They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders. Nationally certified trainers oversaw the conditioning. Improvement of over 33 percent was noted by the scientists who wrote the report.Nearly concurrently with this test, the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain conducted the same kind of study. The Sunday Times of London reported that "by using new methods of physical training, women can be built up to the same levels of physical fitness as men of the same size and build." The British article also notes that "contrary to the view of many traditionalists, the operational performance of groups improve greatly if both sexes are involved."


----------



## Jarnhamar

"when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man"

I think the physical part is only have of the argument though, maybe not even.  Personally i think the major conflict is simply biased opinions and that guys are not always keen on letting girls in their brotherhood (for lack of a better term). Some guys, myself included, are uncomfortable working with women.  A male is not even allowed to not talk with a female co-worker (for whatever reason). He HAS to talk to her, other wise it‘s creating a poisonous work enviroment. I think thats unfair, some people you just do not like and don‘t want to talk with but since in this case it would be a female that sends up the warning bells. The CF is so ****  bent on weeding out harassment and complaints that they are actually putting females in a bad position. Girls can physically and mentally do the same job as guys (if their prepared for it)  but the few trouble makers really do a lot of damage against both genders working together.


----------



## combat_medic

I‘m a bit with you and a bit against you on that one.  Yes, there should be girl guides and BOY scouts... there should be men and women‘s sports teams, and men and women‘s health clinics. There‘s a place for gender separation, but I don‘t think the military is the place for it. Yes, the problem arises when the "old boys", for a lack of a better term, have an objection to women being there, and create problems where there aren‘t any. Also, you have the forced integration where underqualified people are being placed into positions to fill quotas, causing resentment among the people there before. 

So what about ethnic minorities in the military? What about homosexuals? I‘m sure a hundred years ago, when you had to be of british descent to join the military, that the same reasons were given for ukranians not to join, or natives, or asians, or whoever it was. 

That being said, I also think that there are a lot of women who take advantage of the lower standards to get into the military, and use things like quotas to get into difficult, dangerous positions in which they‘re not qualified to be. They then will piss and moan about standards, and equality, and "I want to be the first woman ______ ". BUT, if you‘re qualified, if you can do the job, and you can handle it without differences getting in the way, then you should do it... no matter if you‘re male, female, gay, straight, white, purple, green, or a circus midget on stilts with an AK47.

But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## Pugil

I know that in the regular Royal 22ième Regiment the have like 5 to 6 women in their regiment and they put them in the same battalion, the 2nd of R22R. The reason why is that because women tend not to stay more than a 3 years contract if there are less than 25% of their peers of the same sex in the trade or unit. Another reason is that the 2nd battalion is known by the reg Vandoos to be the weakest of all the 3 battalions in term of battle readiness and they are also the "guards" in red scarlett. So the high ranking Vandoo officers keep the 1st and 3rd strictly to men and the 2nd is open to all women that pass battleschool.


----------



## combat_medic

So what you‘re saying, Pugil, is that even if a woman is qualified and capable, she‘d be put in the worst place so that there‘s no chance of her doing anything interesting?

No wonder they leave after 3 years... wouldn‘t you?


----------



## Pugil

The 2nd R22R train less harder and have a lower standard than the rest of their sister battalions. There is a real reason to all this, the Vandoos dont want women in their unit that is why they put all of them in 1 battalion. Those are the words coming from most of the Vandoos I worked with.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong"

Your opinion can never be wrong combat_medic, it‘s yours after all. YOUR point of view.

I don‘t think what Pugil said was HIS specific point of view, he was just relating on how they set it up and why.  They put the females together because it‘s easier for them to have to her females in their platoons/company then being the only girl per company, this way it makes them stand out less, even if just a little. 
Also it helps then in a way i think if their in a "weaker" battalion for the sole fact that if a guy drops out of PT, big deal he had a night of drinking or hes a little out of shape, if a girl drops out then everyone talks about it, rumors start, they question her soldier abilities.
Its not fair at all but thats just how it goes unfortinuatly.

Filling quotas is just wrong on every level.

This summer in pet a female private with about a year in was made 2IC of the kitchen staff over male corporals of 3 and 4 years because someone thought it important to have a female in the chain of command. From day 1 that took away respect from the senior corporals and lowered moral in the whole staff.  Thats not really much of a point though eh, just a side line story i guess   :blotto:


----------



## canada

this summer on an unnamed course, we had two very distinct ethnic minotitiy troops.  After the word came down that big brass was going to be there the two top troops lost thier positions as no 1 and 2 and who do you think got the awards? top on course and top shot, we the troops knew what happened, nothing was said to us...how thats for equal?

As for women in the cbt arms, there need to one standard and no slack shown, for anyone, if they can perform to the standard then fine, I‘ve meet a few very good female troops...and a lot of really poor ones, its just frustrating.  Espically for people who work thier hardest and try to be  the best soilder they can be to have doggers, wiether they be female or male.

-Just my thoughts  :evil:


----------



## onecat

I‘m not sure what you mean by this.... " a male is not even allowed not to talk a female co-worker".  Why wouldn‘t you talk to her while your working?  I‘ve worked with lots of people that I dislike, but I still talk if i‘s related to work and to make the work enviroment friendly.  What signals does that send when you just never say anything to someone your working with day and day out.  We all want to enjoy our day at work.

I‘ve never had a problem working with women, but I know some who do... but hey it‘s real world and guess what women are in it, get use too it.  Women make up 50% of population and the Military need women if it‘s wants to grow and be respected by Canadians at large.  Lower standards just so women can get in the combat arms is wrong, but is making them so hard that only a few women get in: when its not needed for job.


----------



## Jarnhamar

What i ment is that i do not have the privilage of choosing NOT to talk to a female soldier if i dislike her. I don‘t mean specifically work related, i mean sitting around work making idle chat, relaxing in the mess.

Theres certian male soldiers i don‘t like and i don‘t talk to them, they don‘t talk to me. if they went up the chain of command and complained i wasn‘t "making friends with them" so to speak he would get laughed at. With a female it‘s harassment. I just don‘t like the double standard.

I refuse to put on a friendly face and act buddy buddy around someone who i think is a poor soldier or who does not act professionally. I find it two faced almost. I do my best to make everyone comfortable but theres also a limit.


----------



## Spr.Earl

If any of you watched the documetary on Afgahnistan and the one shot in the Chanook you would have seen a woman with the men flying into the op.

 So if they whant to try combat arm‘s let them but if they can‘t do the job be honoust with them and tell them and let them go but if they can let them stay and all the power to them.


----------



## onecat

Sorry man, I wasn‘t sure how you meant it, and I didn‘t to imply anything by it.  i can understand what you mean now, I thought it was just while you on the job...not at the mess and during relax time.  That is unfair, and there be a double a standard for it.  I can see why in the past they might of needed a rule like that, to stop the old boys ( sorry not sure what what word to use here) from closing ranks and totally shutting out any women who joined.

This is a messy topic though.  My opinion is that most the people who don‘t want women in combat come from it though a sexist view point.  Now before I get jumped on, I;m not saying everyone does, and there are good points being made.  The fact that CF has the trades open is a good starting point.


----------



## Pugil

In recent history only 2 countries have used women in combat stituation Soviet Union and Israel but both abandoned the pratice for whatever reasons after the war. I remember not far away that the goverment tried to raise up to 50% the number of women(in the reg only I think) in the combat arms, it was a total failure because the females that joined are way below the 50% and worst those who survived after their training are only a couple and add to that those who leave after the 3 year contract. Its not in the natural habit of most women to be aggresive, physical and play in the mud. I seen to many times girls that drop from pt only a couple of minutes after it started, girls that cry when things get ugly or worst fraternisation with other soldiers. But there‘s always a bunch of dedicated females in the armed forces that are to prove me wrong. Dont consider me a macho or sexist, Im just giving you my account of what Ive seen for the sake of the discussion.


----------



## 49thrca

IMHO

If the individual meets the same standards as everyone else then let the person in, regardless of gender, race, height, weight, age or sexual prefs.

Unfortunately, physical tests in the Canadian Forces have something called "norming" which makes the standard different based on your gender and age.  If it is a "standard" it is the basic requirements to do the task and shouldn‘t vary based on gender or age.

If the job requires a fitness level of XYZ then everyone should have to meet it.
To better understand age norming: generally as someone ascends in age they also have ascended the rank structure and therefore will have less physical requirements in their job...but this is not always the case. (Maybe the PT tests should be more geared towards the individual jobs and you should have to meet the requirements for the specific job.)

It is an insult to females to allow such double standards.  I know plenty of females that keep up just fine with the males and do not need the easier testing.

If the double standard was removed there would no longer be any issues about a specific gender (or age) not being capable to do the job.  (If they passed the PT test, they are capable.)

Also, It is a fact that there are alot of individuals who are not prepared to accept women in combat.  Inforcing these double standards just gives them more fuel for there fire.  If they saw the same standards for both sexes they would be forced to admit equal ability.

<<Ranting finished, I will now step off the soapbox>>


----------



## onecat

"Its not in the natural habit of most women to be aggresive, physical and play in the mud."

I‘m not saying your sexist, but this statement is sexist.   say it over again and you‘ll see it, or try replacing the word women with asian, native etc.... if you had it would be a racist a statment and sexist isn‘t much different if you ask  me.


----------



## combat_medic

*grabs soapbox and steps on... for a moment*

As far as Israel is concerned, women were removed from combat due to religious reasons. However, Israel is still the only country to require military service from women. And even though the US does not allow women into combat arms trades, a large number of women saw combat and performed admirably. 

As for physical standards in the combat arms, yes they should be the same, but a test for a 45+ year old CWO will be easier than for a 20 year old woman. What does that say? It perpetuates the stereotype that you‘re weaker as you get older, or higher in rank. Just as different standards for women perpetuates the stereotype that women are weaker. 

The job doesn‘t change, right? Ammo, rats, and water don‘t get any lighter as you get older, and carrying a C6 with 6 boxes of ammo sucks just as much whether you‘re male or female.

*steps off soapbox, passes it off*


----------



## humint

I fully agree with Radiohead. 

As for equality (not only in the forces but in all spheres of life), it is something that we, as a society, should strive for. 

However, equality only works when hiring/promotion, etc is based on accepted standards or practices, skills, and so on. 

I contend that all government services should be reflective of the overall population. This does not mean quotas, but rather this means attracting and encouraging QUALIFIED people from non-traditional areas (i.e. women, people of colour, etc) to join. And, by qualified, I mean that they pass all of the standards. 

As for women in the combat arms, I am positive that there are women who are tough enough and strong enough to hack it. Historically, you do see women in combat roles. For example, there were women gladiators in Rome. And, in the modern world, you see women playing key roles in terrorist organizations. What about women in the resistance in WWII?  Women do not have to relegated to support roles, they are capable. 

Think about this -- there was a time, and not too long ago, when blacks were not allowed to join the armed forces because society thought that they couldn‘t handle the pressure or even march. Eventually, blacks were allowed into the military, but they were restricted to minor roles because society thought that they weren‘t smart enough to do anything demanding or become ncos or officers. Then blacks were restricted to black-only companies. Eventually, there was full integration.

By restricting women to certain roles or jobs, are we not doing the same thing our ancestors did to blacks a mere 100 years ago?


----------



## Pugil

Everybody got their own opinion according to their own experience. I admit that my last reply was a bit raw and wasnt politically correct.    

* Society evolves, but war never evolves it is always going to be nasty and cruel*


----------



## Jarnhamar

I don‘t think a 45 or 50 year old soldier should be expected to keep up to an 18 or 20 year old private. Unless the CWO (for example) is in the infantry there isn‘t really a reason why he should be running along side 18 year olds lugging around ammo.  
I still do not like how they rate people depending on age or epecially gender though. I recently did a pt test, a timed 3.2 km run. A female soldier was about 30 seconds behind me and using that norming scale she litterly blew me away in score. To me that seemed like they figure "well shes a girl so she needs more help and praise" If i was a girl how could i feel any pride?

It‘s really easy to take the moral high ground and say "Well if they can do the same job as men, let them" and i fully agree with that but men and women are not equil (in a mannor os speakng) theres tons of differences physically, mentally and socially between males and females. You can‘t put them together in close quarters and expect everything to be fine like the cf thinks it should be.


----------



## humint

I‘m not trying to take the moral high road, but I know what you mean. 

Yes, there are obvious physical differences between men and women, but there are also differences between men. You can‘t argue that ALL men will handle a specific situation in a particular way. Some can handle pressure, others can‘t. Some cry like babies, other freak-out and lose control while others are cold as ice. Are you telling me that ALL men are tough and ALL women are prats?

I‘ve played semi-pro and university level sports before, and I‘ve seen all sorts of so-called tough guys freak out and $hit the bed when push comes to shove. At the same time, I‘ve seen pro-level women in university sports handle the same situation with tact and awareness. 

And I think it would be a mistake to assert that men are predisposed to handle certain situations better than women. What it really comes down to is the individual -- i.e. can that individual handle the situation? If a woman can pass the same test, same standards, same whatever as a man, and can perform equally well or better, than there is no reason why she can‘t be out there kickin‘ some @ss. 

It‘s not all about physical strength or about how tall or big someone is, it‘s about how well a person can perform. I think what we need to do is get beyond the narrow outlook that men are more capable. 

However, if you are telling me that a woman can‘t keep up because of their less physical nature, but that they are smarter, more intelligence, and less apt to punch a soft-drink machine because it ate a quarter, than I fully agree, all the officers in the CF should be women and all the men can stay in the ranks! May be that way something will get done in HQ.

you go girl!


----------



## FredDaHead

"However, if you are telling me that a woman can‘t keep up because of their less physical nature, but that they are smarter, more intelligence, and less apt to punch a soft-drink machine because it ate a quarter, than I fully agree, all the officers in the CF should be women and all the men can stay in the ranks!" Quote by humint

Feminists and the like can accuse us of sexism... If it‘s sexist to say men are stronger than women, it‘s equally sexist to say women are smarter than woman.

For me, I say there should be women companies. Being led by a woman on the battlefield wouldn‘t feel right, just like a man coaching a team of high school cheerleaders or a woman coaching varsity football. I‘m not saying the woman can‘t cut it, but it‘d just be weird.

Also, women‘s requirements should be raised to men‘s level. The enemy won‘t be easier on the woman, so why should she have an easier time getting in?


----------



## combat_medic

Yes, men are stronger than women, for the most part. They‘re genetically predisposed to be able to build and maintain muscle tissue faster.  It‘s also true that women have better hand eye coordination, higher pain tolerance, and can take G forces better than men. That‘s not sexism, that‘s genetics.

But female companies? Are you kidding? That idea would throw us back 50 years... at least. What you‘re saying is 

"Women can do whatever they want in the military so long as they don‘t do it near me, and I don‘t have to deal with it."

It‘s also reeks of the "all black companies" from the US many decades ago. How long do you think it took the Americans to get used to the idea of having an NCO or officer who was black? While you may not like the idea of taking orders from a woman, I don‘t like the idea of taking orders from some NCO or officer who‘s only looking out for #1. The kind of people like that Captain from "Band of Brothers" who was too self-centred and arrogant to ask for help in reading a map, and would‘ve gotten all of his men killed had he gone to war. Unfortunately, I don‘t have the option of hand picking the leaders that I feel like following.

I‘ve seen guys teaching the "feminine hygeine in the field" lecture to female recruits, just as I‘ve seen women teaching infantry field tactics. It‘s the material, not the teacher, right?


----------



## Pugil

Anyone noticed that the standard of physical fitness has been downwards since 1989 when they allowed women in the infantry? To get women in the combat arms you need to be less demanding physically because the average women cant cope like the average men in heavy duty, this is not rocket science. Currently there is only 1% of women in the regular combat arms units all around Canada, if women can do the same job why shouldnt it be more of them? The 1% are problably the exception and tough as nail, but what about the rest, the majority?


----------



## combat_medic

I doubt you would EVER see infantry, or any other combat arms trade being 50/50. Yes, women are capable of doing the job, but it‘s harder for the "average" woman to get into shape for it. Not only that, but less women are interested in the job to begin with. Just like less men want to be nurses. Yes, they‘re perfectly capable of doing it, but the interest isn‘t there to the same extent as the women. And there was plenty of sexism for male nurses. In the American military, a female nurse would receive a commission, but a male nurse (same qualifications) would be made an NCM. That‘s still sexism!

The point being questioned here is if women should be ALLOWED to do it, assuming they‘re capable. I think everyone disagrees with different physical standards.

Oh, and on that point, what about a 45 year old corporal-for-life in the infantry? His physical standards are allowed to be a lot lower than 20 year olds in the same rank and position. Is that not also unfair?


----------



## FredDaHead

I admit the female-only companies were a bit.. backwards.

But yeah, the question of being 100% equal is problematic. I guess we‘ll have to make compromises.

And what I meant about women leading is that it‘d feel strange, not that I‘d never accept it. Kinda like female analysts on football games.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I‘ve heard people argue that they were concerned that female leaders would take on the attitude of some female cops. They argured that when a female police officer pulls over a male or a group of males they think they are going to be jerked around or not taken seriously so their very aggressive. They thought this might hold true with the military too, a female officer with an all male group might feel the need to be over agressive.

Also im not sure if i can read these posts, when they get too long i only seem to be able to read half of the posts (where usually i hit reply and get to see the rest but now i dont see anything)
just brutal!


----------



## Pugil

*The point being questioned here is if women should be ALLOWED to do it, assuming they‘re capable* Combat Medic

Honnestly my answer would be no. Why? 
Reason 1- If you keep the standard to get in the combat arms high, you would never get more than 1 to 3 percent no matter how hard you try to get them in, 2 to 3 women in a battalion wouldnt make any diffence on paper considering all the effort and money to recruit them. 

Reason 2- To keep the integrity of the unit, I dont know which planet they live on those who say that theres no double standard for men and women. examples: men have to shave and keep their hairs short while women can ignore that. 2 different PT test for both sex. Men that do pushups on their knees are considered wimps while women it is normal because they dont have the upper body strength. In a war 1 standard will keep the troops quiet, 2 different standards will incite then to mutinate if proven that they are not well treated.

Im not saying that women cant do the job, All Im explaining is that it is worthed for all the effort and that the army makes to integrate gender, because it is never going to work.  Because of the all the things that involves. Example; men of the 2R22R cant walk in T-shirt in the their hallways since women entered their battalion because it is considered indecent. We train our soldiers to fight a war not to make some human right activists smile.


----------



## Pugil

Quoted from Canadians for Military Preparedness"

[START ARTICLE]
Gender Integration, Employment Equity and the Lowering of Training Standards
Instead of using our tax dollars to upgrade equipment and increase personnel our current government has spent millions on a campaign to recruit women into combat arms, a campaign that has failed before and is failing now. The Government already spent Â½ million in 1987 to do the same thing and only 1 out of 103 women succeeded infantry training. 10 years later – women‘s failure rates are still six times that of men. (199 


So why is more money being spent recruiting women into combat arms, and why did the government spend 2.4 million dollars on the study of combat bras and items for pregnant combat soldiers? They are doing it because they have made it clear they want a critical mass of 13% women in combat and this mandate has been given to move forward at "all due speed". Though diversity may be viewed as a source of creativity and strength that contributes to the operational capability of the Canadian Forces, as is expressed by X Chief of Defence Staff Baril, the question remains; should this be a priority when our military lacks essential and modern equipment?

It‘s very clear the government has an agenda that has nothing to do with operating an effective military. Instead it is an agenda of enforced political correctness and social engineering.

In order to meet employment equity quotas, training standards have been compromised. This trend is extremely dangerous as it severely lowers our operational effectiveness and unnecessarily risks our soldier‘s lives.

Here are some examples of Tables of Performance Standards that have been lowered:

In 1984 a soldier need to be able to do 30 push-ups & 33 sit-ups.
In 1994 that was lowered to 19 pushups & 19 sit-ups.
Women only have to do 9 knee pushups & 15 sit-ups.

In 1986 they had to throw a grenade 60 feet and engage the target.
In 1996 they have to throw a grenade – period!

They don‘t have to hit the target and they don‘t even have to clear the burst radius. "Missing the target does not constitute a PO failure."

Consider a combat situation where a fellow soldier is down in hostile territory and he needs to be rescued and carried to a safe zone. Our military‘s training goals used to reflect this very real possibility:

In 1985 a soldier needed to be able to run 16km, surmount a 6 foot wall, clear a 8 foot ditch, and then carry a soldier of average weight (160lbs) a distance of 200 meters.

By 1998 a soldier needed to run only 13km, did not need to demonstrate an ability to scale the fence, nor clear the ditch. Then, after a 10 minute rest, (like they‘ll get that in combat) they are required not to carry the 160lb downed soldier but only one of their own weight and only half the distance (100metres). What are the chances a female combat soldiers fallen comrade is going to weigh the same as her? This is going to put the lives of soldiers at risk!

It‘s time the Government stopped using the military to jam their political correctness down Canadians‘ throats. Canada needs a strong, sizeable, capable military. There is no place for social engineering within our military!

[END ARTICLE]


----------



## FredDaHead

"they are required not to carry the 160lb downed soldier but only one of their own weight"

Which means it‘s absolutely unequal. I weight 200lbs, so I should carry a 200lbs dummy, while a 100lbs woman would carry half the weight I would? Am I misunderstanding or is there something I missed?


----------



## combat_medic

Yes, there‘s a double standard, yes, I think we all disagree with it. The question was "Should a woman be allowed to do it if she‘s capable of doing the job". The question wasn‘t if they can pass the PT test, but if they can do the job. The CF doesn‘t need to go out and recruit women exclusively for the combat arms, but I don‘t think that fit, intelligent, capable women should be relegated to CSS simply because they‘re women, when plenty of unfit, unintelligent, incapable men are allowed in. 

As anyone in the infantry can tell you, just because you pass the PT test doesn‘t mean you can do the job. Being able to do 19 pushups (male OR female) is NO determination of capability for combat arms. Yes, there is a double standard, I‘ve seen it personally on all my courses. No, there shouldn‘t be a double standard, especially where fitness is concerned... hopefully that will change. But along with the sexism, there is also ageism. So, (as mentioned previously) a 45 year old male will be doing an easier test than a 20 year old female, if if they‘re in the same MOC and rank. According to your argument, this must mean that he can‘t be allowed in combat arms either, right?

And as for "men can‘t walk around naked in barracks anymore," well if you were bringing a girlfriend or female relative to visit you in the shacks, would you want the first thing they see to be someone‘s hairy white a$$? Yeah, you need to wear clothes now... you also can‘t summarily execute people or beat new recruits senseless anymore. Do we want to bring that back too?

For hundreds of years people have said "In the good old days...." and said how much rougher they had it, how everything was better, the soldiers were better trained, better disciplined, and so on. So, we could go back to black powder rifles, wearing bright red into combat, have only white people of British descent who are 5‘8" or taller, and be able to flog soldiers for talking in ranks. Or... we could move forward, employ modern technology, weaponry and tactics, and employ people up to their abilities, regardless of gender, age, colour, or any other stereotype people care to mention.

As a freind of mine told me "Equality is when an black woman gets fired from a job because she‘s an idiot just as quickly as a white man would."


----------



## onecat

"Which means it‘s absolutely unequal. I weight 200lbs, so I should carry a 200lbs dummy, while a 100lbs woman would carry half the weight I would? Am I misunderstanding or is there something I missed? "

Okay lets at this from a different view of point.  A 100 lbs. women, just doesn‘t have the strength to carry a 200lb plus gear guy, or if they can: it‘s not for any get distance; but on the same token can you as a 200lb man carry a 300 lbs. + gear person off the field for any great distances.  Its not a double standard if you take into account the size of the person.  Every unit is a team and you have to work together to get things done.  An all male unit will do things differntly than a mixed unit...so what.  I‘m sure if there really was a conflict and you were hurt and only person close by was that 100lb woman; she do everything in her power to save you.  If she couldn‘t carry you out then maybe she would stay by your side until someone else shows up.

You have to be open minded, and look for new ways of doing things.  Maybe the problem is and correct me if I‘m out to lunch, is that when most people join the forces their 18-22 and have never really worked with women. And now your 30, 35 and here are these women who want to join your team and you just don‘t know what to think.  I know combat isn‘t like any other job, and there‘s more to it than just strength and how much you can carry.


----------



## herbie

Begin rant
1:  most men are raised to believe they must help women.  They open the door, they carry the heavy loads, they protect the woman‘s honor.  This is not exclusive to western white males, but to most cultures.  Should we have to change the cultures of the majority to satisfy special interest groups?
2:  men and women are ( for the most part ) sexually attracted to each other.  This attraction can cause havoc on small team dynamics.  #1 rifleman likes # 2 riflewoman but she is attracted to #3 rifleman.  On a long and diffuclt tour these tensions can lead to cohesion breakdown.
3:  family life directly affects profesional life.  Knowing your wife/husband is surrounded by and sleeping near and intimalely sharing space with a bunch of " studs " or "hot chicks" can lead to real problems.  A soldier going through a divorice is less focused on the job.

Having said all that, I believe there are women who are able ( physically and mentally ) to do the job and men who can‘t.  But do the benifits out wiegh the risks.  Its a simple matter of tactical assesment.


----------



## Brad Sallows

1/ Most people today are raised to believe (ideally) that they should be considerate of others.  Gender is becoming an irrelevant factor.

2/ Dealing with sexual tension is an issue.  So is being under shellfire for hours at a stretch.  Obviously people can learn self-control.  This is a leadership and self-discipline issue.

3/ What have the non-combat arms been able to achieve that the combat arms can not?  Do deployed mixed-gender service battalions have higher divorce rates than deployed all-male infantry battle groups?


----------



## combat_medic

1. Considering that spousal abuse is more prevalent among the military than any other profession on earth, the idea of "protecting women" is bull$hit. Also, women are protecting you for the first 18 years of your life.

And I almost NEVER see a guy hold a door open for a chick. I saw a chick holding a large number of parcels in a mall heading towards a door. A group of guys were standing by the door, and not a single one of them would open it for her.

2. Are you saying that men and women are incapable of working together because they have an uncontrollable urge to fuÂ¢k?!?! I‘m not sure if this applies to just you, but most men in civilian and military life are able to work with and be friends with women while still being able to keep their pants on.  


> There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example. American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics - the women worked harder to gain approval and the men worked harder not to be outdone. This was quite evident in the Gulf. And what about the astronauts? You don‘t hear of any problems in space relative to unit cohesion. The men and women of NASA, military and civilian, have been performing as a "cohesive unit" on space flights for years.


and finally,

3. So, you‘re also not allowed to spend time with female friends because your wife will immediately divorce you? Come off it! If your spouse has that much of a problem that you‘re spending time away from them and outside of their supervision, then you probably shouldn‘t be in the military at all. If you can‘t trust your spouse/significant other, then maybe you shouldn‘t be involved with them. Either you‘re not trustworthy, or your spouse is untrusting. In either case, it‘s not a healthy relationship.


----------



## muskrat89

Medic - I agree with you in principle, but think those apply in an ideal world. The reality is - I have seen and experienced herbie‘s points #1 and #2, in my own life, and career in the military. Doesn‘t make it right, doesn‘t mean it always applies, but I‘ve seen it for myself...


----------



## combat_medic

I‘ve seen in too, both in civilian and military life. It shouldn‘t happen, and yes, it still does. But does this mean that we should gear our policies to fall in line with outdated viewpoints? There will always be discrimination, be it by age, gender, sexual preference, marital status (I‘ve seen this one too), ethnic origin, political standpoint, or even for no reason at all. We can either let it dominate and subjugate our decisions on national policy, or we can take the high road and allow black kids into public schools.

Oops, I mean let women into combat arms    (Boy, was that Freudian)


----------



## Jarnhamar

"allow black kids into public schools"

And what happens when someone says "that isn‘t good enough. Black children (and we ALL know this is just an example) have been segrigated and picked on for SO long they they deserve more then to be just allowed in school. They deserve to goto school for free. On top of that if theres only room for one student and both black and white students want in we should automatically give it to the black student because they are a visible minority.

I believe everyone deserves the same chance, same oppertunities. But i don‘t think you should make rules and regulations to cater to specific groups.  Sorry if that went off topic.
Bottom line how i see it, girls deserve as much chance as guys.  Sometime though we should use common sense.  Mothers of america or whomever taking the boyscouts to court and forcing them to let girls in, that to me is complete stupidity hidden by the concept of equality.


----------



## Pugil

Maybe it is just my experience, but when I was doing pre-training for a roto, I have seen female reservist soldiers tried to use their sex-appeal to compensate their poor soldiering in order to go to Bosnia. It is kind of weird when you go to war and you see a couple in the same section. 

* There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example*

During the Vietnam war women were used in battle by the Vietcongs which were peasant soldiers with almost no training, they suffered heavy of calsualties until 1968 where they were replaced by the regular North Vietnamese Army which were better trained and better disciplined.


----------



## 49thrca

"I don‘t think a 45 or 50 year old soldier should be expected to keep up to an 18 or 20 year old private." as said by Ghost778

I don‘t want to wander off topic here but.....a 45 or 50 year old private (in the same trade)should be able to keep up with the 18 or 20 year old.  They are expected to, it is what they are paid to do.

If they can not keep up, maybe they are in the wrong trade and should be considering an occupational transfer.


----------



## APFSDS

Women in the combat arms, is a dead horse that has been kicked many times... but what the heck, I‘ll kick it too. The first step to trying to make this already failing integration succeed is fairly obvious. The standards have to be even/equal. No sloping or "norming", just straight out equal. This will help quel some of the animosity that is present due to the double standards. I have served with females in the combat arms, in theatre, in training and in garrison. Every one of them have been sub standard (physically) to the "average" male soldier. This becomes apparent in a hurry in physically demanding roles, whether it be P.T. or doing track maintenance or ruck sack marches, or building bunkers etc. The resentment that occurs from the men having to help pull the females weight builds in a hurry. This is obviously not good for morale. There are a number of other ostabcles that need to be addressed after "equal" standards are enforced. Accomodations, hygene, etc. that need to be available while still making everyone feel like they are on the same team.
Ultimately I feel women have no place in the combat arms. I also do not consider myself sexist. I have women working for me now in the construction industry and think they are every bit as valuable as a male in their roles, however the combat arms is somewhere that they do not equally fill their roles.
When it comes to a countries front line of defense we can not have sliding standards.


----------



## Pugil

* There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example. American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics - the women worked harder to gain approval and the men worked harder not to be outdone. This was quite evident in the Gulf. *

Combat Medic, I want to know where did you get that. Yes women have served in combat roles in recent history, but most of them served in a guerilla type of organisation where numbers count. Most of these troops have poor training like the Vietcong (not to ne mistaken with the NVA).  During Gulf war I dont think women were used to fight maybe to drop bombs from airplane but it is like playing Nintendo, it is not really  a combat situation.


----------



## muskrat89

Again, I agree with the idealists in principle; outdated attitudes exist in the Military -  but just haven‘t seen it work, albeit with a very few exceptions. I agree about modern society, and attitudes, and dah de dah...BUT - I also believe that it is in our schools, youth organizations, homes, churches, etc., that we should be eliminating prejudices and shaping attitudes of young people - NOT in functioning combat units, that live and die on Unit morale and cohesion - I don‘t believe that makes me sexist


----------



## Fusaki

Equal Opportunity is not about lowering your standards for a minority. its about treating everyone as an equal.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Finally someone strikes to the heart of the matter.  Gender integration in combat arms is unlikely to succeed until Canadians change the perceptions and expectations of boys and girls, and in particular participation in physically demanding activities.  We can apply and morally support band-aid solutions, but we have not addressed the root issue.


----------



## silentseaforthsoldier

OH god!...here‘s a Controversial topic...And remember every thing is an oppion(but try to be political correct; this may be hard for you ‘old school‘ War dogs)...I‘m not a sexiest or anything, I‘m just currious obout other people‘s ideas on the topic or opion.

I feel if women can pull their weight (ie. be able to drag my unconscience body out of a trench to a med station) then there is no reason why she can‘t be a soldier...

In the UK, women cannot service with an infantry unit as an infantry soldier...their opion over there (I‘ve been to the UK and trained there) is that if a Woman got greased on a patrol or Op, that the morale of the rest of the soldiers (males) would be lowered to the point that either the soldiers would not fight or there could be some rectless act......I somewhat believe this but from my experiences woman tend to have better shots, so I‘ll take a woman as my Fire team partner any day...

Another ‘fact‘, i have had girlfriends in cadets before and i‘ve take breaks for quickies, So the last thing i want is a distraction.......But i am willing to take that risk......(it could be a morale booster!)

Heres an idea....keep in mind that We are Canadians and the chance of this happening is next to impossible...But if on a patrol or Op and a woman from your patrol was taken prisoner by the enemy...What Guarantees her that she‘ll be treated fairly...?

Any one else have opions/experiences in this matter?


----------



## Dacier

A woman being taken captive by a bunch of guys who are out in the field, haven‘t been with or seen a woman in a very long time being under the stress of combat, dealing with the power they feel with weapons in their hands,  and knowing their is a very small possiblity that if they do something to the woman there will be no reprecussions ever.

Guess what might happen.


----------



## Wilson601

You‘ve ‘Trained‘ There? with cadets?
*ahem*
The israeli‘s, I believe, were the first to try out the woman in combat thing and it was the israeli‘s who had first discovered the concept that it lowers morale to see a women get killed. Mostly due to the fact that it was women in local militia units, women well known about their communitys who were ‘forced‘ to fight to save there homes etc. Men don‘t take it well...well.. some do    

Careful not to underestimate the Politcal Correctness of these "old school ‘War Dogs‘" as you call them, if you listen to you them; they are often very rational and you can learn a lot from them.

I for one don‘t mind the idea of women in the military but somewhat frown on the idea of seeing them in combats arms posistions and on boats, subs etc. I also found it difficult on my SQ/BIQ to compete with the female pers. on the course. Not because i‘m weak but because, they weren‘t too bad looking (or so the instructors thought)  :skull:


----------



## Jarnhamar

You‘ve taken breaks for quickies?  I hope if you decide to join the military you don‘t take little breaks when you should be ‘on the job‘.

My opinion is biased because i‘ve seen a lot of trouble regarding females in the military. I know they deserve the chance to defend the country and not be segrigated or whatever because of their gender BUT i also know it causes a lot of problems.

Also i think  a very large part of the problem is how the army treats cases of false abuse.


----------



## BestOfTheBest

(having a Girlfriend in CADETS)
what the ****  I use to be in cadets like a year ago and i went to summer camp with them and the first thing they said no Frat with girls! and even in my old unit we weren‘t allowed dating other girls.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Seaforth Cadet 3 Pltn WO(?)

First, let me step out of my moderator chair, this may get  un PC.

This subject has been covered ad nauseum on this site. Check the old posts. Don‘t waste our time.

Don‘t come here talking like someone who‘s TRAINED like the military. You‘re not, your a cadet. Your training in no way compares to what the actual military, regular or reserve, entails.

Speaking of training, you best research what SHARP is all about and take it to heart. You seem to be way off the deep end for your supposed or apparent position.

Most of us come here for forms of SOCIAL intercourse. Not to be regaled by  tall tales of your supposed sexual intercourse.

This is a public forum. Open to anyone that wants to look in. Some people reading your posts won‘t distinguish between cadets and serving soldiers. The act(s) you purport to have accomplished (your "quickies") reflect badly on anyone in uniform. You discredit us, and you cap badge, the media love people and stories like you and yours.

How many parents who‘s children would like to join cadets, would let them after reading your post and surmising you may be in charge of their daughter or son.

I could go on, but you‘ve got me sufficiently p*ssed that I won‘t. A good NCO thinks about what he will say. He plans the action he takes and considers the repercussions on others. I hope you realize what a stupid statement you made, and hope you take responsibilty for your actions should your local Commander ever cruise in and read your post(s).

Do not reply to my post, I won‘t answer it till you grow up.


----------



## Suffield

Cadet Warrant,

These are your bona fides and training, from your profile page, CL; CLI - D&C; NSCE; MLE? ROTFLMAO! The old days would have seen you out back of the building getting some peer counselling.


----------



## Doug VT

Cadets can be so pompous and stupid some times.
You only told us exactly who you are, pretty much.
Are you trying to get kicked out of Cadets or just trying to look cool on the "War Diary"
Maybe you should change your name and try to blend in and lay low for a while.
I was in Cadets for 7 years and even a CI afterward, instead of joining CIL I joined the reserves.  Best decision of my life.  Cadets were fun while they lasted, but there‘s no real comparison to the military other than wearing uniforms and drill/map + compass/shooting.
The point is, share your legit exp. with the group but keep you extracurricular exploits to yourself.

For your information,

Opinions on Cadets 

Females in The Infantry 

Canadian Forces failing in gender integration and employment equity: report  

Do a little research next time,


----------



## combat_medic

I love this irony:

"It‘s OK to have women in the military because that will mean I can have sex with them."

Obviously a well thought out mature opinion obtained through years of difficult military experience from someone who knows enough at ≤17 of both sex and the military to make an informed statement on the subject.

*end sarcasm*


----------



## Jarnhamar

Why was it cadets have a bad rep again?


----------



## Wilson601

Whew! i thought i‘d look like a big meany if i ripped into the cadet, so i didn‘t. As Well, Recceguys‘ reply to ‘seaforth‘ made me wet.    
Seafroth:
Having a Background in Cadets will only get you through BMQ. That long assed course where you sit in a class and learn rank, drill and how to write a memo. When you get to SQ all of a sudden, its not all Smores & Orange Flavoured Tang. You slowly succumb to the realization that although you think you are gods gift to the parade square ;you are not. And its a rude awakening when you (a Platoon WO of the local cadet corps.) try to tell a Reserve Cpl. what to do.Believe me, I‘ve seen few things of equal halarity. 

I recently taught (yes the lowly Pte. instructed!) a class of cadets things like cam and concealment, Challenge procedure, Hand signals on patrol , tent routine etc etc as I was invited on one of they‘re weekend "Excersizes". Not only were the cadets immature (as usually are kids ages of 8-13) But the cadet officers were unbelievably immature as well!! As I recall there was on preticular cadet officer (2Lt) who was wearing load bearing webbing purchased at your local Army/Navy store with a U.S Army K-Bar taped to the shoulder and ghillie suit material (burlap i think) sewn to it. Aswell I recall one instance where he had ORDERED me to salute him (in the field). Anyway, it was after this little sortie that i had begin to wonder if the Cadet movement locally, was so godd@mned embarrasing at the count of the instructors, or the Cadets.   :skull:


----------



## Jungle

Well, I hope this kid is learning a lesson here : when you don‘t know what you‘re talking about, SHUT UP !!! Training in the UK... as a cadet ??? Surely you mean the exchange program where kids mostly socialize and travel... not much "Army" trg going on there. 2893 RCACC Whatever, if you plan on joining the CF, make sure you take time to mature some more... we don‘t need you right now !


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

I saw awhile back when CF was still fighting in Afghanistan,the army was wondering if they should still allow women to fight during war.The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again.

So the question is whether they should still be aloud to fight,what do you guys think?

What do you women think about not being aloud to fight,would it be right or wrong? Would you consider that being sexist?


----------



## Cycophant

Their decision.

Let them know beforehand that such things can and do occur.  If they still want to, let them sign up.  The rest of the military certainly shouldn‘t be allowed to tell them not to go.


----------



## gnrjoe

No.

See a "National Review" article about 3 issues back which provides some cogent reasoning on this subject. I admit that, coming from an earlier generation, the thought of my daughters fighting for me is abhorrent. Still, notwithstanding the current mythologies which are propagated daily in our schools and media (viz: Charlie‘s Angels)there are very real differences between males and females which is why there is no "women‘s NFL". Marginalizing males as we have done in society for the past twenty years or so, does alter biological or cultural fact.  

It also is not a question for the Army to decide, but rather our society as a whole. In my personal opinion, the only reason that our service has received half the paltry funding that it has gotten during the current government‘s tenure, is because it has permitted social engineering (women in combat arms)on a large scale which suits this government‘s political agenda. 

I know this may seem offensive to some women soldiers but it is not a mysoginistic rant. It is based on analysis of historical fact and not academic abstraction; and my peronal observations of over twenty years in emergency services. To those few female soldiers who have truly met the mark in all aspects of soldiering, I offer my respect but not my apology. It is a vast disservice to the majority of adult women to condition them to believe that the "affirmative action" environment that the majority now have grown up in,translates into reality when the you know what hits the fan. That most egalitarian of corps, the Israeli army knows this, which is why Israeliu female soldiers are trained in combat arms to permit self-protection, but there is not front-line integration with combat units except as of necessity.


----------



## onecat

Yes its being sexist...if you think that men are better at killing and fighting than women.  Socially women are taught that it is wrong for them to fight... but that‘s just cultural thing.

Personally I think if we are in Afghanistan or any place to bring peace we are also there to show how a good country works.. and mean allowing women equal choices in life.  Have women there only high lights that, and show the women there that they can have choices.

Should women be in the frontline yes.  A soldier is a soldier no matter sex they are.  I‘m sure their some old school guys on the forum who would disagree.  But I‘ve worked with women all my working craeer and its no different, and army is no different.  Yes women can be rape but its not any easier if your man.... being beaten to within inch of life is just as hard.  And most nations know that if they did that, they would be paying a heavy price afterwards.


----------



## Danjanou

For the record not just woman have been raped on the battlefield. While rarer there are documented cases of male rape in warfare throughout history. remember rape is not a sexual, its about control, and often humiliation an power.


----------



## holywars33

I would say, let them in.  If they can hack it, then they are qualified.  To be equal, all potential army applicants should go thorugh the same battery of tests and drills and receive the same treatment/punishment for doing things right or wrong, regadless of sex.  

I know that other armies do not let women into the combat arms and I would uphold that rule only if there is substancial evidence pointing to a reason why they cannot cope.

As long as everyone‘s treated the same and has the same knowledge of what can happen in battle, anyone should be able to join the combat arms.


----------



## gate_guard

AN HONEST WOMEN: pc politicians take notice
A woman goes to war in a man‘s world
By Kirsten Scharnberg
Tribune staff reporter
May 18, 2003

"After learning that I was to be the Tribune‘s only female embedded journalist, I promised myself never to write the woman-on-the-front-lines story. It just wouldn‘t be an issue. I would find a way to blend in. I wouldn‘t be treated differently because I wouldn‘t let anyone treat me differently.

Wrong. I got my first inkling of this on the chilly March night that my unit-- the 1st Battalion of the 187th Infantry Regiment-- arrived at Camp New Jersey, one of the rudimentary tent cities that had sprung up in the Kuwaiti desert just a short Humvee ride from Iraq.

The 187th, part of the storied 101st Airborne Division, is an infantry rifle unit, which means there are no women in the ranks because U.S. servicewomen are not allowed on the front lines. So it was me and about 800 men standing in the inky desert that night, listening to a gruff first sergeant bellow out the rules. We had been traveling for several days, so I was in a sleep deprived daze, largely tuning out what was being said. But when talk turned to the showers --really just a few spouts inside a filthy single-wide trailer --my ears perked up.

"We‘ll designate a female shower time for the reporter," the first sergeant said. "We‘ll post a guard for her so she can use the showers privately once a day. I‘ll let you know the time we decide."

I hadn‘t showered in about four days. I anxiously awaited the announcement of my special shower hour. A day passed with no word. Two days. A week. Finally, I took matters into my own hands and hiked the couple kilometers to another camp where there were female soldiers and thus female shower hours.

It was a minor thing, and I actually grew to relish that solitary 5 a.m. hike through the desert haze. But it made me realize how singled out I was, how the littlest things would be the ones to trip me up and cause me to do the very thing I had wanted to avoid: stand out.

Once the war started, those moments and circumstances only became more common. Hours after my unit had set out for Iraq, an alert came over the Humvee radio that a surface-to-surface missile had hit near our convoy. It was believed to be a chemical attack, and the voice on the radio shouted for everyone to get into their chemical suits.

Everyone jumped out of the vehicles and--because those chemical suits are oppressively hot in the desert heat--first stripped to their underwear before wiggling into them. Except for me. For the next three days I thought I would die from the mistake of putting my chemical suit on over my clothes because I didn‘t want to stand in my underwear in front of an entire infantry unit in broad daylight.

The modesty had to go. Try finding a place to go to the bathroom where no one can see you in the middle of a flat, not-a-tree-or-bush-in-sight expanse of sand. Keep in mind that I had finally used the cover of darkness to shed the clothes underneath my chemical suit, which is a bulky set of interconnected garments that had to be almost entirely removed in order for me to do my business.

One day--sick to death of having to pee in front of men I‘d later have to attempt to interview with professional grace--I rejoiced to find a little lean- to dash behind. As I reveled in the first privacy I‘d had in weeks, two Apache helicopters flew over so low that I could see the shocked expressions on the pilots‘ faces.

And these were the little dilemmas. I had made a pact with myself that no matter how tired I was or how physically strenuous a mission became, I would never let one of the soldiers lug my rucksack or equipment for me. I wanted them to see me as completely capable of pulling my own weight, as a traveling companion who was not a liability but an equal.

One night, hating myself, I broke that rule. It was pitch black and we were taking constant mortar fire at a checkpoint just outside Najaf, the holy Shiite city in central Iraq. I had my rucksack, which weighed well over 70 pounds, my computer and satellite phone, my gas mask container, several bottles of water and some food.

I had been bumming rides with military vehicles for a little over a day to get up to the embattled city, and both my computer and phone were out of power, so I had added to my load a battery taken from a blown-out car, hoping that, with some alligator clips and a power inverter, I could charge my equipment.

The soldiers I had met up with said I could accompany them into the city--a 4- mile hike. I didn‘t know whether I could hike 4 feet with all that gear, let alone 4 miles, but we set out.

At about mile 2 1/2, I was about to give out. I was contemplating saying something needlessly melodramatic like, "Go ahead, save yourselves," when a soldier asked, "Ma‘am, can I carry that battery for you?"

All my resolve failed. I handed the battery to the young man--who already was lugging a much heavier load than I was, including a fully loaded M-4 assault weapon that he would be expected to use in case of an attack.

The decision nagged at me for days. Not only had I not been able to pull my own weight, I also had potentially put that young soldier at risk. What if he had not been able to aim his weapon effectively had we been ambushed in that wooded expanse of territory approaching Najaf? What if he had fallen on the rough terrain and misfired his weapon, injuring someone?

As tough as I think I was out there, as proud as I am to have lived for more than two months in conditions I never dreamed possible, those questions bother me still.

Back in Chicago recently, the Tribune had a welcome-home party for a bunch of us who had covered the war. A female editor asked me whether my experience had given me an opinion about putting female soldiers into the infantry and on the front lines.

I told her about the car battery and also about the many times I watched big, tough, burly male soldiers nearly collapse during 10-kilometer hikes with rucksacks, ammunition, TOW missiles, radios and machine guns.

I‘m not qualified to say that no woman could do that job, but I suspect that it would be a rare one who could. I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But I had been bested by a car battery, and when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the Infantry."

I don‘t agree with women in the infantry. It creates a different atmosphere amongst the men. And men are partly to blame for this. You have to get over this PC mindset that everyone is completely equal cause they aren‘t. I‘m not saying there isn‘t some women who can hack it, cause I‘ve seen one who could outrun and outmarch a lot of guys (and who, incidently, doesn‘t agree with women in combat either). Radiohead, how could you know if the army is or isn‘t different from civi world, you aren‘t in yet. They are worlds apart.


----------



## Cycophant

> I don‘t agree with women in the infantry. It creates a different atmosphere amongst the men. And men are partly to blame for this. You have to get over this PC mindset that everyone is completely equal cause they aren‘t.


I‘d have to agree, to a point.  To ignore the obvious physiological differences between males and females is being plain naive.  Luckily, I believe that we as a society are slowly learning to realize that there‘s a difference between descriminating and being sensible.

Women should be allowed to try out for any position in the military.  However, they realistically should have the exact same standards required for a male to join.  

Out of curiosity, those who have spent some time in the military with women - have the differences in Fitness Requirements created any animosity towards females?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

OH PLEASE!!!

I‘ve read this article several times now; usually some smug man has posted it thinking it proves something.

It doesn‘t.  It proves the journalist doesn‘t belong in an infantry unit.  It also proves she‘s arrogant enough to think she can speak for her entire gender.


----------



## gate_guard

Dorosh, I‘ll be sure to run everything I post by you just to make sure you haven‘t heard it before. I apologize to you for making you read something more than once. Oh yeah, and I‘m also sorry for all that smugness I exuded in my post.

At no point in the article does she state that women can‘t do the infantry‘s job, she states "it would be a rare one who could." I don‘t think this article proves anything. It does provide one woman‘s perspective on the issue, which under the circumstances, I think, is welcome since it‘s their gender we‘re talking about. This "arrogant journalist" has more time in a warzone than most guys.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Considering you‘ve got "stalking hot chicks" in the "from" column under your name, I have a hard time taking anything you may have to say on this subject seriously.    

You may also want to seperate the quoted material from your own last paragraph, unless we‘re to believe the original article broke into a personal aside to radiohead?


----------



## holywars33

The article made an interesting story and nothing more.  Just goes to show that she could not hack it.  She comes in a journalist and expects to fully pull her own in a warzone?!?  Sure she ran a marathon and works out, however that does not mean that she would be a great soldier.  Just because one swims competitevly, does not mean that they would automatically be good at running also. 

Like it has been stated:  Women should be able to try out, but must meet the same reqirements, both physical and mental of males.  Furthermore they should know about the things that they may run into such as going to the WC in the open, showers and such.



> It doesn‘t. It proves the journalist doesn‘t belong in an infantry unit. It also proves she‘s arrogant enough to think she can speak for her entire gender.


Well said.


----------



## gate_guard

Dorosh, there are quotations distinguishing the article from my comments, if someone neglected to notice that they should "pay attention to detail." I still fail to see how the journalist was arrogant in her comments, she never claimed to be "representing her gender." And don‘t judge me by my profile, you don‘t even know me. If I was all PC and s*** I would say people should be judged by their actions (or statements) not by appearances.

I AM NOT SAYING WOMEN CAN‘T PHYSICALLY HACK IT! Okay, now that I‘ve repeated myself twice OUGrizz, my issue has and always will be the atmosphere they bring to the platoon. Having been on an op with a female in my platoon, no matter how switched on she is, guys act differently around girls. That is my experience which forms the basis of my opinion. That is also one of the only things that the army shares with civi land.


----------



## NMPeters

Excuse me. Are you saying that the reason that the CF isn‘t getting the funding it needs is because women are allowed in combat roles? LMAO That‘s a new one.


----------



## muskrat89

No, Ma‘am - He‘s saying we wouldn‘t have gotten the few crumbs that we have, except for the fact that playing with the social dynamics suits the politicians‘ agendas - that was my take.

I will tell the board my experiences - not to be confused with my opinions. Not tossing them out, so the armchair quarterbacks can say "Well, good NCOs would‘ve fixed that" or "that‘s purely a result of poor character" blah blah blah

For many years, when I first got in, the ladies were relegated to drivers, sigs, etc. Like males, some were sharp, some were not. Eventually, the winds changed, and we found females manning the guns. Technically, the majority were very capable. Physically, some were capable, some were not. I recall 2 ladies in particular that turned into 2 of my best Det 2 I/Cs. That being said, I found, generally, the presence of females on the Guns, to be disruptive. Maybe we‘re all cavemen, in the Artillery. Maybe I didn‘t stick around long enough to re-program my archaic sub-conscious. It is very hard, sometimes, to not treat a female differently. A lifetime of opening doors, and "let me carry that for you" maybe. It is too easy, to see a girl, struggling with some task, to say "Gunner Jones, grab that for her, would you?" I think that, without meaning to, a female in the Unit wielded alot of unspoken power. 30 or 40 young men, vying for the affection of 2 or 3 female members can create a lot of angst in a Unit. Is that the girls‘ fault? Of course not. I think sometimes they recognized the effect they were having, and played upon it - but usually, it was the guys. So, I guess - does the end justify the means? Unit morale, cohesion, etc. are affected, whether it is right or not. Is it worth it, to re-program a whole Unit‘s way of thinking, in order to allow one or two a place? Maybe it is? Frankly, I don‘t know. I‘m not questioning females‘ ability. Do we want to be a country that sends young women into war? What about single mothers? Lori Piestewa was a single mother - she got killed in Iraq. Left 2 little kids. Should she have even been there? She wasn‘t even in a combat unit. It all sounds good in peacetime - it kind of hits home, when its someone from your own Community. So, you take a bunch of soldiers, and beat/explain/harangue into them to treat the girls in their Units as equals. Are they supposed to switch that off again, when they go back into the world? No more holding doors open? Again - I‘ve related my observations in actual settings, and asked some rhetorical questions. Opinions? Not sure....  I wish for simpler  times, I guess     :warstory:


----------



## holywars33

Gate Guard, before you get your panties in a bunch, I never said that you mentioned that â€œwomen canâ€™t physically hack itâ€ I am merely trying to state that if women pass the requirements, let them in.  As in the case of the journalist, she could not.

As for the atmosphere they bring to the platoon, I am saying that women should be aware of what they are getting themselves into.  I agree with you that men will act differently around a women, but I also think over time, everyone can get along.  Sure us guys may swear a little less and keep the perverse jokes to a minimum, but this may actually be a good thing.  Iâ€™ve had an experience quite opposite to yours in where the girl was quite a â€œtom boyâ€ (for lack of better word) and joked around with us.  Although I would say that this type of characteristic in a female is rather rare.


----------



## WINDWOLF

Good points Muskrat.

The way i dealt with it was to consider
females as soldiers in uniforms/combats but
as ladies in civies in public.

Tough i know,but worthwhile.They felt that
they were part of the unit & still maintained
the feminim (sp) aspects outside of the unit.

A old time WO once told me " inside the gate
they are soldiers,outside the gate they are
ladies treat them as such whether they 
deserve it or not"

As for the mother dieing,that happens to 
both sex,s,its part of the job.
Just as bad for her kids as it would be for 
a dad not coming home.

And yes most older males are trained &
conditioned to protect females by our
mothers (of all people)& we don,t want to
disappoint momma now do we?
Is it a good thing? sometimes.
Does it seeem cavemanish? oh ya.
Can we change? i sure hope so.

If we can be conditioned as children to treat
everybody the same then future generations
will handle this better than us old cavemen.

These are just thoughts of mine,but what does
a old caveman really know about sexism today?


----------



## Cycophant

Great posts, from both Muskrat and Windwolf.

I‘m incredibly glad to see some of the "older" (and I use the term very loosely) folks have such open minds about this subject.

That takes a fair bit of load off my mind about what I might be getting into, by joining the Canadian Forces family.  Whether they be stereotypes of military folks or not, I know it‘s still a possibility you face with any profession.  Now, if I can just learn to deal with the "promotion at any cost" folks, and the "I‘m a killing machine" people, I‘ll be all set


----------



## muskrat89

I guess, I didn‘t mean "we the army" - I meant do we, as a society, as a country - want to send women to die in combat? Why? Because they are capable of it? Kids are capable of combat too - look at the resistance fighters, especially Russians, during WWII. If you‘re 65 or 70, and can pass basic training, why shouldn‘t you have the opportunity to serve? How far do we take equality? If there is a disproportionate amount of male casualties on the field, should Commanders take steps, to give females "more opportunities"? Fair is fair, after all. I guess, I honestly don‘t have a concrete opinion. I think the bigger question for us should be not women in combat from a capability point of view, but truly consider it from a societal point of view. Anyway, you made good points too, windwolf.


----------



## gate_guard

OUGrizz,
The atmosphere I‘m referring to goes beyond the swearing and perverted conversations. The atmosphere is the mentality of males to protect females which, in my opinion, can be dangerous should the s*** hit the fan. It is also the potential for relationships between troops which can also be dangerous. I‘m not saying this is a regularly occuring event, but I do know it has happened.  Is my view the majority? Probably not. One of my intent‘s in providing my point of view is to show an alternate look at the subject since many of the posts only deal with the physical ability side of the issue. Your point of view has already been presented numerous times and there isn‘t any need to keep rehashing what, in my opinion, is already a non issue (I‘m sure Infanteer would disagree). Hey Dorosh, I‘m still stalking hot chicks.


----------



## Jarnhamar

When i see some questions that people ask on here i get mad. Sometimes i think to myself, **** just read the history. Then i think to myself, whos going to come on a message forum and start reading everything from day one, months and months ago? It would take them hours if not days. No one is going to do that.

Some topics have been argued to death but with out them resurfacing i think we would be hardpressed to always find a new topic. Personally if i think something is dumb or done to death i just dont respond. If no one else does either the person will get the hint.

On that however, i think if someone asks a question they should let it run for a few days and not post 12 more times asking 12 more questions. Save them for a rainy day.

Personally i don‘t think it‘s a good idea to have female soldiers in the combat arms. I can come up with great reasons why not and someone can come up with reasons why. Just my opinion.

The minute the army decided to give females a different standard for males is the minute that females in the military were delt with a disadvantage that will never go away.


----------



## humint

In the end, we need people who can PERFORM WELL under the conditions expected of combat. If they can, than fine. But if not, then they must go. This goes for both men and women. Please note that I am an equal opportunity, liberated, white, heterosexual male from the middle-class suburbs who, on occassion, skateboarded and blew up bugs with firecrackers in his early teens. Why did I add that last bit. Well, I don‘t know, it just sounded good.


----------



## McInnes

I think that there she should be one set of requirments regardless of sex. Males and females should be able to do the same tasks, and in war, will have to. So why does a female have to do less pushups than a male in order to get into basic? DND wants males and females to be treated as equals, but not even DND can do that yet. If a male or female can pass teh requirements, then thats fine, if they cant, they fail. Why give slack ***  objectives to some simply because of their sex. they have to do the same bloody thing in the end anways, it doesnt make sense to me at all.


----------



## Etown

I think this is a pretty simple question that gets over debated. Sure, anyone that is able to contribute to the fighting force should be allowed to fight. Now encouraging people who are more of a hindrance (and I‘m not refering to women here) to join the combat arms for purely political reasons, well that just sucks.

Like the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces is too "white". Now does that really reduce it‘s ability to perform? Personally I couldn‘t care if every CF member just happend to be a Cuban immigrant of Portugese decent and were all named Tito, as long as they get the job done.

But that‘s just my opinion...  :evil:


----------



## 762gunner

Howdy, all.  Over time, I‘ve heard all kinds of opinions, one of which is the instinctive reaction of men to want to protect women.  Yeah, I‘ve felt that too, but my professionalism (I like to think) stopped me from acting on that (and/or inappropriately).
      However, there is an excellent speech Gen Lewis Mackenzie (ret). gave as the keynote speaker at a major event in Toronto several years ago.  He was discussing Leadership (ever hear of that word, Generals?) and described this very thing when he was in Sarajevo when it was being shelled.  Not knowing what to expect with women in his unit, he seemed surprised and amazed at the professionalism and maturity of his troops as they sat hunkered down together in their bunkers.  No "Let me protect you", no "Let‘s go out with a bang", none of that krap.
     In the case of the reporter‘s story in a previous post, I don‘t see anything wrong with ocasionally helping someone with a heavy load (teamwork).  Wouldn‘t we all help out a buddy that may be a smaller body?  As a trucker, I think that a short skinny (is there a better word?) male would have just as hard a time as a short skinny woman locking up a 200 lb. HLVW tailgate six feet in the air.
     Point being... the differences between men and women make no difference.  If we all work together, do the best each of us can, the differences fade away into insignificance and our professionalism and effectiveness can only increase.

     Cheers.  
   :warstory:


----------



## 762gunner

Howdy, all.  Over time, I‘ve heard all kinds of opinions, one of which is the instinctive reaction of men to want to protect women.  Yeah, I‘ve felt that too, but my professionalism (I like to think) stopped me from acting on that (and/or inappropriately).
      However, there is an excellent speech Gen Lewis Mackenzie (ret). gave as the keynote speaker at a major event in Toronto several years ago.  He was discussing Leadership (ever hear of that word, Generals?) and described this very thing when he was in Sarajevo when it was being shelled.  Not knowing what to expect with women in his unit, he seemed surprised and amazed at the professionalism and maturity of his troops as they sat hunkered down together in their bunkers.  No "Let me protect you", no "Let‘s go out with a bang", none of that krap.
     In the case of the reporter‘s story in a previous post, I don‘t see anything wrong with ocasionally helping someone with a heavy load (teamwork).  Wouldn‘t we all help out a buddy that may be a smaller body?  As a trucker, I think that a short skinny (is there a better word?) male would have just as hard a time as a short skinny woman locking up a 200 lb. HLVW tailgate six feet in the air.
     Point being... the differences between men and women make no difference.  If we all work together, do the best each of us can, the differences fade away into insignificance and our professionalism and effectiveness can only increase.

     Cheers.  
   :warstory:


----------



## riggah052

Bottom line: we all know the risks that could occur when entering a war zone, no matter what your trade is. Anybody remember the maintainence company that got snapped in IRAQ, 12 got captured but only one got recovered alive. Men AND women here troops, all fully capable of filling their trade requirements. Their enemies didn‘t care wether it was a political thing, and when it comes down to it, in war your enemy isn‘t gonna care either. 
Many people argue over the reduced standrds for females in the forces, but when it comes down to it, look at EVERYBODY in your individual unit. Can a person do the job or not? When you think about it, there are men as well as women that either can, or can‘t do a job. Anybody with some time in is bound to see this, it‘s hard to miss. To generalise according to ethnic background, sexual prefrence, gender, religon or any other stereotype is wrong. 
One of the reasons that I love my trade is that you have no choice but to deal with people according to their strengths and weaknesses. On some occasions it can mean the difference between a job well done and a job, ... well.. done! On other sites it could literally mean the difference between life and death. I‘m not trying to recruit anybody here, but I‘m just trying to provide an insight as to where my views are coming from.


----------



## NMPeters

My mistake. I misread that. Cheers.


----------



## Gunnar

E-town:

Picture your RSM:

Hey!  Tito!  No, the other one.  No, *Corporal* Tito.  No, the *tall* Corporal Tito!  The *Infanteer*...oh...**** it...I give up....<sobbing>.


----------



## onecat

"So why does a female have to do less pushups than a male in order to get into basic? DND wants males and females to be treated as equals, but not even DND can do that yet. If a male or female can pass teh requirements, then thats fine, if they cant, they fail." 

The whole point is that females are built different.  Having set of requirments that is based on male strenghts is not fair to the females who join Forces.  It might be easy for a male to 50 push up, but for a female that same level might at 35 push ups.  They still worked just as hard and do both deserve to be there.  Personally I find it funny how so many people bring the requirments and say they most be equal.... because of differences between the sexes... that alone makes its un-equal.  I think the Gov‘t should put some research in place and design fair and sex equal tests for the forces.. which can also be used by the RCMP, OPP and other polices. It should be based on tasks, than just number of push ups you can do.  And that doesn‘t make it a SLACK requirment.


"I guess, I didn‘t mean "we the army" - I meant do we, as a society, as a country - want to send women to die in combat? Why? Because they are capable of it?"

Well my answer to that question is: why should it be just be men that die in combat, society has a changed a lot in the last 60 years.  And the age old and out dated idea that only should do the killing and protecing of society; is one of though ideas that needs to die.


----------



## Gunnar

> The whole point is that females are built different. Having set of requirments that is based on male strenghts is not fair to the females who join Forces


Unfortunately, life isn‘t fair.  If you have a mixed company of infantry with the proper strength ratios they will be beaten by an unmixed company of infantry with higher *STRENGTH*.  (And yes, I know, there are other factors to consider as well).  Still, men are physically stronger than women, and when strength counts, perhaps you should be looking at men to fill the role.  If there are exceptional women who meet that requirement, great!  

I‘m sorry, but I thought the purpose of the armed forces was to defend my country, not to promote gender equality.  Why should my side lose because they were carrying enough ammo and equipment for their size/gender when the other side was carrying *enough ammo and equipment to do the job*?


If I‘m lying bleeding in a trench somewhere, I want the guy beside me to be able to pick me up and carry me to a medic.  If it happens to be a woman, whatever...I don‘t care.  As long as they can do the job.

Equality is not the same as egalitarianism.  Under equality, everyone is given a chance to meet a single objective standard.  Those that don‘t make the cut are out.  Point final.  

Under egalitarianism, you jig the standards so that everyone is treated equally, regardless of their particular qualifications or abilities.  Then you have people who are given "special allowances" for their abilities...so how long until we have the 3 Mechanized Wheelchair Infantry Brigade?

I‘d rather have the army recognize people for their abilities.  It has been suggested (by Heinlein, dunno how true it is) that women make better pilots than men.  Okay...then if this is generally the case, I would expect more hot pilots to be women.  I‘m OK with this:  Can they get the troops and supplies to the front better than anyone else?  Fine.  Just make sure that men get a chance to *apply* for the job, then wash them out if they don‘t meet the standards of being "the best pilot", not standards of "the best pilot for their gender/ethnicity/linguistic background".

Recognize people for their abilities.  Hey, if there was a tactically sound reason to employ a Wheelchair Brigade, I‘m all for it.  If you decide that someone who doesn‘t make the cut for infantry would make a hot intelligence officer, great!  Just don‘t try to graft people into roles for which they are not suited in the name of equality.


Now, all that being said, I think it is unfair that only dogs are allowed to be "seeing eye" pets.  Why can‘t I have a lobster or a fruit bat as my "seeing eye"?  Should we change the standards to make it more equal for all the animals to apply   :dontpanic:   ?


----------



## Bringer

Perhaps the problem lies with the testing criteria. Battles aren‘t won by pushup competitions. Maybe adopting a test involving a ruck march, followed immediately by a live fire test would be a more appropriate way of determining one‘s capability in the Infantry.

If both genders are able to carry the same weight and meet the same time requirements, there is no more cause to say that women are meeting lower standards. As it is now, the lower physical standards females must meet provide a very easy target for anyone debating females in combat roles.


----------



## combat_medic

I‘ve been trying desperately to avoid this topic of debate, but I feel the need to post now. 

Yes, I think that standards should be the same. Period. Irregardless of age, gender, ethnicity or otherwise. If you can‘t do the job, then that‘s it, no complaining about quotas, sexism, racism or anything else. A C6 still weighs the same amount whether you‘re male or female, and if you can‘t carry it for a prolonged period of time, you shouldn‘t be in the infantry. This applies to men too. 

Oh, and the whole "group cohesion" excuse as to having no women in the combat arms: that same excuse was used 50 +/- years ago when non-caucasian people wanted to join the armed forces. It was believed that it would lead to a breakdown of group cohesion and discipline within the unit. Has that happened? No, and it‘s just the same with women. 

I‘ve heard plenty of little girls whine that "I only have to carry 90% of my body weight." Many of these are fellow medics. So what the f%$k use is it if a 98 lb medic can only carry 80 some odd pounds when the average soldier weighs 180? I myself can fireman carry 220lbs, and it‘s my belief that it‘s necessary for me to get MY job done. If I weren‘t capable physically of hacking it, I shouldn‘t be doing it. Period! 

If you can do the job, then do it. If you can‘t, then there‘s the door. Don‘t let it hit you in the @ss on your way out.

Oh, and equality is when a women gets turned on her arse for being an idiot just as quickly and readily as a man does!


----------



## McInnes

will you marry me?
jk jk   
i think more "girls" should think like you, more down to earth. i dunno, i think i get more feminists going off at me than most ppl. it gets tiring.


----------



## WINDWOLF

Now,everybody just take a deep breath
& do not frag my a$$ over this,it,s just
a thought.

Could the unwillingness of some males to 
except females in combat be due to the fact
that they & they alone can conceive?

My wife brought this up when we discussed
what was being said here.I think as a
person / female/mother,she has a valid point.
The species must continue & females are
the pivotal point in this.Sperm can be saved
,but you got to have a place to put it.
(crude,but i don,t know how else to say it.)

This could have started in older times,when
thousands of males would swing axes @ each
other & then go home to repopulate the race
so that they could do it over again in the
generation.

Men,we are not the brightest bulb in the pack.
Give me your thoughts on this premise.


----------



## riggah052

Windwolf;
WRT your message about women being able to bear children, I think that you and yours might be on to something. It certainly would be a powerfull motivation psychologically for protection and or disdain for having women serve. Never thought of that.
As for you MuayThaiFighter I can see that you seem to think very low of some of the opinions expressed here. Keep in mind that it is a DISCUSSION forum, and that we all have an opinion, wether you believe it right or wrong.


----------



## Bringer

Rape is only one of many not-good things that can happen in war. Using that as the single reason to deny women the right to join the combat arms is re-d@mn-diculous. Rape is just a means of psychological torture. Men can be affected the same way through different means. 

I think the real question here is whether or not we should allow men in combat because they have fingernails that bamboo shoots can be shoved under?


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Riggah052:
> [qb] Windwolf;
> WRT your message about women being able to bear children, I think that you and yours might be on to something. It certainly would be a powerfull motivation psychologically for protection and or disdain for having women serve. Never thought of that.
> As for you MuayThaiFighter I can see that you seem to think very low of some of the opinions expressed here. Keep in mind that it is a DISCUSSION forum, and that we all have an opinion, wether you believe it right or wrong. [/qb]


What makes you think I have a low opinion on what is expressed in this thread? I haven‘t once disagreed with anyone in here yet.

It‘s you guys that started this **** about how a woman can do just as good a job as men,I never once disagreed with that.Infact I totally agree with every single thing in this thread,only thing that gets me upset is that no one seems  to know what the **** this thread is about.Everyone is bringing in their own crap about how a woman can do just as good a job or better,funny thing is I never once said a woman can‘t do as good a job,because that is not what this thread is about,but obviously most of you people in here can‘t freaking read or you would know what this thread is about.

The way everyone is talking about how good a job women can do in the army,I might as well change the title of this thread.

People are calling me stupid and ignorant in here yet I think these people are stupid for not realizing what this thread is truely supposed to be about and what I had said originally.

Starting to make me think you need to be stupid to join army.

But if you honestly want my opinion on whether I think women can do just as good a job as men during war,my answer is YES.

This is how I see it,if you can run,you can shoot,and have no fear,then you can fight regardless of what sex you are.


----------



## Gunnar

If you agree with most of the people here, why ask the question(s)?  Just as "No answer is sometimes an answer", a question often reveals much about the questioner...if you don‘t think something is debateable, you don‘t ask the question in the first place.  Asking the question implies that you think the answer is somehow in doubt or is at least debateable.

If you want to do an opinion survey, you could always do a poll.  Or simply state "it is commonly accepted that NNN should be allowed in the infantry/battlefield.  While I agree with the sentiment, what are your opinions on why this is true (or not)...?"

Or even ask the negative:  I have heard that some people don‘t believe nnn should be allowed in the infantry because of X, Y and Z, why would they (or you) think this?

This way, you lend no personal credibility to the statement itself, but still get the reasoning and answers for which you are looking.

Regardless of phraseology, you will find that certain topics are likely to stir up a hornet‘s nest anyway, so it is best to sit back, relax, and treat the postings as purely an intellectual exercise.  Remember that printed communication hits home like a sledgehammer, and that you‘re as likely to be affected by the response as some people were affected by your posting.  Craft your posts with care, and read other posts with an eye towards someone‘s emotional response.  Don‘t take it personally.  The guy who is convinced he‘s "right" doesn‘t necessarily get to rule the world tomorrow: it isn‘t life or death.  Calmly and rationally prove him wrong, and if he doesn‘t accept it, oh well...move on...


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Gunnar:
> [qb] If you agree with most of the people here, why ask the question(s)?  Just as "No answer is sometimes an answer", a question often reveals much about the questioner...if you don‘t think something is debateable, you don‘t ask the question in the first place.  Asking the question implies that you think the answer is somehow in doubt or is at least debateable.
> 
> If you want to do an opinion survey, you could always do a poll.  Or simply state "it is commonly accepted that NNN should be allowed in the infantry/battlefield.  While I agree with the sentiment, what are your opinions on why this is true (or not)...?"
> 
> Or even ask the negative:  I have heard that some people don‘t believe nnn should be allowed in the infantry because of X, Y and Z, why would they (or you) think this?
> 
> This way, you lend no personal credibility to the statement itself, but still get the reasoning and answers for which you are looking.
> 
> Regardless of phraseology, you will find that certain topics are likely to stir up a hornet‘s nest anyway, so it is best to sit back, relax, and treat the postings as purely an intellectual exercise.  Remember that printed communication hits home like a sledgehammer, and that you‘re as likely to be affected by the response as some people were affected by your posting.  Craft your posts with care, and read other posts with an eye towards someone‘s emotional response.  Don‘t take it personally.  The guy who is convinced he‘s "right" doesn‘t necessarily get to rule the world tomorrow: it isn‘t life or death.  Calmly and rationally prove him wrong, and if he doesn‘t accept it, oh well...move on... [/qb]


For me there is no for sure answer,I can say yes and no to women fighting on battle field

Yes:

1/.They can fight just as well as any man,in war killing is killing no matter what sex fires the gun.
2/.Women are sometimes more realiable then men
3/.Some women probably have more courage then some men.

No:

1/.Rape usually happens more to women then men when in captivity,or at least it is more heard of anyways.

2/.The species must continue & females are
the pivotal point in this.

3/.Men are by nature usually more aggressive then women and can handle that kind of stress better.

These are my reasons so there is no for sure answer,it just depends on how you look at it.
Overall I would say no they shouldn‘t fight on battlefield,but that is just my opinion.I don‘t say it to be an @sshole or to be sexist,it is just an opinion of mine.


----------



## combat_medic

> Originally posted by MuayThaiFighter:
> 
> Yes:
> 
> 1/.They can fight just as well as any man,in war killing is killing no matter what sex fires the gun.
> 2/.Women are sometimes more realiable then men
> 3/.Some women probably have more courage then some men.
> 
> No:
> 
> 1/.Rape usually happens more to women then men.
> 2/.The species must continue & females are
> the pivotal point in this.
> 3/.Men are by nature usually more aggressive then women and can handle that kind of stress better.


For your "Yes" answers:

1. OK, I‘ll agree on this one
2. Saying women are more reliable is also sexist; it‘s sexist against men.
3. Also sexist, neither is more courageous. It‘s the person, not the gender.

For your "No" answers:

1. Rape is far more prevalent among male POWs than female ones. Don‘t believe me? Look it up. Rape is also FAR more common in civvie life than in a POW scenario.
2. Hate to explain the birds and the bees to you, but men are required to propagate the species as well. If you think women should be breeding factories, you should probably read "The Handmaid‘s Tale" by Margaret Atwood.
3. Men do not handle stress better. That is also a sexist attitude. Actually, women have a phusically higher pain tolerance than men and have better hand/eye coordination, and take G-forces better.

All of your attitudes are very sexist (against men AND women), whether it‘s your intent or not. Saying that one person can or cannot (or should or should not) do something based solely on their gender is sexism. Yes it is just your opinion, but it is still sexist.


----------



## Gunnar

MTF, was it really necessary to quote the entire message that immediately preceded your reply?  I mean, c‘mon man!

Combat Medic:  You recommended an Atwood book.  Ew!


----------



## Deleted member 585

Q:  "Should women be aloud to fight on the battlefield during time of war?"

A:  Yes, because they‘d be out of place if they were to fight on the battlefield during time of peace.

Cheers!


----------



## WINDWOLF

Your hanging the wrong guy on point #2 on
NO.Was not MTF, it was me that posted that
on the 2nd page Combat_medic.

I did not mean to imply that females are breeding mares.This was in regards to older times ie:
gothics,roman & before.
That the mind set could come from the need to
procreate the species for war.

If i offended you or other ladies,my apologies.
Regards.

( I knew i was gonna get fragged over that one)


----------



## Albertan

Generally speaking, it is true that men are better skilled at performing infantry jobs during combat than women. Women for a variety of reasons cannot, or do not wish to negotiate the rigors of front line combat. 

When men are bunkered in trenches for weeks on end in close quarters, women will not have the luxury of ‘special shower hour‘ and the question of female hygene becomes more of a concern than that of men. When a soldier develops disentary and has to drop their drawers then and now, will the rest of company be obligued to guarantee the females privacy? When a woman is required to march with her section to a tasking point double time, should the rest of the men in that section be obligued to help her with her heavy gear should she begin having problems? Generally speaking, women are not as physically able as men, is it fair to the rest of the men to allow a woman to potentialy slow them down or get them in danger?
I could go on, but the point is that women seem to have many more special concerns and needs, of which a war fighting unit may not have the luxury of supplying or supporting in a time of war. As a result, women can be a potential liability to her unit. We are talking WAR here. 

Perhaps an all female infantry unit would solve many problems (but then again you need enough female volunteers)

It is OK to admit that there are certain things men are better skilled at than women. And vice versa. 

Women for example are better at multitasking, able to withstand higher G‘s, and many other things that men just aren‘t naturally skilled at. These are skills that can provide the CF advantages in other military trades, such as communications, logisitics, piloting etc.
It does no one any good, to place women in infantry roles just to prove some neo femminist agenda.


----------



## NMPeters

Interesting how this topic is coming up more frequently of late. I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself and which would probably surprise each one of you.

But I think that you all are missing a very valid and salient point in all of these discussions. Women in combat is a done deal. So I‘m thinking that this argument is rather moot.

MTF if you don‘t like the direction in which a topic you started is heading, then take the initiative to try to steer it back on course. Any conversation and/or debate, whether written or verbal will veer off course. That is human nature. So instead of stomping your feet, calling people names and using the vernacular, take the moral high ground and guide people to where you want them to go. Hissy fits will get you nowhere.


----------



## Cycophant

*applauds*

Considering your well-phrased and intelligent response, I personally would be eager and willing to hear your take on the matter.

Even if I may disagree, I enjoy hearing many sides and opinions during a debate.  I feel we all benefit from it.  And it would seem that these forums offer a good haven for intelligent, mature individuals.  Perhaps that‘s another drawing point of mine to the CF: if many of you act the way that a good majority of others in the CF do, I look forward to serving.

Of course, the key would be ignoring those who might post immediately in response to a differing opinion with hostility and bias.  But luckily, the anonymity of the internet allows for the ignoring of these people with relative ease.


----------



## muskrat89

Frankly, I was raised to believe most of what Albertan has posted. If that makes me sexist, so be it. At the time it was being ingrained into my skull, it was for the purpose of chivalry and male obligation, as a result of 10s of thousands of years of human evolution; not to perpetuate oppression of women, unequal treatment, or the callous disregard of totally capable ladies.

That being said - as NMP and others have intimated - this debate is moot. The CDS is not going to undo politically correct and forward-thinking policies to appease the musings of some folks on a message board. Part of being a soldier is following orders. The CF has chosen this path, and created policies to ease its implementation - if I questioned, perused, and debated every order I was given that I disagreed with, I wouldn‘t have gotten past Week 1.

I say we debate more important things - like "Should retired reservists be awarded retroactive pensions and severance packages, even if they have moved to the US?"


----------



## gate_guard

If we only debated issues which can be changed, we‘d have a lot more discussions on boot polish techniques. The CF is operated according to the Liberal agenda no matter what we think so why bother discussing anything to do with it? My point is that this and other forums are a place to voice opinions on matters that concern the CF, not just issues that haven‘t already been decided upon. I‘d hate to see the day that any opinion becomes "moot" just because it seems unchangeable. 

As for the issue of females in combat roles, yes, it has been decided upon. So what? Does that mean that it is written in stone? Does that mean I can‘t have an opinion addressing it? Every forum that concerns the CF has the same topics rotating through discussion and once we stop posting about issues that have already been discussed to death, Mr Bobbitt isn‘t going to have to worry about bandwidth and storage issues cause he won‘t have any posts on this site.


----------



## muskrat89

Yes, for all intents and purposes, I think this one is carved in stone. Canadian politicians never back up, in case you haven‘t noticed. I‘m just saying we‘ve discussed this to death. In my opinion, energy is better spent on the future. Correcting flawed policies BEFORE they get written in stone. Help shape the future of our Army. Help steer Canadian social consciousness, and all that good stuff. Beating this dead horse is like debating the tactics used at Vimy, for pete‘s sake...jmo


----------



## gate_guard

Comparing women in combat roles to tactics used at Vimy as topics of discussion is a bit of a stretch. Why should we bother discussing reinstating the Airborne? We all know the gov‘t isn‘t going to do it. Why discuss anything that has happened in the past, for that matter? Your logic, Muskrat, is lost on me. Ever try the critical thinking concept of questioning everything? I can think of many instances where if people merely accepting things as being "written in stone," we would be a lot worse off than we are now.

And as I stated earlier, if we stopped discussing issues that have been "debated to death" we wouldn‘t have anything to talk about. I‘m tired of people saying "we‘ve already discussed this" etc. What else do you want to talk about on here? You may as well get rid of 90% of the posts on here.  If you only discuss the future and ignore the past, your bound to repeat it.


----------



## muskrat89

It‘s odd that for such a fan of rhetorical discussion as yourself can‘t seem to stand that someone doesn‘t agree with you. You keep insisting on debate - I would point out that if we all agreed, 90% of the posts wouldn‘t exist, either, as unanimous agreement equals no debates at all. So there.  Cheers  ;-)


----------



## Bill Smy

Does anyone know whether women will take part in the Afganistan deployment -- and I mean on the pointy end?


----------



## Duotone81

Can‘t believe I missed this thread!

Posted by MTF,


> The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again.


MTF, I‘m not too clear on the point you‘re trying to make. Male soldiers are also captured and subjected to inhuman treatment, extreme torture and execution. Are you saying that men are more capable in dealing with that sort of trauma? After reading your "insights" on the matter I am lead to believe that that is what you‘re implying. Whether or not this is true is up to interpretation. I remember seeing the men and women of the maintenance company that were ambushed in Iraq and in all fairness they all looked scared s***less. In the event that women are captured and raped, I’m sure more horrific things are happening to them as well as men who are captured. It’s war. Plain and simple. It’s not fair or civilized. There is no such thing as a civilized war. Just pay attention to the media and it will be apparent to you. Why don’t you grow some balls and say how you really feel! Quit with the foreplay and just admit that you don’t think that women are combat capable. Not that your opinion on women serving (because that’s what your really arguing about) counts as you don’t serve yourself.


----------



## gate_guard

Duotone,
Lose the condescending, elitist attitude. This isn‘t starship troopers where only those with service can voice their opinion. And why don‘t you grow some balls and join the world of proper conversation which doesn‘t involve juvenile insults (s***, now i‘m talking like you).


----------



## humint

Hey MTF:

Don‘t pretend to be voicing the best interests of women (i.e. protecting them from rape, etc), you know nothing of gender issues.

If a woman wants to join, can achieve the standards, prove herself accordingly, and can accept the challenges and risks inherent with the environment, than there is NO reason why she can‘t be in the combat arms. 

The same goes for every recruit, regardless of sex, religion, political belief, disability, ect. If they can do it, than they should be permitted.

FYI: Women have played the role of fighter for thousands of years, so why is it any different now? Women gladiators, women fighers in Germanic tribes, women fighters on horseback across in nomadic tribes across Eastern Europe and Central Asia more than 3,000 years ago -- fighting is nothing new for women, and certainly (in a historical perspective) not out of the ordinary. 

I am wondering whether you are afraid of being outdone by a woman. Is this where all the anger, frustration, and anxiety stems from (i.e. your fear of coming in second to a woman)? Do you have the same performance anxiety when competing against men?


----------



## gate_guard

I keep wondering where all these PC posts keep coming from, then I see that Ontario seems to have the glut of them. Thanks for the Liberals, guys! They‘re doing a bang up job!


----------



## onecat

hey Gate_guard.  I always wondered where all the red-neck out dated ideas came from... but I see your posts.. and think oh that‘s where they come from.

no offence but not everyone in Onatrio votes Liberal... no one here is posting PC crap... it‘s call common sence.  If you have a thing against women keep it to yourself.


----------



## gate_guard

Your right, Radiohead, that wasn‘t very PC of you to imply that rednecks everywhere are sexist, you sure showed me. And why is it that I have to be a redneck to have an opinion against women in the combat arms? Why can‘t I be a city boy born and raised in Vancouver with that opinion? 

I don‘t take offence to you stating that not everyone in Ontario voted Liberal. Why would I?

I joined this board to discuss and debate issues, not have everyone agree with me. I‘m quite opinionated, I‘m not ignorant of this fact, but I don‘t tell people in so many words to "shut up" just cause I don‘t agree with them. Very mature.
I‘m going back to my side of the sandbox, you guys aren‘t being nice.

Besides, I don‘t have to talk to you cause according to Duotone your opinion doesn‘t matter  cause ya aren‘t in yet.


----------



## Duotone81

Gategaurd,

You missed the forest for the trees on that one. In my reply I was not arguing the position of women in combat roles. I read all of MTF‘s posts and he was complaining that everyone misinterpreted his thoughts. 



> I cannot believe what I am reading in this thread,I guess you army people don‘t know how to ****ing read.
> 
> This thread is not about whether a woman can handle the same kind of jobs as men,that some women do or don‘t do as good a job as men,or whether they should be given same standards to get in,personally I don‘t give a **** about any of that,it‘s about allowing women to fight on battlefield due to RAPE that happens.


The rape argument is flimsy at best. Before yesturday I never knew it was an issue. So what he‘s really arguing about is he doesn‘t want females in combat roles. That‘s the whole point I was trying to make. 

About not having an opinion because he never served, well what I should‘ve said was because he has never served or fought in combat his opinions on the issue have no merit. Ya know what they say about a**holes and opinions eh?


----------



## humint

Thanks for trying to debase my line of argument by labelling it "PC". 

It‘s not my fault that I‘m aware of, and sensitive to, other people‘s needs -- I guess I got a lot of unconditional love from my parents when I was a kid. That sort of thing happens in Ontario, ya know!??! 

But, it‘s all OK, I do forgive you. I know being an ignorant redneck is not your fault.


----------



## gate_guard

humint,
I am amazed at the blatant disregard for logic in your post. I am stunned. I had no idea that there was a direct correlation between being loved as a child and political correctness. And then to insinuate that Ontario is the birthplace of perfect parenting, both are revelations of epiphany like proportions to my ignorant redneck existence. Thank you for giving me an inside look at the illogical thought process of the Liberals.


----------



## WINDWOLF

The longer this thread goes,the better 
understanding i have of the younger
(mens?) attitude about the ladies.

Keep it going guys,i am feeling more & more
mature as the days go by.

Enjoy. LOL


----------



## Sundborg

How about we just leave it where it is at; everyone has voiced their thoughts on the issue enough, it isn‘t getting anywhere at this point.


----------



## PilotGal

Edit note: I just realized that people had "agreed" to not post in this topic anymore, so I‘m sorry if I started up the argument again. Don‘t feel obliged to reply. LOL. I just expressed my views.   

Ummmmmm, okay, this is a rather interesting topic... 

I think women should be treated the same way as men are, whether in times of peace or war. I mean, WTF is the point in having women in the infantry and not letting them go and fight on the battlefield? It‘s like telling them they can be trained and be in the infantry unit, but they still get to sit at home during the war. It‘s illogical. If you‘re not gonna allow women to fight on the battlefield during war, don‘t let them into the army in the first place. Both are sexist, but the former one is even more ridiculous. It just pisses me off when people say that women should be allowed to be trained and all that, but they shouldn‘t be allowed to fight.     

At the point when a woman enters the army, she knows the dangers she would be facing in time of war. She‘s not a kid! I mean, just by saying that women should not be allowed to fight, you‘re treating us like children!    :rage:    And why is it worse if a woman is raped than if a man is raped? I mean, geez. It‘s the same thing. It‘s even worse in men‘s case, because of all the humiliation and repression it brings to the man with it.     

I am a woman, and I want to have the right to choose what to do with my life. If I choose to die for my country, I should have the right to go and do it. Just because a small group of women in the army are concerned with being raped doesn‘t mean that you should disallow women to go and fight on the battlefield. So if a group of men come forward with such concerns too, your army basically goes down. LOL! Being in the military has risks, and if you‘re not up to the challenge, then too bad, you can always leave. But don‘t take others‘ rights away just cos you can‘t do something. That‘s one of the things I hate - and it‘s also in the psychology of some (if not most) men in the army - they don‘t like the fact that a woman might be considered as tough or even tougher than them.        It‘s not a competition, guys, it‘s cooperation. The army is teamwork, not individual work.     

And don‘t tell me what I can do and what I can‘t do. Don‘t stereotype me and other women - I‘ve fought against 6 men at the same time, and they were all taller and bigger than me. And I was ABLE to fight them. So don‘t tell us that we are fragile and not suitable for fighting on the battlefield. 

As to what pertains to rape:

"The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again."

Ummm, are you implying that middle eastern countries only do that? If I am not mistaken, POW rape happens all over the world. It has happened in Serbia, by Christians, it has happened in Lebanon during the civil war, it has happened in Vietnam, it has happened in all wars. You just have to read case studies on it. Fact is, everyone does it - Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Arabs, Serbs, etc. God knows how much brutality POW during WWI and WWII have endured, including rape. And just for the record, the percentage of men raped is higher than the percentage of women raped during wars, taken proportionally, of course. I could cite a dozen sources to prove that. It‘s a form of debasement and humiliation, not of sexual desire. LOL. It‘s a form of spreading fear and terror. 

Get your facts straight. Men and women are equal. Ergo, they should both be given equal chances and the same choices. Not to mention, there should be compulsary military service for everyone over the age of 18, because what happens during war is that all the men are drafted, and women are not, because they are considered to be slower learners. So you end up with an imbalance - all men leave for war, women stay at home... If women were also drafted, you wouldn‘t have to draft as many men as you do, and there would be less widows left at home with no income and no means of supporting themselves. As for a fair system of drafting, that‘s not the issue here, but it can be done.     

Women are as strong as some men. Just because most women are not interested in joining the army doesn‘t mean that you should prevent other women from joining too, does it? 

D.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"Get your facts straight. Men and women are equal" 

If that were true then there would be one standard for physical fitness and not two.


Men and women are not equil. I am not saying one is better then the other but theres obvious differences both physically and psychologically.
You can‘t demand equil rights but have special bennifits or like i said different standards because thats simply not being "equil".

I‘m for women in the army 100%.  IT causes certian problems but like it was said, this isn‘t something that will change so of us whom don‘t like it have to accept it. I think what we do need though is to have one standard. Right there i believe we would do away with a large issue of the problem.


----------



## gate_guard

To Humint, Radiohead, and Duotone, I apologize for my sarcastic, and at times rude, comments. I‘ll try to keep my posts focused and refrain from getting into immature "pissing contests."

Okay, I‘ve already provided my point of view so I won‘t waste space repeating it. To further the discussion though, if equality is the goal, should we not integrate everything? Why have mens and womens sports? I think that the infantry is probably one of the most testosterone fueled occupations in the world and if that can be integrated shouldn‘t everything else be as well?


----------



## deathwing5

lol you really want to further the discussion? This really is an endless debate. So why dont we allow everyone into war and become equal for god sakes. Men, women, gays, dogs, cats.


----------



## PilotGal

Ghost778,

Men and women are equal in their rights to rights.        They are not equal in the sense that they are the same physically or psychologically, but in the sense that neither man is superior to woman, nor woman is superior to man. In other words, they are both human beings, and therefore, on the same level. 

And like I said, I hate the "special consideration" thing. We are equal to men, therefore we too should be drafted if there is a war. I really dislike women who demand rights and bitch, and then when time comes, they say they are women, and hence "feeble" and "fragile" and therefore should have special treatment and considerations. That‘s just BS. It‘s like affirmative action - trying to achieve justice by injustice. Hmmmmm...     

And I also support gays in the army.    

D.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Homosexuals have been in the army (combat arms) since the dawn of time though, no big deal.
I know what you mean about everyone should be given a fair chance.

Do you think it‘s wise though, if given the option, to push for equil rights across the board when in the end it may weaken or compromise the ability of our army? Everything would be equil but our ability to perform would seriously suffer. (Im not saying this is the case, just a hypothetical question). Just say having females in the infantry would, in fact, cause considerable problems and in the end we would be far less effective then if it was all males. Do you think it‘s more important that females get a chance to be in the infantry regardless or do you think our state as a fighting force is more important?


----------



## Duotone81

Gate_Guard, 

No apology needed for this guy. Nothing wrong with the occasional pissing contest as long as it‘s not into the wind eh!


----------



## PilotGal

No, I don‘t think having females in the army (esp. infantry) would lower the efficiency and strenght of the army. Of course, not all females would be admitted. There would be certain qualifications, etc., just like in the case of males. I don‘t see why it should be different. There are physically weak men out there, and they would not be able to get into the infantry, etc. Same with females. You filter out the weak, and take in the strong. As simple as that. But you don‘t go around preventing females from joining, even if they ARE "weaker" than males. You increase the standards so as not to let "weak" women in - cos you know they will crumble once on the battlefield, so you don‘t want them in there.

And even if women in the army are proven to be weaker than men, I‘m sure you can‘t apply that general thing on EACH and EVERY particular woman in the army. Just like average age of a group does not apply to every single person in that group. There are women who are strong and able to make it and succeed, and it‘s up to the trainers to find who‘s good and who‘s not, and who‘s capable of surviving it and who‘s not.  

Another question for those of you who are in the Army, etc. Are gays kicked out of the army if they are discovered to be gay? Never found the answer to that, just curious.    

D.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

As far as I know, all western countries do not put females into the front lines as the main fighing force, and this is done for a reason.

It‘s not really physical nor mental, but it‘s about society and the general public, not just a few women that think how they should have a right to be on the battlefield (and leave out the dramatic dying part - as far as dying for your country, it‘s better now die at all - dying doesn‘t help anyone).

If women that are in the infantry are allowed onto the battlefield to engage the enemy, this means that women will be used in the deployment either they like it or not. If women have a choice to either be deployed or not, this would not be fair to the men either.

The public probably wouldn‘t see this as giving a right for women to fight, but the government using women to fight - which the government may be criticized by the general public and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the government will ever do this anytime soon and put their next election campaign in jeopardy.

But at the end, you can always argue that women have a choice to join the infantry in the Canadian army and there would be no point if they are trained for nothing. BUT you have to realize that women HAVE DIFFERENT FITNESS STANDARDS as men. This implies that generally women are not trained to be as fit as men. If this is a case, I‘d rather put my life into the man next to me than the women.

The bottom line is, if women ever want to have the same opportunities as men, they better be equally fit and qualified.

With the current CF regulations right now, women should not be on the battlefield. It‘s not about equality. It‘s about life and death we‘re talking about here.

Having females as the main fighting force may work in the future, but at the moment, our society is NOT READY for it yet. The transition is just too big of a change.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pilotgal you missed my point. I was being hypothetical saying that *if* if was found that females reduced the combat efficency of the army, is it more important to have their individual rights and let them in anyways or have the army in top condition for lack of a better word. I‘m not saying females would make it weak at all, just playing devils advocate.  Just trying to see what you think is more important. The individual or group.


It‘s not always about actual physical strenght. We all know some women out there can easily out perform their male peers. I think a lot of people get upset when individuals, whatever gender, get catered to which unfortinuatly happens to females a lot, even if they don‘t want it. I‘ve seen people try and give females special treatment much to their dismay because they knew how it made them look.

Offically homosexuals won‘t be singled out at all. They might be subjected to discrimination from their peers though which is natural. (Just like famales or some races. It‘s not right but it‘s how it is) For someone who knows "more then we think" about the military i‘m surprised you are in the black about this   
Canada, especially the military, is all about human rights and catering to individuals so we look as politically correct as possible.  For a country thats decriminalizing pot and allowing gay marrages how could the army possible kick someone out of the army for being gay?


----------



## Cycophant

One other small thing I would like to add to the discussion:

I decided to do an unofficial survey of some females.  Out of the 15 or so that I talked to, only 3 said that they had the capacity to kill, they thought.

The rest all said the same thing (that I fully agree with).  A majority of women seem to have a natural instinct to preserve human life.  Perhaps it has something to do with the ability of females to give life, via birth.  Perhaps its something more scientific like a lack of testosterone.  I don‘t know.  But there does seem to be a majority out there that could not do it.  Yes, their training would kick in and they would probably end up doing it - but that moment of natural hesitation is something of a concern. 

Throughout our knowledgable history, it was the males that did the "killing", either for food or battle.  Females cared for people, gathered food via foraging, and only occasionally had to resort to hunting.  True, these times are long gone - but it would seem our mentalities for many such things still exist.  Perhaps they always will; I don‘t know.  But it‘s something any candidate should consider when joining a Combat Arms trade, male or female.


----------



## PilotGal

Ghost,

Well, I don‘t claim to know everything, but I do know *some* things. As for your hypothetical question - if it is definitely proven that women decrease the army‘s capability of victory, etc., then I think they should stay behind - the whole point of the army is to fight and win against the enemy - it‘s not some kind of a place where people go to express their democratic rights to equality.        But of course, *if* there is a way for this to be prevented, i.e. for *some* women to go on the battlefield even though the majority of them are proven to be weakening the army, etc., then by any/all means, get them in there. 

As for gays, etc., I wasn‘t sure, because I‘ve heard horror stories of gays in the army, not necessarily in Canada, but also some here, but well, it‘s good that they aren‘t kicked out at face value.     

As for women‘s instincts to preserve life rather than kill, uhhhh, that‘s a load of crap. Honestly, if I have to kill, I would, and if I don‘t have to kill, I wouldn‘t. As simple as that. Are you saying that men kill even if they don‘t have to kill? OK then so what‘s your point? I‘m a woman and I will kill if I am given orders to do so on the battlefield. You cannot stereotype females and put them *all* in one category - namely "maternal, life-preserving insticts." It‘s not instinctual, it‘s social upbringing. And I agree that right now, society is just not ready for women to be equally sent to the battlefield, but I don‘t think that‘s a good enough reason to prevent those who want to go, from going. It starts in small steps. You can‘t just all of a sudden start drafting women to the army whereas a coupla months ago you refused to send *any* women to the battlefield. You know what I mean?     

Cycophant,

Actually, no, you are wrong in that. Women have fought in and led armies throughout history. Most often, women were the leaders of Germanic tribes. Only in established society such as the Romans and the Greeks were women confined to the home/palace. You cannot look at those samples and say that it means women have historically been the "maternal" beings, whereas men have been the "killers." That‘s not the way it was. Women had an important role in their tribes and societies, and some cultures still have the women in men‘s roles. In other cultures, men stayed at home and women took care of everything, brought food, etc. I was just reading about that a week ago, and this has been widely accepted by scholars.    

An interesting book would be _The Light Bearer_ by Donna Gillespie. It‘s an 800 page book - historical fiction. Very interesting. I suggest you read it. I read it in two days, a very quick read, very informative.    

D.


----------



## Cycophant

> As for women‘s instincts to preserve life rather than kill, uhhhh, that‘s a load of crap. Honestly, if I have to kill, I would, and if I don‘t have to kill, I wouldn‘t. As simple as that. Are you saying that men kill even if they don‘t have to kill?


You‘ll notice I said _majority_, not all females in its entirety.  There always were and always will be exceptions.  Ask many females, particularily those who have birthed children, and most of them will have that maternal, "preservation of life" instinct.  Men can fall under the same problem - it does however, seem to be less likely. 




> Women have fought in and led armies throughout history. Most often, women were the leaders of Germanic tribes. Only in established society such as the Romans and the Greeks were women confined to the home/palace.


I agree completely.  However, I wasn‘t referring to that era.  Women had a fair bit of power back then too, up until the Dark Ages.  I was more referring to the beginning of society and mankind.  They didn‘t care about being "PC", they just did what was needed to be done.  The men, on average, seemed more inclined to hunt.  The women were much better at taking care of the young, and defending the home.

And just so my point is clear, these are not excuses as to why women should not be accepted.  These are simply observations that should be taken into account, particularily by women, before taking on a position where they may be required to kill.  You admit that you would most likely not have any qualms - others aren‘t so sure.  That‘s all.


----------



## Drummy

Hi there,

"Should women be aloud" (partial quote of subject heading)

My woman(read lovely wife) of 44+ years certainly is when I jack up.(No emoticon, so LOL)

Drummy


----------



## humint

Hey Gate_Guard:

No worries. Sometimes its good to let go and engage in irrational, and meaningless, pissing contests -- its therapeutic. In fact, I had a good laugh over our mutual insults.

But, definitely, no CATS on the battlefield. That‘s just sick. Dogs, yes ... but NO equal rights for CATS!


----------



## ForeverPvt

Does it really matter what you may or may not have between your legs when you‘re in the field?  I dont care what you are so long as you can pull a trigger when it counts.


----------



## max flinch

Okay, 

I wonâ€™t speak to trades I havenâ€™t been in, but I will speak to the Infantry. My professional view: It is DND policy that combat arms are integrated, and my conduct towards soldiers of either gender is the same: professional, impartial, courteous, and focused on using the assets of the group to accomplish the mission. My personal view: Women do not belong in the infantry; full stop, end of story.

Read any after action report from Afghanistan ( and there are several available on the net, including one from the American 10th Mountain ) or read any descriptive article on the the terrain and loads the PPCLI had to deal with: steep, mountainous grinding uphills at altitude (meaning thin air with less oxygen) and 100 lb rucks. Every one points to the physically brutal reality of the infantry in a real theatre of operations. The reality of infantry is that it often may not boil down to pulling the trigger (such as some of the parachute units in Northern Iraq who acted as blocking forces, and saw little or no combat). It does boil down to carrying everything you need, plus everything you may need, and everything that your unit needs (mortar rounds, Carl G rounds, link for your best friend the GPMG) and carrying it all on your back, all day long. 

Read the following article, and tell me what you think. Keep in mind that the author has Been There, Done That in a real shooting war.

-----

 Women in Ground Combat
A Proposal For An Experiment

Let‘s look bluntly (I‘m not sure how you look bluntly, but I‘m going to have at it) at whether women should be permitted in ground combat. And then I will make a splendid and fair-minded proposal, which will be applauded by radical feminists everywhere. My guess is that I‘ll be awarded life membership in the National Organization for Women. 
Should women be in ground combat? Good lord no. Females have no place in the infantry, artillery, or armor. They are too weak, too delicate, and too small. They fade after about a day of heavy marching and lifting. They just get in the way. They will get men killed. The idea is bad, everyone who has been in the military understands it, but no one has the moxie to tell feminists "No." 

Maybe you haven‘t been afoot in a war zone. I have. In the mid-Sixties in was in armor in Viet Nam with the Marine Corps, spent a fair amount of time carrying a rifle, went through infantry training in Camp Geiger, which you don‘t want to try unless you are one healthy young buck. Let me tell you some things about ground life in war zones. 

It‘s brutally physical. Try unloading a truck carrying mortar rounds. Hump sixty pounds uphill in Asian heat for an hour. When I was a Marine a flame-thrower weighed, if memory serves, seventy-five pounds. Try humping that sucker up hills of greasy North Carolina clay when you slide back almost as much as you go forward and your lungs are burning till you can hardly breathe. Try breaking track on armor when a platoon in trouble needs fire support right now. Don‘t talk about it. Don‘t theorize. Try it. In Lejeune we force-marched day after day, on three and a half hours sleep. No, that‘s not exaggeration. Try it. 

OK. Go to your local gym. If you aren‘t a member, pay the ten bucks for a day pass, and watch. Stand around for a couple of hours, and watch what men lift. Watch what women lift. See whether you can detect a pattern. 

Women don‘t lift slightly less than men, and aren‘t slightly weaker. They lift enormously less. They are catastrophically weaker. 

Don‘t take my word. Go. Look. 

I‘m 53, five-feet-ten, 180, in better shape than average for my size and age, but nothing spectacular. I never amounted to much as an athlete. I go to the gym to stay strong enough to carry my scuba tanks. If I walked into a Marine gym and said I was the strongest guy there, the Corps would have to be disbanded, because you can‘t fight while uncontrollably laughing. 

But I‘m far and away the strongest woman I‘ve seen at Gold‘s in ten years of membership. 

For example, I do fifteen sloppy reps on the bench machine with 250, and fifteen reps with 200 on the lat pull-down machine (the chin-up machine, if you will). It‘s respectable. That‘s all it is. There are guys there who could lift that much with me sitting on top of it. 

I‘ve never seen a woman bench more than eighty (which is real rare, but not even warm-up weight for a man). I don‘t think I‘ve ever seen a woman pull eighty on the lat machine. Twenty to forty is normal for them. 

Don‘t call me sexist. Don‘t tell me I‘m trying to be "macho." (Or do: I don‘t care.) Go look. 

Want documentation? There is a branch of research called exercise physiology, which has studied the physical capacities of men and women in near-infinite detail (largely to help in training athletes.) Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass. I‘m not making wild assertions. You can find all of this in any university library. 

Now, what do these physical differences mean for society outside of the military? Almost nothing. A woman doesn‘t need strength to be a surgeon, professor, senator, journalist, or CEO. But weak women will get men killed in war. I‘ve seen wars. I‘ve been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn‘t abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn‘t cute. 

I promised to make a splendid proposal. Here it is. Let‘s take 100 males just out of basic training, and 100 females, also just out of basic and chosen at random. Let‘s take them all to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in a rainy October. We‘ll put sixty-pound packs on them, give them rifles and a full load-out of ammo. 

Then we‘ll force-march them, at a fast pace set by an infantry sergeant, until they drop. I mean literally drop: can‘t stand up any longer. No stress time-outs, no little green cards to wave, no trucks to carry their gear, no slowing down. Hump till they fall. This is what happens in combat: grim, unremitting physical effort with no sleep. Maybe it‘s humping with rifles and seven-eighty-two gear, maybe it‘s breaking track on a P-5, maybe it‘s unloading those miserable six-bys. It‘s physical. 

If the women keep up, I‘ll shut up. If they keep up, all critics of putting women in the infantry will have to shut up. Here is a wonderful opportunity for radical feminists everywhere. But know what? I‘ll get a lot of screeching and howling because of this column, accusing me of sexism and patriarchy. What I won‘t get is a call by feminists to make the test. They know what would happen.

Fred Reed
 http://www.fredoneverything.net/ 
-------


----------



## Cycophant

> But _I‘m_ far and away the strongest woman I‘ve seen at Gold‘s in ten years of membership.


After checking out his website, he seems very much a male.  I‘m assuming a typo?  Or am I missing something?

Nonetheless, an interesting article.  Although some of his generalizations are a little harsh, he‘s completely correct - the average female just isn‘t built for life in some of these situations.


----------



## NMPeters

For a good read on this subject, I recommend the following book:

The Kinder, Gentler Military : Can America‘s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars
by Stephanie Gutmann

The author makes some very valid points - - - against women in combat roles I might add.


----------



## Fader

Not having read any of the replies, of course women should be allowed to go to the battle field.  If we send an army of killers, what good would that do?  A reg force captain sat my course down last night and gave us a little chat about what being a Sig Op, reserve or reg is all about;  it‘s about command and control; about establishing comms by whatever means.  That doesn‘t mean you have to be a killer, that means that rather, you have to use your head.  It was funny, how he slammed the infantry, and praised us, but a direct quote from him "I expect more out of a Signals private than I do from an infantry private."  And then went on with a few stories of why infantry should not do comms stuff that only a signaller would find funny.
If a woman can think as well or better than a man; if she can figure out problems as well or better than a man; she can be as good of a sig op as a man; and since sig ops are the most important part of the battle field, of course women should be allowed.
Then again, I know this one girl from my course last year who I wouldn‘t trust walking behind, let alone going into the field with.  She‘s being sent to Afghanistan... My buddy who was in her det last year said it best when he said "May God have mercy on the poor souls who have to work with her."


----------



## Jarnhamar

"being a Sig Op, reserve or reg is all about; it‘s about command and control; about establishing comms by whatever means. That doesn‘t mean you have to be a killer, that means that rather, you have to use your head.."

So how exactly is using a radio to call in an enemy position and have them killed, en masse, any different from a rifleman squeezing a trigger. Reminds me of an argument i had with a pilot who believed pressing a button and dropping a bomb on the ‘enemy‘ was different then what the infantry does. 
Today more then ever i believe it‘s important for all soldiers, especially infantry, to not only be proficient with radios (You don‘t find many sgt‘s manning an OP with a radio at 4 am) but for each of them to be in contact with their element commander.


----------



## gate_guard

Graham,
The studies I‘m looking at right now show that Americans historically had a low percentage of soldiers having killed in combat (15-25% are the figures given). The US military recognized this and introduced operant conditioning into training to bring this rate up. In Korea, 55% of U.S. combat veterans had killed. In Vietnam, 90% of U.S. combat veterans had killed. I don‘t see how you could come up with the conclusion that men hesitate to kill,it didn‘t stop them in Vietnam. But, of course anyone can find stats to back up their opinions.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

gate-guard - be careful what you do with SLA Marshall‘s stats; they‘ve fallen into serious disrepute among scholars these days.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not reading any of the replies or anyone elses input i‘ll throw in my two cents...


----------



## R_J

CFL Lui, are you for real...
"and since sig ops are the most important part of the battle field"

The same thing every trade tells it‘s people. As for the women issue- I‘m not touching that with a 10‘ pole.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"whoever"?
How could you so quickly forget my name. Im insulted.

I‘ve done the same thing too before, not very bright in my opinion but thats just me. If you take time to read all the replies then you get a feel for the conversation and you may learn a lot. Like the stats your about to rhyme off are actually completly out the window so you dont make a fool of yourself (just saying that in general). Conversations here also have a habit of going off topic so it saves you from commenting on one thing when people are talking about something else.


"I‘m not some dumba$$ just making stuff up to write down for fun."
Don‘t worry, *if* you are a dumb ***  chances are you think your really smart regardless, im sure people will let you know though


----------



## Jarnhamar

Were going to have to paper rock scissors this one mate!


----------



## Galadriel

Ok, I‘ve read through this and against my better judgement I‘m responding lol.   

For the record, I am female and 28 years old. I‘m 6‘1 & 185lbs (with huge balls if I can admit *THAT* in public   ). I can bench 165lbs (not a huge amount but about 100lbs more then any other woman I‘VE seen at my gym) and I can run 5k in less then 25 minutes.  I will be starting basic training in August and I consider myself to be one of the most fit women *I‘ve* ever met.

There‘s no way in ****  I‘d ever consider going into the combat arms.  If they had told me that that was all I had qualified for on my aptitude test I would have given up on enlisting all together and went back to building PC‘s.  

I can‘t even begin to comprehend why anyone, male or female would choose such a grueling and excausting career.  Not only do you work your butt off all day long, you work more weekends then any other trade and spend more time in the field.  Plus you get the least respect of all the trades, at least here in Pet.  

Everyone assumes that every infanteer is a dumba$$ grunt who couldn‘t think his (or her) way out of a paper bag (which I disagree with for the record, some of my best friends are Infantry and they know more about AV Reconition and weapons then I could ever cram into my mellon).  I just don‘t understand why someone would willing  sign up for all that.

As to whether or not women should be _allowed_ in the combat arms, I‘d have to say yes.  Personally I think that if you can pass the requirments, then you‘ve proven yourself able.  I also think there should be trade specific requirments however and that Infantry  should require a lot more then nine pushups and 19 situps minimum to qualify.  

Just as other trades such as LCIS Tech require certain courses from highschool and such to qualify because they involve more mentally demanding tasks, combat arms should have higher physical requirements because they tax your body so much more.

HeHe, just my long winded two cents


----------



## gate_guard

Mr. Dorosh,
My stats came from an article in the Journal of Peace Psychology, 2002, correlated to a book by LCol Grossman, author of "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" which addresses PTSD in combat veterans. But, like I said, anyone can spew stats to fit their argument.

Graham,
Relax, there‘s no need to throw a tantrum. And some friendly advice, if your going to present facts, stay away from saying "probably".


----------



## GrahamD

Ok, thanks for the advice.

Here is my revised answer to the question:

 "Should women be (allowed) on the battlefield? (*during time of war)"

 Answer: YES

Primary reason:
  Basing a decision to prohibit a person from doing something they wish to do, which in this instance is: (carrying out their duties as a member of the combat arms during wartime), upon their Gender, Ethnicity, or Religion, is biggotry.

Suggestion to revise question to not solicit a biggoted, or conversly,  a defensive or point of view:
   Perhaps, rather than blatently ask if women should just not be allowed to fight because they are women, you could include an at least debatable reason tacked on the end of the question.

 Example:
 Should Canadian Forces women be allowed on the battlefield, due to the fact they may be subjected to physical, and mental hardships during capture beyond what a man may suffer, ie. sexual abuse.?

Or if there is a reason you feel strongly about, use it as the question, don‘t be so overly general.

   Example:
  Should fitness standards be equal between males and females within the combat arms, to ensure that every soldier is capable of meeting the exact same minimum physical standards?

My answer would still be yes to females being allowed the opportunity, but I also belive in minimum fitness standrds being higher for men and women, and that those standards be identical.


----------



## shaunlin41

My girlfriend was navy diver but they have failed to course load her for the last two years so she is remustering.  She is interested in the infantry reserve but is concerned with the possible attitude of fellow soldiers including senior ncm‘s as well, she is concerned about the physical aspect of it.  She is quite fit and is one tuff cookie but still has doubts.  What do you guy‘s think?  is the training passible for most females or just exceptional few?  She would possibly be joining the Seaforth Highlanders.


----------



## GrahamD

There is policies in place that deal with sexism, racism, and biggotry in general.  It is unacceptable to discriminate against anyone for any reason within the CF.  In my interview the Cpt. really drove home this point to me, I don‘t know why because I‘m the furthest thing from a biggot.  I guess it‘s something they have to cover with you.

Anyway, obviously there would be channels to go through if she suffered blatant sexism, and the induvidual/s would be delt with according to policy.

However, read through some of the other threads in this forum that have anything to do with women, and you will see that there are a few people with opinions and views about women that may be a little offensive to you/her.  I would think that if she‘s already been in the military for a while, she would have developed certain defence mechanisms against people like that though.  
The Combat arms may indeed have a few more of those types kicking around, I think that it would go without saying, but dealing with adversity can only make us stronger right?  And I would think the vast majority of people are probably fine with working with women.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

I know this female that has spent some time in RMC. Just like society, discrimination of any kind isn‘t allowed by law, but again like society, it DOES exist, and it will continue to exist. She told me females in the military are like a minority, and she being as one, there IS discrimination one form or another.

But I‘m not saying she shouldn‘t join. I‘m just saying that it will always exist, but that should not be a reason not to join. It‘s like saying the world is dominated by men, which is true, but that shouldn‘t be a reason why women shouldn‘t try.


----------



## combat_medic

If she did join the Seaforths, she would be the first female infanteer in a while (there aren‘t any currently). As a female (medic) in the Seaforths, I have encountered some poor attitudes about women in the military, but rarely ever from people in the regiment, moreso from former members, and very infrequently at that. You can also PM me if you want to ask any specific questions.


----------



## Hookflash

Selective discrimination (aka, affirmative action) will always be an unfortunate part of our society.  For example, women don‘t have to do as many push-ups during the CF fitness exam.  That is gender discrimination.  There is also some racial discrimination going on when you consider the special treatment given to Native Americans who wish to join the Army.


----------



## GrahamD

Did you know that women are beginning to dominate long distance running? 

In case you dont understand, that means there is a trend starting amoung the serious long distance races, that is seeing women placing higher in the standings than men.  My girlfriend was telling me about it after she read about it in a running magazine.

In fact, just recently I saw a woman on a talkshow that had just completed a competetive 100 mile race.   She won the whole thing, beating every man there.

Anyway, Hookflash, are you American?
We don‘t use the term "affirmative action" here in Canada, nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.

Try "equal opportunity employment", and say "Native Canadian" or more appropriately "First Nations (people/s)"


----------



## Cycophant

> nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.


I‘m all for being politically-correct in many ways, but I feel this is going too far.  For starters, using the term "America" is still ambiguous.  "America" is more than just the U.S.A - it also contains Canada, Mexico, and all of South America too.

Finally, out of the hundreds of "Native Canadians" that I‘ve talked to, not ONE has ever mentioned that they don‘t appreciate the term "Native American" or even just "Natives".  Many use the Native term themselves, and many more prefer it, it would seem.  So to think that referring to them as "First Nations" people or "Native Canadians" seems somewhat pointless.


----------



## Gunnar

Or better yet, call it "discrimination against qualified people to prove some socialist theory" or "just another Canadian who is legally allowed to demand special treatment based on their race/colour/sex/condition".

Justice is blind.  Good hiring policies should be colour-(and sex etc.)blind, provided that specific job-related criteria are met.

Women tend to do better at physical exercise which involves long-term stamina...it takes them longer to warm up, but once they warm up, they‘re like the Energizer bunny.  Has to do with the way they‘re built.  You want someone to run information over to HQ because you don‘t trust the comms?  You want someone to do it all day?  Pick a suitably qualified woman.

Men‘s bodies are not built as efficiently:  bulky, heavy, corded muscles that waste heat and energy.  Still, more muscle mass than women.  You want a feat of strength, you go with the guy.


----------



## GrahamD

Well you arent going to convince me cycophant that there are no natives who get offended by incorrect terminology regarding their heritage.

I‘ve spent many years living amoung First Nations people, and I know that some, if not many, get very offended.  Political correctness isn‘t there to pacify those who don‘t care that much about it (ie the hundreds you‘ve been talking to) and I know that many indeed don‘t care, but it‘s to pacify the traditional types and the radical types.
  They just want some recognition that this is where they came from, that some of the places in this country have been sacred to their heritage for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Plus of the hundreds you talked too, how many did you ask point blank if that particular term offended them? 

Gunnar I suspect your opinion was stated for shock value, cause that is nearly the rudest thing I have read in this forum yet, so I‘m not rising to the bait on that one.


----------



## Gunnar

See, I don‘t believe in pacifying people so that they will "feel better".  I expect them to behave like adults, and suck it up.  Heck, even kids know that "sticks and stones...but names will never hurt me".

It was also a clear message that not everyone agrees with your Politically Correct revisionist thinking.  While you and people like you are deciding whether or not people in a free country have the right to express their ideas, or even to be rude, freedom goes down the toilet.  So I was making a point, with shock value.

It strikes me that Political Correctness is used to pacify people...people with differing opinions, who aren‘t afraid to state them.  People like me.  Once everyone totes the party line, there can be no dissension, and people will do what they are told.  I mean, what if someone were offended...?  Won‘t that be great?

Lèse majesté (not in the sense of treason, but in the sense of questioning others‘ right to make decisions for you) isn‘t a capital crime yet.  I do not agree with your ideas, but I will defend to the death your right to have and express them.  Let‘s see if you, and the other Politically Correct crowd, will do the same for me.  I highly doubt it.


----------



## GrahamD

Actually I am in the process of joining up.  I will being defending your rights to freedom of speech and thought, and whatever else soon enough I hope. So don‘t be so dramatic.

I hold the same belief that employment should be based on the induviduals competency, and that the minimum quailifications be equal across the board.  However, I also belive in our government, and our government has led us to where we are today.  It‘s not just me "and my crowd" who conspired to make some policy to piss of the right wingers.  It‘s the majority government, representing the majority of people.

Equal opportunity employment, may or may not take the concept too far in terms of better candidates getting left by the wayside (reverse descrimination), however, without it, many Canadians would be overlooked due to their race/religion/sex, and that is worse.  That is not freedom. 

 We have immigration policies that allow people to continue to settle our country, yet we have so many small minded types running businessess and institutions, that we have doctors and engineers from other countries driving taxi cabs and working in Tim Hortons.  (yes I‘ve met some, and discussed it).  Yet we cry out that our doctors and engineers are all going to the USA to make better money. It‘s discrimination, it‘s wrong, and that‘s why we have policies to try to make change.

Maybe we should all set our focus on improving the policies to avoid both discrimination and reverse discrimination.  If you have valid ideas, and don‘t back them up with radical statements about making women run around all day while men complete their feats of strength, then people will listen.

  Send your thoughts to your MP, start a pettition, or basically just get involved. It‘s better than just sitting in here flaming me, especially since my opinion is backed up by the current laws of our country.


----------



## Gunnar

What a fantastic reply.  Nice to know there‘s a few people out there who understand the democratic process is one that is supported by the people who vote (and not necessarily by a majority of the population, but by a majority of voters).

As far as radical statements about making women run all day...that wasn‘t the point.  The point was that in the physical (and come to think of it, mental) realm, people tend to have certain strengths and characteristics that make them more suitable for specific tasks...and that egalitarianism is not a substitute for recognising these facts.

Nice to know I was heard, even if you don‘t happen to agree with me.  Dem‘s da breaks.  But you‘re still wrong.


----------



## gate_guard

Gunnar raised a good point. It‘s interesting to look at figures for the number of actual votes in the last election compared to the number of eligible voters. A big difference, check it out for yourself. So if you factor in that half of the actual voters filled in the Liberal box, then you really don‘t have a majority government voted by the majority of the people. This doesn‘t factor in those not eligible, so really this means that a fraction of the population voted Liberal. Now you could argue that maybe millions more would have voted Liberal anyways. True, but millions more could have also voted for the Marijuana party and then we‘d have a big Parliament building hotbox.

Aside from this problem, in my opinion the only people who get their way in Ottawa are those that scream the loudest, not the majority of opinion as it should be. That‘s why you have interest groups, they promote the interests of a small group of people, but ****, do they do it effectively. The problem in this country is that people take on the whole, "I‘m just one voice out of millions, my vote doesn‘t matter." For the sake of argument, a recent poll (although I believe in polls as much as I believe in the easter bunny) found that over half of those polled didn‘t think that gay/lesbian couples should be defined as marriage. I‘m not going to spout off my opinion on the matter. I‘m merely trying to show that it‘s the gay/lesbian groups that are screaming the loudest so they get their way, even if it isn‘t the most popular. And you know what? Good for them, cause it serves the rest of the population right for not having the balls to stand up and voice their opinion either way.


----------



## nULL

Those who support proportional representation as opposed to the FPTP system we have in place now really don‘t understand democracy very well; were Canada to adopt a PR system, the chances of a majority government shrink exponentially. While you may not agree with what the Liberals have chosen to do, at least they have DONE something. Were the Alliance (BOO!) and the Liberals to have 50/50 of the vote, can you imagine just how LITTLE would actually get ACCOMPLISHED?


----------



## McInnes

good point. sometimes poor decisions are better than having a complete dead-lock.


----------



## GrahamD

Someone who chooses not to exercise their right to vote, politically speaking, does not exist.  Their opinions and viewpoints are irrelevent babbling.  Important only to themselves, and possibly their friends or family who have to listen to them.

So my point still stands up about "the majority of people".  I wasn‘t talking about every single Canadian.

While its true that there are probably many non liberals who don‘t bother to vote, it doesn‘t matter.  They chose to not have a say, so their opinion doesn‘t count.

Also, I just want to say, it seems to me, that having a PC attitude or liberal type beliefs is just cause for lynching in here.  So before anyone freaks out, realise I‘m attacking no one, I‘m making judgements about no one, I‘m just trying to point out a different point of view.  It‘s a forum for discussions right?

Besides, it keeps getting insinuated that I am a liberal, but no one even asked me.  While I think its obvious I would probably rather die than face my friends or family or myself in the mirror, if I ever voted for the likes of the Canadian Alliance, what may not be so obvious is that I have my own concerns about the Liberals, and I choose to use my vote to let those parties know that they lost at least 1 vote.

  The liberals swooped into B.C. and are devouring it like a pack of vultures.  It tells you there is something wrong when a prosperous province long dominated by the NDP, falls into economic decay only months after the Liberals show up.  I haven‘t been home in about 4 years now, so I don‘t know what the political and economical situation is like anymore, but by word of mouth, it still sounds bad.


----------



## gate_guard

nULL,
At no point did I advocate the implementation of proportional representation. I merely addressed the idea that GrahamD suggested "It‘s the majority government, representing the majority of people." I find this laughable because, as my previous post stated, our majority gov‘t in Ottawa was voted for by a fraction of the population. Now if you were to ask me what I suggest to correct this, I would say whatever it takes to get all eligible voters registered and to the polls. It‘s obvious to me that you‘re a fan of the Liberals (BOO!) and hey, that‘s your right. 

Now since you raised the issue, lets look at "proportional representation." I don‘t understand how you get the idea that this voting system undermines democracy. Check the definition of democracy again. It means representation of all people, and thus, all votes. With "first past the post", the only voices who are heard are those that get past the magical number of 50% first, what happens to the rest of the vote? Just because a majority of people voted for one party, do the rest of the votes become unimportant? See, I just don‘t get how you can come to the conclusion that proportional representation undermines democracy. In my view, FPTP has failed to properly represent all of Canada to this point, so wouldn‘t a change be in order? Or maybe you‘re just against progress? You say that proportional representation would result in nothing getting done. Well, the implementation of PR would have to result in a lot more cooperation between parties. Is that such a bad thing? I‘d rather see the Liberal‘s and Alliance bickering and occasionally coming up with a few things that represent Canada as a whole, instead of just the Liberal‘s passing legislation that represents the fraction of the population who voted for them.

GrahamD, so those that don‘t vote are unimportant? You don‘t even include them as part of the population to say that the Liberals have a majority gov‘t. Should we just deprive them of all the benefits of Canadian society? Maybe we shouldn‘t give them medicare, or social insurance, or any public funding. I mean, if their opinions become irrelevant "babbling" because they didn‘t vote, are they even Canadian citizens? I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way. Wow, their political opinions don‘t matter, seems kind of harsh. I think you‘re trying to say that they really shouldn‘t criticize the gov‘t since they didn‘t vote. As much as I agree with this, I don‘t think this should deny them the freedom of SPEECH!


----------



## nULL

One only has to look at the completely different stances of the Alliance/Liberals on Iraq, same-sex marriage, and defence spending to know that on IMPORTANT matters, nothing would get done. I mean, they are completely opposite, representing different segments of Canadian society (in large). And why say I‘m afraid of "progress"? Going to a completely ineffective orm of government isn‘t really a step forward. One only has to look at Canadian government to realize that many politicians in the history of the Canadian government (Cline, Chretien, Trudeau, Diefenbaker) don‘t like to give up ground.


----------



## gate_guard

Please give examples of PR being an ineffective form of government that don‘t include Israel and Italy cause in my opinion, 2 out of like 75 aint bad. PR sure has a better track record than FPTP. I guess you‘ve completely written off politicians ability to compromise and make backroom deals. The way I see it, politics evolves just like everything else in society. FPTP has seen its day and it‘s time to try something new. Again, you really don‘t have any CANADIAN examples of PR being ineffective so why not consider it?


----------



## nULL

Ah, why WOULDN‘T you look at other countries? That‘s the BESY way to approach things; look what others have one, then take the best bits. 

Back room deals? Over whether or not to goto war? Over whether or not to support government sanctioned descrimination? That‘s not the kind of country I want to live in. 

Why not consider it? Well, let‘s hammer this through; most politicians get elected on their promises, on what they‘ve said they will do with Canadian society. If they have to negotiate with other parties, neither side really "wins" and nobody really gets what they voted for.


----------



## Hookflash

> GrahamD wrote:
> Anyway, Hookflash, are you American?
> We don‘t use the term "affirmative action" here in Canada, nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.
> 
> Try "equal opportunity employment", and say "Native Canadian" or more appropriately "First Nations (people/s)"


I am Canadian (thank God).  However, I use the phrase "affirmative action" (or "selective discrimination" if I‘m in a cynical mood) because "equal opportunity employment" simply isn‘t accurate.  There is nothing "equal" about it.  It is discrimination against the majority.  It is an attempt to correct past discrimination with yet further discrimination.  What‘s next?  Will the descendants of rape victims be given the right to rape the descendants of rapists (this may seem ridiculous, but it follows the same logic that is used to justify affirmative action)?  If your ancestors stole from mine, do I have the right to steal from you?

As for "Native Americans", the simple fact of the matter is that they *are* living in America (North America, that is).  They were not the "First" Nation (perhaps the first in Canada, in wich case it should be "First Canadian Nations"), so that label would be much less accurate.  Regardless, people should learn not to get so offended by inaccurate labels, especially when it‘s not intended as an insult.

Finally, I find it interesting that gender neutral language is being forced down the throats of Canadian high-school students, while racial bias (ie, referring to one race as "First Nations" [implying superiority]) is actually encouraged.


----------



## GrahamD

> GrahamD, so those that don‘t vote are unimportant? You don‘t even include them as part of the population to say that the Liberals have a majority gov‘t. Should we just deprive them of all the benefits of Canadian society? Maybe we shouldn‘t give them medicare, or social insurance, or any public funding. I mean, if their opinions become irrelevant "babbling" because they didn‘t vote, are they even Canadian citizens? I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way. Wow, their political opinions don‘t matter, seems kind of harsh. I think you‘re trying to say that they really shouldn‘t criticize the gov‘t since they didn‘t vote. As much as I agree with this, I don‘t think this should deny them the freedom of SPEECH!


Ok, I hate having to come back and defend everything I write after it has been completely misconstrued. In this case, I don‘t even see how you could possibly assume that I meant to say anything that you have written down there.

I didn‘t say that people are unimportant if they don‘t vote.  And no they don‘t get counted in terms of who has a majority government.  The number of seats held in parliament is what determines that.  And voters determine which party (and MP) they want to represent their riding, each riding = 1 seat.  A voter = 1 vote for their own riding a non voter = 0.  So the non voter has removed themselves completely from the political landscape, they no longer exist in the eyes of the politician.  They only way to make a difference is by either A.) voting, or B.)At least pretending you are a voter to get a politician to listen to you.

Taking away benefits is rediculous and you are really stretching just to try and make that seem like I could have possibly been insinuating that.
  Like I said, they are irrelevant politically. They are normal every day people who contribute to society and of course they deserve every right as a Canadian citizen.  They have a right to not vote, it doesn‘t make anyone a bad person, but ultimately, in terms of politics, they really don‘t matter.
  They can talk all they want about change in the government, they can have outstanding insight into political matters, and they can throw that all out the window on election day, because talk and insight doesn‘t elect our MP‘s, votes do.



> I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way.


Its called election day, that is their representation, just like the rest of us.  They are not some elusive clan of right wingers who will swoop down from their mountain caves and vote in the Canadian Alliance party if only we could figure out a way to coax them out.   Trust me, no one is writting off the potential votes that exist amoung the non voters, I hear politicians beg for everyone to come out and vote all the time.  But try to have a conversation with your MP about the way things are after telling them that you swear you will never vote once in your life.  You‘d find out pretty quick how much a non voting opinion means to a politician.

Lastly, nothing I said has anything to do with free speech.  I didn‘t say they shouldn‘t be allowed to talk about politics, or anything else for that matter.  Again, I said that politicaly speaking, their input, thoughts, feelings, opinions, all count for 0 votes.  That means they counted for nothing.  Someone who closes their eyes and votes randomly, has made more of an impact on the way our goverment operates than someone who has been analyzing Canadian politics for 25 years and never votes because there just isn‘t a suitable party to vote for.  The more educated  and insightful of the two, would have failed to ever make any impact whatsoever, his vote (his say, his opinion) has never been conveyed to our government, and therefore doesn‘t make even the slightest difference.

Do you follow?  It has nothing to do with the quality of the induvidual, or their rights to talk about it to whomever they want, and to whomever will listen.  They can talk about it for 1000 years and still its irrelevent if they choose to not use their vote to back up their opinion.  All the talking = 0, voting = 1.


----------



## Recce41

Any female that wants to be combat arms should get their head checked. 
  :evil:    :tank:


----------



## Gunnar

Well, I think I‘ve stirred up enough sh|t.  My work here is done.     

By stifling freedom of speech and expression, I meant the imposition of gender/race neutral terminology to prevent people from being offended.  Freedom of speech implies the freedom to offend.  This has obviously been misconstrued by some who don‘t read the fine print.

(And further the right to hate speech, although this isn‘t supported by current laws, and most members of society.  And since this is a view that will inspire a strong reaction, let‘s just say that I believe that the best way to destroy bad ideas is with BETTER ideas, not by suppressing the bad ideas...suppression makes some people think that maybe Billy-Bob Redneck knows something about the true government conspiracy, whereas if you can read Billy-Bob‘s uneducated dumbassed opinion and compare to better facts and figures, you know that the facts just don‘t support his claim...).  

In the last election, a majority of the voting population voted for the Canadian Alliance.  But, because of the seat system, the Liberals still won.  Liberal by one vote cancels out Alliance by 30000 votes, a riding being a riding.  When you tally all the ridings, you get a "majority" Liberal government.

I hope you are somewhat active on the political front.  I have always been one of the silent majority, but the amount of mismanagement going on at the Federal level has forced me to become far more political myself.  I suppose in a sense by being silent all along, I was asking for it, but so were a great number of others.  We really do get the government we deserve.


----------



## gate_guard

GrahamD,
Are you a politician? Cause you seem to have so much info into their psychi. Let‘s put it this way, if I was a politician, I would be greatly concerned with what the non-voter thinks. Mainly due to the fact that if they don‘t like something I do, they just might be instigated to vote next time, and probably not in my favour. I fail to see how a politician could completely right off the importance of a non-voters opinion. You said it yourself, politicians want more people at the polls. But why would they want non-voters there if they didn‘t care about their opinion? Your logic is self-defeating.

And yes, of course I completely exaggerated in my last post, anyone that couldn‘t see that should have their head checked. So to anyone who took me seriously, find a psychologist...better yet, find a psychiatrist, you‘ll need the drugs.


----------



## onecat

"Any female that wants to be combat arms should get their head checked. "

Why would you say this?  There is nothing wrong with a woman who wants to joins the combat arms.  The days of a male only trade are gone, along with being a cop, a firefighter... and so on. I‘m glad the good old days are gone, there fitness differences and they need to be look at... but most of the reasons people don‘t want women in the combat arms be narrowed down too sexism.  Which holds no water with.

The only advice I have to any female who wants to joins, is make sure you have a tough skin and don‘t let the closed minded few keeep you from joining a great trade.


----------



## radop211tc

Imho, I never had an issue with fems in the field, where I find the nightmare begins is when guys start getting all bent out of shape because of their presence and start thinking with the wrong helmet.
So, is it the females‘ fault, I really dont think so,however, I have seen some that do take advantage of their added grenade launchers for advancement and it works really well for them.

Tc...
VVV


----------



## GrahamD

You are right, how I reach my conlusions must be totally useless if I am not a politician myself.



> It‘s like me saying, I‘ve talked to numerous veterans about combat and my Dad was in the army and a guy who fought in Vietnam lives down the street, so I know my s*** about being in a real war.


Well you would have a better understanding of "real War" or War as it is called.  Thats how people learn.  Having information passed on to them.  What do you think you just show up on the battlefield and see how things go until you have some experience? Or did someone teach you how to survive and succeed in battle?

  Is every instructor in the CF a combat veteran?  If not, then how in your opinion do they presume to tell you, the man who demands experience, what to expect when you get into combat.  You must tell them off right?   Seek out any hint of a flaw in what they are saying and really tie into them.  They didn‘t see action for themselves, and it doesn‘t even count to you if the person who taught them was directly involved in combat, if they haven‘t been there themselves and done it for themself then they can‘t possibly know what they are talking about. 

Do you think maybe the moon is made of cheese?  Since you have none of your own experience walking on the moon, you aren‘t qualified to tell me that it isn‘t, so don‘t answer that. Even if you knew Neil Armstrong, and he showed you pictures, and disscused the surface of the moon with you in detail it doesn‘t matter, until you‘ve seen it for yourself, you will just ignore what the scientists, and astronauts have to say about it.

It‘s funny because I sincerly doubt that you would question your CF instuctors qualifications and the knowledge that they pass along to you.  At least not in a confrontational way. Yet you are very confrontational with me in a forum.  You‘ve replied to and tried to contradict to everything I‘ve said.  I think that says something. 

Plus, you don‘t think politicians study demographics and find out who the target groups are for highest voting per capita in that group?  And proceed to work their campaign backwards down that list?
  Do you think they don‘t have a certain demographic who are likely to be non voters?  Not people who couldn‘t get to the polls, or vote when they are mad enough at a party, but people who make choices not to vote? Do you think they take time and money to go and campaign for that group?  If your answer is no, ask yourself why you think that would be.  Maybe it‘s because they don‘t waste time finding out what the issues and concerns of non voters are.

When you are talking about gaining or losing the power that a political office holds, you are talking about the fundemental drive of a politician.  It‘s a nice fantasy to think that each politician cares deeply about every induvidual Canadian, and wants whats best for all.
  However common sense and a modicum of education on the subject tells you, that their personal agenda and the needs of the principle voting demographics are what matter to them.  If you aren‘t on their list of registered voters, you don‘t even get flyers in the mail, let alone any candidates knocking on your door to discuss their platform.  
   Could they make a list of many of the residents who are not registered, and go campaign for them?  Sure they could.  Some Parties do just that, parties like "The Green Party", or "The Marijuana Party".  Parties who know that their only hope for a seat anywhere is to try and hit up induviduals who are going to be overlooked by the main parties.


----------



## gate_guard

GrahamD,
Okay, first of all, I find it humorous that you seem to try to justify your opinions by spouting off people you claim to know. Very mature. It‘s like me saying, I‘ve talked to numerous veterans about combat and my Dad was in the army and a guy who fought in Vietnam lives down the street, so I know my s*** about being in a real war. Not really the same thing. Secondly, assuming you do have all these contacts and they have given you insight into what being a politician takes, I question their ability to serve the people they represent if they only care about the opinions of those who voted. I highly doubt they would choose to ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population merely because they didn‘t vote. Oh but wait, you said Gordon Campbell...gosh, you‘re right, he could give two sh!ts about what anyone thinks. You took a nose dive when you jumped from "non-voters opinions don‘t have a right to criticize the gov‘t" to "politicians don‘t care what these non-voters think." Keep digging. If your joining the infantry, it‘s good practice.


----------



## McInnes

> Any female that wants to be combat arms should get their head checked.


I don‘t understand why you would bother saying that. I think as long as a female is physically and metally fit for it, then she should go for it if she so desires. There is the argument that having females in a group of males will change the way the males act. But again, that is not to the fault of the female, nor the males in many instances. It is just the way life works. Men tend to have a desire to protect women, and to think with the wrong head from time to time. That does not mean the females should not be allowed into the combat arms, or that they should be treated differently. I think that females and males should have the same PT requirements, and the same chance for promotion based on their abilities, not their sex.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"I think as long as a female is physically and metally fit for it, then she should go for it if she so desires"

I‘ve found people consintrate on individual rights and freedoms here. What if (and some would say it does) having females in the combat arms will have a negitive overall effect. Ignore for a moment that girls could and do keep up to men physically (sometimes or often).  If in the end females in the infantry lowers the effectiveness of the trade is it more important to have .3% or whatever of the females in our military happy OR is it more important to have the most effective army/trade/company possible. It comes down to deciding the good of the few or the good of the many.


----------



## McInnes

Absolutly, as I said it is an argument commonly used, and I don‘t mean to say it is not a valid one. There is no actual evidence showing that women are detrimental to the combat arms trades, or that they make no difference at all. I would expect it entirely depends on the people. However, I think it wrong to say that a women is nuts for trying. Right now there are not enough women in the combat arms for the effectivness of the combat arms to be undermined anyways. Perhaps if one day there are enough women, and it shows that having "co-ed" combat units simply does not work, then they should look at making all-female units, or barring then from the trade completly. In today‘s situation and liberal pc atmosphere, I believe that any Canadian, regardless of sex, is perfectly sane for attempting to serve in the combat arms.


----------



## brin11

Ghost778,

Playing devil‘s advocate here:

If that is the case, females lowering the effectiveness of a unit, maybe it would be a good idea to examine why this is the case.  Is it because of all the reasons stated ad nauseum, physically unable, men‘s need to protect women, etc., or is it because people are unwilling to accept that this is a role women should be in.  There is a big difference here especially when you have senior NCO‘s so stubborn they refuse to even give women the chance to prove their worth in a unit.  They have preconceived notions of what is proper and what is not.  

I have seen things improve substantially since 1988 in the way women are perceived in any given trade.  Change comes slowly unfortunately (or fortunately).  

The fact is, combat arms trades are open to women.  They will join and they will pass or fail.  For good or bad it is reality.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I know it‘s a reality. I don‘t have a problem with it at all. Truth is i think all your points are right. Theres a host of reasons including, and i think it‘s one of if not the biggest one, guys refusing to accept women. Is that wrong? Sure thing. How can you fix that? Kick out anyone who makes a joke? Change is always slow. Guess it‘s like the weather.

My idea on a big fix? Take anyone who abuses the whole harassment/assault stuff and make a brutal example out of them. Hang them up to dry.  Both sides use abuse it. Take that out of the mix and things will get a lot better.


----------



## McInnes

I know that  women often abuse the fact that they are women working among men, and it is absolutly disgusting. I don‘t have military experiance for this, but civi side, working on the boats (all men), and a female with less experiance will get the job for high ranking positions (like cap. or skip.) over men, simply because they‘re women, and they threaten them with unequal treatment, and sexism. Not to mention that if you piss a female deckhand off, get on her bad side, she can turn around and charge you with sexual harrasement, and you automatically lose your job, you can get your job back after/if the court finds you innocent.


----------



## onecat

" Not to mention that if you piss a female deckhand off, get on her bad side, she can turn around and charge you with sexual harrasement, and you automatically lose your job, you can get your job back after/if the court finds you innocent."

It goes both ways: you can always charge her with sexual harrasement if she gets on your bad side. Most women would never use harrasement charges in this way; and ones that are just petty and no different than men who actually do hassasement.


 I‘ve worked with women in every job since I was 17 and I‘ve never had these problems that people list here.  Its life, when your skipped over for a bonus, a new position its always easier to say it was because she was a women. I‘m sure it happens, but then I‘ve also seen people get positions because they have friends, or know french, or get passed over becuase they were stationed in a smaller unit, what ever.... there 100‘s of reasons why people someone get a position with less experience and not all of them are bad.


----------



## brin11

Ghost778,

Like I said, I‘m only playing devil‘s advocate:

It‘s unfortunate that things have completely swung the other way where women are being promoted/advanced when they don‘t deserve it.  It has gone from one end of the spectrum to the other.  I think if you ask MOST women all they want is an equal opportunity to prove themselves and fill a role in the armed forces.  I have been equally disgusted with some people, as you all have described, when they use their sex to make other‘s lives miserable and get ahead themselves without putting forth any effort.  Ghost, I agree with you as well, I say take both sides and make an example of them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Right on. Shack discipline. The army is not doing female soldiers any favors by trying to help either.

What base shall we start the clensing at?


----------



## shaunlin41

It seems to me that females in combat arms aren‘t the problem but more so that there are to many cave men in the combat arms that need to evolve a little learn to control themselves and join the rest of society.  As for females meeting the pt requirement same as men I would ask a question, I did 82 push ups for my physical test so why shouldn‘t everyone else have to do the same as me?  How many of you guys would pass the physical then?  It‘s a given that everyone is at different physical levels and should always try to improve but everyone should be treated accordingly including females.


----------



## GrahamD

Right on!


----------



## nULL

82 pushups?!?


----------



## Jarnhamar

82 army standard push ups huh


----------



## RCA

I am getting tired of this ****. This has been discussed ad nusium. Everyone who has a relevant opinion has given it. You young snots, who think they have opinion, donâ€™t. You donâ€™t have enough TI. Christ give me a break.


----------



## brin11

I‘m getting tired of it too.  Maybe we won‘t have to discuss it someday?

Opinions are like *******s after all, everybody‘s got one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Instead of talking about it here letting young snots who are entering the military with the gung hoe ‘girls shouldn‘t be in the army because we don‘t know what else to think‘ attitudes  see a different side of the coin and maybe open their minds a little, we should ignore the topic all together. 
This way we can keep the tensions and problems between the two genders alive and well.


----------



## deathwing5

wow! 82 nice. you doubled me


----------



## RCA

The tensions and problems between the two genders are kept alive and well because too many people have their heads stuck up their *** . This discussion is like having a discussion about somebody while that person is in the room. Or saying I have no problem with females, some of my best friends are females. I find this discussion not meaniful because it degenerates to female bashing and entirely counter productive.This is not PC. This about professionalism. That means being gender blind. If your not, you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I agree with you 100%. People need to smarten up. I personally feel it‘s more effective to educate and in essence win over someone before they even enter the military. If you have been registered on this board since 2000 theres no doubt that you‘ve seen countless discussions about this and many of them degrading into a bashing contest. 

That being said, to someone new to the board, *especially* in a recruiting forum, this stuff may be brand new to them and very interesting. It may teach male recruits that they don‘t have to bash or ostrisize (sp?) women to look manly and it may teach women being a female in the army is not as scary as it might initially seem and there is support for them from their peers as fellow recruits to soldiers with considerable time in such as yourself.


----------



## McInnes

> I‘ve worked with women in every job since I was 17 and I‘ve never had these problems that people list here. Its life, when your skipped over for a bonus, a new position its always easier to say it was because she was a women.


On the Tugboats, I have not actually seen or worked with a women on board. It is pretty much all men. So, there is only one women, alone on a boat that is all men, who are you going to believe in the case of sexual harrasement. It has happened, why do you think I was working there in the first place. Positions need to be filled untill the court decisions pass. That was just an experiance that I have seen. It can happen, people do get treated unfairly, but not just women, men too. Both should be watched out for, and treated accordingly.



> As for females meeting the pt requirement same as men I would ask a question, I did 82 push ups for my physical test so why shouldn‘t everyone else have to do the same as me? How many of you guys would pass the physical then? It‘s a given that everyone is at different physical levels and should always try to improve but everyone should be treated accordingly including females.


They would not ask everyone to do 82 push-up, because you dont need to be able to do 82 push-ups to do basic, or your job i guess. People in the Combat Arms have to do their job, it doesnt matter what sex you are, the job has to be done. So, why if you are female, are you expected to do less?


----------



## piperr

I‘ve always wondered, if throughout history, men thought so little of women, why didn‘t they send the women into battle to kill each other and the men just...survive?
I don‘t understand what this whole discrimination argument is all about. Yeah, it happens. Yeah, it‘s there. I‘ve seen it, but I‘ve seen it outside the army too. I don‘t think anyone can deny it‘s there, and it‘s not just sexual discrimination, it‘s jokes about Arabs who are terrorists, or French Canadians or ‘frogs‘, et. etc. I don‘t think anyone who is in the forces can say honestly that they have never made a joke, or never laughed at a joke that was discrimitory to some minority. 

In the standardized police testing in Ontario, both men and women have the same standards. If you can‘t pass them, then you‘re not going on.
And it‘s not just women who can‘t pass the forces PT test, I know teenage guys that just couldn‘t do it either. I did it, so I‘m in. I was infantry for a year before I remustered to musician. Hey, they‘re discrimination in piping too! 

I just find it amusing to see a bunch of guys arguing about gender discrimination. Continue guys, it‘s amusing!
By the way, I‘m an 18 y/o female attached to an infantry unit.
If a woman wants to be combat arms, there is nothing stopping a woman with a goal. I want to be armoured if I ever quit my job and go reg. force! (There‘s no armoured reserve units anywhere close to where I‘m from). Do you know how many comments I get, being a female piper? (Oh, god forbid, I know! And guess what? I wear those army-issued skivvys under my kilt!) I am no longer offended by anything anyone says. I stopped being offended a long time ago. And yeah, my other female friends in the army and I on occassion do discuss how good some guys look in uniform, espically CF‘s....so I guess that‘s a sort of discrimination in itself, right?

If you want to email me, or flame me, or just completely disagree, or agree, go ahead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Since when are pipers "musicians"?

Sincerely,
Michael Dorosh
Company Piper
"A" Company
The Calgary Highlanders

Our Pipe Major had a conniption back when Garrison Dress came out; the new trades badges for them (and the CFs) had a lyre and a drum, but nothing for pipers to wear.  We quite naturally refused to wear the lyre.  Army troops who play bagpipes are NOT musicians - they‘re Pipers!

PS - Highland regiments don‘t wear kilts.  Do you know what they wear?


----------



## waterat

Would it be a ‘feilidh beag‘ ? Or do they chust wear a glengarry now ?


----------



## piperr

Oh don‘t get me wrong, I‘m not even in a highland regiment!! I do play other instruments, but my main one is the pipes. 
I disagree about not being musicians, because in most cases, the pipers that I know are better musicians over all (don‘t need music, obviously, can usually write their own stuff, and where the mil. band sticks to their music, the piper(s) have to improvise their playing to fit with the band)
Guess what, they alllll go to the same music school in Borden   
But this doesn‘t really have anything to do with women in the infantry


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Waterat - they wear the kilt.

heh...Art Johnson, an old 48th Highlander who served in Korea with RCR, righly chided me for that on this board.  One man wears a kilt, a regiment wears "the kilt."  (This is apparently the correct plural of kilt in this context, not "kilts.")   More UFI that has nothing to do with women in the infantry either.

We had some women in the pipe band when I was in...they had as much musical talent as the men, could march as far, and drink as much (more, even, and without turning into idiots).  If you can do the job, do the job.


----------



## waterat

M.Dorosh...
Ah ! Trick question eh ? ...very good, right enough...I thought you were being tricky in another way....‘fileidh beag‘ is of course Gaelic for ‘little kilt‘, but you knew that anyway !
cheers


----------



## shaunlin41

yes 82 military standard push ups, trained very very hard to do so and yes they let me do them but they only write 40 plus on the sheet. As for this post, I regret posting it because it has shown me that the Canadian military still has a lot of growing up to do. Even the yanks and brits have better attitudes towards female soldiers in combat arms.


----------



## shaunlin41

Ghost, Somehow I don‘t think ignoring the problem will make it go away.  This is a problem that needs to be entertained and people need to be educated on it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

RCA said "The tensions and problems between the two genders are kept alive and well because too many people have their heads stuck up their *** . This discussion is like having a discussion about somebody while that person is in the room. Or saying I have no problem with females, some of my best friends are females. I find this discussion not meaniful because it degenerates to female bashing and entirely counter productive.This is not PC. This about professionalism. That means being gender blind. If your not, you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem."


Look at the Americans - every time a person with black skin accomplishes something or is named to such and such a post, it is trumpeted as a victory for his race.  That kind of nonsense is why there are racial tensions in the States that rarely compare to anything we have here.  Being blind is the way to go.


----------



## McInnes

Why does everyone have to get all hung up on race and sex or even age. If you are in the CF you are all serving Canada, and are all there for essentially the same purpose. The better the people the better the CF. Everyone should have to keep to the same standard (or everyone within a given MOC). The better your mates, the better off you are for it.


----------



## piperr

See, in Britain and the US, women aren‘t even allowed in the combat arms...in that way Canada is very much ahead of other countries.
Have you guys seen these cute lil‘ smiles!   :fifty:  That would be Piperr in her infantry days     Hey Mod‘s, where‘s my piper one?    
I actually did very well on that MG course. And my instructors didn‘t have any problem with us two chicka‘s on the course, but we did get flak from other guys on the course. 
That‘s the only problems i‘ve had, is from ‘peers‘ not superiors... just my observations.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"In the standardized police testing in Ontario, both men and women have the same standards. If you can‘t pass them, then you‘re not going on."

I have to disagree with this. When i did my police ATS testing two females failed the test yet were still sent to police college because in toronto they needed female police officers. Same case with a female from my home town who was a jail guard and applied to the OPP, failed, and was accepted.

Born Military, i was being painfully sarcastic, or so i thought


----------



## shaunlin41

fooled me I guess you forgot the happy face


----------



## Jarnhamar

This is where you can shoot back by saying sarcasim is the recourse of a weak mind and wit is simply cultured insolence (if i got that right)
  :sniper:               :blotto:


----------



## DP

I‘ve heard that no women are allowed in the special forces in the States. Specifically no women are allowed to be snipers. Is it the same here in Canada? If so, is there some sort of website I could visit to get specifications about those rules?


----------



## combat_medic

DP: there are no limitations for women in the CF. They can be in the special forces, snipers, submariners, be anything except for a Catholic chaplain. To my knowledge, Canada is the only country that is this progressive in its policies, but I also don‘t think that any woman has ever succesfully made it into JTF2, but there is one female SAR tech.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

I believe combat arms are closed to women in the US military.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You also have to remember that there is a low percentage of snipers and probably a lower percentage of women in the infantry.  So the chances they are going to be offered the crse are very slim.  Although I hear women make better shots.


----------



## scm77

Women are not allowed to go into combat with the US Marines.

Can Canadian women drive tanks?  In the States thats one of the things in the army they can‘t do, what about Canada?


----------



## Redeye

See combat_medic‘s post above, scm77.  There are no limitations on what women in the CF can do.


----------



## Slim

> Originally posted by scm77:
> [qb] Women are not allowed to go into combat with the US Marines.
> 
> Can Canadian women drive tanks?  In the States thats one of the things in the army they can‘t do, what about Canada? [/qb]


Yup...One of the best tow gunners I‘ve ever seen or heard about was female...
...She married a male member of the regt, they both got out and started having kids!?


----------



## northamericanrebel

woman can fight if the base is being overun and are proficient in all us military small arms


----------



## patt

The Canadian military allows women to do basically anything in the US women are NOT allowed in Combat arms (infantry,armoured,artillery,and engineers) witch also means no Special forces.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What if women aren‘t proficent in all arms, do they surrender?


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

I‘m all for women in SF.
We need our dishes done and barracks cleaned too.

The only thing worse than a male chauvanist pig is a woman that won‘t do what she is told.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Women statistically make better shots, so it is told, because they arrive in basic training without any preconceived notions or bad habits that daddy taught them on the back 40.

The Soviet Army had many female snipers in WW II; in fact it was one of the combat arms roles that females specialized in.  Never mind the Enemy at the Gates movie, I mean in real life.  There were also female tank crewmen - one of the Osprey titles shows a nice photo of a husband and wife team that served in the same AFV.


----------



## Da_man

> Originally posted by OLD SCHOOL:
> [qb] I‘m all for women in SF.
> We need our dishes done and barracks cleaned too.
> 
> The only thing worse than a male chauvanist pig is a woman that won‘t do what she is told.       [/qb]


i agree 100%.   thats why they sent women in space... its lighter than a dishwasher!


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

We had a female MCPL stump puller on my basic.
Told to clean the heads, buddy says why? Don‘t we have any women in Eastern Canada? He barely lived.  :warstory:  I must admit, I left a wounded man behind on that mission.

I will never forget that, ever.


----------



## GrahamD

> woman can fight if the base is being overun and are proficient in all us military small arms


But what about when their convoy makes a wrong turn and they are ambushed?  Do they fire off their whole magazine, or do they not fire a shot?  Do they stay concious, or do they pass out?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by GrahamD:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> woman can fight if the base is being overun and are proficient in all us military small arms
> 
> 
> 
> But what about when their convoy makes a wrong turn and they are ambushed?  Do they fire off their whole magazine, or do they not fire a shot?  Do they stay concious, or do they pass out? [/qb]
Click to expand...

How long would YOUR shorts have stayed clean in the same situation?  Let‘s hope you never have to find out, eh?

Although you are certainly very brave questioning the bravery of someone not here to defend themselves.  Bravo.  The Great Canadian Warrior.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

I think all of us might just pass out given the same injuries.   
Life also becomes very different when you hear a 7.62 go past your ear and believe me, you can‘t pass judgement until you have been there.   
There are some rough tough mother****ers that have just kept their heads down and didn‘t fire a shot in return, swinging **** or not.  :crybaby:    

Yes, I was just kidding and women can shoot but I never met one in any SF unit anywhere in the world.  :warstory:  Now, I have seen them in various shacks from time to time.


----------



## xtramag

okay heres my opinion, i think women are great in the CF but some trades should be left alone,

 the demands and mental strain on a sniper are great, many wemon are incapable of performing a sniper task,

 it takes a certain bred of soldier to be a sniper, you need to be tough, you need to be able to crawl an inch an hour along the ground in the mud and rain, you need the mental toughness to survive 3 days moving in on one shot, you must be able to piss and $hit your own gillie suit and live off little snacks in your pocket, you have to zero in your scope and watch a mans head exsplode from his shoulders, you have to look into his eyes as his brains are blown into mash potatoe, you need to endure great pain both physical and emotional, you have only yourself and your observer, if one of you goes down, your combat immobolizied its that simple, its not the movies were you carry your buddy and shoot the bad guys, one of you takes a hit your missions finished, how many girls can pack a 200 pound soldier on thier shoulders or pull a 200 pound soldier along the ground to an LZ 2 days away, thiers G.I janes out thier but i know of none that can perform the job of sniper.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by xtramag:
> [qb] okay heres my opinion, i think women are great in the CF but some trades should be left alone,
> 
> the demands and mental strain on a sniper are great, many wemon are incapable of performing a sniper task,
> 
> it takes a certain bred of soldier to be a sniper, you need to be tough, you need to be able to crawl an inch an hour along the ground in the mud and rain, you need the mental toughness to survive 3 days moving in on one shot, you must be able to piss and $hit your own gillie suit and live off little snacks in your pocket, you have to zero in your scope and watch a mans head exsplode from his shoulders, you have to look into his eyes as his brains are blown into mash potatoe, you need to endure great pain both physical and emotional, you have only yourself and your observer, if one of you goes down, your combat immobolizied its that simple, its not the movies were you carry your buddy and shoot the bad guys, one of you takes a hit your missions finished, how many girls can pack a 200 pound soldier on thier shoulders or pull a 200 pound soldier along the ground to an LZ 2 days away, thiers G.I janes out thier but i know of none that can perform the job of sniper. [/qb]


Spoken like someone who hasn‘t even signed up yet.      Thanks for the lecture, but I think you want the "Never Been There But Read a Book About It Once" forum. 

As posted already, some truly capable Soviet snipers in WW II were female.  

As far as "many wemon" (sic) being incapable of performing as a sniper, add "most men" to that category as well.


----------



## Garry

tough topic...and a tough crowd.

I have met some women that would kick the bejeezus out of any three of us. They‘re few and far between, but they exist.

Women can do the job.

I‘m concerned about the effectiveness of the unit as a whole. The Israelis gave it a go, and found that the men in the unit tended to watch out for the women when in contact, to the detriment of the other men.

Note: that‘s not the women‘s fault, it‘s ours...but it‘s still a problem.

On a personal note, I do not want women in the combat arms. There has to be one place left where men can be men: spit, scratch ourselves, get drunk, fight, tell dirty jokes...play cowboys and indians if that‘s whats needed. 

I‘m tired of always being Politically Correct.

 

Cheers-Garry


----------



## xtramag

prv.
(awaiting battle school)
39th brg
RMR A Coy

(for the "i havent signd up yet")

    WW2 russian snipers were female because of necesity, most males we used in infantry combat, charges and general combat, wemon were not specificly recruited to be snipers, it was a combat role they adopted, these female snipers were defending thier cities from invaders, i bet you thier was senior citiziens in the sniper role as well, you said most men would be incapable of the role, you are correct. but i guarente you that thier are more compentant males than females for this line of work. based on physical size, strength, and mental toughness the male will beat a women every time, if you take two people you take the best you can find, combat arms has a tonn of kick ***  army girls who can kick the ***  off alot of guys but in the SNIPER COMBAT role they are bested


----------



## Garry

well, can‘t let that one pass.

xtramag- 

Toughness? ever had a baby?

Patience- talk to ANY wife.....

Aggression- try hurting a womens kid...

Wiley- see anyone that‘s been divorced...

Strength- you ever carried a kid and groceries home 5 blocks and up 3 flights of stairs?

Resiliance- try putting up with me (or any man for that matter)

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

I‘m not a sniper- but I am a soldier- and it‘s not about physical toughness, but mental toughness.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## xtramag

yes i understand what women go through alot and are very tough, all im saying is that at this point in time the physical requirments are to intence for the average female recruit and the emotional stress is severe to the point that allot of wemon couldent do the job. i fully understand were you are comming from but lugging a baby and grocerys five blocks is alot diffrent than hauling your buddy off a mountain after hes been shot in the neck by small arms fire. how many girls can stomach an exsploding cranium or a seperating sternum, not many. no, i have never endured the pain of having a baby, but i have exsperianced simulated fire, and i thank god every day that i have not yet been forced into a real fire-fight, the mental and emotional stress people endure when they fight for thier lives is phenominal, if i had to count on somone beside me to pop up and fight back, i will count on a male before any female. yes male soldiers freeze underfire but im willing to bet not as frequently as females, nothing against them or anything, they are some of the best soldiers around but some trades should remain closed.


----------



## Danjanou

> no, i have never endured the pain of having a baby, but i have exsperianced simulated fire,


Well that kind of sums it up there eh.

There are woman out there that have endured the pain of child birth and real not simulated fire skippy.

Like Garry and Michael tried to point out to you it isn‘t just physical but overall toughness and that includes mental and emotional. There are plenty of guys out there including some serving right now who may not have the physical skills you keep harping on about. 

I know I bumped into more than one "tough guy" on FTX‘s and QL3s who turned into a crybaby because they couldn‘t hack it in the field during training. I can just imagine what would have happened had they not discovered that they were in the wrong career long before they found themselves in a place/situation where the flying fecal matter hit the rotary air circulating device.

Don‘t dump on someone before they have a chance to prove or disprove your rather limited view of how things work. Hey if we used your attitude we wouldn‘t have even let you in the door based on the way you open mouth before engaging brain cells.


----------



## GhostRecce

like stated before woman are the same when it comes to the special forces in Canada. so they are treated the same and are expected to do everything the males are expected to do. unlike the fitness test when first getting in.


----------



## DP

I am not in the military, but it is something I‘ve recently been considering, therefore I DO NOT know much about snipers, only what I‘ve been told & have read (excluding movies which are sure to glorify anything that might seem "cool")and I do not claim to know much about the trade. still...

xtramag: some of the things you‘ve posted seem a little off; "the physical requirements are too intense for the average female recruit"... isn‘t that kind of the point? Snipers are elite are they not? no "average recruit", male OR female could withstand the mental & physical pressures
of such a trade. "...the emotional stress is severe to the point that alot of women couldn‘t do the job."  Again, many men couldn‘t do the job either. Here‘s a question before I yap off about something of which I‘m uncertain; in combat, or even training, do women generally buckle sooner under pressure than their male counterparts? 
It seems like you are comparing the BEST of male soldiers to the bottom of the barrel female soldiers. 
"how many girls can stomach an exploding cranium or a separating sternum" I have nerver been forced to "stomach" either of the above (thankfully, as very few of us have), but are you basing this opinion on girls you went to high school with? the ones who screamed when they saw a spider? of course I realise that actually watching someone die (by your own hand or that of someone else)is far more horrifying than anything imaginable, but it seems like you have alot of pre-conceived notions about us "girls". I really hope that your point with the above quote was not that "girls" would not be able to handle the "blood & gore" aspect of it, as calmly as a man, considering of course how many female surgeons, medics etc. there are, not to mention the female nurses in all the wars.  "I will count on a male before any female" Ouch, that one just hurts, eventhough I‘m sure you are just telling the truth. I have a feeling that many male soldiers would agree with you on that one, considering the "housewife, damsel in distress, always needing help etc." notions which have been beaten into the heads of everyone. "some trades should remain closed" I know that this is only your opinion, but here‘s the thing (in my opinion) Snipers are the best, the best shots, and I imagine they‘re the most patient (as was stated in earlier posts that they have to remain still for days on end to complete their mission). 
My point is, if snipers are the BEST, it should be the best of soldiers, male and female. Not just the best of the males, and then the best of the females, but the best of soldiers.

Garry: in one of your posts you spoke of not wanting women in the combat arms because you believe there should be a place where men can be men. This seems a little silly to be the single reason you do not think women should be in the combat arms. there has to be a legitimate reason, I‘d love to hear you elaborate on your reasons.


----------



## Garry

sure, I‘m selfish


----------



## muskrat89

I‘ve never actually flown a 747, but it‘s something I‘ve been thinking a lot about lately...

Why do they have such weird steering things? Why not  tiller bars, or a full steering wheel? Seems to me they shouldn‘t need so many doo-dads, in the cockpit...

The women in combat thing has been beaten to death on here. Do a search, and you‘ll find lots of threads

Sorry - jutes made me grouchy


----------



## Burke

Women can serve in combat positions in only the Air Force and Marines here in the states.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by DP:
> [qb]Garry: in one of your posts you spoke of not wanting women in the combat arms because you believe there should be a place where men can be men. This seems a little silly to be the single reason you do not think women should be in the combat arms. there has to be a legitimate reason, I‘d love to hear you elaborate on your reasons. [/qb]


I don‘t want to sound like I‘m picking on Garry because I‘m not.  But as far as political-correctness goes, I have no respect and rarely the time of day for anyone who spits on the sidewalk, breaks wind in public and thinks its funny, or uses words like "******" in conversation.  We have all met people who think the Army is an excuse to let themselves go; I‘ve always considered it a place where one raises himself above the "common man".  It‘s why we shine our shoes, cut our hair short, and dress alike.  Swearing and commiting vulgar bodily functions for laughs has nothing to do with discipline; quite the opposite, it shows an embarrassing lack of self control.  Frankly, I appreciate the civilizing influence women have on workplaces - military and civilian both.  We‘re better than cavemen, such a pity some people don‘t feel the need to demonstrate it!


----------



## xtramag

hang on a sec, i want to make it clear that i am in no way against females in the canadian forces, i know quite a few females who serve as clerks and supply techs but give them a gun and they steal the show on the range, in training the females bust ***  double quick to proove people wrong. thier fast, organizied, they think on thier toes, they listen, they rarely screw around on duty and all in all make very good soldiers, yes they handle incredible mental strain very well, i would soiled my pants if i was ever in the posotion some female soldiers have been in. i would fight along side a competent female any day of the week, but in the end, when you add the statistics the majority of snipers will be male, most have been male, and i believe most snipers will continue to be male. slowly we will see more female spec. ops or snipers but its going to take time, and lots of hard work from a dedicated female soldier,


----------



## combat_medic

xtramag: OK, listen here skippy, sit down and read carefully. It‘s ignorant and mysogynistic f&ckwits like yourself that have held back progress for centuries.

You want to know why snipers have always been male? Well, let‘s start out with the fact that women have only been allowed in the combat arms in Canada for a handful of years, and we‘re still one of the only countries that allows it. Then, when a woman finally does break through a previously all-male unit, she is treated poorly, ignored, given the crappy jobs, and made to feel unwelcome. If she has enough fortitude to go it alone and not let herself be bullied out of the unit, she will undoubdetly meet more sexist @sshats like you who will make every attempt to impede her career.

If, after all the challenges and obstacles, she somehow manages to get a sniper course, and passes, she will be again amidst a slough of men who will feel some resentment at a woman breaking into their "all boys club".

You wonder why they‘re not around? What guy would put up will that much bull$hit and still hang around? Who would subject themselves to years of this kind of treatment willingly? Most men would go running for the hills after that much mistreatment, but these women keep it up, and they have my every respect and confidence.

As for carrying someone on the battlefield... I weigh 160 and have fireman carried a guy who weighs 230. Care to beat that Sparky? I‘m also a fantastic shot and have better than 20/20 vision. Lucky for you I‘m a medic, and the Geneva convention prohibits me from beating your @ss into a bloody pulp. So, for the future, please keep your ignorant comments to yourself. And reading a book or two about sniping does not give you the authority to spount off your opinions on who YOU think can do the job.

Oh, and FYI... in the medical field I‘ve seen plenty of people pass out from fear of needles, or cry like babies when they were sick. They were all men!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well said combat_medic!


----------



## Danjanou

Ok who besides me would prefer to have Combat Medic over empty I mean xtra mag in a slit trench when there‘s incoming rounds whizzing overhead?

Well put CM, pleasure to converse with professionals and grown ups here.


----------



## combat_medic

Thanks Danjanou. If you‘re ever around Seaforth, let me know, I‘ll be happy to buy you a beer and we can shoot the $hit.


----------



## xtramag

i fully understand that alot of woman can soldier better than alot of guys, COMBAT-MEDIC my point is that yes, thier are highly skilled combat arms females, very hardworking, dedicated and great soldiers, however i believe that the role of COMBAT SNIPER will always be male dominated even with @uckwits and @s****s like me, Thier are many exceptions, but compared to males how many females aspire to be a COMBAT SNIPER. thier are very succecfull females in the infantry and para coys, but why is it that they dont attend sniper school in a large capacity, why is it they dont flock to JTF training if they are fully welcome? 

    the whole issue of acceptance only goes so far, now im opening my mind here, somone tell me why despite all the open trades do woman not snipe or join jtf-2. thier must be an emotional or physical factor that limits most females, its not the showvinist pigdog males that stop every single  female in the canadian forces, thier is a natural barrier, 

    so without the whole "im a @asterd cause i think females shouldent snipe" exsplain to me why they dont join the Trade?????


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Seeing how we really don‘t know the true make up of JTF2 how do we know for certain whether or not women are part of the team? Food for thought.


----------



## xtramag

Okay look, i seem to have gotten myself off to a shaky start, i presume i look like a close-minded, smugg, self-centerd, showvanistic pigdog woman hater, so i apologize for my stupid rants, from now on im going to use evidence and credible information in my posts, as i have said several times i have total respect for combat arms females, i based my aguments to woman in the SNIPER COMBAT on the fact that most females i know couldent handle it, i failed to realise the fact that canadian service females are a very diffrent breed than the average "chick". i guess if a female enrolls in combat arms shes is prepared and has been found medicaly fit to handle the emotional and physical demands of the job. because a soldier is female she shouldent be limited by regulations or policy, so i guess i got abit arrogant and closed-minded on the way i saw the issue and all the negitive feed-back was a good gut chek, so i guess apologies to combat-medic, and and promise of future intelligence to everyone else.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

Now I realize that I have an unfair advantage but I walked through an airport "somewhere" and noticed a gaggle of troopies. These troopies were shaggy but well disciplined in their stance and in the ways of the weightroom. I strolled by and said,"why don‘t you guys just put up a ****in sign SGT."    
Well holy **** and hello if that didn‘t get a reaction. I LMAO all the way out. The best part of course was the max flinch. I think they appreciated the humour when I looked back and gave a field signal. Really I just felt old.


----------



## Kitanna

This discussion is amazing sexist... that guy who said we(women) should clean up and do the f**king dishes is terrible! *sorry for the language* That is the worst thing I have ever heard! and what makes men have a better mental capacity for death and gore than women? We can do exactly the same junk you can. This is another reason I want into the army so I can prove that I can what guys can. I hate males who think they‘re superior in strength and also in mental capacities. I know I wouldn‘t like start crying if I blew someone‘s head off. Blah.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

It was a joke, don‘t get your panties in a bunch.
I can assure you I am under the constant direction and control of a female 110% of the time.
Just look at Isreal.


----------



## Kitanna

*scowl* I suppose... sorry! lol


----------



## Art Johnson

Michelle, uh huh. "Vas you dere Charlie" Listen sweetie most men can‘t make it in the Infantry why should you be allowed to join the Infantry just to prove how macho you think you are. I have no problem with a level playing field but when the standards are lowered just to accomodate someone who would not ordinarily make it is not the way to go.


----------



## Danjanou

Hey Art in the kid‘s defence and based on her posts so far I think she respects and even wants that level playing field and for the same reason you, I and every other grunt wants it maintained.

Army Chick you gotta work on your warped Infanteer sense of humour though. It‘s an essential piece of kit as you hopefully will discover.

Old School you‘re married too eh.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

Married? I was talking about mom. I live with her and she does my laundry and makes me cookie snacks.


----------



## Kitanna

oy -_- so used to highschool male humour. sorry guys! I‘m used to everyone spazing when male/female equalism is concerned. lol Wee being 17 and like everyone else married -_- oh well!


----------



## Danjanou

I‘m moving back in with my Mom. My wife never bakes cookies and makes me do HER laundry.

Hang on.. wait a sec... Mom used to make me do the laundry too.


----------



## PteCamp

lol, u ppl r so sexist!!!! i ca not even believe my level of shock!
I‘m glad none of the guys in my unit r this bad, and im like the only female under 30 in my unit!
Army Chic dont worry, i aint married! but im only 16..lol


----------



## Slim

Wow...This is the most motivated discussion I‘ve seen yet on the forum.
If you all put in this much effort on a course then you‘ll all be top candidate...no sweat...!

I‘m siding with the pro girlies in the CF...I have met really good ones ( TOW gunner Tracie M-LdSH) and really BAD ones!
If a PERSON can cut it as a soldier...so much the better, we need all the good soldiers we can get!


----------



## squeela1984

You can‘t single out all women saying they cannot make it in the special forces.  Everyone is diff and has diff capabilities.  BUT there are not many women (not sure on numbers)in the special forces, and there‘s a reason for it.


----------



## Slim

o.k. I‘ll bite...what‘s the reason?


----------



## squeela1984

I don‘t know the reason.  I‘m actually saying women must not be able to make it if the number is so low.  Look at RMS clerk...it‘s an office type job with computing and filing.  Look at infantry...strenuous(at times) PT with alot of mental games and hard on the body type work.  Compare the numbers of RMS to INFANTRY for women.  I say infantry is a man‘s job but if a woman makes it good on her.


----------



## kiltedtradesman

I believe that women should always have the same opportunity as men in the CFâ€¦â€¦..in any work environment.  However, the problem isn‘t fat lazy men being threatened my women.  Itâ€™s the fact that some men and women have trouble separating work from pleasure.  The real problem here is fraternization.  Men try to impress women and show them how mocho they are and women sometimes use that to their advantage to gain acceptance and vice versa.  If they are good troops, then leave it at that and go hard on the exercises and in the mess, but not in the bedroom.  People get jealous and when they do, they resort to delittling the other party, which resorts to infighting amoung the troops and in this case, general resentment against women.  Perhaps there should be stricter rules on fraternization.  Stricker rules won‘t solve the problem but it is a good start in the right direction.

Thatâ€™s my 2 pieces of copper plated zinc (cents)


----------



## Enzo

I dunno, I figure it should be the opposite; take sex out of the equation. Aim for true equality. All standards should be the same for both sexes (i.e. not all women can pass the physical for the infantry, but neither can many men). On a level playing field, people may actually become soldiers. As for the sex, who cares. Grow up, get over it. I dunno, if I had a few girls in the showers while we were running to make a timing; I honestly don‘t think I‘d care any more than showering with 36 guys. And it‘s not like I had done that before the army (sports notwithstanding) 4 mins to shower, change and be out on the line, is still 4 mins. The stress of shouting NCO‘s and Warrants who are losing it is still stress. Who has the energy for such things after week 1 anyway? Not to mention the hypocrisy. There was a guy in the PL behind us, turns out he was bi-sexual and open about it. I had a chat with one of the guys about that, and he was quite honest. Some of the guys had a problem with this at first, but as the guy himself said, "don‘t worry, none of you are my type." It quickly became a joke amongst them; this individuals sexuality wasn‘t an issue as long as no one (including himself) made it an issue. Just another infantryman learning his trade and working the same as the rest.

This is where discipline and self-control come into the equation. It isn‘t as if we are all walking hormones, females included. Young people are going to find a way to get together and have sex; regardless of the rules and the risks. I know of many liason‘s, but I chose to ignore that which didn‘t effect our jobs. Simply put; not my business. We send our troops overseas on various missions and entrust them with such responsibilites as to make our nation and our military proud of their achievements. Yet we can‘t entrust them to behave appropriately towards one another; regardless of sex?

Our society may not be ready to endorse such measures at this time, but I‘m certain at some point we‘ll get there. Once the sex is removed from the equation, a soldier is a soldier first; all else is secondary.


----------



## Slim

Well put Enzo, well put...


----------



## Andyboy

"It isn‘t as if we are all walking hormones, females included. Young people are going to find a way to get together and have sex; regardless of the rules and the risks."

Well which is it?


----------



## Enzo

By that I meant, we are able to be control ourselves in a professional manner, especially when properly trained and monitored, much as we are in many other areas (including sex) within ‘the shacks‘. That applies to all of us; this society has mores, rules and expectations that we all follow daily, self-control and respectful behaviour are already among them.

When people "choose" to get together, then they will find a way; that is their prerogative. It‘s all about consent, choice and desire; not to mention privacy when it‘s on personal time.

My primary point was that sex as in ‘the sexes‘, should be made irrelevant within the ranks. Much the same as men and woman have moved past ‘social class,‘ ‘race,‘ religion,‘ ‘politics‘ and ‘sexuality;‘ for the most part. There will always be a lack of true consent, but I like that within our society. I don‘t need to agree with you, or even like you. But when we‘re in the field, I need to know that I can rely on you to do your job and not allow personal issues to affect your judgement. Regardless if that is brought on by resentment, prejudice, or ignorance due to any of the above. And I hold that any of you should have the same expectations of me.


----------



## squeela1984

Suddenly this have become a sex/frat issue.  Let‘s try sticking with women in the special forces!!  Don‘t say it‘s due to frat,etc cause frat is everywhere in the military.  EVEN on the ship as a steward hehehe (I‘m a siggy so nevermind any crude jokes)


----------



## Andyboy

"I need to know that I can rely on you to do your job and not allow personal issues to affect your judgement."

Is that possible when fraterization occurs, you‘ve already told me it WILL occur.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If you "blew someones head off" you would be a mental wreck for a long time. Infantry soldiers with 15 years in get f**ked up after seeing people hurt by others, let alone kill someone themselves.

We need one standard for not only physical fitness but what members get away with and what they don‘t. I know of a prime example where a very attractive girl who just joined the army gets doted on hand and foot by higher ups while guys with more time in, even higher rank, get boned. Such as passed up for adventure training, getting cadpat first, getting promised this course and that one. Guys are just as much to blame too for being ***sy hounds. They act like morons. Good on the girls who ignore them and doom to those who bask in the special treatment.

Infantry is a mans trade. It‘s like a big boys club. I‘m not saying guys won‘t accept girls but it takes a special type of personality in a female to fit in with the infantry. If a girl doesnt have it then shes not going to get very far at all. Fair? probably not but thats how it is and it‘s how it‘s going to be for a long time.
It‘s safe to say that the special forces this club mentality will only be that much stronger. Girls might fit in but theres very little chances due simply to the math of the situation. If 1% of the females in the CF can hack it in the infantry and then !% of them can make it in the special forces that doesnt amount to a lot of people. The physical fitness part of the house is just one very small aspect.


----------



## Gibson

Nothing pisses me off more then someone trying to make me look bad or incompetant just to impress some girl who has no interest in him anyway.  I see it on my own BMQ and that‘s not even the infantry yet.

I don‘t think there‘s any physical reason women can‘t hack it in the infantry, those who sign up are in my opinion a different breed of woman anyway.  I‘m sure they could handle the mental issues of death and all that crap just as well as a man.

Due to higher percentage of body fat and less aggression with the weapon they tend to be better shots anyway and that‘s the most important part of being a sniper isn‘t it??

The only limiting factor I see is the attitude of men and how we deal out preferential treatment and how some women accept it and use it to their advantage.  There are those who don‘t and actually shun that practice, and those are the examples of women that belong.


----------



## Enzo

Andyboy, you‘re a bit focused on the fraternizational aspects. I‘ve been clear and I‘m trying to move away from that. The thread‘s suppose to be about females in the SF. Fine. Of course it‘s moved into this arena, hard for it not to.

So I‘ll say it again, "My primary point was that sex as in ‘the sexes‘, should be made irrelevant within the ranks." I don‘t care who you are, where you come from, how many siblings you have, your intentions after you decide to move on, or what your dog‘s name is. I do not care. I want to know that you are "qualified" to perform the task assigned to you. If this mean‘s we‘ve somehow managed to make it into the JTF and you happen to be a female, fine. I don‘t care. Just do your job.

And as for personal issues, "my Visa is maxed out and..." "My best friend was killed in a DUI this past weekend..." "My father didn‘t hug me enough as a child..." "I hate anyone born after Labour Day..." "Do you think I look fat in this LBV?" "I only drink after 9am, so it isn‘t a problem, and all of that Listerine in my barrack box is for my breath..." "My girlfriend is in another section and she‘s being shipped to Afghanistan tomorrow..."

Deal with it. It‘s the job and there should be no surprises about these kinds of things. Female, Male, Eunuchs and Ewoks. Who cares, just be professional and follow your training please.


----------



## Andyboy

Teste teste Enzo! Nice post but you didn‘t really say anything.

How can you remove Sex (capital S) from the sexes? Its human nature, it‘s like removing breathing. You said it yourself, "Young people are going to find a way to get together and have sex; regardless of the rules and the risks." and that‘s the problem. If we are going to try to field an effective fighting force that has maximum cohesivness and teamwork how can we have fraternization?  

What you are missing is one of the qualifications of being a soldier: the ability to work with others as a team member. Women may or may not be able to hump like an Infantry soldier, the question is can they meld into an infantry section without affecting the dynamic it requires to have an effectice comabt team?


----------



## Enzo

By Sex from ‘sexes‘ I meant gender. Remove gender from the equation and see soldiers as people; neither male or female.

As for "and that‘s the problem. If we are going to try to field an effective fighting force that has maximum cohesivness and teamwork how can we have fraternization?"

We currently field many soldiers around the world, they are effective in their roles. From sailors on our ships, to flight crews and ground troops in over a dozen different locales. Both sexes.

"What you are missing is one of the qualifications of being a soldier: the ability to work with others as a team member"

Regardless of their gender, religion, culture or political viewpoint.

"Women may or may not be able to hump like an Infantry soldier,"

Like it or not, women ARE currently employed as infantry soldiers.

"the question is can they meld into an infantry section without affecting the dynamic it requires to have an effectice comabt team?"

That question was once asked of females serving on ships, which is now commonplace. In many trades that were "traditionally" closed to females, you‘ll now find woman serving with distinction i.e. Pilots/MARS/MP, etc... If you want to go back far enough, you‘ll have found a time when men who did not fall within the majority were denied access to certain trades as their suitabilty was called into question. How many Native Canadian pilots were there in WW1? How many Asian Canadians were there in that conflict? A few, in all trades. No, some were closed. In times past, we had racism. Now, we‘re dealing with sexism.


----------



## northamericanrebel

ya ya call me ignorant but keep woman out of combat rolls           :crybaby:      :boring:


----------



## Jarnhamar

"ya ya call me ignorant but keep woman out of combat rolls"

How about, call you a civilian teen-ager with zero military experience?


----------



## Enzo

It wasn‘t my intention to draw a direct correlation between racism and sexism. I was attempting to highlight the intolerances of the past with those that are expressed in the present.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The intolerances in the past were bad, of course, but ‘back then‘ they wouldnt people get away with half of the crap they do today. Sex changes, little red stress cards, going home off tour cause they think they made a mistake, can‘t pass a fitness test, want a breast enlargement, can charge a whole platoon because they are the outcast  not accepted and wont take a hint. People using sexual harassment as a witch hunt or stepping ladder. Getting a little off topic though eh.  

lLets look at the americans. They have more special forces type units and teams then i can count. I imagine women are not allowed in the units or rather in a front line aspect. Anyone know the reasons behind that?


----------



## winchable

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html 
I don‘t know if that‘s an entirely reliable source, but it is on the topic. it is against the idea.

 http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html 
A pro view.

 http://washtimes.com/national/20030623-122741-5014r.htm 
It seems that the Americans have had enough of women in the combat arms. 

I‘ve suddenly realised how useless the internet is when you need to find a reliable source, a bunch of misspelt, biased and poorly written essays.
I don‘t endorse the above links, but I just thought perhaps someone would like to read them.


----------



## northamericanrebel

ok ghost...lol whatever you say cheif


----------



## Andyboy

Enzo you are absolutely correct, there are mixed units serving all over the world, are you suggesting though that there are no problems in those deployments? 

I agree with you that the answer is to see soldiers as soldiers, unfortunately experience has shown me that isn‘t possible.  Human nature is human nature.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

What happened to them doing my dishes and cleaning the arracks?

All this debate has given me a headache.

Do I want a woman beside me on an op? If she can carry 120lbs,live in the field for 2 months and has trained that way for years then sure.    End of debate.


----------



## Enzo

Andyboy, I‘m suggesting that the ideal may eventually be to eliminate the gender bias and judge a person soley on their merits. As Old School says, if ‘she‘ can perform the task‘s as well as the next soldier, fine.

There will always be individual problems to sort out; if that wasn‘t the case, life would be mediocre. As for those issues pertaining to women in the combat arms, that‘s a societal problem which may never fully be worked out. On the one side, it‘s a propostion that may affect the dynamic of the men on the teams, especially in the worse case scenarios - injuries, death, capture, etc... On the other hand, half of our population is female, we may be disregarding a positive resource of personnel and ability. So long as the ‘standards‘ remain of the highest order, then whoever can meet and exceed that criteria should be able to apply for whatever position is available to them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Well northamerican rebel. I‘m curious now. Why don‘t you think women should be allowed in combat arms? You don‘t have any military experience  so can‘t speak from a personal experience BUT maybe you have another reason? Something that we might be over looking because our views may be biased? By all means do tell my friend, why do YOU feel women should not be allowed in the combat arms?

Dutch soldiers are permitted to frat with each other all they want, just not with the local population. They have perhaps a 10th or even less the harassment problems we have. Why is that?


----------



## Andyboy

Ok I see I‘m going to have to put this as plainly as possible. 

In any given mixed gender unit you have the guys that are trying to get in the chick‘s pants, the guys who everyone THINKS are trying to get in the girls pants, the guy(s) who has been accused of harrassing the chick, the guys who hates the chick, the guys who couldn‘t care less either way and go out of their way to show everyone, the guys who resent the chick for supposedly getting all the attention, the guys who.... you get the picture, and I havn‘t even topuched on the chick herself OR how the NCOs act in regards to her. But all we have to do is simply reverse our human nature and ignore gender.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Reverse human nature huh. If we could do that then there would be far less violence int he world. Beautiful thought, little hard in it‘s application.  Good point about all the different types of guys. I even saw myself in that list


----------



## co-pilot

i think if women want to join the military they should be able to do the same things guys do when it comes to requirements to join and not have the standards dropped because we want to be a politically correct service and if they can meet those standards and not wine and complain about it i will gladly stand next to the on any sort of operationbecause i know that if i go down that even a women will be able to pull me out


----------



## Enzo

In any mix gender unit? So you‘re proposing females are either a problem within the current system or they should be formed into their own units? The entire CF is open to anyone, period. Like it or not, females work in combat arms units and if they want to apply for the JTF, they‘re as welcome to apply as anyone else.

As for that list above, anyone remaining in the CF who‘s capable of focusing on their work? Human nature is a powerful force; as is personal discipline and teamwork.

Off topic a bit, I‘ve worked in the Caribbean with many women in private dive charter companies. They are wearing bikini‘s appropriate to the region and are usually quite fit. The guys generally don‘t break into a frenzy and interfere with the operations of the day by the distractions of their co-workers. These girls work hard and play harder. That‘s the difference; play time involves playing, while at work, it‘s business that comes first. The guys for the most part understand this and find that there are advantages to having them on their teams. If there are problems, it‘s usually with individual personality. I‘ve observed more conflict with issues of nationality and culture than any other.

That is not combat arms and I‘m not intending for a direct comparison; but the attitudes are similar.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

Fit women in bikini‘s??   
I‘m all over that like a fat kid on a smartie.   
I will be the guy in the day-glo waterwings.  :warstory:  
So for clarity, It‘s o.k. to do the bidness during playtime but no playtime during ‘da bidness?  :blotto:


----------



## Andyboy

I can‘t speak for the entire CF, but it has been my experience that adding the opposite gender(whatever that means nowadays) to a homogeneous group creates problems. In other words take a group of guys and add a girl or a group of girls and add a guy and you‘ll get what I described above.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

On most ships now (and probably all of them) we have females on board. Some have done well and are a major asset to that ship‘s company. Others makes it a nightmare (these are definitely in the minority). Unfortunately its us guys that make it harder for women to fit in. We have this preconcieved notion that women cannot do the job as well as a man. Well let me put it to you this way, some women do it better. Some guys are total slugs and are a major embarrassment. The whole process is give and take, if accomodation is made by both sides you have a smoothly operating unit. If there are difficult parties from either sex thats when you have the problems. I remember back when I was RCD and with 2 NSH we had guys that could not pull their weight and in some cases slack was cut for them but when a woman cannot she is labelled for as long as she is with that unit.


----------



## squeela1984

The reality is that there is absolutely no intelligent, logical, sensible reason for women not to be in combat roles with the technological style of warfare that abounds today.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

The day ‘ technology ‘ can tab 60km with a full combat load, I will eat my bulletproof shorts.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Which brings us back to if a female can do it, great, but females should not have different physical standards if they are doing the same job.

It might have been brought up in the past, Isreal (who i think we can all agree have a bit more current combat experience than us) tried women in the combat arms and it failed.

The question i‘ve brought up a few times. Is it more important to have a single soldier in a unit even if it drops down the over all effectiveness of it simply to cater to their rights OR is it more important to have an effective unit as a whole where an individual soldier may not make the cut because they can‘t carry their own weight or they dont get along with others.

Good of the many vice the good of the one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agreed Ghost......I think the different standards and political correctness have done more harm then good for the women of the CF. If women have a problem thats what the divisional system is for and if thats the problem take it higher.


----------



## squeela1984

I actually agree with Ghost and Ex-Dragoon!!
I have nothing else to say LOL


----------



## LilMissChicky

I agree as well.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] Which brings us back to if a female can do it, great, but females should not have different physical standards if they are doing the same job.
> 
> [/qb]


The only time the physical standards for females are different is when you actually apply. But the standards for the males are pretty easy too so what difference does it make? While training, everyone does the same amount of pushups no matter what gender.


----------



## Garry

Bloggins,

Not so.

The PT tests run nowadays have different standards for both age and sex.

When I joined the minimum PT standards were a lot higher than they are now...they‘ve been slowly falling for years.

The biggest joke to me is the mixed male/female platoons in basic. How in the heck are you going to stress a 19 yr old male, when he must run only as far and as fast as the least fit women in the platoon?

I very strongly believe in equal pay for equal work, but maybe we should have gone the way of the (iirc) Norwegians- when women were legislated in to all Military jobs, they went from 9% female to 2%- as the women now had to meet the same standards as the men. 

Females have every right to be in the Forces, and we need them...but not at the cost of unit efficiency.

Sorry guys, but all the great "Social Experiment" has done is to make us all much more polite.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## LilMissChicky

> Originally posted by Garry:
> [qb]  How in the heck are you going to stress a 19 yr old male, when he must run only as far and as fast as the least fit women in the platoon? [/qb]


*cough* There is plenty of slow poke in the men‘s division! LOL


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

> Originally posted by Garry:
> [qb]
> The PT tests run nowadays have different standards for both age and sex.
> 
> [/qb]


Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Well,you learn something new every day. What I meant was we do the same PT....not testing...

About the least-fit-woman in the platoon thing, I can think of several guys on my last course who would fall out of PT before any of us chicks did. (as has been brought up several times already on this board.) So, as has been mentioned several times before, gender is not necessarily an indication of fitness.


----------



## squeela1984

such is true about people falling out of PT....women are not the only slow runners, but yes it usually tends to fall that way for the most part.  I think this topic is getting old tho....but that‘s just me
(a female)


----------



## chrisf

It has been my experience that pretty much every woman in the forces who gets past basic sets out to prove they aren‘t the weaker sex. And I think they do a rather good job at it. I‘d rather have a male instructor then a female instructor any day because of it.

A little addition to my original reply:

As far as women in combat, women in the special forces, whatever, goes, as far as I‘m concerned, anyone who can do the job PROPERLY should be allowed to do the job. Male, female, gay, straight, etc, doesn‘t matter.

That actually brings up another (Though off-topic) point. Homosexuals in the military. I‘m against homosexuals in the military. Why? Because I know many gay men. With the exception of one of them, they‘re all in better shape then me, and this would make me look bad.

In all seriousness though, again, it comes down to this. Anyone who can do the job, should be allowed to do the job (I‘m sure to this somone will point out that if that were true, then we‘d let in every low-life imagineable, of course, I counter that by saying that by saying that being of good character is all in the job description).

I‘ve heard a few ridiculous arguments against having homosexuals in the military, the most notable is that people don‘t feel "comfortable" around homosexuals... to them I ask, would you support kicking out every single hetrosexual male because there are women in the army? Of course not. We‘re here to do a job. If there‘s anything else happening, then you need to suck it up and act like a professional.

Thus ends my rant.


----------



## Bert

Theres a general undertone that superior fitness directly equates to superior motivation, competence and capability.  Is that so?
Just because one can run 20 km, do 1000 push-ups,
1500 situps does not necessarily mean they make a good member or better than another in all respects.  If you look around and find those who are switched on and switched off by your own descriptions, what are their key qualities?


----------



## midnight_ice

ive got another question for you... What jobs in the canadian army are women not aloud to do..??


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan

Well, in the states, england and most other countries in the world, women can‘t be infantry.  But in PC Canada you can.


----------



## Army_Deej

Most fit women could join the army if they wanted to, actually almost every women that has wanted to join, has joined, passing everything...but since the new fashion has come, more women have tried to go into fashion more then anything else.  They probably want to be millionaires, and so some of them drop out of school, or go into modeling, and it is just stupid, cause they aren‘t doing anything useful to the world.


----------



## buffboyali

Dont you think thats a little biased. you gotta give women more credit than that.


----------



## D-n-A

why is this posted in the Infantry forum?


Also, whats wrong with trying to be rich? Both woman and men want money.

If the military isnt for them, then fine

theres a lot of females in the military, an more joining


----------



## greymatter

im a 17 year old female joining the reserves, and totally excited, any other women here joining?


----------



## D-n-A

why did you post this in the Infantry Forum, since this post has nothing to do with the Infantry


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

mabye shes joining infantry?

Im just digging here..


----------



## Chalcey

Hey Greymatter, I am also female and have recently finished the last stages of the recruiting process and waiting for news from Borden, so there are a few of us ladies on here


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by D-n-A:
> [qb] why did you post this in the Infantry Forum, since this post has nothing to do with the Infantry [/qb]





> When you see the enemy in your sites the only thing you should feel is the recoil of your M16"
> -MSgt Eversman


I‘d rather see a dozen posts like hers (welcome to the Army greymatter) than a single sig line like yours.  I think maybe you mean "sights" as in "gunsights".  Unless Master Sergeant Eversman was a semi-literate, that is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Only wimps feel recoil.


----------



## DogOfWar

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] Only wimps feel recoil. [/qb]


thats right you should be so filled with rage and bloodthirst that you cant feel anything.


----------



## Gunner

> Only wimps feel recoil.


Words of wisdom from the Balkans warrior.


----------



## DogOfWar

Whats a Balkans warrior?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Besides,
I think it would be pretty hard to keep the enemy in my sites. I suppose if I put some razor wire around and put big bright lights on them. I could also tell them to not leave my site with a real stern voice.


----------



## Sine22

wow this topic has become rather useless seeing as how only on reply has anything to do with the original question posed.  Way to stay on topic guys.  Good to see that we have soldiers with ADD serving in our military.  Makes me feel so ******* safe.  Get a grip guys!


----------



## meni0n

Us soldiers have something that‘s called humour. Apparently someone was denied that in their childhood education. Get a grip this is a useless topic and you coming out of left field and insulting people for no reason makes you look like a dumbass. Try to think before you post next time.


----------



## alan_li_13

I know two cadet sgts who happen to be females from my corp that‘s moving on after this summer. They‘re going to our affiliated unit, Queen‘s York Rangers. They‘re gonna start BMQ in October so i‘ve heard.


----------



## nbk

Aww you guys...the poor girl‘s just saying hi. 


Hi greymatter, welcome to the reserves, and to Army.ca. There are many females on this board, as there are in the military.

Do not let the less than warm reception in this thread sour your perception of this forum. You can get lots of useful information on this board, even if the people can sometimes be *******s. If you have questions, search the forum, or if they havent been asked, then don‘t be afraid to ask them.

And D-n-A‘s sig line is great. No one should get all huffy over such a nothing. Why can‘t everyone just be friends?


----------



## greymatter

hey thanks guys!!
yeah im super excited to join. 
i hurd infantry was hard for a women.
im glad to know other girls have joined as well!
3-days until my c-fat test


----------



## Old Cent Hand

WOMEN IN THE ARMY ?! I have met , and trained , alot of women in the Army , alot of these gals , have out- soldiered , alot of guys , if you are up to it , go for it! I have heard alot of guys , whine about women in the army , but like I told one guy , "she beat you on the PT 400 Fitness test "( It is no longer used),she did more chin-ups than he did.


----------



## Old Cent Hand

Further to my last , I instructed on a BCT Armd course in ‘99 , training Reserve Armored Officers , our troop leader‘s driver , was a reservist , a female , she was our best driver , plus she was fit. Her vehicle came first,alot of drivers would run off to get dinner, she stayed behind , making sure "HER" Cougar was good to go. She is still with the S.A.L.H.
PERSEVERANCE!


----------



## Jarnhamar




----------



## greymatter

well im hoping that i can try to out beat the guys


----------



## combat_medic

greymatter: Don‘t join with the attitude of wanting to be better than everyone else. Do your job, help your buddies, and you‘ll ALL be successful. If you‘re a lot better than everyone else on course, you‘ll stand out, and it will just get you in trouble.

And hello from another female in the forces! What unit are you joining? If you haven‘t decided yet, the Seaforth Highlanders are looking for people!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Welcome greymatter good to have you with us.


----------



## D-n-A

greymatter, good luck on the rests of your testing, an in your reserve career

cheers


----------



## 48Highlander

a site is a losation.  as in the FIBUA site.  a SIGHT is what you look through when aiming at your enemy.  edumacation is a wonderfull thing eh.


----------



## D-n-A

haha, k, I just caught the error, I just copied an pasted the line, never notiched the "site" instead of "sight"


----------



## greymatter

I was going to join the Seaforth Highlanders but it was very far for me to go all the time. I put in my application from Westminter. I have my medical may 14th. Do you think I will make it to basic?


----------



## Baskin

well i don‘t know for sure, but the person i talked to said i should make it if all goes well and im just writing my cfat on tues, so i‘d think you would.


----------



## spenco

I‘m applying for seaforth as well, I‘ve got my CFAT and medical on wed.  Any chances of making it in for the summer? just out of curiosity when does seaforth stand down for the summer?


----------



## D-n-A

greymatter/spenco, your chances of making it onto this summers BMQ/SQ is pretty low

as for the seaforth stand down, I‘m going to assume its the same for my unit, so May 20


----------



## spenco

alright thanks...thats pretty much what i figured regarding the summer bmq.


----------



## spenco

1 more thing... after my interview and all that is done I wont hear anything regarding my application until seaforth resumes training in sept correct?


----------



## combat_medic

If you make it into the unit after stand down (which is May 20 as far as I know), but in enough time to get you on a BMQ course, then you will probably get brought in and kitted out so that you can go on your course. If you can‘t make it on your course, then you will show up for stand to in Septemper.


----------



## D-n-A

Whats the cut off date for the BMQ/SQ course? I thought it would have been before the stand down. I know a few people that got sworn in an kitted out after down down an they couldent go on the course, either because the course was full, or they missed the cutoff date to request to go on course.


----------



## spenco

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] If you make it into the unit after stand down (which is May 20 as far as I know), but in enough time to get you on a BMQ course, then you will probably get brought in and kitted out so that you can go on your course. If you can‘t make it on your course, then you will show up for stand to in Septemper. [/qb]


So I can be sworn in and all that while the unit is still standing down? And is there another BMQ course after the sept one but before the summer?


----------



## greymatter

isnt there a winter BMQ?


----------



## D-n-A

There is usually a Fall/Winter BMQ course and a Spring one.

as far as I know, for last Fall, there wasnt a BMQ course, but there was a Spring BMQ course run for the Seaforth and Westies.

As for next Fall/Winter, I dont know if theres going to be a course.


----------



## greymatter

my first choice is to get in to the westies


----------



## spenco

> Originally posted by greymatter:
> [qb] my first choice is to get in to the westies     [/qb]


Is there any real difference between Seaforth and the Westies aside from one being a highland regiment?


----------



## spacelord

there is a difference. It‘s a scientific fact that Westies kick ***. It says so right on a t-shirt. I‘ve never seen any t-shirts that say "seaforths kick ***"


----------



## combat_medic

spacelord: Just becuase you read it on a t-shirt doesn‘t make it so. As for differences between the Westies and Seaforths (all machismo aside), there‘s a primary difference of location. If you‘re in Vancouver, for example, you‘re far closer to SH of C, and if you‘re in New West, you‘re closer to R Westmr R. Also, our training plans will differ, and some may offer training that the other doesn‘t.

The Seaforths, for example, are currently offering a Basic Mountain Ops and Rural Surveillance course. Not sure about the Westies, but I think they‘re on a different training plan.

As for courses, they‘ve been pretty good lately about running one BMQ during the year on weekends, and they will probably keep that up this year. As for getting sworn in after stand down, I don‘t know if they‘ll do it; you‘ll have to call the recruiting office to see if they‘re still working during the summer.


----------



## spacelord

T-shirts never lie. But seriously, location is probably the biggest difference.  I joined the Westies because it was closer, but if I were to move, I would certainly stay with the Westies. And I‘m sure it would be the same if I happened to join the seaforth.  The Seaforths do have a better mess. I‘ll admit that.


----------



## Korus

spacelord is a VERY proud Westie.. ;P


----------



## Danjanou

In this ever changing world nice to seem some things never change, like the old Westies and Seaforth rivalry.


----------



## combat_medic

What do you expect when you put two infantry regiments in the same basic geographical location and make them compete for recruiting, training, ammo etc.?

As for location, I‘m WAY closer to the Westies, and am moving soon even further from the Seaforth armoury, but I‘m still not changing units. Heck, we have people commuting from Abbotsford, Victoria, Whistler and Mission just to come play with us.


----------



## spenco

doesnt one guy come from the sunshine coast as well?


----------



## greymatter

> Originally posted by spacelord:
> [qb] T-shirts never lie. [/qb]


so true


----------



## childs56

hey its good to see you made the leap into the military. my old unit had a few females in it and had no problems doing their job. as a matter of fact some jobs they were better then the guys at. no disrerspect intended. (i think they were better thinkers) its good to see you joining. i wish more females would see the bigger picture and join its a fun lifestyle with lots of rewards. good luck and keep on smiling. cheers


----------



## greymatter

thank you CTD   
I wish I knew more girls who were joining too. 
I hurd it was a fact that girls were better thinkers, also get in less car crashes too.


----------



## Infanteer

Lets get a few things straight.

1) You have the choice of joining the Royal Westminster Regiment.
A Company in New West.
B Company in Aldergrove
C Company in Vancouver, which for some reason insists on calling itself "Seaforth Highlanders" and dresses up real funny....

2) Greymatter, your gonna gave to drop the piercing fetish if you wanna play around in the Army.

3) Spacelord is too proud, thats why he got support weapons dumped on him all year....


----------



## McInnes

Highland regiments are the way to go


----------



## Eowyn

> Originally posted by Aquilus Lupin:
> [qb] Highland regiments are the way to go     [/qb]


But the Canadian Scottish are a Scottish Regiment, not a Highland one.  The Seaforths are a true Highland Regiment.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Eowyn:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by Aquilus Lupin:
> [qb] Highland regiments are the way to go       [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> But the Canadian Scottish are a Scottish Regiment, not a Highland one.  The Seaforths are a true Highland Regiment. [/qb]
Click to expand...

The Canadian Scottish have always been a big backwards in that they wear kilts rather than trews.

The Canadian Scottish do share with the Calgary Highlanders one distinction that no one else in the Canadian Forces has - the right to wear distinctive shoulder titles on the DEU in the shape of an Oak Leaf.

Though again, the C Scots went a little overboard and wear an entire soup plate on their shoulders(!)


----------



## greymatter

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> 
> 2) Greymatter, your gonna gave to drop the piercing fetish if you wanna play around in the Army.
> [/QB]


I know   

is it just facial piercings and ears, can I keep my body piercings? whats the rule on streched ears?


----------



## willy

Already posted in another thread.  Basically, you‘re allowed to have anything you want so long as you don‘t wear it on duty.


----------



## combat_medic

Infanteer: Don‘t make me air all the Westie dirty laundry I have. I don‘t want to HAVE to beat you up over this (again), but I will... besides, we have, what, 13 more battle honours than you?

As for piercings, you must remove all facial piercings and you are not supposed to have any body piercings. If you are found with some, or they interfere with your work, you will be charged. Ear stretching is certainly frowned upon, and could probably be chalked up to a "self inflicted wound", so you‘d be best off to NOT go for that one.


----------



## D-n-A

Looks like a measuring contest between the Westies and Seaforth is about to start up, haha.


----------



## McInnes

I believe "lowland" scots never really had the whole tartan/kilt thing going on, originally a highland thing...thus the referance   

Trews are starting to phase in with the Officers oddly enough...


----------



## Nightengale

Hi...Just wondering if you can bring things that aren't of the list?  As for clothing, how much of your regular clothing can you bring?  Footwear?  What about moisturizers, make up etc...Also, whats the real deal with the hair?  Do I have to cut it or can I get by with long hair as long as its put up properly?  Any information would be appeciated.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

Well I've never been to St-Jean but I think summer reserve basic would probably be similar in this case. We didn't wear all that much of our regular clothing, only to sleep in (when I wasn't sleeping in my PT clothes for the next day) or for PT (I'm told reg force gets issued PT gear, so scratch that too.) We were only allowed to wear civvy clothes about midway through basic, and that was only weekends and some evenings. SO you can probably figure out what you need from that, I brought about 3 pairs of pants, a few shirts and sweaters, and some PT clothes. A good pair of running shoes is a MUST, flip-flops ditto (unless you want to pick up something nasty from the shower) but other then that, maybe 1 other pair of civvy shoes if you really need them.

I've also been told that in St-Jean, you spend most of the first week in civvies while checking in and doing admin, but maybe someone who's been there can clarify.

As for make up HAHA who has time for that no one cares how you look during course but if you must, keep it simple cause you won't have much time to use it. It's just going to take up space. A little's good for those times when you actually will have time to wear it, but don't fill half your civvy suitcase with make-up.

WRT hair, you are allowed to keep it long as long as it's in a nice bun, with a hairnet over the bun if you need it, and if your hair is frizzy like mine you'll need gobs of gel on the side of your head to keep it neat. You're also allowed a braid, but when depends on your staff, on my basic we were only allowed braids in the field. You can also cut your hair short (which is SO much easier) but it can't go past your collar, and should be kept pretty neat as well. 

If you have any other questions feel free to ask, and good luck!


----------



## Nightengale

Thanks so much for the helpful information.  Its nice to hear the female perspective on things.  I was thinking of make up and civy clothing for when I have spare time to myself.  I have dry skin...lol...so I cant imagine going anywhere without my moisturizer.  Soldier or not, I'm still female to the core right!!  Its going to be hard not to want to bring every bit of clothing I own, yah know, just incase!  Sounds like I need the bare necessities and thats it.  In true female fashion, I'm a big packer.  Are you aloud personal items or does everything have to be accounted for?  How much storage room are you permitted?

Nightengale


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

Again, not sure how it is in St-Jean- are you going reserve or reg force, btw?

On my basic, everything that wouldn't fit in our 'civy drawer' (a dresser drawer, but it also had to hold everything that wasn't in our locker laid out for inspection- including extra socks, PT gear, boot polishing kit, etc etc- man those things broke all the time). Not sure how they do it on other basics, but on mine the instructors made us drag everything we brought out, told us to take out this that that and that and everything else went locked away, into a spare room known as 'civvy lockup' which we didn't get access to for-well, a while. (not to self: storing food there is a bad idea.) You could keep some personal items, but I sure missed that Discman. 

Don't worry about what you need to bring, chances are, you'll find out you won't need it. After many weeks of dressing identically to several dozen guys you won't spend too much time thinking about all the clothes you left behind.  

Moi-stur-i-zer? I know of no such thing.   Seriously though, if you have time to look in a mirror during basic to even acknowledge how you look, good for you.   All I remember is my hands being constantly dirty from either boot polish or carbon from the rifle cleaning...this strange sort of dirt that just didn't want to wash out.


----------



## bojangles

No offense guys, but I would really like to know from the ladies on this board as to what division they have applied for or are currently in. I have come to the conclusion that Army is best suited for me but then I am torn between Armoured/Artillery or Infantry. I have read tons of stuff on these sites related to each but nothing that really gives me much information as to what I am really in for as a 120 lb female all of 5 foot nothing. I am by no means a wimp but if there is a logical reason women avoid a certain area because perhaps the weapons weigh more than we do, I'd like to know before sending in my applicaiton.  

 :warstory: Bojangles


----------



## PteCamp

Hi there Bojangles
I'm a female in the PRes, I am a Sig Op. 
I think Sig Op is a great trade, and depending on your unit there could be a large number of females. 
Good luck with your application.

-KaT


----------



## Eowyn

I'm a Logistics Officer, in the Reserves.


----------



## Inch

I know you're leaning towards the army, but to answer the title question, they don't seem to be in aircrew positions. I think I could count on one hand how many women aircrew there are at my Sqn. I really don't know why that is, it's open to them just like everyone else. When I went through Moose Jaw, there was maybe 5 women out of 100 student pilots and I only recall one female instructor.

I was in the Armoured reserves with a few women, they seemed to make out just fine. I can't say with any certainty how you'd make out in the infantry but I've heard female infanteers aren't all that common.


----------



## aesop081

I was a combat engineer and there were a few, but not that many women in the NCMc, a fair amount in the officers.  My MOC has a small number of them.  Flight engineers, i know of about 5 or 6, i only knew one in reg force infantry (PPCLI), navigators have alot of women in the trade.


----------



## bojangles

I was pretty focused on Infantry as well as Artillery soldier until looking a little deeper into it. My challange comes in that I only weigh 125 lbs and stand 5 foot nothing. The rucksack and gear alone probably almost outweigh me. After all the good advise as well as research I have been doing. I think Armoured would be the best option for soldier. My other interests are Weapons Tech (land), Field Engineer, and Supply Tech (seems like it may be a little boring though). If anyone can give some advice on these I would appreciate it as well.

Thanks again
Bojangles


----------



## aesop081

bojangles said:
			
		

> I was pretty focused on Infantry as well as Artillery soldier until looking a little deeper into it. My challange comes in that I only weigh 125 lbs and stand 5 foot nothing. The rucksack and gear alone probably almost outweigh me. After all the good advise as well as research I have been doing. I think Armoured would be the best option for soldier. My other interests are Weapons Tech (land), Field Engineer, and Supply Tech (seems like it may be a little boring though). If anyone can give some advice on these I would appreciate it as well.
> 
> Thanks again
> Bojangles



I can surely tell you about combat engineers, i was one for 11 years. I joined i was 125 pounds so don't worry about that but you will need lots of lwer body and upper body strenght to get by in the trade.  Building bridges will require being tall for some jobs but there are times where a shorter person has an easier time, so don't worry about that either.  Combat engieer ( field engineer is no more) is, IMHO, the best trade in the combat arms.  it will challenge to no end as you will be doing the same stuff the infantry gets to do and you will get to be technically challenged as well, get to build things and blow up others. You can get your para course, combat diving course, EOD.......its very diverse. No other trade compares in my eyes.


----------



## George Wallace

Well, I had both a Coyote driver and 'gunner/Sur Op who are female.   My driver was about 4'2" (I exaggerate a bit) and she did a fine job.   My gunner was filling that hole as an unqualified gunner so her gunning skills were definitely not brought into the picture.   There are about twenty women in the RCD and most seem to be doing fairly well.   If you like the field and hard work: the outdoors type, there should be no problem.   

Actually, with the amount of equipment being put into our vehicles today, being smaller has definite advantages.  

If you are more of a city girl, then look into some of the non-Zero trades.   

GW


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .......If you are more of a city girl, then look into some of the non-Zero trades.
> 
> GW



Thats actualy not that acurate as Flight engineer (091) and AESOp (081) are "zero-trades" !!

Cheers

EDIT : but then again, you can't join those from civy land!!


----------



## jmackenzie_15

BoJangles,

It's evident to me you seem to want the infantry =p Your size is not really a factor.I had girls on my infantry course smaller than me that kept up just fine and outpaced some pretty big guys.Im 5'8 and 145lbs, so needless to say, I was quite impressed =p

But then theres the other kind of girls (no offense, this is just in my experience) that you should avoid, and avoid being, are the ones that take advantage of the whole "im a weak girl help me" idea.They would play hurt and not push themselves nearly as much as anyone else because they could get away with it..... its wrong but it happened all the time.

Then there were the other ones, 2 I have in mind, that were tough as nails.All you really have to do is get into decent shape and you'll be fine if you really want it.
PS, I was 128lbs when i joined the army


----------



## Infanteer

Sorry to say, but size does play a part in that being quite small (plus having a female's naturally less muscular physiology) is going to be a factor in that it will demand much more out of you mentally.   I'm just going over some Lessons Learned by US Forces during combat missions in the Middle East right now and the average load is about 70-80 pounds (this is just fighting order).   This may not be as much to a 200+, 6'2'' guy like me, but to you it means that if you pursue an Infantry route, you are going to have to be prepared to carry half of your body weight as a minimum.   Other situation may demand you carry your full weight in equipment - most studies show that this will lead to breakdown, exhaustion and/or injury if performed for a sustained period of time.

This is not impossible to do, I only say this to point out that the absolute weight demands of real operational situations will demand alot more out of your (smaller) body then our resident "expert", J MacKenzie, would like you believe.

If you feel you're up to the challenge, then by all means, the opportunity is there....


----------



## Infanteer

I highly doubt that anyone would carry 220 lbs on a training exercise.

I see you haven't learned your lesson to well....


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that anyone would carry 220 lbs on a training exercise.
> 
> I see you haven't learned your lesson to well....



I was gonna raise the BS flag on that one but i figured i'd give the kid the benefit of the doubt !


----------



## Pencil Tech

Bojangles, since you mentioned artillery earlier I can tell you that in my reserve arty unit there are several woman gunners including Master Bombardiers and senior NCOs.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Inf,

What I meant to say is what you said, just that it is quite possible for females to perform the same tasks as males.I wont disagree that the bigger or smaller you are physically will make it easier or more difficult to get your job done though.

Bojangles,Being in the best shape you can be will /help/ you in any trade you wish to pursue, but except for Combat Engineers, I think the Infantry is probobly one of the most physically demanding jobs the army has to offer.Just so you know what you're getting into =p But if you want go give the infantry a try, by all means, go for it.


----------



## 9nr Domestic

If you want to go infantry, then I would encourage you to go for it. I know of a handfull of females in 2 PPCLI, so I know that it has been done before. I also know one female that is maybe 115 lbs. soaking wet and she seems to be able to hold her own. 

Just train hard, remember that you might have to work a little harder, so be ready to work harder.


----------



## 4CDO PARA

Based on my admittedly limited experience from soldiering with females in the infantry ( does anyone have significant experience in this area with the limited number of females in our infantry?) I have observed that the females on my courses have unfortunately mostly been mentally weak. I am uncertain whether this was a result of the fact that it was simply easier for them to get away with it, that it was already expected of them due to pre-determined ideas about a woman's capabilities and that they are just fulfilling those expectations; or indicative of a direct causal relationship between the typical female physiological makeup and the demands of the infantry trade. That being said, there IS a female paratrooper in our Para Coy that regularly carries more weight in the field as the rad-op ( she carries the radio plus her full marching order ) and the way she soldiers makes some of the guys look bad. I would estimate her body weight at no more that 130lbs. if that helps. I would suggest that an exceptional fitness level and a little intestinal fortitude ought to be able to counter-balance any detrimental physical attributes you have that are based on your gender in relation to performing the role of Combat Arms. I know there are going to be soldiers out there that disagree with this...


----------



## ex_coelis

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> The most I have ever heard of someone carrying was 220 pounds for a weekend (Infantry).



Nah, it's true.  It was me, I made him carry me on his shoulders for the weekend.  (I forgot my 4-man lift India Chair, my bad).   His buddy carried my 5 C6s.  Man, you wanna hear cadets bitch!


----------



## ex_coelis

Aside from being able to carry your kit, do you think you would be willing/able to kill on command, possibly with your hands?  This is the army we speak of, when shit hits the fan, and you get called to do your job at the sharp end, killing happens.  If that really freaks you out, there are many non-combat arms positions you might consider, and are necessary jobs, honourable jobs as well.

I wonder if recruiters still point this out?


----------



## jmackenzie_15

ABN RFN said:
			
		

> Based on my admittedly limited experience from soldiering with females in the infantry ( does anyone have significant experience in this area with the limited number of females in our infantry?) I have observed that the females on my courses have unfortunately mostly been mentally weak. I am uncertain whether this was a result of the fact that it was simply easier for them to get away with it, that it was already expected of them due to pre-determined ideas about a woman's capabilities and that they are just fulfilling those expectations; or indicative of a direct causal relationship between the typical female physiological makeup and the demands of the infantry trade. That being said, there IS a female paratrooper in our Para Coy that regularly carries more weight in the field as the rad-op ( she carries the radio plus her full marching order ) and the way she soldiers makes some of the guys look bad. I would estimate her body weight at no more that 130lbs. if that helps. I would suggest that an exceptional fitness level and a little intestinal fortitude ought to be able to counter-balance any detrimental physical attributes you have that are based on your gender in relation to performing the role of Combat Arms. I know there are going to be soldiers out there that disagree with this...



I don't disagree.Just like we stated earlier, your size acts as a handicap though.
"...that it was already expected of them due to pre-determined ideas about a woman's capabilities"

I think perhaps that because of the way our society is built, factors into this.Girls on average tend to not so much as guys do, get involved in competitive sports, physical activity, or perform physically/mentally exhausting and demanding work.When you throw an average person that has lived much this way the majority of their lives into an environment that demands the most from you, one would think this could easily overwhelm them.Somebody said once "If you live an easy life, you will have little heart.If you live a hard life, you will have alot of heart.That is why the infantry have hard lives!"

Im not saying that women live easier than men do, not at all.But in the areas of physicality coupled with alot of 'intestinal fortitude' , on average, I dont beleive the average female is subjected to as much as a male.

However, there are always exceptions, as there were on my courses and many others most likely.The girl on my BIQ course played hockey for years, was studying martial arts, and had multiple bones broken (from hockey) and was tough as nails, perhaps as a result of her 'conditioning'.Id be willing to wager that many of the female tap outs on course have never had to push themselves very hard physically before that point, or at least not as much as is demanded in the CF.

My 2c


----------



## bojangles

After reading the replies thus far and after many hours of research I have come to the conclusion that Infantry is probably NOT one of my best choices. Regardless of whether I like it or not, my size does give me a handicap and the last thing I want to do is FINALLY get in and then set myself up for failure. It doesn't take a genioos to figure out that if my gear weighs more than half my body weight, there are going to be reprocussions from it. As for knowing if I think I could kill another human on command....I don't think too many people can answer that quesiton regardless of gender until it happens.
I can assure you I am not one of those females who will use my gender to wimp out of situations. I have ran my own boxing club for almost 15 years now and I can guarantee that I have knocked some pretty big fellas around (just the cocky ones). LOL! I also hold a 2nd degree black belt in Shotokan karate so this "should" aid me some in being mentally tough. If I had a penny for every push up I had to do I'd be a friggin millionaire.Competitive sports since the age of 5 have also kept my sharp and that includes everything from hockey, soccer, karate, judo, boxing to the girly side of figure skating.
I really appreciate all the input from everyone and have decided that Armoured is probably a better choice over Infantry for me, the second choice is Combat Engineer ( I have some construction background), and lastly weapons tech. 
Any thoughts on these trades would be of benefit before I send in my application.

Thank Again
Bojangles


----------



## George Wallace

Parouse the various boards here and pick up what you can.  There are lots of discussions that cover a wide range of topics that describe some of what to expect in those trades.  

GW


----------



## GIJANE

Hi Bojangles, I'm currently a female in the Artillery (reg force) and being 5 foot f*&kall and 120 pounds myself at joining, it was not easy as 155mm rounds weigh 98 pounds but hey i grunted my way through it, no doubt you can do it but it won't be easy, as for joining the artillery i would think twice, it's a dying trade, most people here have left or have an OT in (including myself) it's very hard to get ahead here, there are much better trades out there, please look around some more, I'm actually thinking of OTing to electrical distribution technician  :-\ please feel free to ask me anything about the arty trade.

JANE


----------



## chrisf

I'm not going to bother to comment on any female issues not being female myself, but on the subject of moistuizer, I'll have you know I'm never in the field without a travel size bottle... I don't know if anyone else has the same problem, but I find CLP wreaks my hands, particularly my finger tips...they end up cracked and very painful, makes it hard to work... cold weather does the same thing, but to a far lesser extent... I find if I wash my hands as soon and as throughly as the situation allows after cleaning weapons, and smear a bit of moisturizer on them when I get a chance, I'm pretty good...


----------



## jmackenzie_15

SigOp, 

Youve just solved the mystery! My hands virtually decomposed a while back, and I couldnt figure out why as naturally I dont dry out that badly, especially not the hands.The fingertips were the worst, and now that youve mentioned it, right before that happened to me, we were cleaning weapons a day or so before they fell apart! So yeah! thats probobly a good idea to bring moisturizer if your hands dry out easy =p


----------



## chaos75

Not a female either, but I would recommend bringing only what is on the kit list provided.   You have very limited space for personal items, although most of your pers stuff will be stored in a storage area until such time are you are given free time, allowed to leave the mega etc.   Depends on what course your on aswell (BMQ/IAP).   Bring few pairs of pants, 5-6 shirts, should be plenty.   Keep your make up with your pers kit, moisturizer can stay with you like any other toiletry, hair is exactly what was mentioned before, and try to limit the number of shoes you bring. ;D


----------



## brin11

When I did basic training about 12 females showed up out of 30 with long hair.  All but one lasted about a week before they cut it all off.  You just don't have time to put it up properly unless you get up early and you will covet your sleep time when you get it.  The last one held out until the end and she put up her hair in about 30 seconds which I couldn't believe.  If you must have long hair, practice before you go putting it up in the proper manner until you can do it at the speed of light.  Then go out in a wind storm and make sure it stays that way.  My advice, cut it off.

Good luck.


----------



## scaddie

I'm female going infantry, and so far I'm finding everything good. I'm 130 and 5'3, but I haven't had many problems. Just keep thinking positive, and remind yourself of why you're doing what you're doing.


----------



## scaddie

Definitly get some of the miniature shampoos and lotions..Moisturizer is a must. Gallons of hairspray and gel, and don't forget a few packs of hairnets (Get the really good ones, or else they tear and your hair falls out. You can also fold them in half to make them stronger). A small alarm clock, or cell phone, notepad, nail clippers...I wouldn't suggest bringing much makeup, because you're technically not "allowed" to wear it, but with some powder or foundation you shouldn't be able to tell the difference!


----------



## chrisf

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> SigOp,
> 
> Youve just solved the mystery! My hands virtually decomposed a while back, and I couldnt figure out why as naturally I dont dry out that badly, especially not the hands.The fingertips were the worst, and now that youve mentioned it, right before that happened to me, we were cleaning weapons a day or so before they fell apart! So yeah! thats probobly a good idea to bring moisturizer if your hands dry out easy =p



Somone mentioned to me that CLP apparently forms some sort of acid when it comes in contact with your skin... rumor or not, the stuff can disolve some pretty hefty deposits of carbon... can't be healthy for your hands... washing is more effective/important then the moisturizer... the sooner you can get the CLP off your hands, the sooner it stops acting... even if you cover your hands with moisturizer, if there's still CLP on them, it's not going to do much good...


----------



## Gilligan

Just a comment on the hair thing, if you can french braid, you'll be okay.  It is now regulation to wear your hair in either one french braid (either normal or reverse), or pigtail french braids, which are near impossible to keep equal unless you're a trained hairstylist.  But yeah, buns, braids they're all fine.  One thing to check is I know in the reserves we're allowed to wear our hair in a low braided ponytail (ponytail-braided hair-ponytail).  There is no reason why you should have to cut off you hair...lol unless you can't get it up in a perfect bun with gel, hairnet and bobbypins in about a minute or less (practise makes perfect lol).  Anyway, hope that helps too!  It never hurts to ask for the standards of hair from your instructors when you get there either!


----------



## chrisf

Only in the army could you ever find 3 grown men standing behind one woman, scratching their heads, holding a brief confrence to figure out how to braid hair.


----------



## qor556

Bojangles, I just have to say, don't second guess the infantry as of yet. You can do absolutely anything if you have the motivation and the will in general. Sure it gets tough at some points, but you will face that in most MOCs. Especially combat engineer as you previously stated. I personally do not have any experience in the combat engineer field, but it is still physically tough. You still have to carry around a lot of heavy stuff, as explained to me by one of my friends in the 2FER. Being 17/5'4/140 lbs (GASP posted my weight  ) I have to say it was not easy going through the training, but it IS possible. You just have to stay optimistic and like I said, you need to  have the MOTIVATION to do it. Personally I am very happy being in the infantry and have absolutely no regrets...anyways we need more women in the infantry, as i observed in the almost non-existant amount in my unit. Lastly, just make sure to be as fit as possible before training, and good luck on your choice.


[edit: for spelling]


----------



## Ghost

> PS, I was 128lbs when i joined the army



I thought I was a twig at 155lbs


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ARMYboi69 said:
			
		

> Women can do anything men can, they might just have to work harder for it.   Example: A female may have more trouble lifting a ruck then a male, so they would have to train for it before doing it.
> 
> Best of luck with whatever you decide.



Remember what you have been warned about before....


----------



## 4CDO PARA

Hey while we're all whining about ourselves, I was 245lbs when I joined... how do you think THAT felt while running the hill?  > Different body types are better designed for specific activities. LOL. What can I say, becoming a soldier is all about a transformation, you probably simply haven't had the opportunity in life to be put in the types of situations that will teach you about yourself like the Army can provide. There are no guarantees, you won't know until you go, put your butt on the line and give it your best. Have a good one.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

In an earlier post someone mentioned the Infantry being a dying trade......Plenty of OT's and not as many keen to join it....I'd say that it's because it is physically and mentally challenging. When I have asked 18 year olds what they do for fun, 'the movies' and xbox are top of the list. Phys Ed is not mandatory past grade 8 out here, so I'd say that doughnut eating occupations suit many of the weak minded and weak bodies out there. 

Each and every trade on the modern battlefield is equally as important. No one job is more or less important than the other. 

Those who say that infantry is a dying trade, then they should look into the history of warfare as well as what is currently happening on battlefields today.........you cannot take and hold ground with anything BUT infantry.   :threat:


----------



## 9nr Domestic

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> In an earlier post someone mentioned the Infantry being a dying trade......Plenty of OT's and not as many keen to join it....I'd say that it's because it is physically and mentally challenging. When I have asked 18 year olds what they do for fun, 'the movies' and xbox are top of the list. Phys Ed is not mandatory past grade 8 out here, so I'd say that doughnut eating occupations suit many of the weak minded and weak bodies out there.
> 
> Each and every trade on the modern battlefield is equally as important. No one job is more or less important than the other.
> 
> Those who say that infantry is a dying trade, then they should look into the history of warfare as well as what is currently happening on battlefields today.........you cannot take and hold ground with anything BUT infantry.  :threat:
> 
> 
> I believe it was stated by GIJANE that artillery was the dying trade not infantry.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

Re: where are the women in the CF? 
 « Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 21:23:47  »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
PS, I was 128lbs when i joined the army 

I thought I was a twig at 155lbs


I still am a twig at 148lbs, 5'9 =p
Im headed for southbound trooper 5 in virginia in february... nedless to say, ive been actively exercising and pursuing some healthy weight gain  


"ecoming a soldier is all about a transformation, you probably simply haven't had the opportunity in life to be put in the types of situations that will teach you about yourself like the Army can provide. There are no guarantees, you won't know until you go, put your butt on the line and give it your best"

thats exactly right.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

I stand corrected! My apologies.......Too much time with head in book today I am afraid. However the same argument could apply to Artillery as well.........All are needed on the modern battlefield. Without effective artillery, the Infantry could not do it's job to it's full capability.


----------



## 9nr Domestic

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> However the same argument could apply to Artillery as well.........All are needed on the modern battlefield. Without effective artillery, the Infantry could not do it's job to it's full capability.




There is a discussion regarding that:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/25062.0.html

 ;D


I know nothing when it comes to the inner workings of the military so I will have it just shut up and learn.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

A little far into the thread but here is some valuable advise to gain the respect of your fellow male recruits.  Push yourself.  Show motivation.  Work hard.

We had this girl on our basic course (reserves-weekend thing) who was a BAG.  She could never keep up with any of the PT, couldn't do any of the push ups, couldnt do anything.  She was trying though. We gave her that.

Then a couple of weeks into the course, me and a couple of other recruits were talking with her and we asked her what she does on her own time to train, prpare and such.  Her response was "I dont have time to go to the gym.  I go out clubing every night and sleep during the day"

I was shocked.  We told her, the reason she was not able to keep up with anything was because she wasn't preparing herself or anything.  She was a stay at home college drop out who joined the army for kicks it turns out, so in the end, the rest of the platoon had to pick up for her slack.

Don't be one of those girls.  Work hard off course.  Keep yourself in shape and show heart.  You will have the respect of your fellow soldiers.


----------



## 4CDO PARA

I found a video focusing on a female Pte. in 1VP. She discusses what it is like to be in the infantry. Hope it helps. Scroll down to the video titled "Canadian Forces Infantry Private". 

  http://www.alis.gov.ab.ca/video/archive.asp


----------



## Ghost

LOL they tried to teach me that in grade 3.

They gave me 3 pieces of nylon to tie up and well lets just say I threw away one piece and wraped 2 around each other but the teacher wasn't to thrilled.

So yeah my brading skills are about on par with my folding laundry skills and wrapping presents skill.


----------



## chrisf

I should note, out of the three of us, as the only one with a sister, it fell to me to braid the hair... the first attempt was ok, but too loose, the second attempt was pretty good if I do say so myself.


----------



## Armymedic

If you bring any battery operated devices, ensure you bring a back up back batteries. And also ensure the noise from those devices arn't annoying to your room mates.


----------



## chrisf

The buffer of the C7 is made from aluminium to prevent rust.


----------



## Gilligan

OY! lol


----------



## chrisf

What? A rusty buffer wouldn't be any good... wouldn't slide very well, you'd get a lot of stoppages.


----------



## tomas

unless you know people in the higher weeks you wont be able to go to the canex for the first four weeks.. maybe longer so either make friends quick or bring things liek extra razors and batteries


----------



## TheCheez

Bring 3 sets of civy clothes. After the first month most people go out on the weekends and you will need something to wear. Montreal is good for shopping though.

As far as the rest of it... You need to be able to hide it for inspections. Putting stuff in lock-up every time theres an inspection is NOT a good solution as you will be busy the night before and the morning of, and youll be interrupting whoevers got the key to use lockup.

The locker in your room can hold some things, like the toiletries that you actually use, CD player etc etc but is limited in space. I had to stick my pillow in there for inspections and it more than filled it.

Anything you forget or need from the Canex can easily be gotten for you. Just ask people who have priviledges. If youre shy, chances are someone in your platoon will make it onto PAT platoon before the first 4 weeks are up, just ask them.


----------



## Britney Spears

Bring a set or 2 of rubber dishwashing gloves, for cleaning weapons (actually, according to new regs these should be provided, but bring some just in case). all the CLP and carbon, esp. on support weapons, ruins your nails and turns your hands black for days. 

This applies not only to females.

I'm sure  they'll have some enourmous tattooed PPCLI Recce pl MCPL order all the males out of the room and give the females their lecture on "feminine hygiene in the field". You're in good hands.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

If this was not mentioned already... bring 2 of all toiletteries, one to look good on the shelf for your every day inspection, and one for usage.
I am assuming you are about to be on your  basic...


----------



## TCBF

"Why don't we get over something that isn't going to change and put our energy somewhere useful."

A fair point, but interests and opinions on usefulness vary.  If the CF, God forbid, fills 67 bodybags next week and half have women in them, we could have a new operational employment policy long before we see any of the ORBATS being bandied about here.  

I agree ranting only puts others in a bad mood (yeah, I know, "Guilty"), but reasoned discourse of flawed policies should be fair game.  If not, in fact, encouraged.  For some. this site could be a fair tool for developing one's ability to hold a connversation.  Not a bad skill to have.

Each to his own, I guess.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer

TCBF said:
			
		

> If the CF, God forbid, fills 67 bodybags next week and half have women in them, we could have a new operational employment policy long before we see any of the ORBATS being bandied about here.



Really, what would that be?   I honestly don't see this scenario ever playing out unless by some chance a mortar bomb hits the woman's washroom in an NSE base (in which case, most of the casualties would be CSS, which isn't really the debate).

I really think the women in the CF (especially in the combat arms) is a non-issue.   I think the numbers are sitting at 10% Forces wide and below 1% for the combat arms - the nature of the institution means that there is no real chance in hell that we're going to approach a 50/50 kind of scenario that some retarded bureaucrats seem to hope for.   A few females pop up in the Infantry battalions and there is a chance that they may get killed in action - I guess this is something we may have to live with by being a professional military in a Western democracy rather then some sort of Warrior Sect.  As the original article pointed out, women getting killed in the line of duty is happening frequently in the US Army (although they are not in combat roles, they are still getting killed) and I don't see radical "operational employment policy" coming out of the Pentagon; infact, the pressure seems to be going the other way in allowing females into combat roles.   Why Canada would suddenly pull an "about turn" if faced with female casualties (when the numbers mean that the possibility is slight) is beyond me.

I agree with you that there are legitimate issues surrounding movement to women in positions throughout the military - one of the most interesting is the notion conscription.   Canada has conscripted the last two times we mobilized.   How would we do it now - I can imagine the furor when mothers are conscripted, leaving children at home with Dad.

Alas, I digress - however, here is meaningful discussion on the topic.   If someone wants to start a well-thought out thread, go ahead.   I'll shift this over there.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Gunner

> If the CF, God forbid, fills 67 bodybags next week and half have women in them, we could have a new operational employment policy long before we see any of the ORBATS being bandied about here.



TCBF, what you have proposed is a perfectly rationale question that could be posted in the forum.   We have units that are made up of 50% or more by women.   Ask the question if the the Federal employment policies change if a BM21 strike takes out the entire unit.   My guess, probably not, but why moan and complain about women being in all trades in the CF?   I was in the CF before women were allowed in the combat arms, it's now a done deal and today, I could not care less what the soldier next to me has between their legs.   I want to know that he/she is physically fit, can do their job and will watch my back.   This is all a standards issue and either the army has a high enough training standard or they do not.   Make that the topic of discussion for a reasoned debate.    

Take the Canadian Airborne Regiment, why spend time pissing and moaning about its demise?   Its gone based on government decision and I've moved on, the army has moved on and the country has moved on.   Let it go.   But if you want to argue/discuss about Canada having a rapid deployment capability (light forces consisting of infantry, artillery, and armour) that are capable of being moved around the globe within 24hrs, lets' hear your views.

Cheers,

Note: Posted after 2 replies had been made to TCBF first post.  Decided to post anyway.


----------



## combat_medic

Without denegrating into more name calling garbage that got the last thread locked, there are currently hundreds if not thousands of women currently serving in Iraq. While not in hard combat positions, many are seeing direct or indirect combat. They are being taken prisoner, they are being injured, and yes, they are even dying and being sent back in bodybags. Notice that not a single person has completely lost control of their senses over the women being killed? Notice absolutely no change in the operational viability of women in the military? The women are doing their jobs, often engaging in direct combat, and doing the same jobs as men. The end of the world did not happen, and a woman dying in combat in Iraq has not even merited a couple lines on a newspaper, or a 2 minute clip on CNN. Guess they're being treated like real soldiers.... funny that.


----------



## Infanteer

Okay, I seen where the admin thread was going, so I split this off.

Obviously, women aren't going to be relegated to the WRENS anymore, so this thread is for anyone who wants to comment on the current situation.


----------



## DSB

Commenting from a reserve standpoint;

I've been with a reserve Med Coy for a bit.  We've had female Co's and female RSM.  We still have a high percentage of females in the unit, (high when compared to the broader CF).  Given we might not be a Combat Arms unit, I've seen many women who can soldier well.  Sure they might be some 'soft' women, but there are loads of 'soft' guys as well.

If they can do the same job then why do we keep beating this dead horse.  They have the same right to serve their country as men.  We're having problems with recruitment as it is, why alienate half the population?

DSB


----------



## pbi

I don't think that for most of us the question is whether or not certain women can make good Cbt A soldiers: it is probably true that they can. I have met some very capable and fit females in all branches, including the Cbt A. To me and, I think, the more reasonable negative posters here, the question is to what extent we have lowered our entry-level standards to allow less fit and less capable women to enter the Cbt A in order to meet recruitment goals. (And of course, less capable men as a corollary...)

If entry-level standards are task-based (ie: like a civilian firefighter's fitness test: directly related to likely demands of duty) then there cannot be any variance for gender: the task is the task. This is one of the advantages of the task-based BFT we are in the process of adopting (although we seem to have some difficulty getting beyond just the ruck march...).

I have been involved in at least one case in which the outcome of a harassment investigation revealed in its findings that a female was graduated from the PPCLI BSL ( a few years ago now...) without being fit enough to keep up on daily PT in battalion, which is normally not all that hard. I am not aware of any other cases of this, although there does seem to be a lot of anecdotal stuff floating around.

Does anybody have facts on lowered training standards for female recruits into the Cbt A?

Cheers


----------



## camochick

> If entry-level standards are task-based (ie: like a civilian firefighter's fitness test: directly related to likely demands of duty) then there cannot be any variance for gender: the task is the task.



Agreed. I don't think it's fair that the requirements are lowered for women, especially when they are going to do the same job as a man. I want to know that if my house is burning and someone has to pull me out, that they can actually get me out of there. I think if women want to be treated equally then we should have to meet the same requirments to do the job, as men do.


----------



## big bad john

For many years there was a furor in the UK over women not being able to pass the All Arms Commando Course.  After many years and many women attempting to pass the AACC one finally did.  Now the flood gates are open!  The problem that the women had was the same one that plagues most of the men, lack of adequate physical preparation.  
The change that had to be made for women was both a major and a simple one.  Women are built differently from men, so a prep course for women was developed.  This takes into account areas that they are stronger in than men and areas that they must concentrate on.  The Prep Program is self administered by the perspective applicants, they are encouraged to find a partner to train with.  Some units actually put together training cells for the Program.

It does work!


----------



## Chags

Here is a fact..   

I few years back, I was a course officer for the QL3 Inf (reg) course.   We had a female soldier who PT-wise, had absolutely no problems.. she could run with the pack, and do more chin ups than most guys on the course.   Carrying a rucksack was a different story.   She fell out of every march that was over 2 km. (Of the 28 candidates, about 3-4 total fell back (or out) every march.   That course was condensed about halfway through by 2 weeks so that the two courses being run at the time could graduate the same day, and most of the soldiers from both courses would all go to the same unit that was about to go on a major exercise in the US.   The unit wanted the new soldiers to take part in this EX.   I had to rework the timetable drastically in order to make this happen, and in the end, the course did not conduct the actual BFT.   My hands were tied.   I could not fail this soldier as she had not failed to complete this task, and not had a chance to be re-evaluated at it.   In the end, she showed up at the unit, and ended up spending most of her first year on light duty, and unfit to do, well anything.. She did not go on tour with the unit when it deployed to Afghanistan.   I cannot comment on her performance since, as I've been since posted out.


----------



## mdh

I think Infanteer and BBJ have narrowed down this debate to its essence.   

Women are here to stay and it's pointless to continue debating an issue that governments are not going to revisit.   

The real question is how to get good women to serve effectively in the combat arms - which as BBJ alluded to - needs to be properly thought out by the training authority.   

As the old cliche goes: that there are no bad soldiers only bad leaders - perhaps as a paraphrase we might say there are no bad female soldiers - only a training system that has not properly addressed this issue?

cheers, mdh


----------



## enfield

Combat Medic- Your absolutely right that there has not been a general furor over women coming home in body bags from Iraq. I would however point to the Jessica Lynch example as the media (and military public relations and various other factions) going nuts, primarily because she was a young woman. The case was blown completely out of proportion, both due to the public's interest, the media's fanning of the flames, and the US military's attempts to win some PR points. 
However, I'd also add that the US does not generally pay much attention to casualties and body bags coming home. Compare the attention that a half dozen Canadian dead over the past few years has received to the planeloads of coffins coming back from Iraq (if Canada lost 30 soldiers in a single incident, I think the Government would fall and CF be paralyzed for decades with inquiries). I think Canadian reaction to many female deaths would be notable, but not enough to change policy - if anything, they'd just stop sending the army anywhere.

pbi - A few years ago (three? four?) I recall a well-publicized case - by well publicized I mean it made the papers here in Vancouver, even the front page for a day - of female candidates and WATC training staff. WATC instructors (PPCLI QL3 instructors I believe) were in serious trouble because they had been holding female candidates to the same physical standards as set for men. A high percentage of female recruits (almost all of them?) had failed as a result, and that had drawn attention of higher-ups. Anyone else remember this or have more detail? 

I think there are two seperate issues here. The first is the theoretical concept of women in Cbt Arms, and the second, as pbi stated, is the policies that put women into these units.
While I personally have trouble with the notion of women in combat arms for various reasons related to average phsyical ability and social costs of integration, I don't see it as a big issue - its here to stay, and as Infanteer has pointed out, women are such a smal percentage in combat units that the question is largely irrelevant. In the end a Canadian platoon/company/battalion will not be weak or fail because of a couple female soldiers, it will fail or be weak because of inadequate support, lack of tanks/helicopters, poor trainining, etc. 

What I think gets all of us upset is the unequal and sexist policies that the CF (and other militaries, I know the IDF has ridiculous policies regarding this) that are put in place to allow integration. These policies are mainly centered around the double standard for PT and the lowered overall standards on courses/in units that allow weak men and women to remain.(I also have a problem with the way in which DND has sought to attract female recruits). Its important to identify the difference between disliking how woman are integrated with disliking women in the unit period. 
I believe DND's policies regarding integration, at all phases of a woman's recruitment and career, are demeaning to the (female)soldier and do more to undermine unit cohesion and confidence than anything that female soldier could do.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The best person for the job.   Bottom line.

There should be a set standard test for both sexes, and the best person for the job should get the job.  I don't care what it is for, Firefighters, police officers, day care workers, Infanteers, and any other job on the planet.

I am sick of this issue of sex/race and any other factor that comes into play, it is happening everywhere and it has to stop.


----------



## Gunner

> I am sick of this issue of sex/race and any other factor that comes into play, it is happening everywhere and it has to stop.



Amen, brother, amen.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I think the Canadian people - that ill-defined group - is getting the raw end of the stick both from the government, and from posters here.  We took fairly heavy losses in Korea and yet managed to keep ground troops employed effectively for over two years in an unpopular war.

I don't think Canadians would turn into gibbering idiots should we lose more than a handful of troops as combat fatalities - depending on HOW WELL THE MISSION IS DEFINED.  Losing a platoon of men in a "peaceful" operation would be devastating politically.  Losing them in a combat operation such as the early months in Afghanistan would be another thing alotegether.

I think the "Canadian people' are better than that, frankly.  Public opinion is the government's to lose - pretending not to employ soldiers on hazardous duty will likely get the results described here.  

Remember when that officer at NDHQ made dire predictions about body bags, and everyone in the press - and here - lambasted him and called him an idiot?  Now, I'm not so sure.  I applaud him for properly preparing the ground.  In cases like that, I think the Canadian people will surprise you every time.

I told a WW II vet "my generation couldn't do what you guys did."

He knew better.  He said that they had no idea either, and that we wouldn't know unless we had to try.  I don't think Windsor or Toronto liked what happened at Dieppe, but they didn't riot in the streets or bring the government down.  There was "spin" on the debacle but no hiding the casualty lists in the daily newspapers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Well, the topic is "Issues of Women in Combat".

I think it is clear that the majority here have no problem with issues of women in combat, so the question now is: what should be the scale of issue?


----------



## onecat

_If the CF, God forbid, fills 67 bodybags next week and half have women in them, we could have a new operational employment policy long before we see any of the ORBATS being bandied about here._

Really why would that change anything.  Society has changed a lot on the last 30 years and I don't think the out would be worst just because women were killed in a action.  Like it or not, society is moving on and women work in every field and now that cat is out of bag so too speak.. women will always be combat units as well.  The oit cry if 67 bodybags did come home should be why did this happen how to do we keep it from happening again.. not my god look at the women who killed.  If you look at your statment its kind'a sexist in that valve of a women's life is some how more important, and that there more of an out cry in their deaths than in that of males.  The hard ships the same for the families no matter who comes in the bodybag.


----------



## NMPeters

pbi: I doubt that you/we are ever going to find hard "facts" about lowered training standards. We all know it has happened and is happening in order to satisfy the government officials overseeing gender equality. But to find it actually written down or stated somewhere....I don't think we'll find that. That's an interesting dichotemy, isn't it? Lowering the training standards to ensure gender equality....

As far as women in combat goes, when one looks at the three block war, it doesn't matter if the person, male or female, is badged combat arms or not. The risk is virtually the same in any of those blocks.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Well, the topic is "Issues of Women in Combat".
> 
> I think it is clear that the majority here have no problem with issues of women in combat, so the question now is: what should be the scale of issue?



One per - just like the scale of issue of combat boots these days  ;D


----------



## Highland Lad

The issue is OLD - the approach taken by 1st world nations around the world over the last 50-60 yrs is relatively new.

There are many good reasons why women should never have to face combat - they are the same reasons why men should never have to face combat. There were many other historical reasons, most of which do not apply in today's world.

I was once involved in a conversation (at the time of Desert Shield / Desert Storm) that almost exactly followed one I read a while later in a book (fiction) about GW1 - two soldiers, 1 male 1 female were discussing what would happen to the unit if the fit hit the shan and we had to go as a unit; would we leave the female soldiers behind? His reasoning was that, if they were taken captive, Iraqi soldiers would not hesitate to use rape as a means of torture, so would she be willing to face that? She said that she couldn't think of anything that she would rather avoid - then asked him how he would stand up to being raped... He kind of waffled on this one and then turned around and walked away.

My point - capability and performance should determine whether someone is tasked cbt arms or not - plumbing is basically irrelevant.


----------



## pbi

> My point - capability and performance should determine whether someone is tasked cbt arms or not - plumbing is basically irrelevant.



 I am with you on this.

Cheers


----------



## Block 1

I don't really understand what this is all about. There are woman in combats, they do a good job, and they will be staying!!! I think it's more of the other side of the conversation. The question should be revisited and read â Å“Man that have a problem with woman in the militaryâ ? Now list that up and lets do some bashing. 

 Soldiers First


----------



## Britney Spears

> One per - just like the scale of issue of combat boots these days  Grin



So guess what the troops are going to ask next: Can we use Non-issued/aftermarket women? What if the issued women are not adequate for the mission? But 3VP can use whatever they feel like!  The jump coys are of course going to say that you can't jump with the issued women..........

<a href=http://www.warriormindset.com/Videos/Negligence.mpg>Women and firearms</a>







Thanks folks, I'm here all week.


----------



## nawk

Wow that cop is an idiot.  I bet that person being restrained must be scared shitless.  However it is not fair to make an assumption from this one incident that all women can't handle firearms.


----------



## George Wallace

nawk said:
			
		

> Wow that cop is an idiot. I bet that person being restrained must be scared shitless. .




 ???


----------



## Chags

Britney.. that was hilarious..  I hope they have my size!!  Will I have to return my issued woman when I get out, or is that considered a next to skin item??

Seriously though..  as long as we maintain a high standard for our soldiers, we will get the best soldiers, man or woman..  As Block 1 mentionned, we are all soldiers first.  I've worked with a couple female infantry officers in 1 RCR.. actually I did phase trg with both at separate times, and both are excellent soldiers.  You can ask any of the soldiers there too, and they will say the same..  (as was mentionned in an preceding thread, one is now the EA to the CLS.. and she deserves it). 

I also know another who didnt do so well, and was removed from the unit.. but that isnt saying much..  3 pl comds were "fired" that year. :threat:


----------



## Britney Spears

> I hope they have my size!



Well, you know what they say about there being 2 sizes in the army,(and if you're talking about the FPV, the 2 sizes are large and extra large.). Don't forget to pick up some tan spraypaint too.

George:  You gotta click on the link


----------



## big bad john

Britney, my Fiancee wants me to ask if they come with parts options?


----------



## Britney Spears

Only if the parts are made in Quebec.


----------



## Barek

I really can't help myself. I gotta say my 2 cents.

I would rather not accept women in combat. So shoot me for being old-fashioned. But, should I meet a woman, and I've worked with women who can do the same physical labour on the farm as me, who chooses to enter the military great.  And should she so choose and make it in I would treat her the same as any other person. I forget who said it first on here, soldiers when in uniform ladies when in civvies. Should we change the training to suit them? Hell no. Neither should we change the training to suit my friend who has ashma. He has learned to deal with what he was given in life. He does the same work I do without complaints he just has to work harder sometimes to be in the same shape. For example, for him to run the same distance I do at the same speed he has to be in better shape to be able to have enough oxygen. But the standards don't get lowered for the military. On the farm, we don't have a set standard, the women who do work (which are rare) on the farm generally don't do the heavier work and we make concessions and the work gets done. I don't think any less of them because they don't have the same physical strength or height I do.But I don't believe the mlitary has the liberty of making concessions for someone who can't keep up. Yes, the mlitary does make concessions to help out teamates when needed but they have all met a given operational requirement before that. It's like giving the machine gun to carry to the 150lb guy or to the 240lb guy. Which do you think should carry it? The one who can. So all this crap about woman shouldn't have to do the same number of push-ups because they're not built that way. It's like the same crap that firefighters have, a woman doesn't have to be able to lift 150lb person out of a burning building. Bullshit, that's an operational requirement. You can't do it, go home.

So if you ladies out there want a training regimen to bring you up to the same physical level great. Go to the gym and play sports like the rest of the guys. If you need special treatment or training to get in then either get it on your own time or accept your own limitations. I know I have limitations and I'm working on building on them.


----------



## Strike

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times.

The only standards which are different are the fitness standards, which do not reflect anything someone in combat would actually use.  Hmm, I am getting shot at.  I think I'll run 20 metres, turn around, and run 20 metres again for 7 minutes.  Or maybe I'll drop and do 20 push-ups.  These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.

The standards that count (such as the Battle Fitness Test -- BFT) are the same if your a man or woman.

If one more person says that the standards should be the same I'm going to jump off my roof (into 3 feet of snow so no worries, I won't hurt myself  ).

I'm sure that some have had experiences where women are treated differently than men while on course.  They probably were.  A good instructor tailors their styles to get the best out of their students.  Where the problem lies is when a student gets preferential treatment (ie, getting many chances at completing a task that others failed without a second chance).  Given, I have usually been the only woman throughout my training (after university), but I was never given "preferential" treatment.  In fact, I saw more than a few guys get many chances when others failed off a course after only one attempt.

Whoo, breath.  I'm okay now.  Time for a beer.


----------



## Britney Spears

> The only standards which are different are the fitness standards, which do not reflect anything someone in combat would actually use.  Hmm, I am getting shot at.  I think I'll run 20 metres, turn around, and run 20 metres again for 7 minutes.  Or maybe I'll drop and do 20 push-ups.  These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.



This is an extremely unrealistic viewpoint, to say the least. If you want to make a case that the CF express test is not valid in evaluating a bona fide occupational qualification, then according to Federal Employment standards, the test must be abolished completely. If it's not relevent then why have it at all?

Recruitment for JTF2 required a fairly high standard of physical fitness, in every sense of the term, so i guess according to you, they're right out to lunch?


----------



## ArmyRick

Strike, sum up... You do not make valid points. Please do list your expiriences in the military (specifically)


----------



## Infanteer

Strike said:
			
		

> These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.



Are you saying there is no correlation between Fitness and Combat Capability?



> If one more person says that the standards should be the same I'm going to jump off my roof



Why?


----------



## HollywoodHitman

Negligent discharge is not just something that happens nocturnally, and clearly, to men.....Britney, that was friggin priceless!!!!


----------



## Britney Spears

This discussion is preposterous. What is the complaint against (equally) high standards of physical fitness? Look ladies, BEING IN SHAPE/EXCERCISE IS GOOD FOR YOU. You will find youselves more desirable to men(or other women, this being the new army...), you will do better at your job, and you will live a longer and happier life. More excercise also means you can cram more twinkies down your throat without gaining weight. What exactly is the downside here? 


Some people seem to think that excercise is some how bad for them, These people do not belong in the CF.


----------



## Infanteer

Britney's right - that avatar doesn't lie....


----------



## Jungle

Strike said:
			
		

> The only standards which are different are the fitness standards, which do not reflect anything someone in combat would actually use...   ...These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.


OK, here's the ref: http://www.cfpsa.com/en/PSP/Fitness/expres_e.asp



> *The MPFS is based on five common military tasks*;
> 
> Entrenchment dig
> Low high crawl
> Land evacuation
> Sea evacuation
> Sandbag carry
> Since requiring each individual to perform each common task on an annual basis would be time consuming and not cost effective, the MPFS test items and standards were developed to predict successful completion of the five common tasks. The EXPRES MPFS allows each CF member a comprehensive fitness evaluation (VO2 max, hand grip, pushups, sit-ups) an exercise prescription based on evaluation results as well as guidelines and info on current health and wellness programs. For more information, contact your base Fitness and Sports Director.


So you're somehow trying to tell me that sandbags for ladies are lighter ?? Or that the dirt in the trench you are digging is lightly packed, because you are female ?? The fitness evaluation is designed to test your capacity to perform the common Military tasks, so how can different standards be justified ?
As an example: the 18-year old son of a guy I know saw an ad in the paper about Hydro-Québec looking for linemen. He applied, and was summonned for an interview and fitness test, which is very similar to out MPFS. Hydro-Qc has determined that being a lineman requires the same effort from everyone, regardless of age or gender. And, their passing-mark for the shuttle-run is level *8*    Yes, level 8, a level the majority of CF members cannot reach... Anyway, the kid failed, and was told to return after the 6-month probation period. His dad, an Officer in the CF, told him to join the Military... they would take him.   :



> The standards that count (such as the Battle Fitness Test -- BFT) are the same if your a man or woman.


How many women can do the 100-m fireman carry with an average-weight person ?? (You can't always choose who gets injured). Well, in my 22 years, I haven't seen too many.


----------



## Strike

Jungle,

The MPFS may have been based on all those tasks mentioned, however the only test that would reflect those "common military tasks" is the hand grip test and the sand bag carry -- gotta hold on to that sand bag.  Believe me, being good at these tasks will not help anyone in those activities.

You know those skinny guys who can run like gazels (and make it look so easy you want to smack them) and are so light that push-ups are a breeze?  They have washboards you could clean your clothes on and probably have a resting heart rate of 55 bpm.  Of course, they only weight about 150 lbs but consistently rate high on the PT test.  Now, compare it to the larger man who may not perform well in the beep test run, has difficulties with the push-ups and maybe site-ups.  But I'll bet you he can shovel dirt 'till the cows come home and, when it comes to the BFT, will march that 13 km in full ruck w/ rifle and carry someone his own weight in the casualty carry without effort.  Can you see the inconsistencies?

I work with guys like this.  I have seen people who are in very good shape choose to do the PT test because they think the BFT is too hard and those who SEEM to be in lesser shape choose the opposite for the exact same reason.  (I work in a section where we have the option to what test we will participate in.)

The point?  I really don't care what the fitness standards are provided people pass the levels set out for them.  The clincher is if people can perform the task based standards -- which are equal no matter what your sex or age.

You may disagree and that is your perogative.  I just feel that the Express test has become more of a fitness test that reflective of physical ability and, since different ages (and sexes) have different indicators to reflect the same fitness level (heart rate and reaction time is a prime example), then these different levels should be accurately reflected.

Before y'all jump on my back please reread that last paragraph carefully.  I did not say there should be different standards when it comes to task standards, and that really is what's important, is it not?

Break Break

Britney,



> What is the complaint against (equally) high standards of physical fitness?


  As stated above, the different levels in the PT test reflect the same level of fitness for the different ages/sexes.

K, now I'm starting to ramble.  Too many hours at work this week.  I do apologize.  There is so much I want to say and not enough room.


----------



## Infanteer

Strike said:
			
		

> Now, compare it to the larger man who may not perform well in the beep test run, has difficulties with the push-ups and maybe site-ups. But I'll bet you he can shovel dirt 'till the cows come home and, when it comes to the BFT, will march that 13 km in full ruck w/ rifle and carry someone his own weight in the casualty carry without effort. Can you see the inconsistencies?



Hey, that's me.

That being said, I'll always remember what a Force Recon Marine over on SOCNET, who was a giant, said - "never let your size be an excuse".

I like what Mark C once said - that running around in silk shorts and Nike shoes is not fitness in the sense that the Army needs.

We need to come up with a realistic set of tests that by having a soldier meet would indicate a requisite level of speed, stamina and strength (both physical and mental).  A series of March-and-shoots and Obstacle Courses seems to fit the bill.


----------



## camochick

I think the standards should be the same for women and men and if women can cut it then hell yeah let them in the military. I hate the fact that I get to do less than a man but We are both expected to do the same job. I want qualified people protecting me and my country not people who got in on some lame ass PC crap. If a woman can do the job in the combat arms then let her. If not, then ship her arse out. hehe


----------



## Strike

Oh m' gosh!   Infanteer, you actually understood what I was saying?   Thank-you for explaining it much better than I (in a much shorter time I might add).   I'm an engineer by schooling, not an artsman.   Was never good at writing.

 :dontpanic: :dontpanic: :dontpanic:

Camochick:



> I think the standards should be the same for women and men and if women can cut it then heck yeah let them in the military.



As previously stated, they are the same, when it's task based.


----------



## Britney Spears

Strike:

You're still circling around the issue. All you have done is substitute "Big guys" for "women" while making the same excuses, as if a big, muscular guy or a woman has an excuse for not being able to run well(or vice versa with a skinny guy and rucksacks). None of this holds water, I've never EVER seen a real infantryman come close to failing either the Express test(although to be honest I've only ever done it once, I don't think it's really much used in the cbt arms) or the BFT. Arguing whether either is more "suitable" or "realistic" is just searching for excuses for poor standards of personal fitness.

The enemy doesn't care whether you're big or skinny, or whether you're a man or woman. I'm no good at running, because I'm big/a woman? Save the sob story and go for a run, because guess which one's more likely to save you bacon?

Now back to the "issue" of women in combat(heh).


EDIT: Erm, I didn't mean to imply that you were a "big woman", and 'bacon" was  the only PG-13 substitute I could think of for "posterior". Now I feel like a jellyfish.......


----------



## Strike

> Arguing whether either is more "suitable" or "realistic" is just searching for excuses for poor standards of personal fitness.



I don't even see it as a matter of fitness.  I see it as which test is better for judging if someone can do the job because the point of this thread is if women are able to play a combat role.  Obviously BFT is the best judge because it addresses the issue of measuring the member in physical performance wrt the tasks they are likely to do AND the standards are the same regardless of age or sex.  Period.

BTW, I will admit that I am no speed demon and work hard to get my exemption on the PT test.  But guess what.  During my evasion course (hey, a task based physical course that had the same standards for men and women) I certainly did not hold back the two SAR techs I was grouped with.  I recall a pair of fighter guys (aka gazelles!) who had trouble getting to their locations on time whereas we covered the same distances with hours (really, hours) to spare.

If this still fails to prove my point about the fact that the PT test (and how well someone does) does not prove someone's combat capability then you really already have your mind made up and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## TCBF

Reference the fair comments on my "...fill 67 bodybags" post:

Yes, other countries may react admirably when battle becomes an equal opportunity harvester, but we aren't 'other countries'.  Our political leaders may be induced to react unwisely.  It has happened.  Remember the old saying "It doesn't have to make sense - it's government policy." 

 Simply put - the issue of women in combat, seen in this light, is not one of "can she do it" or even "should she do it".  It now enters the realm of "How crippled would we be if a future government decided to pull all females out of an operation, for whatever the reason?"  How do you rebuild your unit after losing ten to thirty per-cent of your soldiers - and some damn good ones at that - due to a policy change?  This has happened before in another Army.  Very unfair to both the females pulled out, and the men left trying to cover the gaps.  Dangerous, if you are in theatre and the women dragged away kicking and screaming occupy key positions - which they invariably will.

Some politicians don't make decisions well under pressure.  They don't do "pressure."

Now, this is low risk.  So low we probably shouldn't worry about it.  If some punk in Elbonia gets in a lucky shot, we should be used to handling things by now.  This ain't the early nineties.  Right?

As for moot points:

The history links:  WW2 is a moot point!  The Germans lost!  Why talk about it?

Because it is interesting.  And fun, that's why.  And if we don't talk (and write) about the past, how will others learn about it?  

One more (back to the original) point:  This subject may keep coming up because after years and years of government efforts to the contrary, Canadian society has still failed to convince a lot of boys and girls that women in the combat arms is a good thing.  You lot born in the 80s seem to have payed about as much attention to that as you have to all of the anti-smoking campaigns that my hard earned tax dollars have bought over the years.   Oh sure, lots of modern educated women believe in the opportunity.  But not for THEIR daughters.  THEIR daughters are going to law school.  Combat is for the daughters of the POOOOR people.

A few years back, we were doing a Coyote Dog and Pony in rural NB.  I did the turret tour part.  I tried to talk every 14 to 17 year old girl that passed through the turret into eventually joining the military.  Most of them thought it was just for guys (who I also tried to recruit, by the way).   

A previous poster raised an interesting point: conscription.  At what point will a right to serve become a responsibility to serve?  Hmmnnn...My guess is.... Never.

Tom


----------



## big bad john

Women Fighters Among Dead in Congo Clash-UN
Sat Mar 5, 2005 7:57 AM ET
  
By David Lewis
BUNIA, Congo (Reuters) - Women fighters were among the 50 people killed by U.N. troops during a battle with militia in northeastern Congo, a U.N. spokesman said on Saturday, responding to claims that women and children died in the clash.

The battle on Tuesday at a militia camp near the main town of Bunia in the lawless Ituri district was the deadliest involving U.N. troops deployed in Congo. It came five days after gunmen killed nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers in the same area.

"It seems there were women combatants and some of these were killed during the operation," said Kemal Saiki, a spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo, known by its French acronym MONUC.

He said the United Nations was still investigating reports that about 25 civilians, including women and children, were killed in the clash.

Saiki said up to 500 militia fighters from the Lendu ethnic group were involved in the battle against U.N. forces hunting militiamen suspected of killing civiliajs.

U.N. officials have accused the militias of using villagers as human shields during Tuesday's fighting.

Ethnic warfare, mainly between Lendu and rival Hema factions, has killed 50,000 people in Ituri since 1999. The conflict is rooted in land and commercial rivalries, in a region rich in gold, diamonds and timber.

Major Zahid Khan Aamir, a U.N. officer who took part in Tuesday's operation in nearby Loga, declined to comment on whether women fighters had been killed, but said women regularly appeared in militia ranks.

He said fighters had continued to stream from all directions to attack U.N. troops leaving on helicopters that had been parked in a football field during the clashes.

"We gave plenty of time for these people to leave and only fired when fired upon," Aamir told reporters in Bunia.

"Even as we were withdrawing, the militias were surrounding the football field and they attacked," he said. 
The Kinshasa government has come under intense pressure from the United Nations and foreign governments to hunt down those responsible for slaying the Bangladeshi soldiers.

A U.N. spokesman in New York said on Friday that the Congolese government had arrested several militia leaders, detaining them under house arrest, but regretted that they still seemed to be able to move about and communicate freely.

"The mission is calling on the government to truly arrest these people and bring them to justice," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Floribert Ndjabu, head of the Lendu-dominated Nationalist Integrationist Front (FNI), was arrested in Kinshasa while FNI force commander Goda Sukpa and Lendu ally Germain Katanga were under house arrest, government officials have said.

The fighting has threatened the Democratic Republic of Congo's efforts to move on from a wider war which ended in 2003, killing 4 million people, mainly through hunger and disease.

The U.N. Children's Fund said the renewed clashes had caused U.N. aid workers to quit much of the eastern Congo, cutting humanitarian aid to an estimated 54,000 displaced people. 

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## ZipperHead

And now I enter the fray....

There are many factors that cloud or opinions on this issue (IMO): societal (ie. living in a patriarchal society), resistance to change (we never used to have women in combat, so it must have been for good reason), fear (fear of having a girl beat you at your own game), and many others that will spring to mind once I start ranting  ;D

I noticed in the article quoted by Big Bad John a few posts back that it mentioned 





> Women fighters were among the 50 people killed by U.N. troops during a battle with militia in northeastern Congo, a U.N. spokesman said on Saturday, responding to claims that *women and children died in the clash*


. Until society doesn't differentiate between men (civilians) and women being killed in combat, we'll always relegate women to being non-combatants by default. It's also in our nice polite, Canadian upbringing that we are conditioned to protect women, even at our expense (women and children first.......). And women aren't always willing  to buck that trend if it means saving their own skin  > But, by the same token, I wouldn't want to get between a woman who is trying to save their own (by it child, husband, family member, etc).

I remember a bunch of years back when this issue was front page news, a retired female general (CF) and a WWII era officer were debating this issue, I remember scoffing at her (and still do, mostly) because her arguments were of the fluffy "anything men can do, women can do too...." and the real veteran, using "when I was in combat" quite a bit in his arguments against, and cheering him on. I still feel that he was right for the most part with him, but there are a lot of things left out of both of their arguments. Her arguments are based on a lot of PC reasoning that applies to many other issues (politics, "normal" jobs, etc) and I don't disagree, as long as there is equality applied to the hiring, not quotas on minority based things (age, race, sexual preference, height, etc), but can't apply to things such as combat, where there isn't time for ministerial inquiries into why people aren't able to perform, or the wringing of hands over whether Janey (or Johnny) should have been there (combat) and are now dead, just to appease the social scientists who have theories, but no experience. His arguments about how it was (WWII) are based on his experiences, and that beats a theory any day, but as women weren't invited to the dance, he can only speculate on how they would have performed. And that was a different era altogether, were a woman's place was in the home,barefoot, pregnant, and looking after the chidlin's and the man-folk. Times have changed. Whether having double income families is ruining our society, or improving it, won't be seen for some time, but there were problems aplenty with the old ways and the old days, so the rose coloured glasses we normally use to look at the past need to be adjusted. And so it goes with women doing non-traditional roles: I'm all for people doing anything they want, as long as they meet the standards set the the given profession, be it brain power or horse power. I wouldn't want a medical school accept me into med school by reduced standards just because I'm a white, Finno-Canadian male (I hate hyphenated prefixes to "Canadian" BTW....). If anybody saw my shaky hands in action, they wouldn't let me anywhere near a scalpel. And, while maybe they should give me the chance if I want to be a surgeon, I realize my own limitations, and know that that isn't for me. And I think that is the point a lot of the politicians and eggheads are missing: a lot of women (and men) don't think they are cut out for the military, so they vote with their feet, and walk past the recruiting center. Trying to drag people in against their will, painting an unrealistic picture (anybody seen the sides of CF busses or cube vans know what I'm talking about) of what it is like, and then wondering why the retention rate is in the low single digits.... Generally, people will do what they want, and if you lie to them (the equivalent of "this car was owned by a little old lady from Pasedena, and well maintained...."), they will leave.

Our attitude (in society and the CF) will have to gradually change, to both accept that what has been done can't be undone, and also to realize that it (the miltary) isn't for everyone. Everyone loves to quote how they knew 3 girls who joined, and were gone within a year. And these guys are proud of that fact. Probably because the females a) didn't like it, b) they felt VERY unwelcome, and c) moved on with their life, and maybe were better for trying, and applied that elsewhere. GW brought up the very valid point in another thread (that wasn't merged with this one) that the attrition rate for men is very high as well. I can count on one hand out of all the guys I went through Battle School (about 20 guys) with that are still Crewmen. I guess they couldn't hack it, huh??? The rest OT'ed, got out, and/or moved on with their life..... 

I have to admit I wasn't exactly tickled pink with the revelation that women were going to be in the Combat Arms (call it upbringing), and over the years that has only gradually diminished (Rome wasn't built in a day....), mainly due to the realization that the societal engineers and politicians have lowered the standard for entrance into the CF. Before we all get excited here, is the reason behind this the fact they want women to enter the CF, or because society has dropped it's collective physical standards? Childhood obesity is considered an epdemic, and I see no shortage of fat-backs in my travels around civvy world..... I know we all ASSUME that the standards have dropped because of women, but do we KNOW that for a fact? 

I have seen more than a few women in uniform that aren't just "fit for a chick" but very fit for a soldier. Are all of them in the Combat Arms? No. Some of the fittest men in uniform I have seen aren't in the Combat Arms. Why? By their choice, I imagine. Being physically fit isn't the biggest issue here, but it is a very big part of it. The biggest fallout I have seen from the reduced physical standards isn't with women, but with men. When I did Op Grizzly (G8 security in Kananaskis) we were employed dismounted (Armour soldiers dismounted??!!??! Who carried the urn of gravy???). We had a young female in our troop/platoon, and while she wasn't the biggest physically, she didn't drop her rucksack and try to drag it down the mountain by the sash-cord we carried, like a young male soldier did (or tried to do) (we were dropped off at the top of a mountain, and walked down to our bivouac with 100+ lbs on or back, with snow up to our chest (in June!!!!). It took about 2 1/2 hrs to travel 2 kms (as crow flies), and we were all pretty beat, but she kept up). I saw first-hand the "unit dynamics" that became problematic with her being there: one of the young fella's was all googly-eyed around her, and followed her like a puppy, but she can't be faulted for that. As well, I had to jack up both of them during this operation (using VERY strong language and threats of physical violence due to a lack of diligence to their surveillance task) and I thought he was going to break into tears before she ever would. And she never had me brought up for harassment, like 2 MALE soldiers have, who didn't like the "tone" I used with them (one to his face, the other in talking about him...... and both of these guys were part of the "old ways" system......). 

There were (are???) two female soldiers with the Strats, who while not as big and burly than our biggest and burliest, have proven to be capable soldiers. One was with our Mounted Troop, and ended up breaking her leg (and one of my red-neck, old school buddies (who not one of you "real men" would say anything bad to his face, let me tell ya...) told me about this, with much respect in his tone) and she handled having that broken leg (a horse threw her, and I believe it landed on her) a lot better than most guys (myself included, I'm sure) would have. Another soldier plays unit (not female league, but unit) broomball, provincial level rugby and was in a "super soldier" type of competition in Bosnia, and won in her category (might have been a female category, but still....). And a female Private (at the time) of 3 PPCLI was in a mine strike in a HUMVEE in Op Apollo (A'stan 2002), but didn't want any big hoopla raised, and she was bruised very severely, and carried on. Of course, for all of these positive stories, there are negative examples, but then again, I could fill up pages of posts on the useless male soldiers I have encountered in my career. But that brings us full circle to the point that there should be standards, very high and difficult to obtain, for people to be in the Combat Arms. Not so difficult that only Super Elite Ninja Commandos could apply (that's what JTF2 is for.....), but difficult enough that 50 year old, average, people shouldn't be able to meet the standard (emphasis on AVERAGE, not the very fit 50 year olds that put 20 year olds to shame....).

I am more disgusted by people who do't want to have women serve with them, and are an embarrasment to the CF themselves, than the women who should be allowed to at least try out for the CF. It's like the fat slug with the beer belly saying that the hottie SunshineGirl needs to lose a few pounds (even though she's thinner than one of his legs.....). People, of all shapes, sizes, colours, orientations, etc who cling to the fact that being able to (barely) pass the BFT makes them battle ready are on some severe glue. The "60% is good enough for me" attitude, be it for AFV recognition, written tests, or fitness is the death of our military. Given the choice, we would want the Harvard medical school grad to operate on our child with the brain tumour, and not Dr Nick (from the Simpson's). It should be the same for our taxpayers: they should have people that our capable of fighting the wars they (through the people they elect) send us to, not slugs who think that the war will be fought with a doughnut in one hand and a Nintendo controller in the other. If the fight is on the mountain, you're no good if you are stuck in the valley.....

WRT fitness, mental fitness is something that needs to be developed, even more so than physical fitness. There are many examples from war where people's mental toughness carried them further than their bodies should have. I recall reading the Guiness Book of Records years ago, and the longest that a person ever stood still (none of these 5 minute breaks every hour that current records allow) was for 24hours, and that was a British officer standing at attention in a POW camp, who did it to avoid punishment for his soldiers (I may be wrong on the details, but that's how I remember it). Too many people give up (on marches, runs, anything) because "it hurts", "I can't do it", etc, and the sad thing is that it's allowed to happen. I don't want to sound like an old-timer, but falling out of a march was more shameful than pretty much anything else you could do. Now people get on the "man-eating" truck and laugh about it. If a person is injured, and carrying on will cause further injury, yes, get on the truck, but not because it's "difficult". When I was doing PT with an SQ course, I was surprised at how easy the young soldiers gave up, and expected to let me let them "walk it in". I want to see vomit and/or blood before you can walk it in. Will this type of mentality cause injury or death? Yes, in a small amount of cases, but being in the valley while the battle rages on the mountain top will also get people injured or killed, probably at a much higher rate. I have been guilty of taking it easier over the years, but I can proudly say that I have never fallen out of a run or ruckmarch, even with mononucleosis and being hung-over, sick, tired, etc. And I am not the thinnest or strongest of people, but I was (and am able) to get the job done.

As my rant winds down (and my wife wants to respond to this thread, and I'm on her comp) I will just sum up with this: why keep (even though not officially, but with attitudes) 50%+ of our population from wanting to, attempting to, or being in combat roles??? If they can meet the standards (that are kept high), why not? I don't want stunned-ass blow hards speaking with the voice of authority, to come on this forum and spout off their half-baked, "heard it on my grampa's knee, so I'll repeat it without any independent thought" to waste bandwidth, but such that freedom of speech is the order of the day (and Mike allows it), so is the fact that women in the CF will engage in combat, whether we like it or not. Let's look forward, and not backwards, much like those that allowed women and non-whites the vote. Sure, people (read: white males) didn't like that, but we have come to accept it (and now we know that women and non-whites are just as capable of electing crap leaders......).

Al


----------



## LF(CMO)

Women have no place in the Combat Arms for obvious reasons.  They are a distraction that you don't need to deal with, so why do it?
It has nothing to do with their Fitness level or their 'toughness'' because many are just as 'tough' as their male counter parts and a certain few can make the fitness requirements.  (My youngest daughter plays both Hockey and Rugby for a well known Canadian U, guaranteed she is both tough and fit.  Bench press 120lbs!).

 If you can't understand how women introduced into an elite team enviroment can very easily upset the chemstry, I wonder where you have been all your life!


----------



## 48Highlander

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> Women have no place in the Combat Arms for obvious reasons.   They are a distraction that you don't need to deal with, so why do it?
> It has nothing to do with their Fitness level or their 'toughness'' because many are just as 'tough' as their male counter parts and a certain few can make the fitness requirements.   (My youngest daughter plays both Hockey and Rugby for a well known Canadian U, guaranteed she is both tough and fit.   Bench press 120lbs!).
> 
> If you can't understand how women introduced into an elite team enviroment can very easily upset the chemstry, I wonder where you have been all your life!



Yeah, but using "because you have boobies" as a reason to disqualify someone from a job is not acceptable in our society any more.

You might be interested to know that some 60-70 years ago people were saying the same thing about blacks.  Something along the lines of "If you can't understand how n***rs introduced into an elite team enviroment can very easily upset the chemstry, I wonder where you have been all your life!".  Guess what, we learned to get along.


----------



## Infanteer

Thanks 48, I was going to say that.

I'm really unsure of whether "they are a distraction" is a good enough reason.  I think it is an insult to the professionalism of both Men and Women who put on the Uniform.  I think I'm more then able to do a section attack without scoping out a section mates T&A every few seconds.

That being said, professionalism will never really trump carnal desires - we need to deal with the negative aspects of fraternization (both hetero and homo) instead of pretending it doesn't exist (I, for one, detest barracks room hanky panky - I think instructers who bang their recruits should be cashiered).


----------



## Strike

I was once told by a submariner that the reason that it took so long to get women on subs was that the wives thought the women would be a distraction.  What does that say about the husbands?  Would you really want such unprofessional people running a sub?  (personally, I think all submariners are a little crazy and don't understand why ANYONE would want to serve on one, but I'm clausterphobic.)

You're right though.  Women are a distraction.  Look at all the gossip that goes around because a student is rehashing the previous week's activities with her instructor at the mess.  She must be sleeping with him (even though she has a boyfriend).  Can you imagine what that does to morale?  Of course, when a male student does the same with his female instructor there's no way they're sleeping together.  (personal experience here)

I think anyone who uses that excuse is not giving the people they work with any type of credit.  The morale falls not because there are females in traditionally male roles, but because these (certain) men feel some type of inferiority and can only make themselves feel important by bringing someone else down.  It's all very high school and just shows that some people need to do some growing.

Allan,

Hopefully I will get a chance to work with you some day.  You have openly stated that you didn't agree with having women in combat roles.  But it seems at least you approached it all with an open mind.  "I'll see how they do before I pass judgment."  BZ to you.  I have found that the best guys to work with/for are the "old school" types who judge not by what sex you are but by how you perform.  I like that attitude.


----------



## ZipperHead

Stating that women are a distraction, so therefore they shouldn't be there, is much like saying that war is dangerous, so we shouldn't go. I understand the base emotion involved in seeing a woman in a state of undress, but there is another element, professionalism, that makes people carry on. I worked with the Dutch in Bosnia, and we heard tell of the co-ed showers, and because we were raised on a steady diet of Porky's, Animal House, and the other types of frat movies popular in North America, we were giddy with glee to partake. Before you get too worked up, the co-ed showers were actually cubicles, and if you were to jam your face against the shower floor (ewwww!!!!) you may see the first 4 inches of a womans leg (right before she would drive her foot into your eye, probably). I found it strange, and yes, I was all aflutter at the prospect of being naked within 3 feet of a female soldier, separated only by a thin wall, but I got over it fairly quickly. I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before the same sex showers as seen in the sci-fi StarShip Troopers will be a reality, but it will take a bit of a leap for us maturity wise before that happens. I'm sure most guys who went overseas have been to a topless beach, if not a full on nudist beach. The novelty wears off pretty quick. 

I think I would rather have a woman who can do her job (mentally and physically), is comfortable in the mostly male environment (ie can tolerate juvenile male humour, doesn't mind hearing the odd swear word or sex story (BTW has any guy here ever been the only guy around a bunch of women talking about sex ..... it can be very uncomfortable (esp. if any of the women are hot  >), and they are usually worse than men in their graphicness.....), and is just part of the group, than some guy who creates hostility within the group with outdated, outmoded lines of thinking, be it racist, sexist or just being a bully towards others. I have seen that enough to realize that those types are more of a problem than a woman could be. As Infanteer mentioned, we have to acknowledge that there will be issues (fraternization), and not pretend it won't happen. I have seen people dating within units, and as long as they aren't in the same chain of command (particularly if one is in a leadership role), things tend to go more smoothly. If people hide their relationships, and then push comes to shove, it could prove to be a problem ("Baby, go attack that MG nest!!!!" "What do you mean no nookie because I made you kill a Commie for mommy?!?!?"). But seriously, I think that if men can "storm the beach" and watch their childhood buddy go down in a hail of bullets and keep pressing on, I think that a man will be able to watch a woman get killed and still press on. 

Most of the speculation is what bad things might happen, as opposed to what good things may happen. I'm sure there was/is much resistance to female cops, firefighters, and the like, and I'm sure there are many in those positions that aren't suited for them (be it male or female), but the world didn't implode. On a somewhat relevant note, if you can, watch "Rescue Me", the firefighter show with Denis Leary in it. It's on Showcase, Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning. You'd swear they were army guys with the way they talk about sex, women in their trade, the cameraderie, etc. An excellent, funny show...... 

As for not wanting women in combat roles, I don't remember stating as much (APS.... aluminum pot syndrome, plus I'm too lazy to re-read my post....) but it probably was implied. I have a vested interest in not neccesarily wanting it to happen: my wife is a medic, and she was in Afghanistan in 2002. When the 4 soldiers were killed, I was quite worried that she was there on the range (ever been to a live fire without medical coverage???). I was very relieved that she wasn't hurt or killed, and I felt the same way that most guys (civvy) wives feel when they hear something like this happens while their husbands are overseas. Some people insinuated it was easier for me (than a civvy wife) as I "know what it's like" over there, but I think it made it harder in some regards. As well, as she has stated (or will state again in a post) she was attached to a infantry platoon for Op Cherokee Sky over in A'stan. She didn't tell me about it until after the fact (OPSEC concerns), but I was still worried, as I knew those types of missions were going to be carried out. She was attached to the Strat Recce Sqn another time over there, and I know that my buddies that were over there would take care of her (no, not that way.... well, as long as it's kept in the Corps, I guess  ^-^). The bottom line is that she is a soldier, she did her job, and had she died while in combat, I would have accepted that she died doing the same job that a male soldier would have been expected to do.

My wife knows that I work with women, and I know that she works with men, and sometimes we see members of the opposite sex in their skivvies, and sleep in close proximity sometimes (a 4 man tent was really designed for 4 midgets I think.....). I'm sure if I was in a tent with 3 severe hardbodies, she would worry somewhat that my ability to control myself would be impaired, but the reality is that after a few days in the field, there isn't a whole lot of attraction going on between the sexes. Yes, I've been known to do the old "snail eyes" in an attempt to check out a female (before I was married, though, I swear to God!!!!!!!!!), but that is pretty much natural, and if it's not "PC natural" I don't think that our natural tendencies have caught up to what the PC police would like (it'll probably take a LOOOONNNGGGG time, I would hope). I think the stories of the "Love Boats" and orgies that occur in mixed gender units are over-blown (wishful thinking, more than likely) and if they do occur, it's probably unit's with shite discipline and (I was about to say a morale problem, but caught myself.....) leadership problems. 

Anyway, I hope this thread can continue in a somewhat sensible vein, without the same old tired "don't like it, don't want it to work, so I'll be an idiot about it" that derailed the last couple of threads about this. I would be interested to hear from somebody who has been in combat with women (Medak Pocket, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gulf War 1 or 2, Israel, etc) and hear honest, unbiased opinions, rather than "I was on a 3 day exercise once, and ......." or hearing what somebody's grandpa told them (remember the change in women's roles in society.......).

Cheers,

Al


----------



## canadiancarebear

Being a female of the officer kind in the process of my combat arms trade training for artillery I feel the need to add my 2 cents in. Number 1 :I have NEVER done a push up on my knees. Number 2: I sleep in tents and hoochies with male soldiers on training exercises. They change there,,,,I change there.  At no time do we care about what i believe Pugil called "Human rights Activism".  I may only weigh 115 pounds,,but i keep up and I do have a brain in my head.  Theres weak male soldiers too..you probably just notice the female ones more becuase theres less of them to compare to each other.  Being as Im a lady as well as an officer thats all I have to say on this subject matter,,Thank you.


----------



## ZipperHead

One thing that "carebear" brought up (you go killer  :threat: ) that I forgot to mention in my previous tirades, was the need for women to modify their attitudes, beliefs, comfort levels, whatnot (not a slag at you CCB, because you are doing the trg and adapting) once they join the CF. They joined the army, so they should adapt to the army, not the other way around. 

I am thinking back to last summer, while I was teaching a course, and I stepped to the back of a vehicle to take a leak. I looked back (stagefright, I guess  :-[) out of habit, and saw a female sitting in the back of the vehicle. I took another modest few paces forward. She called out, "I can still see you!" I said, "Turn you f&$$ing head then, ma'am! When you go to take a leak overseas, you can't go running into the woods to piss, so lose the modesty". In Bosnia, it was very common to see soldiers, men and women, doing their business on the side of a major road, due to the mine threat. The point is, adapt to the situation. Most men I know go out of view (within reason) but not to the extreme I have seen women go to "tinkle". At the range some of them women I have seen walk out to, a times 14 sight in the Leopard main sight would be required to tell if they were a hermaphrodite or not. Modesty is one thing, but come on..... Most men will turn their head out of respect. Mind you I was taking a "dump" behind a tank once, and another tank drove right up beside me to ask me where someone was. Boy, did I ever feel vulnerable then (especially since there were more than a few female drivers in that Sqn). 

Another time, in the beggining of the SHARP era, we had a clerk who spoke up during an OC's brief, and said she was glad that we were changing, because she was sick of the profanity and sexual innuendo she had to put up with throughout her career (she would have had to have joined in the late 70's or early 80's). Anyway, she came to a party in the ESQ's (row houses for single people) and was swearing like a sailor, hitting on the male soldiers. With her husband standing right there. Can you say "hypocrite".

Anyway, I'm sure that most of the women that post here fall into the "adapt to the army" mode, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but it's worth noting that it's not just men that have to adapt to women in their midst, but vice versa. 

Just in case anybody cares, I treat women in the CF with kid-gloves (hostile indifference is a fairly good descriptor I've heard used). Is it right? Probably not. Does it protect me? Probably. I was probably a little strong with the hostile indifference comment, but I suppose I:  respect them (if respect is deserved), talk to them as a soldier, leave no room for misinterpretation of intent (doors open, witness present). I have female friends (acquaintances, really who are mostly my friends wives or my wife's coworkers) that are in the CF, and I can joke around with them, but otherwise I don't try to toady up, or be buddy-buddy with female soldiers. Again, probably wrong, but I have yet to be brought up on any harrassment charges by females (yet......). I hate seeing guys falling all over themselves for a female soldier, and the female soldiers that play up the fact that they are female (giggle, show more skin than is neccesary, the whole teenage coquette thing). 

Al


----------



## big bad john

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> Women have no place in the Combat Arms for obvious reasons.   They are a distraction that you don't need to deal with, so why do it?
> It has nothing to do with their Fitness level or their 'toughness'' because many are just as 'tough' as their male counter parts and a certain few can make the fitness requirements.   (My youngest daughter plays both Hockey and Rugby for a well known Canadian U, guaranteed she is both tough and fit.   Bench press 120lbs!).
> 
> If you can't understand how women introduced into an elite team enviroment can very easily upset the chemstry, I wonder where you have been all your life!



Personally, I've been serving and I have seen my share of women cut it in combat.   It is people with closed minds and harassing attitudes who have no place in an Elite Team environment!


----------



## LF(CMO)

"As an example: the 18-year old son of a guy I know saw an ad in the paper about Hydro-Québec looking for linemen. He applied, and was summonned for an interview and fitness test, which is very similar to out MPFS. Hydro-Qc has determined that being a lineman requires the same effort from everyone, regardless of age or gender. And, their passing-mark for the shuttle-run is level 8   Yes, level 8, a level the majority of CF members cannot reach... Anyway, the kid failed, and was told to return after the 6-month probation period. His dad, an Officer in the CF, told him to join the military.....they would take him."

 The Power Linemen's world is still almost totally Male dominated.  There are a few 'token' females.  However, I'm not aware of any that work on the 'Hot Line' Crews ie the teams that change/ replace srtuctures and equipment with the power (from 25kv to 500kv) still on in all kinds of weather day or night.  This is the REAL world, one wrong move at a critical time and you or your fellow Lineman is either dead or seriously injured.  Power Linemen is continually listed in the top 10 of the most hazadous occupations.  For example Fireman only made the top 10 the year after 911.
Go figure.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I remember taking the police force "ATS" testing in smith falls. 
Shooting the shit with one of the officers there, he mentioned to me a story about how two females took the test and failed. Despite them failing the test, and male candidates passing, toronto hired the two failed females because they were female. And they wanted females. The guys who passed got passed up.   Shit happens i guess. Stuff like that irks me.
That seems to happen civi side more than in the forces.


Women as distractions. I'd say yes and no.

I DO see a lot of male soldiers acting like fucking morons anytime females come along. Troops acting like dummies is one thing. When leaders start playing favorites due to gender (which is always obvious to everyone else) someone has to hammer down on it.
Two examples that come to mind.
-A section commander, upon having a female moved to his section, immediately traded his fire team parter (a  guy) with the female soldier comming in (who was origionally a C9 gunner or something). He then spent the rest of the 2 week exercise hitting on her and clinging to her like a stray puppy when you give it food.
-A lieutenant pulled some strings (or did whatever) to get his male driver replaced with a female driver whom he, like the sgt, clung to and hounded like a dog.

I'm sure someone can come up with an excuse.  'Well maybe the male driver was a bad driver and he wanted a better one' bla bla bla.   In both cases it was painfully obvious to everyone. No one wanted to deal with it. Especially in the reserves, the mentality is 'were only here for a little while, lets not make waves, it will go away'

When something like that happens people need to stop it.
Women will be a distraction to some guys, the same way alcohol is a distraction to some guys, the same way 'trouble' is a distraction to guys like me  
If a male soldier isn't professional enough to act like, well a professional, then they should be disciplined. It's as easy as that.

The same goes for girls.
I remember a girl on my QL3 course ignoring her station jobs/personal kit. Every night she would take off for a few hours and always come back with grass all over her back. A few of us tried approaching her and she immediately threw up the "your harassing me and creating a poisonous work environment" bull shit line.  We tried approaching the section commanders and they said their hands were tied and we should deal with it ourselves or just put up with her.  She was a problem the whole course.

Having protocols for harassment is important. It seems to me like it's taken on more of a witch hunt however.
Some people use it to hurt other people.
Others are too afraid to say anything else they get implicated.


----------



## Art Johnson

Some comments.

BBJ, be more specific tell us some actual stories.

CCB, I'm pleased to hear you describe yourself as a lady. If there is anything that this world needs it is more ladies to give us common scruffy Soldiers someone to respect.

I'm an old dinosaur I don't believe in having women in action in the infantry, most men can't make it. I have to think that most of you have not been in action. One of the most elementary of body functions for a man is quite easy, he just has to undo his fly and relieve himself. I would have to think for a woman this function would not be that easy.
I recall an TV interview with a US Tank Commander in Germany after the Cold War and this is one of the points he brought up. The close confines of a tank and the fact that women seem to have to relieve themselves more than men impeded the efficiency of the crew, and that is not even taking into account a womens menstrual period.


----------



## Aislinn

Please don't bring issues like, "women menstruate" into this debate. Yes, we do, but it doesn't have to affect us. Modern medicine is a wonderful thing and women can supress menstration for months at a time with no ill effects and no having to deal with pills (or anything else for that matter) everyday. 
A personal opinion against having women in combat roles is fine and, as a woman, it is interesting to hear. Using things like mentstration as an excuse for not having women in these roles is not. 

Cheers.


----------



## combat_medic

Let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum for a moment. When I was in WATC in '99 on basic, we got one weekend off in 6 weeks (allowed off base, but not outside city limits). My whole course went to the JRC on base, and once there, ran into a significant number of Brits... hardly uncommon in Wainwright. However, these Brits had just gotten out of the field from a month-long excercise, and had not so much as LOOKED at a woman in that time. The following day there were charges galore for assault, attempted rape, and other such misconduct. All the girls on my course had to be escorted around base during off hours because of this. 

I firmly believe that if there were women serving in their unit, that there wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR the amount of disciplinary problems during leave. 

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with getting used to living in close quarters. On one ex I was getting changed out of some wet clothes to get some rack (stripped down to t-shirt and the boxer brief undies) and was amazed at how many people got really awkward about the whole thing. I've also stood by and watched a whole platoon of guys take a leak on the side of the road... damned men and their ability to pee with a ruck on. The maturity level certainly needs to be improved, and I'm certainly not willing to go on a LRRP just to go take a squat in the woods. If you can't behave like an adult about simple body functions, you have no business being a soldier. 

...oh, and for the girls who DO want to pee standing up, there's this great invention called a freshette. Certainly made my last winter ex a lot more bearable.


----------



## TCBF

A freshette?

Tom


----------



## Peter

big bad john said:
			
		

> Personally, I've been serving and I have seen my share of women cut it in combat.   It is people with closed minds and harassing attitudes who have no place in an Elite Team environment!


 Now in my 31st year of service and I would like to say on this topic that women do have a place in Int units such as 14. But in general combat situations with front line battle hardened troops, they do not!
There are numerous studies and papers written on the subject such as a woman who tried to pass the RM Course and had three bashes at it whereas men are only given the one chance except in the case of injury. No woman has ever attempted Para (P Coy) training, SAS or SBS Selection.
The main factor apart from endurance is the natural male attitude of "we'll protect the little lady" which then puts the entire op on a downward slide.
Also to put it bluntly I have see women peeing standing up, in fact in the soviet army it is common practice.


----------



## LF(CMO)

Peter said:
			
		

> Now in my 31st year of service and I would like to say on this topic that women do have a place in Int units such as 14. But in general combat situations with front line battle hardened troops, they do not!
> There are numerous studies and papers written on the subject such as a woman who tried to pass the RM Course and had three bashes at it whereas men are only given the one chance except in the case of injury. No woman has ever attempted Para (P Coy) training, SAS or SBS Selection.
> The main factor apart from endurance is the natural male attitude of "we'll protect the little lady" which then puts the entire op on a downward slide.
> Also to put it bluntly I have see women peeing standing up, in fact in the soviet army it is common practice.



 The above leads me to believe that you have 'been there done that'!  I find it very difficult to believe that most people that have been in potentialy lethal situations want to intoduce another 'distraction' into the mix to deal with.  Most of us are not Winston Chuchill or Robert E Lee; we are just average people that have had to learn by doing.  I've learned to keep things as simple as possible.  Then when the unexpected happens, you have less things to deal with.


----------



## ZipperHead

The problem I see whenever somebody uses the quote "I saw this interview once..." is the fact that the person being interviewed can be a total twat, and can have nothing of any value to say, but just because sombody jammed a microphone in their face, are they really worth quoting? Here's an example: "I saw an interview with Ernst Zundel, and he said that the Holocaust never happened...." (For our UK friends, Ernst Zundel is a fairly infamous "person" (to use person loosely) who is a Holocaust denier, and has been deported to his native Germany for his beliefs (and outrageous claims). Anyhoo, yes that's an extreme example, but I remember reading back in one of these related threads about a Royal Navy XO who said (basically) "Any nation that sends women to combat is morally bankrupt" [I just tried to find the thread, but can't, so if anyone remembers it and can find it, please correct me as neccesary] Well, that's a nice opinion on his part, but it doesn't really mean anything about the capabilities of women in combat. As for the quote from the US Army tank commander about women relieving themselves in the confines of a tank: I was on my LSVW course with a female Artillery soldier, and she commented on the fact that the little access hole in front of the drivers seat in the floorboard would be a good place to take a leak. Yes, she was being coarse and was joking, but I think the point is: where there's a will, there's a way. I know a few guys who absolutely can't piss if anybody is around, or looking. They should kick them out I guess, for Universality of Service requirement to be able to piss under people's observation. How about guys with TBS (Tiny Bladder Syndrome)? 

A lot of the reasons that are trotted out aren't really anything more than excuses, not reasons, why people think women shouldn't be in combat. As for our guests from the UK, you have brought up the fact that women have a difficult time with SF selection: I think that probably has a lot to do with the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are no women in your Combat Arms, and I'm sure that a lot of the male soldiers coming from non combat arms backgrounds have difficulty with it as well. Yes, the women may get more kicks at the can, but that is politics in action. 

Somebody has yet to point out that there is a female SAR Tech in the CF. That is a trade where I would hope that they didn't change the standards to accommodate anyone. And if she hasn't been able to cut it, I'm sure that would have been splashed across the headlines, as it would have probably involved the loss of civilian life, as that is the primary target audience for SAR Techs (in peacetime). The reason I mention SAR Tech is because, while it may not be considered SF, it is a very desirable course for those in the Combat Arms, and the selection process is very demanding. Someone else mentioned they saw Secret Squirrels(JTF2)  in the barracks, and there were females in their group, but AFAIK, they are only support personnel (I know one of them), not at the pointy end.

Again, before I am tagged as a tree-hugging, lady loving, granola eating PC type, I would like to make it clear: there should only be one standard for the military (and if they have to lower it, it shouldn't be at the Combat Arms end) and that should be a high standard, based on real world requirements (unlike the joke weight they use for the BFT). And a healthy dose of reality needs to be injected into the training at the beginning of a soldiers career so that it can be determined if a soldier has got what it takes then, not on the battlefield. I'm thinking of escape and evasion trg, heavy duty weapons trg (not the familiarization that takes place), resistance to interrogation, pugil stick trg for all (not just infantry), brutal rucksack marches (not the walk in the park BFT), etc. I know what the official reaction to this train of thought would be: "Oh my God! An average person could never endure that type of training!!!" Exactly.

Al


----------



## ArmyRick

Women in combat ? Absolutely. NO doubt.

I have served with some tough ladies. One is a freind of mine and she is now a MCPL in a reserve infantry unit (no names, no pack drill  ) She was with us during my second tour over seas. We had to raid the banks in Bosnia (Bank Hercegovina), the Can BG had to do Tomislavgrad (Hour and half away from split). Anyways the locals took a real disliking to it. They starting getting fired up and threwing junk at us. She stood her ground and didn't budge.

Have any of you guys met Captain E. Taylor (RCR REG F) ? She is tough little officer.

All the arguments for not having women in combat is Bullsh&t !

They can shoot, hump rucks, kill, be killed just like men.

Final note, if I find people going on with this argument at work, I don't hesitate to get into their faces about it.


----------



## Peter

Rick,
I hate to point this out, but there is a slight difference between junk and live rounds Dont wish to demean you but live rounds hurt a little bit more than junk I know!
You have your views, unfortuneatly they suck and show a total disregard for the women!

Allan,
Depends on your term Combat arms and what Regiments you include in this. As to SAR tech, they do a wonderful job and I know a couple, but that is still not putting women into the direct firing line is it? Incidentally women make excellent Secret Squirrels. As to training Standards of SF, when a women can pass all the tests at the same standard and in the same time as the men, yes they should be admitted, however, I cannot see that ever happening!


----------



## Jarnhamar

> She was with us during my second tour over seas. We had to raid the banks in Bosnia (Bank Hercegovina), the Can BG had to do Tomislavgrad (Hour and half away from split). Anyways the locals took a real disliking to it. They starting getting fired up and threwing junk at us. She stood her ground and didn't budge.



On the other side of the coin, on the same tour, a reserve female soldier while playing soccer with some kids for some kind of fun day in kupres (and getting our ass kicked) almost had a break down (looked like she was in tears if i recall) because every time she would get the ball both the boys on the other team AND the bystanders would look at her, point and laugh.   I assumed they weren't accustomed to females playing sports with males or whatever.   She was a good soccer player too. Way better than me but she let some 15 year olds get to her and had to quit.

I also remember a male reserve soldier who upon hearing distant gunshots while working in the french AOR (on exchange) refused to get out of the grizzly as i'm told.


I think menstruation can be a valid enough point.   I recall hearing a war story from a medic about a female soldier who, while menstruating, was embarrassed and left a certain device inside her for over a week. Long story short it turned her legs green and she got pretty sick.
Menstruating doesn't seem to be anymore of a problem than soldiers allergic to metal the sun or the grass.   I think the problem lies simply in the soldiers training. Not taking care of your body is stupid and you should be disciplined for it.

I'm one of those looser guys who get stage fright and can't piss near anyone (unless I'm drunk which the military doesn't like you to be while working).   Depending on what I drink i can also get IBBS so i gotta piss a lot. I've always found women use the washroom a lot less then men, probably out of necessity though.   
If a soldier can't use the washroom in front of others then they are in a world of hurt.   Having stagefright while on a footpatrol, i couldn't piss behind the carrier into a little bottle so i walked around a corner into a run down garage/shed, hopped up onto a big pile of debris and started to piss.   All the mine awareness training went right out the window, i was standing on some busted up wooden boxes.   Section commander freaked. I learned to piss in front of people if need be 

Probably my only real gripe with women in the infantry (aside from guys acting like horn dogs near them or them flirting with everyone, tee hee hee hee,I'm a girl, hee hee, I'm so cute)   is their attitude sometimes.   I find female police officers put on an attitude dealing with males.   Where I've seen male officers be relaxed and calm during traffic stops, the female officer has been rude, aggressive and mean. Like their trying to prove something.    I know there are obvious reasons for this but still.   It's like they feel they need to demand respect.   Same happens in the CF I've felt.   Women seem to feel like they need to demand respect from male soldiers instead of earn it. I'm sure the blame for this goes both ways. Whats a good way to combat this? Combat Medic pointed it out.   Male soldiers working more with female soldiers.

Females taking a piss in front of males?   On a BFT right before stepping off a female soldier went about 15 or 20 feet off the road,   practically in full view of the platoon and went to the washroom. It wasn't just a piss either.


----------



## Strike

Freshette huh?  I need to get me one of those.  Nothing worse than having to go and having made a bad decision by wearing a one piece flight suit.

Army Rick,

I did BOTC with Taylor.  There is a prime example of what determination (and smarts) can do for you.  She's a prime example of why women (on equal footing as men) can be in the combat arms.

Unfortunately all these "attitude" and behavioural problems being brought up about the guys when they are around women is not just in the combat arms.  I have seen it in my trade and I know others have dealt with it also.  It seems to be prevalent in any trade that does not involve sitting behind a desk.  How have I dealt with it?  The support of friends and putting my foot down.  It takes alot for me to threaten to go so far as to charge someone.  Thankfully I have never had to actually go through with it.  Those concerned tend to smarten up.  And, before you all start brow beating me, it had nothing to do with dirty jokes and language and everything to do with personal attacks.  I realize that the military is not going to change for me.  I grew up with two brothers and can deal with foul language and can give it as good as anyone else.


----------



## camochick

The problem with women being a "distraction" to the men, isnt really a woman's problem. It's the attitudes of men that have to change. If they can't work beside a woman without feeling the need to hump her leg then that is their problem not a problem with women being in combat. 
I'm not in the military but heck if i was and had to pee i wouldnt have a problem with going in front of a man. If i got to go, i got to go.
 It's a man's world, no matter how much we don't want to believe it, so if a woman feels she has to be act tougher it's because she has to emulate a man in order to feel she is getting the respect she deserves. It's sad but that's how it is.
Kudos to all the women who are in the military and who are doing a good job.


----------



## LF(CMO)

'Combat' is a term that is thrown around here quite loosely.   A close friend of mine called last night to fill me in on his recent trip to Cuba.   ( He is a graduate of RR and has served as an Officer in the Regs, now in the P-Res)   He emphasized two points (again).   Canada's had two situations since Korea that possibly can be classified "Combat".   Medak Pocket (how many females in that one?) and maybe the first tour in Afganistan.   It's gruesome; but if the casualities aren't there how hazardous was the situation?

 My dad was an Inf Sgt in WW II.   He was twice wounded and finally the lone survivor from his original platoon.   ( They were not all KIA.   Some were WIA and others transfered for various reasons).   That's a 'Combat' situation.   The most hazardous Civ occupations have far more fatalities and disabling injuries than the military or the RCMP in any given year.   Just a little perspective.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Combat is a relative term. Try telling the guys doing house clearing and anti insurgent interdiction in A'ghan they are not doing combat. The "3 block war" has changed the way we do things. Our perspective has to change also. And with all respect to your RR buddy, if he hasn't BTDT, it's nothing but armchair quarterbacking on his part. You don't have to get into a running gun battle to be in "Combat".

If there weren't females at Medak, it proves them none the less capable. What about the ones that were on Apollo, as was mentioned earlier?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote from Camochick,
The problem with women being a "distraction" to the men, isnt really a woman's problem. It's the attitudes of men that have to change. If they can't work beside a woman without feeling the need to hump her leg then that is their problem not a problem with women being in combat.

...and visa versa.
You are doing it AGAIN. [you know]
I work in a place now with more females tham males,.......guess what? Some women get "distracted" too.


----------



## LF(CMO)

He had two tours in Bosnia.   He said the early one was exciting, but he would not call it a Combat Sit.   The second one uneventful and somewhat boring.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Exactly my point.


----------



## Peter

I agree the Term COMBAT is thrown around very loosely especially by those who have never seen it. I have picked up on 3 up to now by reading they're posts 2 were either obviously cooks or clerks and 1 is trying to make a name for himself by posing as something he never was! It is interesting though and I must admit I do feel a little sorry for them trying to be the big man when in reality they could not hack it in a situation.
I must however, disagree with your point that Canada has only been in two combat situations since Korea. You don't necessarily have to come under fire and sustain losses to qualify a combat situation, The fact that the threat is present is enough to qualify the situation. Indeed I remember one incident where the Canadian troops were present within the last 12 years, when one of our patrols sustained KIAs. We were in a Combat situation and so were the Canadian troops although they were a mile distant and did not receive any incoming.

As to women peeing in front of me I have no problem with that. Where the problem would occur and think on this, if a bloke stumbles, you automatically reach out and grab him by whatever handhold you can get. The same happens with a woman and you're up on an indecency charge and thats just for starters.


----------



## Strike

> As to women peeing in front of me I have no problem with that. Where the problem would occur and think on this, if a bloke stumbles, you automatically reach out and grab him by whatever handhold you can get. The same happens with a woman and you're up on an indecency charge and thats just for starters.



That's because she's a clown.

My section was out playing floor hockey a couple of weeks ago and I got a couple elbows in some tender areas in the upper body.  We all had a few chuckles about it, especially when thinking I may have to explain the bruises if I were to pick up that night.

I take martial arts and find myself sparring with guys on a regular basis.  Getting a misplaced kick in the butt (which really hurst by the way) happens and I don't know any women in the class who would get offended by it.  Just like I would hope a guy wouldn't get offended if I did the same to him -- by accident of course.


----------



## Peter

Glad you admit that like men some women are "clowns". The point being that women can and do use the sexual discrimination act as well as sexual harassment as a weapon and 99% of the time the woman is believed. In a combat situation that extra pressure is not needed or welcomed by a PROFESSIONAL Soldier.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Peter said:
			
		

> I have picked up on 3 up to now by reading they're posts 2 were either obviously cooks or clerks and 1 is trying to make a name for himself by posing as something he never was! It is interesting though and I must admit I do feel a little sorry for them trying to be the big man when in reality they could not hack it in a situation.



Can't find the ones your talking about. Which page, etc?


----------



## 48Highlander

Peter said:
			
		

> Glad you admit that like men some women are "clowns". The point being that women can and do use the sexual discrimination act as well as sexual harassment as a weapon and 99% of the time the woman is believed. In a combat situation that extra pressure is not needed or welcomed by a PROFESSIONAL Soldier.



Right.  How about you provide some evidence that this sort of thing has actually happened.  The only people in the CF I've seen brought up on sex-related charges were two instructors who were sleeping with the same candidate.  I have NEVER seen nor heard of a member being charged for stopping a female from falling  :


----------



## ZipperHead

I think we are going to spin around in circles, until somebody can unequivocally prove that women CAN'T be in combat. Not shouldn't, but can't. Hell, I'm too good looking and valuable to society to be placed onto the two way range, but I'll still go   8). Children shouldn't fight, but they have killed plenty of people, both kids and adults (i'm thinking child soldiers, and children within society as a whole). There were 16 year old (and youger) boys fighting in wars, probably since the dawn of man. Getting killed by a child probably doesn't feel any less painful than being shot by a man, or woman, for that matter.

I agree that women can be a distraction, and unless they are being provocative (their bits and pieces on full public display) it is more my problem than theirs. I'm sure a lot of redneck's had a problem with fighting along blacks, until of course a black soldier saved their bacon. Depending on the redness of the neck, the guy was probably still against it, but probably somewhat less so. If I am in a trench, and there is a woman next to me, and I'm focussed on her backside, and not the enemy, there is a problem, but to blame the woman for my lack of control is like blaming McDonald's for making people fat. I have seen women walking around barracks, and most are dressed modestly, but a lot of guys walk around naked, and that is probably more uncomfortable for all concerned than the modestly dressed woman.



> Canada's had two situations since Korea that possibly can be classified "Combat".   Medak Pocket (how many females in that one?) and maybe the first tour in Afganistan.   It's gruesome; but *if the casualities aren't there how hazardous was the situation*?


 To use this argument, my tour to Bosnia in 2000-2001 was more "combat like" than '97, because we had two guys die on the latter tour. Sure they were heart attacks, but the "confirmed kills" on that tour outdid the earlier tour. Yay, team!!!!! Was Korea, with less deaths than WWII, or Antietam:             
*Confederate Losses*             *Union Losses * 
Killed 1,512                                             Killed    2,108 
Wounded 7,816                                  Wounded    9,549 
Captured/Missing 1,844                     Captured/Missing      753 
(Those are losses from one battle, in one day, BTW) any less of a war????By this logic, no. In the immortal words of Gen Patton "You don't win the war by dying for your country. You win the war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country". I think the most successful battle would be won with no losses, but we all know that isn't going to happen. 

I think that the first time that women (in the modern era) fight, and perhaps die, people will judge them (women) based on that, and if a) they perform very well, it will be written off as dumb luck, or b) if they perform very poorly, that will be all the justification needed for the naysayers. For the record, if I go to battle, I hope that I don't have anybody have a meltdown in my vicinity, be they male or female, and one golden rule to follow: never share a foxhole with someone braver than you   . By simply burying our head in the sand, and repeating that it can't, it won't, it shouldn't happen is't going to make it go away. Hopefully, with the new CDS at the helm, the military will start the swing back to the "good old days", with good training, and higher standards all around, based on realistic conditions, not social engineering eggheads spouting off about what will make people happy. I think what will make people happy is well trained soldiers able to fight, and kill if neccesary, and return home at the end of it. Well, that would make me happy anyway.

Al


----------



## Peter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Can't find the ones your talking about. Which page, etc?


 I Will not name names or pages on a public Forum. I'm surprised others havent picked up on it.


----------



## Cansky

Ive been reading this thread for the past few days now.  I think some valid points have been made for both sides, but the reality is its a political decision that has already been made and there is no going back.  As for women in combat I can't speak for Medak pocket (I never got a chance to go to Bosnia) but I was in Kandahar Afghanistan.  We had 28 women on our tour.  2 infanteer's and 1 Armoured officer.  They were both on the pointy end.   I can say that they did a great job and would serve with any of them again as well as any of the guys that were over there.   Of the rest at least 6 CSS trades went on combat ops (3 of which were medics).  I speak for myself when I say I didn't ask to be there in combat but its my job and I went.  It was the scariest and hardest thing both physically and mentally.  But I went and did my job.  Funny thing was men around me dropped there rucks going up the mountain and at least 2 were heat casualties at the top.  Most of us took 3 hours to get up the mountain with 150 + lb rucks rested for about 30 minutes and then did a 6 hr ish patrol.  I by no means am butchie and wasn't in the best shape of my life(more like the worst).  In the end it comes down to do you have the intestinal fortitude to soldier on or give up.  Some just give up and it wasn't always the woman.   
     I have the ut most respect for anyone who puts there lives on the line. Male or female it doesn't matter.  In the end did the job get done if so that is what is important.  Its time to accept that women in Canada are in combat roles.  It doesn't matter if they are combat arms or CSS it has happened and we all have to learn to deal with it.   Like I said earlier, I didn't ask to be in a combat environment but found my country telling me to take my turn.  In the end I went, I left a husband a 2 small girls behind and I would do it again.  I think most soldiers would do the same when asked to go.  After all we need to ask ourselves "Why are we in the military?"  For the money, job and security, or did we join to try and do our part to protect our freedoms and rights.   For me it was the latter.


----------



## sigspig

I think that as long as a "PERSON" can do it...let them join. NO matter if they are female, male, gay, caucasian, african american, aboriginal, etc...But I will add that because some people are close minded it does make it harder for females to join combat arms. I know, I joined as Armour and I can tell you that my instructors(all armoured personnel) did not want me there. I was the first female Armour to sign up, I passed the training with flying colors and didn't give up but they made certain it wouldn't be easy. They would ask me to show everyone how do to the obstical course, no problem I thought. Then they (my wonderfull instructors) would add: "Show everyone how to do it...hummm 5 times....you want to be Armour? Do your time little girl!" I bit my tongue and did it. This was 17 years ago, I can't beleive that some of you still think the same way after so many years...especially the new generation. I understood back then that the men would fear of the unknown, that they would fear the fact that females couldnt do it, but this is 2005...wake up!!! We are still around and not going anywhere! If YOU have a problem with females been in the combat arms that is YOUR problem and not mine. 
Oh, almost forgot, once I completed my training they(the close minded people) told me that they were hoping for a full platoon of females and I had to remuster, grrrr yeah.. i was not impressed. But I was glad to see that women were in with the men shortly after and made it.


----------



## LF(CMO)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.



 Actually, what my buddy, Capt. ****** is saying is that he was in Bosnia in one of the Combat Arms in the same situation that others are calling 'Combat'.  While certainly more dangerous than a Trg Ex at Wainwright, it was not a true 'Combat' Sit in his viewpoint.

 Yes, the casuality rate most certainly reflects the severity of the situation especially from a historical point of view.  If you are a logger, commercial pilot or a power lineman your chance of being killed or injured on the job is many times more than the CF.  How many females in these occupations?  They get by in the CF because it's mandated by the PC Gov't of the day.

BTW:  To introduce a bit of ironic humour into this discussion; I don't have a monopoly on my viewpoint in my family either.  One daughter and one son agree.  Two daughters disagree; the hockey/rugby player quite vehemently.  My wife agrees.  That's what males all this SO much fun!!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> 'Combat' is a term that is thrown around here quite loosely.   A close friend of mine called last night to fill me in on his recent trip to Cuba.   ( He is a graduate of RR and has served as an Officer in the Regs, now in the P-Res)   He emphasized two points (again).   Canada's had two situations since Korea that possibly can be classified "Combat".   Medak Pocket (how many females in that one?) and maybe the first tour in Afganistan.   It's gruesome; but if the casualities aren't there how hazardous was the situation?
> 
> My dad was an Inf Sgt in WW II.   He was twice wounded and finally the lone survivor from his original platoon.   ( They were not all KIA.   Some were WIA and others transfered for various reasons).   That's a 'Combat' situation.   The most hazardous Civ occupations have far more fatalities and disabling injuries than the military or the RCMP in any given year.   Just a little perspective.
> My father was with RC57 Signals in the Belgium Congo when it turned bad, he got his teeth knocked out by a rifle but (it was some weeks before reaching friendly territory, so infection took them all), his section had to shoot their way out, was out of contact long enough for my grandparents and uncle (who was serving elsewhere in the Congo) to receive the CF notification that my father was "Missing in action, presumed dead".  His actions getting back to UN controlled area's got him, and other members of his troop mentioned in dispatches. The MIA/PD telegraph was still in my grandfathers effects when we buried him.  Funny thing about war, its easy to spot.  Funny thing about combat; it can be as big as whole divisions battling for weeks or as small as two men/women in a few desperate seconds.  If the loser got bagged, it was combat.  How many peacekeepers have stood and returned fire?  If live rounds are being fired at you, with the intention of ending your life, you are in combat.  As far as can women hack combat, if they have to meet the same standards as the men in the combat arms, then yes they can.  Can every woman, or even most? No.  Take a good hard look at the men in uniform next time you are on base, and apply the same standard to them.  Can the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, in whatever trade, service, or roll, meet the same standards that you hold for the combat infantryman?  The last time I tried that little check on base the results depressed the sh*t out of me, and there weren't any women in sight...... By the same token, when I tried that same test in the field,  the results impressed me, and there were three female junior ranks in sight, that I would take in their trade, or with their personal weapon into any situation you want.


----------



## 48Highlander

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> If you are a logger, commercial pilot or a power lineman your chance of being killed or injured on the job is many times more than the CF.   How many females in these occupations?   They get by in the CF because it's mandated by the PC Gov't of the day.



http://www.privateline.com/OSP/women.html

"In the early 1970s the Bell System began hiring, under orders, women for jobs such as lineman and splicer that were traditionally held by men. They also started hiring men for jobs usually held by women, such as operators. This was a dramatic change to AT&T's corporate culture and it met with stiff resistance by certain managers."
.....
"A privateline.com reader of 30 years experience recently e-mailed me. She was one of the first females allowed in an Outside Plant job. She started at New Jersey Bell as a cord board operator and retired after 30 years as a CXM (Construction) Splicer. She also did stints as an installer and as a business office worker. Although now retired and teaching telecommunications, she notes that "The Good-OLE-Boy mentality never retired!" This story of pioneering, perservance, and dedication is in her own words."
.....
"In the beginning, whomever I was assigned to work with, would just leave me once we got to the job site. Finally I was assigned to a minority partner and things started to work out. He explained to me I was like he was 20 years ago. Nonwhite males were not allowed in splicing, It was a closed club. I was now the minority. I have always been grateful for how the "brothers" treated me. After they realized that I was there to do the job, and not just use the job as a stepping stone to management, they were great! I spent quite a few years there, then transferred closer to home. Back to the same group that I was a lineman with! By this time I was a very good technician, and mostly worked alone."


Read the rest of the article, you might learn something and stop emberrasing yourself.


----------



## LF(CMO)

"Read the rest of the article, you might learn something and stop emberrasing yourself."

  48th,Thanks for the above comment.  Everything has it's 'culture' and part of the culture here seems to be if you can't counter the point resort to name calling or rude comments, as the above.  Further,Telephone line people are sort of like the local Cadet Corps is to 3 PPCLI.  They are not considered real linemen.   I took the liberty of copying your commemts to Powerlinemen.com so the boys could have a good chuckle. 

 There are aprox 1800 lineworkers in this Province.  There is 1 woman working for the Hydro.  The contracters, which are governed by the free market, have none.  'Women in Combat' is phoney if it is mandated by the PC Canadian Military sructure bowing to the corrupt Liberal PC Gov't.  How many women are there serving in combat roles in the USMC?  That should be proof enough.

Both my Dad and myself have served in the military and both made a career in the POWER line business.  My Dad was a combat Vet; I'm not.  Although, he told me many times that 'the linecrew was the same as the Inf Platoon,........ just in Combat things were happening faster!' 

 When I first came on this site, I sort of formed a couple of personal rules for myself.  The first I would not allow myself to reply in kind.  Second, once someone has degenerated the discussion, I would withdraw from further comment on that thread.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Quote from Peter:
I Will not name names or pages on a public Forum. I'm surprised others havent picked up on it.

C'mon Peter. You said they were right here. You made the accusations, saying these people didn't have the parts. Now you won't back it up. Feel free to PM me then.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Get off the powerline and civie job stuff. That's not the intent of the thread, and it's useless drawing parallels. Unless power workers are getting shot at as part of their job.


----------



## mdh

I don't know about power line workers ( :  ) but there are quite a few women in commercial aviation nowadays - and the ones I've worked with have been very capable pilots.

cheers, mdh


----------



## mo-litia

Talk about flogging a dead horse.



			
				Pugil said:
			
		

> Canada is the only Nato country that allows women in the combat arms. A recent study made by the Mod in Uk confirms that   women in combat arms would unbalance the group cohesion giving more risks than assets.
> http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=1723



This was the first post in this thread and the link it leads to sums up the logical reasons for the 'NO' side quite nicely.  I find it sad that so many people here are so eager to be political correct at any cost. :boring:

Reminds me of the old political ccommissarsin the USSR...


----------



## Infanteer

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> How many women are there serving in combat roles in the USMC?   That should be proof enough.



Being in a "Combat Role" no longer defines who will see combat and who won't - that is what the whole "Three Block War" idea is about.   If people want to define their argument on "Women in Combat Roles", then they have to re-adjust their argument, because OEF and OIF are clear examples that "Combat" does not pick and choose trades to affect.

Besides, most of us on these Forums have continually expounded on the "Every Soldier is a Rifleman First" mentality on these threads.   It would be silly to bar women from certain trades in the Army but insist that they are "Riflemen First" and ensure that combatives are ingrained on them as part of their training regimen.

Anyways, this thread is starting to turn into a ranting opinion piece (that the subject always falls back to) - it is easy to see that there are Good Soldiers, many who've Been There and Done That and seen the Elephant, who argue for either side of the argument - so there are obviously good points for both sides.

However, as someone pointed out, this is a political issue from the Government - we, as professionals, take our orders and soldier on.   Military Training Standards is a separate issue then Female integration, and it should not be something that the government should be interfering in - if it is, then it is overstepping its bounds with regards to a healthy level of civil-military relations.

I still think that were getting our Olive Drab underpants in a knot over a non-issue here.   It is not as if the Military as an Institution as become "Martha Stuartized" by suddenly allowing women to do everything.   The military, which hinges on aggression and violence, is still a very focussed institution, an "Alpha Male environment" (For the correlation between Males and Aggression, see Michael Ghiglieri; The Dark Side of Man).   Most females, for social and other reasons, will really have no desire to serve in the Army - the Combat Arms especially; this is reflected in the "equilibrium" that we've reached today with all doors open to Males and Females.

As Kirsten Luomala (where do I recognize that name from?   ) was keen to point out, on OP APOLLO had 28 (3 Combat Arms) in a BattleGroup of about 800 (If I recall correctly).   What is this, like 3.5% (even less for "Combat Roles").   Is this really such a big thing that it is going to mean the immediate collapse of combat capabilities tomorrow (which those who are against the principle seem to believe)?   The lovely thing about being in a Liberal Democracy is that we've given everybody, regardless of plumbing, the ability to succeed if they wish.   The nature of the job has kept things in equilibrium, with those Females who are up to the job being more then able to serve their country beside Male soldiers.   The thing that we should focus on is ensuring that Standards are kept objective, so as to ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity (as defined by Combat Requirements) to "Wash Out".

That being said, my personal views on the topic (which I'm not going to post, as they are irrelevent), my two main concerns for the military are:

1) Standards which are affected by things other then Combat Requirement - as I said before, if standards are being affected for Any group for political purposes, then our civil-military relations are out of joint.   As asserted above, "Readiness and Training Standards" and "Women in Combat Roles" are two separate issues; anyone can be "physically unable to do the job".

2) The culture of entitlement that seems to be affecting a portion of our Army.   People crying about 16 hour workloads on Operation to the Ombudsman is a good example.   I have a feeling this comes from a loss of focus that we had in the Post-Cold War "Peace Dividend" which was driven by people like Axworthy and Co.   Soldiers, regardless of trade, should never expect 8 hour shifts, internet connection, phones, and beds - if you do, time to turn in your kit.   Like "Readiness and Training Standards", I think "Institutional Mentality" is a different issue for "Women in Combat" - anyone can be a weak waste of CADPAT.

Again, I'll stress the fact that we're going nowhere with arguing about "Women in Combat Roles" anymore because, as recent operations have shown, "Women in the Army" means "Women in Combat" now - look at Kirsten L - she's a Medic who had to deploy on an Air-Assault Operation in Afghanistan.  Are we going to ban women from being Medics because they may be in combat?   Let's focus our energy on the real issues (like the two above that I mentioned) where we can make real gains in combat capability.

Infanteer


----------



## mdh

> I find it sad that so many people here are so eager to be political correct at any cost



Would this study have been produced by the same UK Ministry of Defence that just gave a green light for the RN to recruit openly gay sailors? Presumably the MOD doesn't think that homosexuals will have much of an impact on unit cohesion - but women will?


----------



## mo-litia

mdh said:
			
		

> Would this study have been produced by the same UK Ministry of Defence that just gave a green light for the RN to recruit openly gay sailors? Presumably the MOD doesn't think that homosexuals will have much of an impact on unit cohesion - but women will?



I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.  The MoD concern regarding unit cohesion is based on the physical limitations of the female gender, whereas the sexual preference of a sailor in an institution known for a longstanding tradition of covert homosexuality is not likely to have much of an effect on said homosexual sailor's ability to perform his job.

But, I digress. I feel this is an issue where the opposing sides are *just going to have to agree to disagree* on the matter. There is not much chance of me abandoning a viewpoint that is reinforced by the policies of most major military powers anymore than someone who is so adamant on total sexual integration is likely to admit that differences between genders do provide reason enough to limit the roles that women should play in the military.


----------



## Strike

Are these the same major military powers who went into Iraq?  Yup, look how that worked out.


----------



## Infanteer

Strike said:
			
		

> Are these the same major military powers who went into Iraq?   Yup, look how that worked out.



Implying that the US and Britain are having problems in Iraq because they bar women from Combat Trades is absurd, and you know it.


----------



## 48Highlander

mo-litia said:
			
		

> But, I digress. I feel this is an issue where the opposing sides are *just going to have to agree to disagree* on the matter. There is not much chance of me abandoning a viewpoint that is reinforced by the policies of most major military powers anymore than someone who is so adamant on total sexual integration is likely to admit that differences between genders do provide reason enough to limit the roles that women should play in the military.



Ten Times Wrong Shortly after the end of World War I, the War Department asked the Army War College to study the possible military role of blacks, with an eye to expanding their participation in the combat arms. Between 1924 and 1939, the Army War College investigated the underemployment of blacks on ten separate occasions. Each time, racism kept the students and faculty from reaching rational, fair-minded conclusions. It seems inane now, but these studies asserted that blacks possessed *brains significantly smaller than those of white troops* and were *predisposed to lack physical courage*. The reports maintained that the Army should increase opportunities for blacks to help meet manpower requirements but claimed that they should always be commanded by whites and should always serve in segregated units. The Air Corps at that time did not employ blacks in any role. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 directed the Air Corps to build an all-black flying unit. The presidential order propelled the air organization to create the 99th Pursuit Squadron. To develop the required pilot force, the Air Corps opened a new training base in central Alabama, near Tuskegee.


We seing any similarities here?  If you start with the premise that a certain group is incapable of something, you'll always find ways to back up your assumption.  Like this for instance:


"Some senior Air Force officers claimed that the country was not ready for military integration, or that the military ought to wait for civilian integration, or that they and the troops would not cooperate.
A persistent contention was that whites would never tolerate black supervision"


If on the other hand you start wih an open mind, you're liable to come to much different conclusions.  Face it; 50 years ago, soldiers liked things the way they were.  They didn't want any negros invading their club.  Eventually it happened, most people got used to it, and life continued.  A few individuals maintained the same negative attitude towards working with black, but for the most part, everyone learned to get along and work together.  20 years ago the army was once again happy with the way things were.  We didn't need any damn females invading our club.  Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself?  Instead of bitching and complaining about how those nasty women are bringing down the effectivness of your unit, how about making the effort to learn to work together?  There's a reason that teamwork is emphisized so much during basic training: having an effective unit isn't about everyone being the same, it's about learning how to use eachothers strengths and cover eachothers weaknesses.


----------



## Strike

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Implying that the US and Britain are having problems in Iraq because they bar women from Combat Trades is absurd, and you know it.



Not at all.  I was being facetious.   > >

We all know they wouldn't be able to handle our superior skills anyway.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer

I don't really like the comparison of Black/White to Women/Men.   It seems to be a bit of a red herring.

The only difference between Black and White is skin pigmentation.   There are obvious physiological differences between Men/Women.

As well, the "social differences" comparison is weak as well.   Whites saw Blacks as a distraction on purely social reasons - they were conditioned to view them as lesser beings.   With Men/Women, there are clear differences (psychological, etc, etc) based on the fact that instinct and hormones often overpower rationality with regards to small group dynamics.   Nature has no real affect on Race relations (maybe a minor one on Kin Group selection - but what can you do, we are human), but nature has a big role in Inter-gender relations, as much as the PC-Feminazis like to deny.

That being said, I still stick to my original guns:   The military, being a violent and aggressive institution by design, makes the opening of doors a real non-issue - so 1 in 10 people wearing CADPAT is a woman (even less for Combat Arms), is it a really big deal?  Being an egalitarian Liberal Democracy, we are bound by Principle to give all citizens, regardless of plumbing, the right to succeed or fail in whatever they endeavour.   As long as we maintain effective and realistic standards and abhor favoritism, we are doing are part as a Canadian Institution to uphold this principle.

Other then that, lets get on with the job.


----------



## ZipperHead

> I find it sad that so many people here are so eager to be political correct at any cost. Boring
> 
> Reminds me of the old political ccommissarsin the USSR...



I would think that you, Mo-Litia, would have a little more empathy for the females. After all, you are the recipient of some of that good old PC generosity. What do I mean?!!? Well, how long does it take (or more succinctly, did it take for you) to get promoted to Corporal? Was is 4 years? Probably not. I'm guessing 2 years. When did you put up your first hook? Was it after 30 months, or was it after your TQ3? Did it take as long for you to get promoted to MCpl as it did for me (8 1/2 years, and mine was considered quick at the time - 1996)? You should be careful of biting the hand that feeds you (one night a week, and 2 weeks in the summer.....). But you don't have to be careful, because nobody knows who you are.... People who hurl insults or post things anonymously remind me of kids who give the finger to the cop car after it turns the corner, out of sight.... real big, tough guys.

Didn't the political commisar's also follow up behind the soldiers, and shoot any who turned and ran from the enemy (see my reference up above ^^^^^^^^^^^)?

Sorry, it was too good to resist... I'll go back to being a PC drone.

Al


----------



## Infanteer

Mo-Litia may, like he did before, brag about how he was in 7 years ago before the "PC standards" rolled in - back when the Man's Army was a Real Army - but as those who were in before him have attested to, he's talking out of his hat.

Dismissing counter-arguments as merely the act of "Political Commissars" (although they had their hand in it - read MGen MacKenzie's book Peacekeeper) and all of us "PC weenies" is pretty weak; I don't really feel that branding me as "Politically Correct" is quite accurate, others around here can attest to that.   This form of "arguing" doesn't address legitmate counter-arguments and valid observations (ie: All Trades are exposed to combat - ask Private Lynch) and leaves the impression that Mo-litia doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to backing up his arguments.


----------



## ArmyRick

Shaking my head at some of the stupidity....

Women are in the combat arms, accept it or enjoy a good civilian career..

ARMYRICK OUT !


----------



## Peter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quote from Peter:
> I Will not name names or pages on a public Forum. I'm surprised others haven't picked up on it.
> 
> C'mon Peter. You said they were right here. You made the accusations, saying these people didn't have the parts. Now you won't back it up. Feel free to PM me then.


Don't have to back it up do I ?
Just received my first warning from the forum which means that at least one of them got worried enough to try and get me closed down. Ive found the one I was looking for after reports filtered back to the UK about him. I'm afraid it is up to the Forum Staff to be vigilant and weed out the Wannabees not for the guests to do so. Been an enjoyable couple of days reading the posts but I never thought that expressing concern and respect for the female soldier by removing them from the line of fire would be taken as a sexuality problem for soldiers to deal with. No doubt this post will be removed due to its politically incorrectness.
Thank you for allowing me this brief visit.

Goodbye


----------



## Infanteer

What was that all about?  ???


----------



## mo-litia

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Mo-Litia may, like he did before, brag about how he was in 7 years ago before the "PC standards" rolled in - back when the Man's Army was a Real Army - but as those who were in before him have attested to, he's talking out of his hat.



Read my posts, Infantryman.   I wasn't bragging, I was lamenting the fact that standards have dropped during my short career or commenting on the high failure rate of my QL 3 in '98.   Guess what gender had only 2 passes and roughly 20 failures? ^-^ Again, I am commenting on the fiscal and moral irresponsibility of continuing to recruit females into a trade where most of them won't even make the cut, let alone a career, NOT to detract from the many fine female soldiers, sailors and airmen who serve with us in other capacities.

If that's talking out of my hat then I need a bigger hat.


----------



## Strike

Here's one for all of you to ponder.  Not bad considering these women are in a job that is both physically demanding and traditionally held by men.



> Top guides are all women
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> NEW YORK - Do you think of working as a hunting and fishing guide as a mostly male occupation?
> 
> The March issue of Outdoor Life profiles five of the best guides in North America - all of whom are women.
> 
> Heidi Gutfrucht, a guide in northwestern B.C., has never missed a day of hunting in 25 years, according to the magazine. Maine-based fishing guide Bonnie Holding hosts fly fishing clinics for women recovering from breast cancer. Alisha Rosenbruch-Decker is featured in the magazine in her native Alaska, where she specializes in trophy brown bear and sheep hunts. Niki Atcheson of Butte, Mont., grew up hunting dangerous game in Africa, while Dusty Byrd, an Alaskan guide, specializes in drift boat trout and char fishing.



I know I am generalizing here but, given the success of these women, could it be that some of the men who are so adamantly against women in the combat arms (and forces in general) are actually a little nervous that these women might begin to show them up?   

I am so cruel.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Once again. This thread has nothing to do with women in civilian occupations.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Peter said:
			
		

> Don't have to back it up do I ?
> Been an enjoyable couple of days reading the posts but I never thought that expressing concern and respect for the female soldier by removing them from the line of fire would be taken as a sexuality problem for soldiers to deal with. No doubt this post will be removed due to its politically incorrectness.
> Thank you for allowing me this brief visit.
> 
> Goodbye


        I do find it hard to beleive that anyone, saving perhaps a civilian, could beleive that telling a soldier they were not good enough to fight could be a gesture of respect.   If a woman would serve in the combat arms, and can maintain the standards of the combat arms, then I would give her the honour of serving her country to the limit of her abilities, as I would any Canadian soldier.


----------



## Block 1

We are all Soldiers First, When I look out into the Coy, I see uniforms nothing more. When I give an order it's followed by someone in uniform ! If that order requires a particular skill (Qualification)  I will give it to the solider with the skill or qualification to complete the mission!. I see nothing else, to me there is no gender only soldiers out there that are willing to do their part for their country. I expect all the members in the Coy to do the same. The  completion of the mission is the aim of the day nothing more.    


 :soldier:


----------



## combat_medic

Peter said:
			
		

> I never thought that expressing concern and respect for the female soldier by removing them from the line of fire would be taken as a sexuality problem for soldiers to deal with.



With all due respect, I don't want or require your protection. I'm not some little babymaking housewife that needs to be coddled and sheltered from the big bad world. I am a human being, just as you are, and am free to make my own decisions. To imply that you know better than a woman, even in the guise of helping them, is diminutive and insulting. It's as ridiculous a notion as your mother, at your current age and position, forcing you to leave the military, despite you being a capable, reasonable adult, because she wants to keep you safe. Chivalry is dead. I'm not here for you to protect.


----------



## 48Highlander

Maybe the Directing Staff should show concern and respect for him by removing him from the boards in order to protect him from the verbal abuse which I'd like to unleash....


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I'm afraid it is up to the Forum Staff to be vigilant and weed out the Wannabees not for the guests to do so.



I'm just a guest here and i've found three or four 


It's been said a few times, comparing women in the military to women in civlian jobs doesn't work.


----------



## QORvanweert

I am currently on my BMQ and of the 5-6 females on the course only one is left. All the others left because of knee problems, dislocated joints and some other maladies. I believe that if anyone is capable of doing the job then by all means they should be allowed to do it. But, the army is a hard world and what works in garrison and on the field ex's doesn't/won't always work out in battle(not that I know firsthand). When it comes to something like JTF2 I believe that an exception should be made do to the precious nature of the work, we can't afford failure on such a critical level and we don't have enough time/resources to evaluate whether or not females can do it. If these were provided then by all means they should be allowed to try out alongside their male buddies, but they would have to be held to the same standards as everyone else, none of this 'double pt standard'.


----------



## putz

i'm not in the military (yet) so I don't think it would be right for me to post anything but I've been following this thread and came across this:

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cbc/montreal_home&articleID=1865170

 Women unwelcome in combat roles: report

Canada's Armed Forces can be a difficult environment for women according to two internal reports obtained by Radio-Canada. The reports say women are still unwelcome in combat roles, and suggest the lower ranks have lost confidence in officers.

The army's study looked at the attitudes of rank-and-file soldiers toward gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, and to their commanding officers.

Responses varied slightly across the Forces' four geographic divisions.

In Quebec, the studies suggest women are still not accepted in ground-combat roles by their male colleagues

The also study says 30 per cent of lower ranks would favour the creation of a professional order or union.

A retired colonel and military commentator, Michel Drapeau says that means the army has a serious problem.

"It shows a breakdown ... of the modern armed forces," he says.

The study also suggests gays and lesbians are still not welcomed by their colleagues in the army, especially in Quebec.


----------



## qor556

*shakes head*  Enough said.


----------



## Brad Sallows

That should not be surprising.  We can compel people to restrain themselves from unjust behaviour prompted by their prejudices; we can not restrain their freedom of thought.


----------



## Glorified Ape

While I *think* I believe (I'm still iffy on it, especially after reading this thread) women should be given the opportunity to participate in any trade they wish, given they meet the same requirements that their male colleagues have, there's one issue that doesn't seem to be addressed and I'm curious as to people's thoughts on it. (apologies if it was addressed and I missed it - I read through the thread but sometimes the posts seem to blend and blur after the first hour. I know one person posted an article about cost but there was no real discussion of it). 

My question is: what of the cost? From what I gather, the failure and attrition rates for women in the infantry are abysmal. While I may like to see an open infantry, how do we reconcile the wasting of thousands upon thousands of training dollars on a group which has demonstrated such a high failure/attrition rate? From the various figures I've seen quoted here, there's a ridiculously high chance that money spent on the training/feeding/equipping/etc. of a woman in the pursuit of infantry employment will have been wasted. 

The question for me isn't whether there are women that can do the job - there's no doubt that there are. The question is whether the cost of enlisting and training them, providing separate facilities, etc. for the infantry is worth it with such dismal success rates. It just doesn't seem fiscally sound. I guess the debate in my mind is whether the inefficiency and waste can be justified in terms of ethical soundness - IE it's worth the cost to keep the opportunity open for women and thus provide equal opportunity across the board. 

At some point reality and ideals have to be reconciled and I'm having some difficulty with this specific reconciliation. I believe in equal opportunity but we're wasting god knows how much money on a group of people who have demonstrated time and again that they are, for the overwhelmingly large part, incapable of doing what they're trying to do. Do we really have so much money in the CF that we can afford to waste it on a pet project that has been an unrelenting failure from day 1? 

Am I way off in thinking cost should even be a consideration?



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I know I am generalizing here but, given the success of these women, could it be that some of the men who are so adamantly against women in the combat arms (and forces in general) are actually a little nervous that these women might begin to show them up?
> 
> I am so cruel.



What successes are you referring to? From the statistics I've seen here and elsewhere, there seems to be an overwhelming lack of success.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Am I way off in thinking cost should even be a consideration?



So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.


----------



## ZipperHead

> My question is: what of the cost? From what I gather, the failure and attrition rates for women in the infantry are abysmal. While I may like to see an open infantry, how do we reconcile the wasting of thousands upon thousands of training dollars on a group which has demonstrated such a high failure/attrition rate? From the various figures I've seen quoted here, there's a ridiculously high chance that money spent on the training/feeding/equipping/etc. of a woman in the pursuit of infantry employment will have been wasted.



Here's a thought: whenever a special interest group, or political party, whomever decides to do something like this, they should generate the funds neccesary (outside of taxpayer monies ..... ie. their "war chest") to accomplish the task. If they are truly serious about it, they will find the money, and the training budget isn't effected. 

I started off this reply as a joke, but the more I think about it, if this type of thing happened, there would be a lot less things coming down the pipe that are implemented "just because".....

Al


----------



## 48Highlander

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.



That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specificaly towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.   If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?


----------



## KevinB

:

Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.

Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.

We need standards - realistic to the mission.  Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.


----------



## mo-litia

Well said.  Although with our budget being what it is I'm surprised you are still questioning if cost should be a consideration.


----------



## qor556

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specifically towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.  If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?



I'll second that.. There is a billboard on Lawrence (in Scarb.) that is just plain weak. At first i couldn't quite make out what it was advertising but while looking closer(imagine what a distraction this is while driving) it said "Strong, Proud, CF" or something along those lines with a woman on it staring off into the distance.What a waste of money! Instead they should stop hiding the fact it can be a bag drive like 48 said and have that woman (if they so please to have one in the ad) with a ruck on, crawling through the mud-OK so I'm exaggerating a bit. Sorry to put this thread off track a little bit, just my 2 lira. Carry on...


----------



## Glorified Ape

qor556 said:
			
		

> I'll second that.. There is a billboard on Lawrence (in Scarb.) that is just plain weak. At first i couldn't quite make out what it was advertising but while looking closer(imagine what a distraction this is while driving) it said "Strong, Proud, CF" or something along those lines with a woman on it staring off into the distance.What a waste of money! Instead they should stop hiding the fact it can be a bag drive like 48 said and have that woman (if they so please to have one in the ad) with a ruck on, crawling through the mud-OK so I'm exaggerating a bit. Sorry to put this thread off track a little bit, just my 2 lira. Carry on...



Well, if advertising were honest our economy would probably collapse.  



			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.   Although with our budget being what it is I'm surprised you are still questioning if cost should be a consideration.
> 
> Maybe you're right. Like I said, I'm unsure but I'm starting to lean towards the "No - due to cost" position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> 
> Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.
> 
> Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.
> 
> We need standards - realistic to the mission.   Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, though I have absolutely no experience with anything past IAP - I was in poor shape when I got to IAP and I had a tough time for the first week or two but I think it was still too easy on me. But if lax entry standards are what's responsible for women failing out of the infantry so often, why aren't the men failing at nearly the same rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britney Spears said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with dispensing with the double standard. I don't know if candidates are adequately prepared for battle school when they get there or not, since I have no experience and I can't say I've read extensively on the role of pre-course preparation standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 48Highlander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specificaly towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.   If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men are being subjected to the fluffy-light recruitment stuff too, but their failure and attrition rates are nowhere near the same as women in the infantry from what I understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> At some point reality and ideals have to be reconciled and I'm having some difficulty with this specific reconciliation. I believe in equal opportunity but we're wasting god knows how much money on a group of people who have demonstrated time and again that they are, for the overwhelmingly large part, incapable of doing what they're trying to do.



Blasphemequality!!! But a damn good point!! 
In any event, I think the proper measure of the cost to the program is not really one of $$$, but of how candidates who are far beyond "equal" to the task sit at home stewing and thinking about changing their preferred vocation or citizenship. 
What price lost opportunity for equal opportunity? Blood?


----------



## ZipperHead

(After my last witty comment, I'm not sure if I want to follow it up with this one, but here goes

Whilst painting my house today, my wife and I shot the shit about some of the things posted ref this thread, and I did some thinking (uh oh, smoke damage to a freshly painted house.... damn!!!). As much as I hate agreeing with Mo-Litia on something  , I have to agree with him, in that we have to agree to disagree on this subject(that's a lot of agree's....). 

People are either going to think that it is right for women to go into battle, or not. Not much will convince either camp differently (and to think, at the beginning of the whole mess (reading the initial threads) I would have argued "hell, no!!!", and believe me, in discussions with my buddies, those words probably came out of my mouth more than a few times). But, if I am to not be a hypocrite, I have to say that if a woman is physically and mentally capable (more on that in a bit.....) to go into combat, do battle, kill, and possibly be killed alongside men, let her have the chance to be able to. I say I don't want to be a hypocrite, because I have 3 beautiful young daughters, and we always tell them that they can do anything they want to when they grow up, and we will support them 100%. Hopefully I never have to answer a door at 3AM, to see a padre and an officer, but hopefully no father will have to go through the same scenario if they have a son. But if any of my 3 daughters decide to serve their country, decide that they want to join a Combat Arm (they will be discouraged with some vigour, mind you) or a supporting Arm that could see combat, who am I to say they can't?

Who here, reading these 29 pages of posts, is able to say what makes someone able to go into combat? And if they can lay out the conditions, have they done it themselves (gone into battle)? And is merely surviving good enough justification to be an expert? Women have survived the aftermath of war since the dawn of time (who is left behind to clean up the messes than men have caused? And thanks to getting the vote, they can help cause some messes. Yay for democracy!!!!) and I'm sure will continue to survive, no matter how much chest thumping any of us do. My mother was trained to run into the snow with a white blanket to cover herself up with (winter cam) if the Russians bombed her home in WWII. To me, that shows she's tougher than me, as I would have probably muddied me knickers before I thought to pick up a blanket when bombs were dropping at the age of 13, but I'm allowed to go to war, and according to some people here, my wife shouldn't, even though she has (Afghanistan '02), and I haven't (when I went to Cyprus and Bosnia, they weren't considered war-zones.....). Strange world, no?!?!

Maybe my wife, who went on a combat operation (Op Cherokee Sky) should tell people (males included) that they shouldn't go, because she has the "combat" experience, and they don't. Who sets the policy for who can and can't go?? Politicians???? The same people who we chastise for every bone-head thing that happens (mad cow, Sponsorship scandal, floods, locusts, 9/11, whatever...). So, we agree with them on the things we like, and vehemently disagree with the things we don't. The luxury of living in a democracy, no?!!?? The example of women fighting in Russia, Israel, and Viet Nam are quickly swept under the rug by people, who point out that those policies reverted to "men only" after a time.... Hmmmm, why were they implemented in the first place???? I would guess, neccesity. After all, they must have clued in that they would be pretty foolish to exclude 50%+ of their population just because of "the old ways". 

One of the things that I thought about with this whole argument (besides how it actually made me use my hamburger-fed computer (my brain...) for once) was something I saw on the news a little while back: there was a school district in the States that got a slap on the pee-pee for putting a label in their text-books that basically said that evolution is just a theory, and that students need to be open minded (link to CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/). Well, if people still want to think that evolution is just a theory (HELLLLLOOOO!!!!! Dinosaurs, people!!!!!!), people will continue to think that women shouldn't go into combat, well after my great-great-great-great-great granddaughter cures cancer.

Anyway, while I'm glad that this prompted some interesting discussion,  remarkably few (if any) personal attacks, and only the odd pissing contest (speaking of which, I'm proud to say that 'combat_medic' learned me about the "freshette".... I'm still not 100% sure on the application (or design), but  enough was implied that I get the theory....you learn something new (not neccesarily useful) every day) arose. Until someone can point out any compelling reasons why women shouldn't go into combat (other than what has already been pointed out ad nauseam) I will continue to monitor the thread, but will refrain from rehashing my opinions (and a great cry was heard across the land!!!!  ^-^).

Have a good one,

Al


----------



## qor556

Steve Shields said:
			
		

> Blasphemequality!!! But a darn good point!!
> In any event, I think the proper measure of the cost to the program is not really one of $$$, but of how candidates who are far beyond "equal" to the task sit at home stewing and thinking about changing their preferred vocation or citizenship.
> What price lost opportunity for equal opportunity? Blood?



Wait, wait... First off, there are not a great number of women that are going into the combat arms, specifically infantry in the first place-I should know(only one in my platoon all summer). The majority that I have met have gone and become medics, clerks or gone into one of the service batallions. So we are talking about a very small number here.

(ok someone posted before me, I'll post anyways)


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.
> 
> Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.
> 
> We need standards - realistic to the mission.   Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.



Bingo!
     One standard, based on realistic operational needs, for all.  If anyone can meet that standard (regardlessof gender/race/orientation/whatever special intrest I've missed), then they can do the job.  If they cannot meet that standard, let them do something less important or demanding, like serve in the House of Commons or Senate, where their failures will go unnoticed


----------



## Britney Spears

> Men are being subjected to the fluffy-light recruitment stuff too, but their failure and attrition rates are nowhere near the same as women in the infantry from what I understand.



Because the entry tests are suppose to screen out false positives. It may very well be that 80% of men who apply can hack the training and oly 10% of women who apply can, or maybe only 8% of men and 1% of women, if the entry tests were realistic almost all the recruits chosen should still pass.  It has nothing to do with how difficult the training is in absoluite terms.

Lets look at your viewpoint on costs without touching the gender issue. I agree, and I think that ANY course of training that fails more than 10% of candidates is a waste. What is the point of running a course where half the course won't pass? Those who didn't pass should never have been on the course to begin with, it's a sign that your entry standards are inadequate.


----------



## bojangles

I can't beleive that someone actually started this thread in the first place, and secondly, that it is actually up for discussion, and thirdly...that I am posting my thought!
I am outraged to think that some people actually think that a woman cannot pull a trigger the same as a man can...yes my index finger works just the same as yours does...and beleive it or not..I can carry my own weapon and gear too. Ok, so I am being a little sarcastic but the fact remains that either you have what it takes or you don't regardless of gender.

Bojangles


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Plenty of females fought for the Soviets and the Viet Cong and didn't seem to have much problem.


----------



## GIJANE

I sure as he** don't have a problem pulling my own weight (no one has ever had to help me carry my gear) or hitting my target (almost always marksmen) , and to quote what Bojangles said "i can't believe this thread was even started".

Jane


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Much as I have no problem with women anywhere, I do question the last two female posters who stated that this thread should not have been started.
If this is truly what you believe then why shouldn't it see the light of day? I for one do not wish it to be "hidden" in the agenda where some people, if inclined, could make things harder for those effected.
Hiding behind " I can't believes, etc" does no one any justice.


----------



## GIJANE

I don't see a Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? in the Special Forces? in battle?  Thread. I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female, i believe we should have 1 set standard in the military, not 1 for this and 1 for that.

Jane


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female

Well if I may ask, then why in the world did you go Artillery?
To use someone else's anology, I know that if I started working down in Merrickville's day care tomorrow, I would be singled out as change usually is.....and pleeeeeease don't tell me there is not one of you that would not look at me funny when you drop your kids off in our/my care.

If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
[I would much rather work in the day care by the way]


----------



## pipesnake

Anyone here watch SAS: Are You Tough Enough? A woman won that series once, and on the last series there were two women in the top four. Admittedly two or three weeks of SAS intensity does not make a soldier but it sure goes a long way to indicating capability. Look at all of the men they beat out. Tough, extremely athletic men. Some of the forced marches they do are no walk in the park either. You try tabbing across 30 or 40 miles of Brecon Beacons with a 50 pound ruck. I would bet that a significant percentage of Canadian military personal could not do what these people do physically. 

If the women can pass the SAME standard that the men pass then let them in. We need all the good soldiers we can find.


----------



## GIJANE

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female
> 
> Well if I may ask, then why in the world did you go Artillery?
> To use someone else's anology, I know that if I started working down in Merrickville's day care tomorrow, I would be singled out as change usually is.....and pleeeeeease don't tell me there is not one of you that would not look at me funny when you drop your kids off in our/my care.
> If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
> [I would much rather work in the day care by the way]



I joined because i wanted to experiance the artillery not because i wanted to be singled out.I am not asking to be singled out but i am, and no i would not look at you funny if you worked in a daycare.


Jane


----------



## GIJANE

GIJANE said:
			
		

> I joined because i wanted to experiance the artillery not because i wanted to be singled out.I am not asking to be singled out but i am, and no i would not look at you funny if you worked in a daycare.
> 
> 
> Jane



(your quote)
If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
[I would much rather work in the day care by the way]

so because because i am a woman i should be a daycare worker? or maybe a nurse? or wait how about a stay at home mommy?? You say you have no problem accepting women in the army but you are quick to single me out by saying "why join the artillery"


----------



## combat_medic

1. The Freshette (since so many were curious) is labeled as the "feminine urinary director". Basically a funnel with a hose. More information here:
http://www.freshette.com/ with pictures and ordering information. 

2. I'm surprised that no one has made this corrolation. We have already established that the majority of the men in the military do not support women in the combat arms. We have also established a higher attrition rate for women in the combat arms (though far from the astronomical figures some would lead us to believe). Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the former is part of the cause of the latter? Are there any women serving in combat roles who have NOT been the victims of harrassment, abuse, and other such professional misconduct? Has anyone stopped to think that their outmoded attitudes towards women is partially responsible for so many women leaving? Even if so many claim to have never engaged in an outright attack, the feeling of being made unwelcome in your workplace is difficult to ignore, and I have little doubt that this covert animosity is partially to blame. Yeah, there are women who can't hack it physically, just as there are men who aren't. Raising standards ACROSS THE BAR would fix this. Make the entry standards realistic to the job you'll be performing... problem solved. 

3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?

It's a ridiculous argument.


----------



## Chags

combat_medic said:
			
		

> 3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?
> 
> It's a ridiculous argument.



People fail those courses because they are very difficult, mentally and physically.  They are elite courses (except basic para) that only the best should pass, as they will be placed in positions where they will be expected to carry out the things they learned under very arduous conditions..  One female officer has passed JTF selection (she was the first last year.. maybe there have been others since??).  Should we invest tons of money for anyone to try out??  It doesn't make sense.  

When soldiers (male or female) request a one of thses courses, it is up to the chain of command to narrow that field down (through PT tests and pre course packages) and send only their best, so that money isn't wasted when a soldier gets injured or fails in the first week because he/she wasnt prepared.  

We aren't talking about SQ/BIQ or Phase 3 (for the officers)!!!!!  A basic soldier or officer who wishes to complete these courses should be given the opportunity.  If they can hack it, and achieve the set standard, then they pass, and can be employed in a Inf Battalion.  Man or woman.  

and Bring your Freshette if you want!!


----------



## Infanteer

Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".   Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> 2. I'm surprised that no one has made this corrolation. We have already established that the majority of the men in the military do not support women in the combat arms. We have also established a higher attrition rate for women in the combat arms (though far from the astronomical figures some would lead us to believe). Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the former is part of the cause of the latter? Are there any women serving in combat roles who have NOT been the victims of harrassment, abuse, and other such professional misconduct? Has anyone stopped to think that their outmoded attitudes towards women is partially responsible for so many women leaving? Even if so many claim to have never engaged in an outright attack, the feeling of being made unwelcome in your workplace is difficult to ignore, and I have little doubt that this covert animosity is partially to blame. Yeah, there are women who can't hack it physically, just as there are men who aren't. Raising standards ACROSS THE BAR would fix this. Make the entry standards realistic to the job you'll be performing... problem solved.



Now, I'm no sociology expert or anything, but I'll pose the question anyways.

I have no doubt that your right, a good amount of females feel uncomfortable in Combat Arms units - I remember seeing that the "re-up" rate after the Basic Engagement was close to nil for Females in the Combat Arms and I can bet that this was a significant factor.

My question is, is this "uncomfortable" feeling of non-acceptance an active effort of "covert animosity" on behalf of the men in the group (get rid of the chick!), or is it something that "comes with the territory" within a small unit that is built around aggression and violence, two traits that engender themselves to the male buildup.

Now, Whites were once uncomfortable with Blacks in their units, but I've argued that this is fixable because it was superficial, based on nothing but social conditioning.   I feel that the difference between Men and Women is real and needs to be addressed; as I said, nature and hormones will make us act in ways that will often overpower rationality.

Perhaps this difference is the reason that women have a hard time breaking into an institution that caters to the aggressive Male disposition (and has been dominated by that since the beginning of Civilization).   I read Ghiglieri's The Dark Side of Man, which made a very compelling argument for violence as an ingrained method of sexual selection in the male species.   I think that a organization that builds itself around this natural dispostion may not be fully compatable with mixing in females.

The reason I'm arguing that non-acceptance is that I think it may be more of an institutional trait.   I feel that if you take these 9 male soldiers and stick them in a Hospital or Fed-Ex, they most likely would be willing to accept a female coworker.   I just don't feel that widespread "feelings of being unwelcome" are based upon most of the men in the CF being overt sexist pigs.   I'm willing to bet the that the very nature of the institution that the small unit is built around has some sort of effect on attitudes.   If this is indeed the reason, is this system able to be altered without affecting capability and the _raison d'ete_ of a fighting force?   I'm not sure, but I don't think Canada's approach in the 90's (open the floodgates, drop the standards, and target women in recruiting) is the right way to go about things.

That being said, I'm still not going to dispute that women have a place in the Army, and since any branch will fight in battle, the combat arms as well.   I've consistently argued that the numbers show it to be a non-issue - if we have to make some accommodations for a handful of females who wish to (and show they are capable of) being Infantrymen, Gunners, Sappers, or Crewman, then so be it - it shows that the Army is truly in-step with Canadian society and it isn't much to ask considering that most women don't want to be in these overtly "Alpha Male" environment.   I'm just concerned with the argument that a good portion of the males in the combat arms have a overt (or covert) agenda to rid their small units of females, and that the discomfort that many women undoubtedly experience is something institutional instead.



> 3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?
> 
> It's a ridiculous argument.



Your right on that one, CM.   As I argued above, in our country everyone is given the chance to, based upon merit, achieve their goals or to "wash out" and fail.   This is the way it should be.


----------



## combat_medic

Chags: Yes, units should send their best, toughest, smartest, fittest soldiers on the elite courses, and most of the times they do. You know what? They will STILL mostly wash out. They will fail, they will get injured, they will quit. More than half of them. More than half the budget of the course will have been wasted on soldiers who shouldn't have been sent, and didn't pass. By your argument, elite course or not, since men have demonstrated that they are not capable of passing these course more consistantly than they fail them, they should not have the money spent on them in the first place. 

I agree in that targetting particular minority groups for recruiting is a lot of money that could be better spent. I still think everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, or to fail. 

Infanteer: Yes, I agree that the more agressive tendancies of humanity tend to show themselves more in the military than in civilian life, but aggressiveness is not purely a masculine trait. If you diasgree, tell your girlfriend you've been cheating on her and see the kind of fiery hell she'll unleash on you. Yes, the girls are playing on the boys' field, and do, to a certain extent, need to become 'one of the boys' in order to fit in. Trust me, I can burp and scratch with the best of them, and being aggressive is not a difficulty, but knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman in the military has faced. I can understand how many people don't believe this exists, because they've never been facing the brunt of it, but I can assure you that it's still there.


----------



## Infanteer

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Infanteer: Yes, I agree that the more agressive tendancies of humanity tend to show themselves more in the military than in civilian life, but aggressiveness is not purely a masculine trait. If you diasgree, tell your girlfriend you've been cheating on her and see the kind of fiery hell she'll unleash on you. Yes, the girls are playing on the boys' field, and do, to a certain extent, need to become 'one of the boys' in order to fit in. Trust me, I can burp and scratch with the best of them, and being aggressive is not a difficulty, but knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman in the military has faced. I can understand how many people don't believe this exists, because they've never been facing the brunt of it, but I can assure you that it's still there.



"Aggressive" is alot more then just being mad or pissed off.  As I said, Ghiglieri builds a solid case for aggression (aimed towards committing violence) as a trait dominant in males (not just humans).  This is why most violent offenders, murders, and gang-bangers tend to be men (not all, but most - and psychotics are not considered as they are abnormal).  When you extend these behaviours to the Military, to small units which maintain as their outlook fighting and killing other humans, you build a institution grounded on principles that cater to the Male psyche (hence why War and Fighting has been "Male" tasks throughout history).  Throwing a female in is liable to be affected by this.

Where am I going with this?  I feel that the military will never achieve "seamless" intergration of Males and Females that the government sometimes appears to desire.  I believe that there will always be problems with females facing discomfort do to "opposition" - it is not males simply being "out of touch with the times", it is something institutional.  If the military builds itself around traits that are prevalent in the Male Psyche (which is why men have traditionally been the fighters), then of course women will never simply be "one of the boys".  Nature has equipped humans in a way that makes these difficulties non-addressable - it is like asking women to use a bathroom filled with urinals, and there is no way to build toilets.

That being said, if a female is willing to accept the extra challenges of socializing into such an institution, then Canada should grant them the opportunity to do so.  But I don't think we can realistically expect the attitudes to change at anytime....  :-\


----------



## dutchie

I'm a few posts behind here...you guys are too quick (or I'm too slow), but here goes...

I agree 100% with Infanteer in that social engineering is more easily overcome than biology/phyisiology, and that the barriers to full acceptance and harmony of women in the Army, and specifically the Cbt A, is almost totally biological and only slightly social. I would take it one step further and state that this will never be fully overcome, but can be marginalized and 'managed'.   

My main point is this: In my experience, it is the individual, not the gender, that determines whether or not someone is accepted. The female soldeirs/infanteers I have known have generally not been accepted, with one exception. The ones who were not accepted in the group were either unfit, groundsheets, whiners, poor soldiers, or a combo of these. 

The one that did fit in quite nicely was switched on and was quick to jump on any female who played the 'gender card'. I think most importantly, she acted like the rest of us. She cursed, told dirty jokes, drank with the boys, acted aggressively towards other troops when challenged, etc. She didn't throw her gender around, threatening complaints. She didn't blame any rough treatment she received by the Staff or other troops on 'harrassment', she sucked it up.....unfortunatley not so for the rest of the females I have known. She seemed to accept that based on the fact that she WAS different, she would be treated differently, but fairly.

I don't care what gender you are, what your race is, or anything else. If you are a good person that I can trust, I will accept you. If you file harrassment charges (unwarranted), rat out other troops, and generally act like a bi-otch, I will shun you. I make no applogies for that. 

CM: i just saw your post.....

re:"virtually every woman in the military has faced" 

I think it's really important to NOT generalize. I have noticed you have made this claim several times before, but haven't challenged you on it previously. Do you actually KNOW this? Were you part of some secret CF survey? Are you the CF Harrassment Ombudsman (or Ombudswoman)? Please explain how you know what every woman in the CF has faced. If you cannot substantiate this, please stop claiming that every woman has been harrassed or shunned, as it paints a very misleading picture.

Thanks


Hey, I just noticed that I hit 500 posts!


----------



## bojangles

Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".  Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.

First off... I am not dumbing the issue down to that! I am simply saying that just because i have a pair of tits doesn't mean I can't do the exact same job that you can do. Can I ask...does the weight between your legs get in the way of you doing your job correctly?
I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started. I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? .... 
I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!


----------



## GIJANE

bojangles said:
			
		

> Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".   Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.
> 
> First off... I am not dumbing the issue down to that! I am simply saying that just because i have a pair of tits doesn't mean I can't do the exact same job that you can do. Can I ask...does the weight between your legs get in the way of you doing your job correctly?
> I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started. I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? ....
> I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!




Damn! i agree though, all i ask is to be treated like my brother beside me , we all wear the same uniform, and not be judged on how can do my job because i have boobs, i work with mostly men and i have adapted well and learned not to take offence to everything, we do however have our share of Bi-othces who cry harrassment at everything but we are not all like that, i just wish this wasn't an issue with so many 


Jane


----------



## combat_medic

Caesar: No, I haven't done a survey of every serving female soldier. I have, however, witnessed such discrimination against women, and have spoken to probably hundreds of currently serving soldiers across the country who have all expressed some degree of discrimination based on gender. I know women who have been bullied out of infantry regiments, others who were ostracized because they wouldn't have sex with their male counterparts, and others who have been threatened in their position because of sexual coersion. This isn't even limited to the Canadian military either. Yes, perhaps every single person who told me this was lying, or I just happened to stumble across those few who have. I still think it's pretty telling evidence. Also notice that I never said that it was everyone. You may also care to read back at the articles citing that woman are not accepted by their peers in the combat arms, and if you need more proof about the gender inequalities in the CF, all you need to is look. 

Imagine, as hard as it may be, being a woman in a combat arms unit, and facing a legitimate harrassment complaint. If you report it, everyone around you will think you can't hack it and are crying wolf. If you don't report it, you have to live with these abusive personalities taking advantage of your gender for their own selfish aims. Pretty crappy decision either way, wouldn't you say? 

Furthermore, saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement, especially considering how many women have come and gone through the regiment and left because of the unfair treatment they received (no names, no pack drill). All these soldiers claim that women are always making complaints against men for no reason, but has anyone stopped to consider that a lot of these complaints are legitimate? That there are women out there who have been sexually propositioned by their superiors? That they have been the victims of physical assault or verbal attacks because of their gender? That their careers have been placed in jeapardy because some outdated neanderthal can't deal with a woman in his unit?

Considering the majority of the CF is comprised of anglo-saxon white males between the ages of 16 and 50, it comes as no surprise to me that they have a hard time believing such discrimination exists, as they themselves have probably never witnessed it, and have probably never been a victim of it. 

Finally, what do you believe is an unwarranted discrimination charge? Were you present at the event? Did you inteview the complainants and respondants? Did you sit it on any hearings or charges? Were you privy to all the information, or are just making a summary judgement based on the heresay of a buddy? Talk about jumping to conclusions.


----------



## 48Highlander

bojangles said:
			
		

> I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started.



So what?   Have you seen some of the feminist websites out there?   Men get "singled out" on a regular basis too.   Or how about the quota systems which exist in many police forces and government services?   When a branch of the government is forced to hire a certain percentage of females, is that not also being "singled out"?   Nonsense like that exists everywhere in our society, I really don't think that our little discussion in these forums has stepped over the line.



			
				bojangles said:
			
		

> I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? ....



Because you haven't started one.



			
				bojangles said:
			
		

> I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!



In case you haven't noticed, that's the general concensus here.   Only a few of the members have actualy advocated not allowing women in the combat arms.   The rest of us might not be happy about the way it's been done, but most of us agree that those who can do the job should be allowed to do so, regaurdless of sex.


----------



## Infanteer

bojangles said:
			
		

> I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!!



As I said, 30 Pages of arguements from both sides seems to indicate that there are legitimate issues.

There are problems, or we wouldn't have both men and women on this thread making valid complaints.



> Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry?



Make one then, I'm sure you'll get a good discussion - I'm trying to back up the arguement with good research here on why Fighting has been a male occupation for 6,000 years of recorded history.



> If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!



It's not about "private parts", its about small group dynamics.   I've argued that individual capability doesn't matter but that small group dynamics may be the reason that their are problems with the integration of Females into Combat Roles.   I refuse to accept the claim that "Men are just sexist ogres who are out of touch with the times...."

If you the topic offends you, don't read it or grow some thicker skin.

As I've said, I support the notion of putting women into all trades in the Military, so don't think I'm "against you".   I just find that supposing that we are going to get "seamless intergration" isn't likely to happen.   As Brad Sallows pointed out a few pages ago:



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That should not be surprising.   We can compel people to restrain themselves from unjust behaviour prompted by their prejudices; we can not restrain their freedom of thought.



When men are socialized into the military, they aquire behaviours built around these dynamics I've been rambling on about.   You can't tell them to "be buddies with the new girl", regardless of her own capabilities, and assume that they'll enthusiastically carry that out.   This is the discomfort that many women will feel.   How do we fix this, force men to be good-buds with their female squaddies?  The "cold shoulder" isn't harrassment....


----------



## combat_medic

How do we fix this, force men to be good-buds with their female squaddies?

Unfortunately, Infanteer, I don't think we can. Even as a modern, western society, there are still inequalities throughout our society based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference and so on. Until we, as a society can legitimately claim to be genuinely equal, those inequalities will still be present, and often exaggerated in the CF. We need to change society first, and I doubt that will happen in my lifetime... but one can hope.

I doubt the women protesting for suffrage thought they would change everything in one go, but they certainly paved the way.


----------



## Glorified Ape

combat_medic said:
			
		

> 3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?
> 
> It's a ridiculous argument.



 The courses, elite or otherwise, have to be staffed and we have two options (IE two genders) to pick from (the debate is whether it should be both). Both have segments that fail and pass, it's just that one has a disproportionately (relative to the other gender) large portion failling consistently, even on courses that are nowhere near the "elite" level. Further, the retention rates in the CA trades for this group are so incredibly low that the training received even by those that pass, and all the associated costs, are virtually wasted when they could have been trained for a trade they may actually stay in. 

The question is whether the 1% that actually stay in the trades is worth the cost of training/equipping/etc. the 99% that don't and the others who didn't get far enough to even be employed in the trade. I'm not saying men's performance is superb and irreproachable, I'm just saying that when one assumes staffing has to take place and that we have two groups showing markedly different performance rates (one so much so that the virtual entirety of the employable group can be assumed "lost" after the initial engagement) to choose from, the logical thing to do is spend the money on the option that yields the most efficient output. 

Or things could be changed to ensure more women pass the courses - it seems many feel higher standards would have a good effect in reducing the failure rates and I'm sure they're probably right. I don't see that doing anything for retention rates, though. To pass off the low female combat arms retention rates as "male piggishness" is a bit of a copout. As Infanteer pointed out, the very nature of the institution and trade seems a more likely culprit but whether that can be altered sufficiently (or should be) to boost retention rates to that of males (or better) without compromising the effectiveness of the trade/institution is another debate, I guess, and one I'd be interested in hearing about from the members with experience in the combat arms. 



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Because the entry tests are suppose to screen out false positives. It may very well be that 80% of men who apply can hack the training and oly 10% of women who apply can, or maybe only 8% of men and 1% of women, if the entry tests were realistic almost all the recruits chosen should still pass.   It has nothing to do with how difficult the training is in absoluite terms.
> 
> Lets look at your viewpoint on costs without touching the gender issue. I agree, and I think that ANY course of training that fails more than 10% of candidates is a waste. What is the point of running a course where half the course won't pass? Those who didn't pass should never have been on the course to begin with, it's a sign that your entry standards are inadequate.



Do you think the CF should have trade-specific entry standards for the combat arms? I don't think it's a bad idea, although (not from experience really) I think you'd lose alot of people who were OK by the existing standards but wouldn't have passed the trade standard at the time, got in sufficient shape while in preliminary training, and passed muster once the trade standards came around. Higher standards wouldn't raise the number of women in the combat arms or their retention rate (I think) but it would most assuredly increase the efficiency rate. Combine that with higher recruiting numbers and I think you could really improve the combat arms while lowering costs. Another problem, though, is whether the costs incurred by separate facilities, etc. are worth the extremely low numbers of women joining, and staying, in the combat arms. I have no idea what these costs are like - maybe someone knows. 

From the little bit of the experience I've had so far (very little, mind you), I saw people (men _and_ women) in IAP who wouldn't have passed the application physical. One girl (and no, I'm not picking her just because she's a girl - the gender in this case is irrelevant to the point - [and she _was_ a "girl" - only 16 or 17]) but she'd drop out of the morning PT runs after 200 or 300 metres, had major issues with push-ups, failed the shuttle run, and started crying/over-exherting during double-time _drill lessons_. She was released, of course, but the money spent up to that point was wasted. Another woman couldn't do ONE push-up. I'm not joking - not ONE proper push-up. How she passed the recruiting test is beyond me. She was re-tested and failed the second time, but that was due to PSP error in the testing (and so she was recoursed to this summer, thankfully). Another guy failed his grip test on course (must have failed it at the civi PT test too), was given a re-test date a few weeks later, failed it again, and was released. There seems to be an issue with the civilian contractors that are conducting the applicant PF tests, or whoever else is used to do the tests. I think clearing this up would also help with efficiency issues - especially on prelim courses. 

[quote author=bojangles]Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry?[/quote]

Because there's nothing to discuss about it vis a vis its appropriateness. I suppose we could debate whether our combat arms should be all-female but considering their success and retention rates, it's a virtual non-starter. It's tantamount to asking "Should we have women in midwifery". Men have been in the infantry since there was an infantry to be in, women in the infantry and combat arms in general is a recent development (in Canada) which still generates several concerns to be discussed - most especially regarding success, retention, etc. I'm not necessarily against women in the combat arms, I just think that it needs to be examined more from a practical and cost-benefit viewpoint than a politically or ideologically motivated one. There's no question that there are women out there that can do the job and do it as well or better than many males, the question (for me) is whether their inclusion is practical, both in terms of cost and in terms of the institutional characteristics. As I said - I'm torn on this one because my politics/beliefs say "yes" but practicality and cost/benefit say "not necessarily".


----------



## combat_medic

Glorified Ape: Some excellent points, and the question I would put to you is, are we simply trying to recruit large numbers (hence the general lowering of standards), or the recruiting of a smaller number of more qualified applicants? If sheer numbers are the focus, then many people, men and women, will enter the CF who may not be able to handle the job, physically, intellectually, or even medically. If getting more elite troops is the focus, then the standards should be raised. Yes, there would be fewer people getting in, of both genders, but it would assure that the people who make it in have a far better chance of making it. 

Also, I never mentioned that all women fail because of harassment (yes, that would be a copout), but I'm saying that there's certainly a possibility that the lack of retention of women, particularly in the more male-dominated trades could be linked to the treatment they receive.


----------



## Glorified Ape

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape: Some excellent points, and the question I would put to you is, are we simply trying to recruit large numbers (hence the general lowering of standards), or the recruiting of a smaller number of more qualified applicants? If sheer numbers are the focus, then many people, men and women, will enter the CF who may not be able to handle the job, physically, intellectually, or even medically. If getting more elite troops is the focus, then the standards should be raised. Yes, there would be fewer people getting in, of both genders, but it would assure that the people who make it in have a far better chance of making it.
> 
> Also, I never mentioned that all women fail because of harassment (yes, that would be a copout), but I'm saying that there's certainly a possibility that the lack of retention of women, particularly in the more male-dominated trades could be linked to the treatment they receive.



I think you've pointed out one of the main problems - spam the populous and admit lower-standard applicants hoping you can overcome shortages and "shape" them into soldiers during training OR set higher standards, be very selective, and admit fewer people who will do better and waste less. The old "quantity or quality" problem. I think it may be possible to find a compromise between the two, maybe by using trade-specific testing for occupations with high course failure rates. I believe the Air Nav and Pilots are both subjected to this higher-level preliminary testing and I'm sure it cuts down on the waste, come occupational training. If we did the same with Combat Arms trades, and especially the infantry (from what I gather, failure and retention rates are some of the worst with this trade) we could probably save alot of money, although there is an advantage to already having a person in the forces when they fail to meet the standards - that way you retain the individual for other jobs and don't have to worry about finding a replacement via recruiting. I'm not sure which would be more expensive, though.


----------



## dutchie

Re: "Also notice that I never said that it was everyone."

CM: You said, "knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman  in the military has faced." 

'Nuff said.

Re:"If you report it, everyone around you will think you can't hack it and are crying wolf. If you don't report it, you have to live with these abusive personalities taking advantage of your gender for their own selfish aims. Pretty crappy decision either way, wouldn't you say?"

Yes, of course that's crappy. Did I suggest otherwise? I mentioned instances of unfounded harrassment claims, made by females, not legitimate harrassment.

Re:"Furthermore, saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement, especially considering how many women have come and gone through the regiment and left because of the unfair treatment they received."

I said: "She didn't throw her gender around, threatening complaints. She didn't blame any rough treatment she received by the Staff or other troops on 'harrassment', she sucked it up.....unfortunatley not so for the rest of the females I have known" & "If you file harrassment charges (unwarranted), rat out other troops, and generally act like a bi-otch, I will shun you. I make no applogies for that." You'll notice I didn't state she was a good troop because she didn't file a harrassment complaint. I did, however, state that those that claim cry harrassment wrongfully are bags of shyte (paraphrasing). 

again, re:"saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement"

Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop? Should I lie and say otherwise? That has been my experience. I didn't say that ALL women are bad soldiers, only that only one was fully accepted  in the group. You are generalizing, not me. Are you pissed because you feel that you might not be that 1 troop? If so, you shouldn't care what I think.  edit.
Re:"All these soldiers claim that women are always making complaints against men for no reason, but has anyone stopped to consider that a lot of these complaints are legitimate? That there are women out there who have been sexually propositioned by their superiors? That they have been the victims of physical assault or verbal attacks because of their gender? That their careers have been placed in jeapardy because some outdated neanderthal can't deal with a woman in his unit?"

If a female troop is being harrassed, there is an avenue for complaint. As you know, those complaints are taken seriously. If those allegations are true, those troops should file complaints. If not, refer to my earlier post.

Re:"Finally, what do you believe is an unwarranted discrimination charge? Were you present at the event? Did you inteview the complainants and respondants? Did you sit it on any hearings or charges? Were you privy to all the information, or are just making a summary judgement based on the heresay of a buddy? Talk about jumping to conclusions."

An unwarranted harrassment charge/complaint is one that is not founded in truth. I thought that was obvious and didn't require explanation. Was I present? During some of those alleged events, yes. For the others that I wasn't present at, the complaints were either dismissed or they were withdrawn by the complaintant.


----------



## Cansky

This topic is starting to get a little fired up.  But I will plow forth into the fray.  I'll start off by saying I'm female 17 years regular force served with recruits, infantry, engineers, airforce and I've been on 2 deployments (one which was 3 PPCLI Battle group Op Apollo)  I get a little irate when general comments about men or women are made.  A few years ago harassment was a big news item, especially with recruits.  At that time I had just left a 4 year stint with recruit school Cornwallis and new actually saw or experienced it myself.  I have spoken to many reg force women and men who have never been or have give out any type of harassment.  I spent 2 years with the Infantry 3 PPCLI.  I was treated as a soldier by most of the troops (the rest just ignored me)  I would return to this unit in a heart beat.  I was a cpl at the time so rank really had no effect.  They are some of the best soldiers I have ever had the pleasure of working with.  The worst experience I have had within the military came from Airforce trades.  They made female feel much inadequacy and treat us as second class citizens.  No to say that all airforce treated female bad but it is where I had the worst time.  
     I'm starting to wonder if the problem lies within the reserves.  Don't jump on me here but after reading alot of these post it really is starting to appear that the reserves have a problem with women in the ranks and a huge retention issues.
    As for the amount of personnel who can cut it physically the problem there lies with recruiting process and basic training.  While posted to 1 FD Ambulance I had a new Pte arrive from QL 3 course (less than 1 year in) the Pte was over weight and fell out of every run we did.  The Pte couldn't run 100 m without falling out.  I was fresh off maternity leave(2nd child), in my 30's and could run further than most of the new Pte's we were receiving.  So we wonder where the problem lies.  Well recruiting process, we aren't getting the best applicants therefore we aren't getting the soldiers.  (There are still some great soldiers coming in but a high percentage don't make the grade and are allowed to remain in the military)
     I know this post will get a huge argument started but I have been around the regular force for a long time (others longer than me I hope can back me up)  and this is how I see things.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I'm starting to wonder if the problem lies within the reserves.



What exactly are you asking or implying with this?

I think the reserves have problems, just like the reg force. I don't think THEE problem is in the reserves. 

Seems many people are not considering Infanteers comments about group dynamics.


----------



## combat_medic

Caesar: In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns. If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow. 

As for being accepted by the group, if filing a legitimate harrassment complaint is enough for people to turn their backs on a person, then their opinion is hardly one of note. They would be indemic of the problems with the system.

Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop?

If that is, indeed, the truth, then it's not unfair. However to say that she was good because she didn't press harassment charges IS unfair, and that was the implication made. Yes, there are harassment claims made with little or no basis in fact, and that is very unfortunate. It is equally unfortunate that legitimate claims are made and women are segregated from their colleagues because of it. 

Kirsten: Perhaps you're right in that there is a greater problem in the reserves. Maybe dealing with each other every day you're able to get closer with the people you work with, and any fostering of an unhealthy work environment is dealt with quickly and appropriately rather than being left to linger.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

GI Jane,
Do you actually read posts before you hit the respond button? Where in the     did you come up with this gem about my statement that when one goes to a trade traditionally occupied by the other sex, one tends to get "noticed?
Quote from GI Jane,
so because because i am a woman i should be a daycare worker? or maybe a nurse? or wait how about a stay at home mommy?? You say you have no problem accepting women in the army but you are quick to single me out by saying "why join the artillery"
I never said why join the artillery, I said if you didn't want to get noticed why did you join the artillery?
World of difference there lad, I'm starting to think all you will accept is "Yes Maam, You are 100% correct.
Remember, I agree with you but this is the REAL world after all. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I could see the reserves having greater problems, simply under normal circumstances you would not see each other as much....... IMHO,the more time you spend together working the less the gender/race/religion things matter.


----------



## dutchie

CM: Re:"Caesar: In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns."

Actually, as I indicated when I first brought it up, you did said 'virtually all women'. Don't try and backtrack and claim you didn't generalize - you did. 

Re:"If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow."

I don't care to, it's not my issue. You are the one who claims discrimination is rampant in the CF, perhaps you should go to the Ombudsman?

Re:"Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop?....If that is, indeed, the truth, then it's not unfair. However to say that she was good because she didn't press harassment charges IS unfair, and that was the implication made"

No, YOU implied that I said that. I said she didn't make UNWARRANTED harrassment charges. You can twist it all you like, that's not what I said. 

re:"Yes, there are harassment claims made with little or no basis in fact, and that is very unfortunate."

Yes, that is VERY unfortunate. Particularly for those that make the false claims. They tend to not be accepted by their peers.

I'm not going to engage you in a flame war. You made some very general statements, I called you on them. You misread my posts and stated I said something I didn't, and I pointed out your error. It is not my fault you lack attention to detail when reading these posts. Please read my posts more thoroughly before claiming I said "she was good because she didn't press harassment charges".

**************************************************************************
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with women in the CF. I DO have a problem with 'soldiers' who blame their own shortcomings on harrassment. I have no time for people who can't get the concept of earning my respect as all others have to. I won't tollerate blades - those that cry sexual harrassment when in fact it's just normal razing or legitimate 'corrective action' based on perceived deficiencies. If a female troop lays down for 2 or 3 males on her course, she can't turn around and claim sexual harrassment when they don't respect her. Unless of course, she was coerced into sleeping with those guys. I have SERIOUS problems with anyone who claims that sexual assault (that's what that is) is common in the CF, so don't cry "Yeah but how do you know she willingly slept with them/him,'....my answer is: show me the proof. I had to put up with cack on my courses, why should you be different? (obvious jokes aside).


----------



## Britney Spears

I think the unspoken implication is that Reserves=Lower standards=more women.   

There, I said it, since I don't have a horse in this race.   Now don't tell me it isn't true.

Glorified Ape:

I don't think the expenditures to accomodate women are really as significant as you might think. e.g. I would imagine most base living quaters do have female washroom facilities to comply with civillian building regs, and overseas, well, the Dutch seem to have a pretty good approach with these things, If we can all stop being 6th graders(I know, hard for men) for a few month while in a warzone, it is really a none issue.


----------



## combat_medic

I don't care to, it's not my issue.

Sums up your opinion quite well. No doubt since you have nothing at stake and are unaffected by it, you have little vested interest in the issue... other than to post your opinions here. 

Also, and for the record, virtually all ââ€°Â  all. Perhaps "most", "the majority", or "a staggering number" would have been your preference. You're free to choose, or simply re-read my posts rather than inferring something I never wrote.

No doubt it's easy to avoid a flame war when you throw down insults and leave.


----------



## Cansky

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I think the unspoken implication is that Reserves=Lower standards=more women.
> 
> 
> Sorry that wasn't what my implication was.   I should have been clearer.
> The lower standards is forces wide not just reserves but regs.   Although it does appear that the reserve do handle situations differently.   For example a reg force female in basic training gets pregnant, she is either put in Pat Pl until after her maternity leave and then resumes training or she is release.   A reserve female is allowed to continue even when she fails to complete critical parts of her basic and graduates with the remainder of her course. (A different different standard).   If she stays in the reserves long enough she then component transfers and by passes reg force basic.   Does this happen in all reserve units probable not but it does lead to the fact that maybe there is a larger problem within the reserve in regards to females and how they are treated or perceive they are treated.
> Also when reading this thread it does appear that there is a greater problem within the reserves when it comes to how females are treated by their fellow soldiers.   Maybe I am wrong but it is only my observation after reading through the thread.   I haven't had alot of personal experience with the reserve.   I am solely drawing this observation from what has been written here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> combat_medic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns. If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow.
> 
> 
> CM I am   one of those female with significant time in (17 years) and I haven't been a victim of this type of discrimination.   As I said in my last thread I have served with a number of different environments (Infantry, engineers, army, airforce, and Recruiting) so I think I have a fairly good back ground.   As a medic I have worked with a large number of women.   If we have had any problem with any man we address the individual and it always (maybe I've been lucky) been the end of it.
Click to expand...


----------



## dutchie

Combat Medic - Who's leaving?

BTW, webster's defines 'virtually' as:In fact or to all purposes; practically: _The city was virtually paralyzed by the transit strike. _ You said it, I called you on it, stop your whining. That is the last I will post on that, as we've flogged that Equine quite enough. 

Re:"I don't care to, it's not my issue

Sums up your opinion quite well."

Yes it does. YOU are the one that claims harassment is rampant in the CF, not me. You fail to even acknowledge that your claim needs to be substantiated, never mind actually substantiating it. Your supposed to be DS, but you post like an amateur.

"I am   one of those female with significant time in (17 years) and I haven't been a victim of this type of discrimination.  "
Wow! Kirsten posted that while I was typing....how timely.

Kirsten, I guess you're the exception to 'virtually all'.


----------



## combat_medic

Kristen, didn't you also just state that you WERE subject to it by members of the Air Force?

"The worst experience I have had within the military came from Airforce trades.  They made female feel much inadequacy and treat us as second class citizens."

Does this not substantiate my point?


----------



## Cansky

Yes the airforce was the worst experience as a female but we have been focusing more on the issue of women in the army and combat arms and that is where I was treated the best both in garrison and on combat ops.


----------



## ArmyRick

In reference to ANYONE squeaking by on career courses without completing PO checks. 
Unacceptable.

The CTP states what the member must acheive for the Course (Regular or reserve serials).

It is up to the Training centers or schools to PROPERLY enforce the Training standards. Yes I know it doesn't always happen that way. I can't say anything more on this issue for certain reasons  :-X

On a side note, in a reserve BMQ or SQ there is no requirement for anyone to complete the BFT or any other PT test.

Look at the CTP  ;D


----------



## combat_medic

Ombudsman Office Report 2003-2004:

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/reports/annual/2003-2004-toc_e.asp

Received 2186 complaints. Of those;

100 were about sexual harassment
21 were about discrimination
4 were about sexual assault

CF Personnel Newsletter

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/6_03/6_03_helpline_e.asp

From 1998-2003, the DND/CF Harassment/Sexual Assault Help Line has fielded over 3000 calls about sexual harrassment and assault. 

I'm still finding more numbers, but I would say this in itself is pretty telling.


----------



## TCBF

"There, I said it, since I don't have a horse in this race."

If you are a Canadian, then it's your Army.  I don't own it, I'm just in it.  We each have one of 32,000,000 shares in it.  Too bad most are non-voting shares.

Tom


----------



## qor556

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I think the unspoken implication is that Reserves=Lower standards=more women.



So thus you are implying the women in the reserves are of lesser "quality" than your "kind". I would like to see some proof of that, as we all know you cannot make a statement without backing it up with some real evidence... or would you rather arm wrestle over it? ;D


----------



## dutchie

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Ombudsman Office Report 2003-2004:
> 
> Received 2186 complaints. Of those;
> 100 were about sexual harassment
> 21 were about discrimination
> 4 were about sexual assault



So that works out to less than 6% of all complaints to the ombudsman were related sexual harrassment/discrimination/assualt. You're proving my point - Harrassment is not a big problem in the CF.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> CF Personnel Newsletter
> 
> From 1998-2003, the DND/CF Harassment/Sexual Assault Help Line has fielded over 3000 calls about sexual harrassment and assault.



That's 600 calls/year. Again, is it just me or is that pretty low? I imagine that a lot of those are multiple calls for the same incident (follow-up), eroneous calls, info-calls, etc.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> I'm still finding more numbers, but I would say this in itself is pretty telling.



Your right - it is very telling. It confirms what I said: Sexual harrassment/discrimination/assault is not a major issue in the CF. I think it's time you owned up to it.


----------



## ZipperHead

I will make an observation here (and it plays into Infanteer's comments on group dynamics): In my experience and what I have observed of the Reserves is that *sometimes* it is a glorified social club (not unlike cadets). [Just to clarify, I was never in the Reserves, but I was in cadets for 5 years, and in that time I knew a lot of guys that were in both, and as well I have talked to a lot of guys in the Regs that did time in the Reserves.] 

The cliques that exist within a unit (be it Reserves, Reg, cadets) can make or break it, but within the Regs, there are always people coming and going (postings, releases), particularly with the higher echelons. Within the Reserves, progression at the lower rank levels can be faster due to higher turnaround, but by the same token, at the higher ranks you have to wait for people to die or retire before you can move up. Therefore, the leadership is fairly constant, for better or worse. People in the Reserves, esp. in small towns will pretty much know anybody coming in, and if they don't want them there, they can freeze them out. In a small town, there may only be one Reserve unit, of any of the elements. In larger towns, and esp. the big cities, you can choose a unit based on personalities, types of training opportunities, colour of hat, mess, whatever. As well, Reserve units (in my view, anyway) are like cadet corps: all about the numbers. If you lose numbers, you lose money, you lose positions, etc, so I think that they are more willing to bring aboard anyone they can, and leery to boot people. Again, this is only an observation on my part, and if I'm dead wrong, I'm sure I'll be set straight. In the Reg force, particularly the training system, it is sometimes no different. The pass rate means everything (to some people), and having somebody fail isn't an option sometimes. I worked in a situation like this, and it wasn't a good scene. Having a system where everybody passes doesn't produce good "product" except maybe for certain people's PER and career progression  :

In the Regs, most times you have zero choice on where you will initially be posted, a lot of people (mostly Combat Arms types) get suckered into their trade (I know a guy who went Crewman, and was under the assumption he would be a crewmember on a plane..... boy was he shocked, and he had to ride out a 3 year contract, to boot). People in Reg Force units, for the most part, come from different backgrounds, different provinces, have no idea who will be in their new unit, except maybe for the guys they just finished training with, so they are all "fresh meat" when they get to a unit, and have to fit in. Most do, some don't, and we don't have the luxury of turning our kit in the next parade night if the going gets tough. Adjusting is a fact of life.
  
I know that people can be fairly defensive about their unit (I have worn 4 different hat badges, so I am somewhat jaded.....), but I think that people's attitudes need to change (male/female, black/white, gay/straight, Reserve/Reg), and acknowledging that things need to change is usually a good thing. RTC at all costs, in any regard, isn't very productive, and can be destructive to a unit. 

I was kind of all over the place on this one, but I think it may help clarify (or muddy the waters) on what my wife posted: it seems the Reserves (from the people who post here anyway) are having the most difficulty accepting this change. Again, it could be that they don't want to bring aboard unfamiliar people, and as the leadership remains more static than in Reg units, certain attitudes can get passed down from higher on up down to the bottom. Freezing somebody out with the Reserves is much easier than in the Regs, and as most people (esp. the leadership) in the Regs are "lifers", policies brought down have to be enforced, and if you choose not to, you're done. You can't just pack up your macaroni box and go rely on your primary job (if you have one) for food and rent like Reservists have the option of doing if they don't like a policy. There are a lot of people who have taken their release rather than put up with some of the new policies that have come out, but I would say most people with 10+ years in have their eye on their pension and will put up with pretty much anything to get there. Just because you have to live with a policy and enforce it doesn't mean you have to like it, but it helps (especially being convincing to subordinates.....). 

If anybody feels offended that I "dissed" the Reserves, tough. These are my opinions on what I have observed, both within and without the Regs, which most Reservists haven't been able to, esp. the young ones. You don't have to agree, and no doubt somebody will be put out, saying "My unit isn't like that!!!!". Well, great. But, again, look at who has been the most vocal about it here (from who I have been able to ID), and yes some Regs are quite firmly in the "no" camp, but a lot of that has to do with being of a different generation (take that however you will......). Call me on it, and you'll probably be pulling bootlaces out of your braces (your own bootlaces, that is... ie foot-in-mouth disease).

Al


----------



## Jarnhamar

We know how much you love the Reserves Al. I'm sure you would love to be posted RSS staff at a reserve unit 



> I think that they are more willing to bring aboard anyone they can, and leery to boot people.



I think you're 100% right with that comment and the rest of your post.
The reserves are absolutely hurting for troops. Troops on parade DO equal money.
Too few troops training and regiments loose money.  Regiments loose money and reserve soldiers can't take courses. Training goes down the drain.  Troops look at how shitty the training is and the lack of employment and quit.  Even less troops on parade. Now sait reserve regiment that gets paid for being considered a battalion, now gets paid for being a company.
Cycle starts over again.

Troops that probably shouldnt pass, pass. 

Regarding a soldier becomming pregnant and recoursed. While i don't really agree with it (That is, a reg force soldier being put in holding platoon and a reserve soldier being pushed along) I think the reasons why it happens are obvious. The reserves don't have a holding platoon.  Where someone can sit on their ass playing video games or sweeping in the holding platoon and get paid big bucks for it, an untrained reserve soldier is pretty damn useless.

The lower standard for the reserves means more below standard soldiers. Theres many more female reserve soldiers than regular force soldiers, probably both from physical standards and the acceptence by their peers. 

As for the old boys club. I think it has it's pros and cons.   It's shitty when a good soldier gets passed up for a course or tasking in favor of someone who has friends in high places but at the same time, i think it's good to be able to push useless soldiers out of the reserves as fast as possible.


----------



## ZipperHead

Ref the calls to the Ombudsman on harrassment: just because somebody makes a call to the Hotline, does that mean they've been "harrassed". Or does it mean that they feel they've been harrassed. An example, "My MCpl told me my boots sucked. That's harrassment!!!". Or sexual harrassment or discrimination: "I've been passed over for promotion because I'm female (or male)!!!" Those are perceptions of harrassment, not harrassment, and I'd be curious if these numbers are confirmed cases, or ones that are just logged for the sake of keeping people happy.

[Thanks for the link combat_medic, I just read it, and thought I would share a little bit with the rest of the gang]



> The Line, launched in May 1998, has provided assistance and guidance to almost 3000 callers, demonstrating that CF members and DND employees today have a heightened comfort level with regard to sharing their concerns about harassment. In the beginning, most calls were made by women who felt they were targets of sexual harassment or assault. _*Today, the majority of calls concern harassment of a non-sexual nature, and the Line now receives more calls from men than from women*_.



I doubt you read the bit that I highlighted and italicized, but there it is. 

Regarding the whole issue with the "virtually all women in CF" and harrassment, I think it should be expected that you are going to receive a certain amount of harrassment, be it sexual or otherwise. Is it right? No. Do you have to accept it? No. Complain if you want, but expect consequences of some form, be it being shut out or at the least ridiculed. I have been sexually harrassed by women in the CF (good heavens!!), but if I were to complain about it, I would get laughed out of whomever's office I put the complaint into. Men can't be sexually harrassed, it seems, much like it seems only whites are capable of racism (in our N American society, anyway). I wouldn't say I was traumatized, but I remember it distinctly, and at the time it was funny, in a way, but I am certainly put off by the whole double standard aspect of that it's only men who can be found guilty of harrassment, it seems (I can think of only one example where it wasn't the case). 

Without getting into too many details, to protect the not so innocent, we had a CSS member in our unit who had sex with a member of the opposite sex on exercise (consensual). The CSS pers was not male, the soldier was, and 2 rank levels below the CSS pers. Take a guess what happened? If you guessed: nothing, you win..... nothing! That cried out for an Ministerial inquiry, but it never happened. Men can't be taken advantage of, apparently. Maybe you can understand why men have a hard time taking the whole thing too seriously. Not that harrassment isn't serious, but it's the degree of harrassment or discrimination that has to be taken into account and/or perspective. It's like a lot of things that people take advantage of: benefits, lawsuits, complaints, etc. The ones who cry "wolf!" falsely or with no real basis to, ruin it for the people who are truly victims.

Al


----------



## Britney Spears

qor556 said:
			
		

> So thus you are implying the women in the reserves are of lesser "quality" than your "kind". I would like to see some proof of that, as we all know you cannot make a statement without backing it up with some real evidence... or would you rather arm wrestle over it? ;D



I implied no such thing. The implication in my post was that lower standards in the reserves means there are MORE women. What part do you require proof of, that reserve cbt arms courses have lower course standards, or that because of this, more women end up in reserve cbt arms units than reg cbt arms units? I think both are abundantly obvious.



> If you are a Canadian, then it's your Army.  I don't own it, I'm just in it.  We each have one of 32,000,000 shares in it.  Too bad most are non-voting shares.



i meant the "Reg VS Reserve freshette assisted pissing contest" race.


----------



## TCBF

Oh.  That race.  OK.

So, for the SECOND time:  What the heck is a freshette?

Tom


----------



## Infanteer

I'll agree with Allan L.

I'm willing to wager that the group dynamics in the Reg Force and the Reserve Force are two completely different thing.   Reserves - no obligation and you show up for a few nights a week and one weekend a month.   Reg Force, you are "socialized" into the institution and you live, work, play, and fight in close proximity with your squaddies.   I am going to say that the "group dynamic" that makes it harder for women to fully integrate in the Reg Force isn't as strong in the Reserves.

This isn't a hack or anything, only an observation from someone who has done both the part time and the full time gigs.


Other then that, I am going to withdraw from this conversation as I think it is rapidly approaching the end of its utility and is evolving into a "spin-cycle".   I've voiced my support for females in all branches and I will again assert that I feel that people who say "Get them Out" and people who say "There is no real problems, it is only men who hate women" are both in the wrong as they refuse to address other factors that may be at play.   I hope that, as the years go by, we can look at these factors and deal with them in a way that, while not making everybody happy, will satisfy everyone and stick to our principles as an institution of the Canadian public and one based on fighting and winning battles.

With that, Gentlemen and Ladies, I am signing off.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

TCBF said:
			
		

> So, for the SECOND time: What the heck is a freshette?
> 
> Tom





			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> The Freshette (since so many were curious) is labeled as the "feminine urinary director". Basically a funnel with a hose. More information here:
> http://www.freshette.com/ with pictures and ordering information.



There you are.


----------



## TCBF

Freshette directions:  ..."stand with your back to the wind"...

Amazing the facts us guys take for granted.  Might as well tell a guy to remember to plug in the toaster before calling the repairman.

But; Can you write your name in the snow with it?  Well, can you?  Huh? 



Tom


----------



## Britney Spears

Now that she's gone,  I'll bet you anything that *Infanteer* is actually a woman. Certainly that was my first thought on this thread, why else would anyone specificly use the gender neutral term "Infanteer", a word essentially invented by the PC police  in order to accomodate women,  as a moniker?


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## qor556

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I implied no such thing. The implication in my post was that lower standards in the reserves means there are MORE women. What part do you require proof of, that reserve cbt arms courses have lower course standards, or that because of this, more women end up in reserve cbt arms units than reg cbt arms units? I think both are abundantly obvious.
> 
> [/quote
> 
> May be so, but from your previous comment I am still understanding that there are MORE below-standard women in the reserves. Hmm..
> 
> Ah whatever its not a big deal.
> 
> As for that little freshette device... so where do you keep this little device on you? In your Tac Vest?? I'm just imagining how amusing it would be to explain what it is if accidentally found during an inspection


----------



## TCBF

Mad Max - in our office - asked basically the same thing.  Being a 011 CREWMAN, I had no cat in that fight.  Heh-heh.

Tom


----------



## combat_medic

Fine, more statistics, since it seems to make everyone happy (although no one has bothered to substantiate the "nay" side with any evidence other than heresay). 

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/harassment/engraph/1998_survey.pdf

In 1998, 29% of women admitted to being subjected to an abuse of authority in the past 12 months, 30% admitted to personal harassment, 14% admitted to sexual harassment, and 2% admitted to being hazed. The average nuber of times women admitted to being sexually harassed in the past year is 11. Unfortunately there are not any more recent surveys, but I was say that 84% is a pretty overwhelming majority, wouldn't you?


----------



## TCBF

You can't just add up all the numbers and get 84%.  There is obviously a lot of crossover.  In one bad incident, a person could answer "Yes" to all of those categories.

Tom


----------



## LF(CMO)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:   i didn't know whether to post this here or under the P'assionate Eye'.   The Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard (in effect the State CO) is Gen. Martha Rainville. (Rainville is a Francophone surname)   My cousin, a Retd Lt Col., says that she is very capable and well respected.
 Vermont has the second highest % of deployment.   They have a high % in the "Guard' vis-a-vis their small population.   They have an F-16 fighter Sqd, an Armored Batt, a Mountain Coy, an Engineering Coy among other units.
   Google the 'St Albans Messenger' or 'Burlington Free Press' for VNG info if interested.   They have done Trg with the troops from St Jean as St Albans is only about 45 Miles south of there.   There was an article in the St A Messenger today with Gen Rainville haveing a meetng with the famlies.   They were talking 'the Guard is a family', I thought of our Regt System.


----------



## combat_medic

You know what, yes, everyone in the CF has no doubt been the victim of direct and indirect harrasment, discrimination, and other forms of mistreatment. Yes, the men are included. The CF is doing what they can to combat this, and hopefully the people with legitimate complaints will come forward so that the problems can be dealt with. In general, I still think that the treatment of women and other minority groups has a long way to go, and until such a time as the attitudes change about their presence in the military, the general mistreatment will continue. 

Argue as much as you will, the people who don't like it will always find a reason not to like it, and there's precious little that can be done to change their minds. Until such a time as everyone is on equal footing, I'm going to keep doing my job, and do what I can to make the woman who comes after me have an easier go than I have. This thread has spent over 30 pages of driving in circles, and no one is going to change anyone's mind with words. It's obviously pointless to argue opinions. I've said my peace, and I'm signing off.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

combat_medic said:
			
		

> You know what, yes, everyone in the CF has no doubt been the victim of direct and indirect harassment, discrimination, and other forms of mistreatment. Yes, the men are included. The CF is doing what they can to combat this, and hopefully the people with legitimate complaints will come forward so that the problems can be dealt with. In general, I still think that the treatment of women and other minority groups has a long way to go, and until such a time as the attitudes change about their presence in the military, the general mistreatment will continue.
> 
> Argue as much as you will, the people who don't like it will always find a reason not to like it, and there's precious little that can be done to change their minds. Until such a time as everyone is on equal footing, I'm going to keep doing my job, and do what I can to make the woman who comes after me have an easier go than I have. This thread has spent over 30 pages of driving in circles, and no one is going to change anyone's mind with words. It's obviously pointless to argue opinions. I've said my peace, and I'm signing off.



       The funny thing about harassment, is that it is out there, in roughly equal proportions to the amount of whining by those who only feel persecuted.  We had a recruit on our basic course, who was East Indian, and thought that he was being harassed because he was East Indian.  Actually, he couldn't even be taught to march, almost sawed the range NCO in half by holding the Stirling trigger down and burning a half-clip as he turned around to see what the shouting was about (it was the command to "make safe" if memory serves), and committed every dumb recruit mistake known to man.  One day he walked into one of the barracks rooms where a bunch of us were doing boots, and was told to "P**s off", he responded by claiming we were racist, which we agreed to accept.  He took two steps to leave before storming back and pointing to the black and Filipino recruits sitting with us and demanded to know if we were prejudiced, why were they allowed, to which the Filipino recruit shouted back, "because we're prejudiced too, we f***ing hate white people!".  The obvious absurdity was lost on him.  He felt persecuted because of his race, and that is how he viewed all criticism, so he failed.  We had four females who did have to put up with a bit more crap than the rest of us, and none of them developed a persecution complex, and all of them completed the course, two ending as Sigs like us, and two in logistics.  There is prejudice in humanity.  There is prejudice in the army.  Soldiers are largely tough enough to push through it.  The worst and most persistant prejudice I have ever encountered is the ancient Regforce prejudice against Reservists.  Thank the gods the politicians haven't twigged into that one, or I'm sure someone would have included it in the persecutable minority laws somewhere between the retarded-lesbians and transsexual dwarves.  There is not a person in the armed forces who is not persecuted for something, and if it has not happened to you, try walking across a university campus sometime, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to fix that.  Female soldiers, like every other new group, on the whole, have opted to shut up and soldier, lets leave them to it.


----------



## mo-litia

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> There is prejudice in the army. Soldiers are largely tough enough to push through it. The worst and most persistant prejudice I have ever encountered is the ancient Regforce prejudice against Reservists.



What ARE you talking about? I have NEVER heard of such a thing...oh wait, two pages back...whatever brought on all those comments about sexist reserve soldiers...? ***I move quickly to avoid a kidney shot from an enraged Liberal...*** 



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Now that she's gone,   I'll bet you anything that *Infanteer* is actually a woman. Certainly that was my first thought on this thread, why else would anyone specificly use the gender neutral term "Infanteer", a word essentially invented by the PC police   in order to accomodate women,   as a moniker?



LMAO Maybe she's just overly enlightened...

And just so you know, 'Infanteer' was invented by Canada to be PC. It's not even in any recognized dictionary at this point in time. Now if you'll excuse me, I've goota go have some beers with my buddies the 'Fireteers' down at the station!  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

_Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in...._

Okay, only to clear up some muddy waters.   No, I'm not a woman.

Funny that the guy (girl?) bugging me goes by the name "Britney Spears" - I think the confusion is in Britney's mind... :dontpanic:

As for "Infanteer", I just picked it as a username when I first signed on here as a Private.   I figured it was easier to type and it wasn't as much as a mouthful as "Infantryman" and had a bit of flair (like Musketeers   :warstory:, or Mouseketeers   :-X).   So relax, don't get your tits in a knot; it's not some effort to pull of some 1984-ish thought police coup.

Anyways, last time I checked "Mo-Litia" wasn't a word either....


----------



## mo-litia

Infanteer said:
			
		

> _Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in...._
> 
> Anyways, last time I checked "Mo-Litia" wasn't a word either....



True dat!  But it's not like the mo-litia is a job either; more like an aggravation that one gets attached to over time! (It _sure isn't about the pay, _ that's for sure...) ;D


----------



## jmacleod

Various Human Rights legislation in Canada mandates "equal opportunity". I see no reason why women
who volunteer for a career in the Canadian Forces should not be assigned to a combat unit. I remember
meeting many USAF and USN women pilots at the famed Shearwater International Air Show several
times - one was an F-14 driver from the USS John F. Kennedy I think, which was in Halifax NS at the
time, and had launched aircraft to support the Air Show. I remember meeting the crew of KC-135
tanker, and the entire crew were women - the US and British military colleges have a lot of women
students, and many graduates as serving officers. MacLeod


----------



## Meridian

This is exceptionally interesting and I brought this actual thread up (dont hate me) in my Political Thought discussion group yesterday...  We were discussing Mill's _On the Subjugation of Women_, and whether in today's day and age we still appeal to traditionary references to attempt to justify how we do things. (This eventually led into the gay marriage debate, and basically proved that noone is clear just exactly what the issues are).


It is interesting that in that survey at least, the "Western Army" would prefer women not to be in the military, and in the east, this feeling is less prevalent.

Even more still is that there are varying reasons for it. I've had debates with firefighter friends and civilians alike who have the same notion about a rescue workers. Some people appeal to the emotional attachment they feel towards "women and children" and thus faced with seeing a colleague die and that colleague being a woman; well, its tough. For many firefighters it is tough to have any victim die, but for them it is often much harder when it is a woman or child versus a man. Rightly or wrongly this is often an expressed sentiment, Im told. 

The other argument that seems prevalent is physical capability & lowering standards for women so as to offer "equal access". The issue here is predominantly that if you are lowering one standard vs another to offer "equality", you are thereby immediately eliminating equality from the overall equation.  I know that most women would argue that they dont want to just meet the lower standards, that they want to be judged equally, but Ive seen a few (in my limited, short time) who rested on those laurels up until they did pisspoor on a CFEXpres test and just passed at the female level. Obviously this is not the case for all women, but still...   Think about that..  Im all for women being able to be firefighters... but Im also all for them having to be able to carry/lift/work just as hard as any equal man. Some women can, some women cant.. but then again, some men cant either.


---

As for the actual thread being alive/around: 

Debate is important. This is not about "singling women out", GIJANE.  I can see how this would be intensely personal to you, but there is no issue surrounding Men in the military - it surrounds women in the military.  Just ignoring something or making it "taboo" to talk about does not cease its existence and IMHO only perpetuates its festering in the background.

Too much of what people really believe is taboo these days, because it is no longer politically correct to talk about it. Like it or not, there are plenty of people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc out there. But instead of encouraging these people to express their views openly and genuinely; we are moving to a state of society where people can only express their views if they agree with what the publicly held opinion is; even if this opinion may even happen to be in the minority!.

I recognize that many people have argued against giving a voice to those who spread hatred, racism and other negative mantras; but if you are attempting to predicate your society on the basis of equality and liberalist values, you can not eliminate any and all discourse that contradicts the balance of public opinion.

I am not saying this thread is in any way negative or spreading hatred; my argument here solely exists to point out why indeed this discussion is valuable and should be aired.


----------



## Block 1

*Earned the right to serve * 

Let me tell you a story. Its about a Soviet built â Å“Hind Dâ ? attack helicopter that crashed in the rice paddies of Sierra Leone, West Africa, in 2001. 

In the back jungles of the KONO on the eastern side of the country.  A Soviet built Hind D with a mercenary pilot lifted off from Kenema. The Hind was under contract with the Sierra Leone Government and working for IMAT, at the time. Three minutes after lift off, the helicopter had a massive tail router failure, and crashed. Out of five personnel, from five different countries aboard the Hind D, only one passed away.  She was a Capt in the UK army, and the only women in the Hind D, bad luck, absolutely. But she gave her live in the service of her country and earned the right to serve as a member of her military, because of her skill as a solider. The four men walked away from the crash without a physical scratch. The bottom line is we earn the right to serve by our actions. If a women earns the right to serve then there is no discussion. We all have the privilege as Canadians to serve our country; consequently, only earn the right to serve by our actions as soldiers. â Å“Soldiers Firstâ ?         
            :soldier:


----------



## GIJANE

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> GI Jane,
> Do you actually read posts before you hit the respond button? Where in the        did you come up with this gem about my statement that when one goes to a trade traditionally occupied by the other sex, one tends to get "noticed?
> Quote from GI Jane,
> so because because i am a woman i should be a daycare worker? or maybe a nurse? or wait how about a stay at home mommy?? You say you have no problem accepting women in the army but you are quick to single me out by saying "why join the artillery"
> I never said why join the artillery, I said if you didn't want to get noticed why did you join the artillery?World of difference there lad, I'm starting to think all you will accept is "Yes Maam, You are 100% correct.
> Remember, I agree with you but this is the REAL world after all. :



Quote,
I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female

Well if I may ask, then why in the world did you go Artillery?
To use someone else's anology, I know that if I started working down in Merrickville's day care tomorrow, I would be singled out as change usually is.....and pleeeeeease don't tell me there is not one of you that would not look at me funny when you drop your kids off in our/my care.


Yes i do (sometimes 2 or 3 times  ) my apologies, i guess i misunderstood you somewhere, as for joining the Artillery i didn't think of "getting noticed" when i filled out my application (not that it would have changed my mind anyway) i guess i'm lucky i never experianced harrasment because i was a chick in the combat arms.and to think i wasn't even going to put my two cents in this thread.

Jane


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

We're cool, darn internet nuances.... ;D


----------



## GIJANE

Jane


----------



## GSF523

Hi all well as a female i can see both sides of the story. For instance we had some in our group that thought that she could get over that wall in the obstacle course by herself and in the end was not able to and was injured in the process. For a women to survive the reserves or reg force she has to be like a man in order to get the respect of her peers. i know that I was getting into a job that was male orientated and i knew to take the blows and didn't expect them to help me in anyway. I tried everything until i dropped, while there were others that whined and complained and expected the men to help them and carry almost everything. By the end of The infantry course i had the respect of all, because I didn't expect anyone to do anyhting for me, i did better then some men in there and was the best then all the women in out platoon, they siad i was just like one of the guys.  :threat: I did the best i could and i did excellent, i trained for it before i got into it and came out better but i made sure everyhting was done so that we couldn't get into trouble at all. The other guys didn't like the other girls because they didn't try and did give it their 110% best.

so somew women do belong and some others don't in combat arms.

Jen


----------



## mo-litia

Block 1 said:
			
		

> If a women earns the right to serve then there is no discussion.



I beg to differ. There IS a discussion, and it is typical of people who march to the politically correct drum that you wish to assert that there isn't a valid debate taking place when this issue OBVIOUSLY is valid.  That being said, this is turning into a pissing contest between both sides of this issue; and this thread seems to be going in circles.  Trying to marginalize viewpoints that you don not agree with certainly doesn't bring anything worth discussing to the table.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape:
> 
> I don't think the expenditures to accomodate women are really as significant as you might think. e.g. I would imagine most base living quaters do have female washroom facilities to comply with civillian building regs, and overseas, well, the Dutch seem to have a pretty good approach with these things, If we can all stop being 6th graders(I know, hard for men) for a few month while in a warzone, it is really a none issue.



You may be right about the costs. 

As for 6th graders, they tend to whine alot. Women seem to do that better.  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Costs for having women deployed overseas with us - about 10 cents for a photocopy of one of those "Women's Bathroom" signs.  They used it when one of them was using the shower ISO.  Bathrooms were shared - it was a little awkward at first when you were pissing in the urinal in the morning and a girl walked by to brush her teeth, but you get used to it.

I know, I said I was leaving, but I just needed to point out a fact.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Costs for having women deployed overseas with us - about 10 cents for a photocopy of one of those "Women's Bathroom" signs.   They used it when one of them was using the shower ISO.   Bathrooms were shared - it was a little awkward at first when you were pissing in the urinal in the morning and a girl walked by to brush her teeth, but you get used to it.
> 
> I know, I said I was leaving, but I just needed to point out a fact.



Good point. As I said before, I'm not opposed to women in CA assuming it's practical. I'd prefer to serve in a mixed environment as being surrounded by men 24/7 could get a little old after a while. I think women bring something different to the environment. Not stereotypical girlishness or anything, just a different perspective and such.


----------



## Infanteer

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Good point. As I said before, I'm not opposed to women in CA assuming it's practical. I'd prefer to serve in a mixed environment as being surrounded by men 24/7 could get a little old after a while. I think women bring something different to the environment. Not stereotypical girlishness or anything, just a different perspective and such.



Naaah, they don't really bring anything different to the environment.  You just do the mission.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Naaah, they don't really bring anything different to the environment.   You just do the mission.



Fine. Be that way. I'll take your word for it, though, since my only tours have been in Ghost Recon 2, Counter-Strike, and Firearms.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm not trying to be a dink.

We had two female soldiers on my camp of about 150.   They weren't a big impact at all.   Plus, we were pretty busy with ops, so it was never really an issue.   At the sharp end, it really is unnoticable (which is why I've been claiming all along that the issue is a non-starter for me).   The only time I noticed a difference is when the Maple Leaf and a bunch of other press types came by the camp - they wanted a picture of a "female" for some reason so we marched the clerk out of her office and put her, with her rifle, on the gate for the cameras, despite the fact that the clerk never did a gate shift the entire tour.... ???

I'm sure it was different at the NSE holiday ground in VK though.   There was a much larger percentage of females (because it was a CSS base) and they really seemed to be having a great time with mess parties, organized activities, etc, etc.  We replaced 2 Vandoo in theater and one Corporal told me that it was "Camp Love" - I'll let you guess why.  We thought it was a bonus that we could get up once a month for a game of floor hockey - these guys had a league....

If you're an Infantry Officer, you aren't going to see any real impact of throwing females into the mix.


----------



## Jarnhamar

And on a side note, the reservist company won the hockey tournament for roto 13 
After all the practice the NSE and friends got, i thought they would win for sure


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Well, I just got back after a couple of days away and caught up on the thread. All I can say is it's gotten really, really, really old. Same old, reserve/reg bashing, "he said she said", myriads of tangents and still no ( and never will have) consensus. It just keeps going round and round with nothing new or concrete. It's simply become a place to people to vent and argue, not discuss. I personally think it's outlived whatever usefullness it ever had.


----------



## Loadmaster

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> If this was not mentioned already... bring 2 of all toiletteries, one to look good on the shelf for your every day inspection, and one for usage.
> I am assuming you are about to be on your   basic...



Thats funny, When I taught there, I had a lot of recruits that tried that but I made the ones in my section use theirs and I checked them everyday. Maybe I'm an ***hole but a lot of recruits look for the least amount of work possible and Its funny when they think that they are fooling their instructors.

Its not everyone but you always have a few lazy people on every course.


----------



## GIJANE

GSF523 said:
			
		

> Hi all well as a female i can see both sides of the story. For instance we had some in our group that thought that she could get over that wall in the obstacle course by herself and in the end was not able to and was injured in the process. For a women to survive the reserves or reg force she has to be like a man in order to get the respect of her peers. i know that I was getting into a job that was male orientated and i knew to take the blows and didn't expect them to help me in anyway. I tried everything until i dropped, while there were others that whined and complained and expected the men to help them and carry almost everything. By the end of The infantry course i had the respect of all, because I didn't expect anyone to do anyhting for me, i did better then some men in there and was the best then all the women in out platoon, they siad i was just like one of the guys.    :threat: I did the best i could and i did excellent, i trained for it before i got into it and came out better but i made sure everyhting was done so that we couldn't get into trouble at all. The other guys didn't like the other girls because they didn't try and did give it their 110% best.
> 
> so somew women do belong and some others don't in combat arms.
> 
> Jen




I have to disagree on that note, i survived 3 years infantry reserves and 7 years of artillery regs and i never had to be anything but myself, a woman, and thats what got respect from my fellow soldiers.

I have no idea what you said in that sentance, try spell check next time.

Jane


----------



## Chags

You are right Jane..  Just be yourself..


----------



## NMPeters

This is an interesting quote from the CROP survey that was completed in 2004...

"CROP survey results suggest that soldiers tend to be traditionalists in regard to gender and minorities. In comparison to Canadian
society, soldiers are less supportive of affirmative action for women and minorities. In the hiring of new employees they tend to believe that experience and ability, not quotas, should be the primary considerations. They tend to support sexual stereotypes and wish to preserve and
maintain their own cultural traditions and customs. Lastly, soldiers tend to consider national superiority to be important and to see themselves as superior to foreigners. These attitudes and values may, at times, result in conflict with Canadian values as expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and supported by the CF (Duty with Honour, 2003, p. 28) and the Army (The Army Strategy, 2002, p. 19). Perhaps surprisingly, men and women in the Army agree that the best candidate, regardless of gender or minority status, should be selected for a job. Not only do men and women agree on this issue but both groups feel more strongly about this than does the Canadian population."


----------



## mo-litia

wtf is a CROP survey?


----------



## Slim

The only people who ever make a big todo out of females in combat...or in uniform are the press and the bigwigs.

No one else really cares. They, like everyone else, are expected to hold up their end of the job. Thats all there is to it.

Folks, we're spinning tires here.

Slim


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't think there was enough respondants or a large enough cross section for the CROP survey to be relevent. The biggest mistake we can take away from it is to treat it as gospel and make decisions based on it. I can't help but think that the only thing that will truly come from it, good or bad, is that the authors will get promoted and become experts on th lecture circut.


----------



## infamous_p

simple line from the movie GI Jane says it all:

"how strong do you have to be to pull a trigger?"


----------



## pbi

A 26% response rate leaves a pretty significant margin for statistical error. A result this low (in any poll) raises the question of whether or not the only ones responding are those who have an axe to grind.

Cheers


----------



## NMPeters

Well since respondents don't know the questions beforehand, and since this wasn't a survey that was specific to discrimination, I rather doubt that those who did respond did so because they had an axe to grind.

But regardless of the low response rate, I do find the last two sentences in that quote interesting and it does reinforce my own personal experiences in that I find discrimination to be far more prevalent on civvie street than I do in the military.

Cheers!


----------



## Strike

Just got back from an Ex and I'll tell you that not one of the 5 media pers that came out specifically asked to speak to a female.  I recall the TDV episode they shot in Gagetown wrt Tac Hel, and they never asked me specifically to take part because I was a woman.  They had two guys and me because we had enough presence on camera.  It had nothing to do with me being a girls, and in fact they never asked the age old "what's it like being a girl in the military."  Of course, the interviewer did mention that she's heard that women made better pilots.  I corrected her and told her that we made better "student" pilots because we weren't as hard headed and easier to teach (just repeated what my instructors told me).

mo-litia,

Sorry for the late reply.  No email while on ex.  WRT your infanteer reference (that it's not a word) and that you were going out with your "fireteer" friends, making a joke about the PC-ness of it all, you may not realize that this trade in itself has a non-gender name -- firefighter.  Sure, some may call them firemen, but in the traditional sense, that would be representative of a stoker, or one who tends to the fire.  A firefighter puts them out.  This was drilled into me by my now retired uncle who spent several years as a firefighter in Ottawa.

As for everything else, we seem to be repeating and going in circles.  I think if we want to address the issue of harassment we should go to another thread -- making sure that the issue is addressed for both sexes.


----------



## Slim

Guys (and girls)

I think that this has gone about as far as its gonna go. Everything after this point is just squeeling tires cause you want to watch the smoke. So I'm going to lock it. If anyone has anything further to add, and its relevant and hasn't yet been said, PM me and we'll chat. Otherwise I'm shutting this down.

Cheers All 

Slim


----------



## Glorified Ape

Remuster said:
			
		

> Thats funny, When I taught there, I had a lot of recruits that tried that but I made the ones in my section use theirs and I checked them everyday. Maybe I'm an ***hole but a lot of recruits look for the least amount of work possible and Its funny when they think that they are fooling their instructors.
> 
> Its not everyone but you always have a few lazy people on every course.



Our instructors on IAP did the same - if your things weren't used you'd get in trouble. Having two of everything is just a pain in the ass - there isn't enough room for it. 



			
				Ghost said:
			
		

> LOL they tried to teach me that in grade 3.
> 
> They gave me 3 pieces of nylon to tie up and well lets just say I threw away one piece and wraped 2 around each other but the teacher wasn't to thrilled.
> 
> So yeah my brading skills are about on par with my folding laundry skills and wrapping presents skill.



Wow... You're a general, eh?


----------



## Strike

I know this has been beaten to death, but I found this article interesting.  I will copy it in it's entirety as I got it from a DWAN site.  See my comments at the end...



> PUBLICATION:  The Chronicle-Herald
> DATE:  2005.03.14
> SECTION:  Opinion
> PAGE:  A7
> SOURCE:  On Target
> BYLINE:  Scott Taylor
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Female soldier drive just futile
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> THE MILITARY recently released a couple of internal studies that indicate that women continue to feel marginalized by their male counterparts within the <Canadian> Forces - particularly in front-line combat units. Apparently, a large number of those Forces members polled also had difficulty accepting gays, lesbians and ethnic minorities among their ranks, while general officers were viewed with mistrust. In response to the negative feedback, the Defence Department spin doctors immediately trotted out their usual list of confusing statistics, pie charts and hollow promises that the <Canadian> Forces remain committed to the policy of gender integration. What these public affairs officers count on is that nobody remembers the Defence Department's previously stated goals.
> 
> A review of the 27-year-long <Canadian> Forces project to integrate women into combat units reveals an exercise in abject futility.
> 
> The initial studies on redefining gender restrictions within the military were sparked by the <Canadian> Human Rights Act in 1978. Two years later, these studies had evolved into a program called Service Women in Non-traditional Environments and Roles which involved limited, supervised trials of female recruits in various front-line occupations. The results were less than encouraging and in some cases outright failures. But by 1989, federal human rights watchdogs were losing patience with the military, and the Forces were ordered to implement "full integration . . . with all due speed."
> 
> The federal officials, however, allowed the Defence Department a full decade to remove "all discriminating employment barriers" with the exception of service aboard submarines.
> 
> Fast-forward 10 years to 1999. The report card on the military's integration came back stamped with a giant F. Despite the removal of restrictions, and the much-publicized "success stories" of those female pioneers who had completed battle school and fighter-pilot training, there had been no followup wave of women wishing to join the Forces.
> 
> In fact, although the percentage of women in the military had increased slightly - from 9.9 per cent to 10.8 per cent over that same decade, the total troop strength had been reduced from 90,000 to 60,000. If one crunches the numbers, the lifting of barriers actually resulted in 2,430 fewer women in uniform, and most of the proportional increases had occurred in the "traditional" roles such as support trades and medical staff, not within the combat arms.
> 
> Instead of pointing out to the human rights officials that <Canadian> women were obviously not attracted to careers in combat trades, the brass vowed to redouble their efforts.
> 
> Former <army> commander and later chief of defence staff Maurice Baril led the charge personally, vowing to increase female representation by 2009 to a full 25 per cent of combat units and a whopping 28 per cent of the <Canadian> Forces overall. To achieve this, Baril pulled out all the stops; fitness standards were "adjusted" (read, lowered) to compensate for the natural disparity in men's and women's upper-body strength; the ban on women serving in submarines was lifted; and as proof of the army's sincerity in welcoming women into the fold, $2.8 million and a panel of male officers were assigned to the development of a "combat bra!"
> 
> When the dust settled on Baril's initiatives, the <Canadian> Forces could boast that they now have the lowest set of physical fitness standards of any military in the world (ever!). The media blitz generated zero interest; not one woman opted to sail on subs and the combat bra was declared a bust and cancelled on the drawing board.
> 
> In February's federal budget, it was announced that the <Canadian> Forces will recruit and train an additional 5,000 troops to flesh out the ranks of our badly under-strength military. Most of these soldiers will be earmarked for the <army> in general and combat arms regiments in particular.
> 
> Despite the fact that over the past several years our military recruiters have been unable to even keep pace with normal attrition, DND public affairs types are once again heralding this surge of 5,000 new troops as an opportunity to address the gender imbalance. My suggestion is to quit whipping a dead horse. Instead of trying to achieve a politically driven agenda, recruiters must simply seek out the best qualified candidates - regardless of gender, sexual persuasion or ethnic background.
> 
> It is interesting to note that <Canada> ranks second in the world with regards to the ratio of female to male soldiers. The only country with a higher representation is the United States with 14 per cent, and they still do not allow women to serve in combat units. Go figure.



The last two paragraphs summarize my thoughts and the whole situation nicely.

Here's by beef: why would they get guys to design a bra?  It's bad enough I have to wear unisex (read: male) long underwear that was obviously designed by a man who thought highly of himself. ;D ;D


----------



## NMPeters

Now THIS article is nothing but a piece of trash written by someone who has an axe to grind with the CF. NO WHERE in the study does it ever say that women feel marginalized. It's a shame really that Mr. Taylor is allowed to sling his unsubstantiated trash in main stream media. This story is NOT based on fact. He should keep his Geraldo Rivera type journalism to his own rag of a magazine and let REAL journalists write stories for newspapers. I think the editor of the Chronicle Herald really needs to take a second look at who he allows to have bylines in his publication because allowing Mr. Taylor to write for them is certainly not helping the reputation of his paper.


----------



## Armymedic

I agree. 

I know many good female soldiers most in support trades, but quite a few in the cbt arms. Being a dirty sweaty smelly infanteer isn't exactly a dream job for most 18 yr old girls either...


----------



## Strike

Shows how much I pay attention.  Never even noticed who wrote it.


----------



## GGboy

This is just a rehash of earlier stories about this study which ran in the Canadian Press and many other media outlets, with the usual axe-grinding thrown in for good measure. This practice, in which Mr. Taylor has indulged frequently in the past, is known in the media trade as scalping and is not highly regarded by real reporters. And in defence of the media, it should be pointed out that he is no more highly regarded by other journalists than he is by the troops.
But here's my question: where is the justification for this part of his column?

"When the dust settled on Baril's initiatives, the <Canadian> Forces could boast that they now have the lowest set of physical fitness standards of any military in the world (ever!). " 

If anyone out there is tired of reading this sort of thing, I'd suggest they write the Chronicle-Herald and point out that this is almost certainly incorrect (I'm sure someone on this board can provide chapter and verse on how incorrect) and that it calls the credibility of the entire column, if not the entire newspaper, into question.


----------



## FSTO

What are the current numbers of females in the Army combat trades?
I have no idea.
I know that in the Navy there are quite a few females up to and including the Master Seaman rank, but peters out after.
As for the officers, the Navy is desperate to get a command qualified Regular Force Female, but it hasn't happened yet. 
Reasons unknown to me and no I will not speculate.


----------



## patt

FSTO said:
			
		

> What are the current numbers of females in the Army combat trades?
> I have no idea.
> I know that in the Navy there are quite a few females up to and including the Master Seaman rank, but peters out after.
> As for the officers, the Navy is desperate to get a command qualified Regular Force Female, but it hasn't happened yet.
> Reasons unknown to me and no I will not speculate.


From http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Land_Force/English/1_6_3.asp

Size of the Army
Approximate strength of Army (Regular Force): 19, 500 
Approximate strength of Army (Reserve Force): 15, 500 
Approximate number of civilians employed by the Army: 4, 200 


Employment Equity
Number of women in the Army: 1, 781 
Number of women in the Combat Arms
(Infantry, Armoured, Artillery, Engineers) 252


----------



## NMPeters

Thanks GGBoy for your "insight"  . I, for one, am in the middle of writing to the Chronicle Herald as we speak (wirte). I am really so tired of him and his unsubstantiated and unfactual stories and the unfortunate part is that there are Canadians out there who view him to be a "military expert".


----------



## camochick

> Instead of trying to achieve a politically driven agenda, recruiters must simply seek out the best qualified candidates - regardless of gender, sexual persuasion or ethnic background.



As much as it kills me to say this, i agree with this. Why not focus on getting quality PEOPLE in the military. I for one wouldnt want to be hired for a job based on the fact that I am a woman. I would prefer to get the job because i am the most qualified.


----------



## Brad Sallows

It's interesting that every study and story focuses on the attitudes of people already in the army.  Does anyone ever study teenagers to find out what sort of CF they would join, if at all, and how suited they are for entry to CF life?


----------



## chriscalow

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's interesting that every study and story focuses on the attitudes of people already in the army. Does anyone ever study teenagers to find out what sort of CF they would join, if at all, and how suited they are for entry to CF life?



That is the smartest thing I've seen all day.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

My impression is with this article the only opinion that has any merit is that of the author.  :


----------



## Cloud Cover

Please break down the article for me, I can't tell the fact from fiction.  [I'm serious ... hint.]


----------



## Brad Sallows

>the Defence Department spin doctors immediately trotted out their usual list of confusing statistics, pie charts and hollow promises

Information is merely information.  A judgement of "confusing" must reside entirely within the domain of the mind of the individual attempting to comprehend the information.


----------



## Long in the tooth

I instructed females in the reserves 25 years ago.   At that time they could not join the combat arms and I often wondered why they couldn't.   Out of 48 candidates, 6 were female and the same percentage would've made as GOOD soldiers as the guys.   They were often more organized, on the ball and determined as the men.

On the flip side the CF has SHARPened itself to death and become one of the most gender neutral employers in the country.   Members of the military are SELF SELECTED.

This horse is dead.   Organizing another tiger team to ride it won't get anywhere.


----------



## McG

Further thoughts on this article: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28273.0.html


----------



## TCBF

"It's interesting that every study and story focuses on the attitudes of people already in the army. Does anyone ever study teenagers to find out what sort of CF they would join, if at all, and how suited they are for entry to CF life?"

No.

Because they are joining our culture - the culture of combat - we are not joining theirs.   How do you engineer an army to appeal to the useless?   Make bullets go slower?   Stop it from raining?   Outlaw Hypo/Hyperthermia?   

Like asking pilots what kind of a sky they want to fly in: "Can gravity give us a break?"

I'm afraid not.

Girls are girls and boys are boys.   We are hard wired this way.   When you try and turn a girl into a boy, you get a very unhappy girl.   When you try and turn a boy into a girl, you get a young offender.

All of   the feminazis in the world with all of the taxpayer's money in the world cannot change this.

Tom


----------



## KevinB

:

As one who filled out that useless and rather driven questionaire - I have a few problems with both it and those that would use its data to find anything meaningful.

I recall from some univerisity stats classes that I managed to stay awake thru and pass   (will wonders never cease) and some sort of sociology course I took (I think it was some dreary elective that I had to fill) - that for surveys and the like require many things - 1 a Valid sample size - and from this sample size you require a given percentage of respondents to make it valid (too be honest it was too long ago and I think I got a C- in my second year stats course that I can't define what either would be anymore, I am sure N should be greater than or equal to 32  ???  - gimme a break I am a 031 Cpl - But I am sure some budding pilot in second or third year could chime in a fill us in...) Now I do recall from the social aspect the questions you use for the survey must be neutral - for you can easily steer a responce by phrasing a question a certain way.  Surveys that are not neutrally phases are simply geared to give the answer the poser wanted.

 Now admittedly I am a WASP.   However I think question that ask you what you feel of the turban surplanting a beret on a soldier are desinged to illicit a certain responce - personally I feel one uniform standard is all that is required for the CF - you join it and become a soldier - Period.

Now given my and many others like me - responces that are geared that way - it all of a sudden is taken to mean those of use are all red neck hicks playing a banjo??????? (no offence intended to red-neck, hick banjo players BTW...)

 Back to my Scott Taylor rant ---

 So Scott in his infine wisdom seizes upon a flawed survey (and feel free to quote me on the flawed survey stuff) and derives the fact we (as Infanteers primarily) do not like Females? and it will not work?

     Honestly as much as it pains me to say it - the two 031 females in 1 PPCLI are some of the better troops. Instead of cryign about integration and other fluff - concentrate on the standard - achieve it or STFU.

 The CF would have been served to a much higher degree by taking the $ that went into that studies and its spin offs, and buying bullets for troops to train.


- nuff said


----------



## FastEddy

TCBF said:
			
		

> "It's interesting that every study and story focuses on the attitudes of people already in the army. Does anyone ever study teenagers to find out what sort of CF they would join, if at all, and how suited they are for entry to CF life?"
> 
> No.
> 
> Because they are joining our culture - the culture of combat - we are not joining theirs.   How do you engineer an army to appeal to the useless?   Make bullets go slower?   Stop it from raining?   Outlaw Hypo/Hyperthermia?
> 
> Like asking pilots what kind of a sky they want to fly in: "Can gravity give us a break?"
> 
> I'm afraid not.
> 
> Girls are girls and boys are boys.   We are hard wired this way.   When you try and turn a girl into a boy, you get a very unhappy girl.   When you try and turn a boy into a girl, you get a young offender.
> 
> All of   the feminazis in the world with all of the taxpayer's money in the world cannot change this.
> 
> Tom




Tom,

As I read down your reply I burst into uncontrollable laughter when I came to "When you try and turn a boy into a girl, you get a young officer" then reading it again I saw my error, it was "offender".

You also go on to say, that you regard the youth of to-day as "USELESS" I'm sure we all find that statement very comforting considering that we will eventually be handing over the reins of our world to them.

As for the Feminist's, this is simply the most chauvinistic remark I've heard in argument against the roles of Female Soldiers in the CAF's.


----------



## TCBF

I am not calling all of our youth useless, merely the useless ones who would not join the Army until it has transmorgrified itself into something they would join - at which point, it would be totally useless as well.

I do not bandy the feminazi label about incautiously, but only to highlight those who believe "Men" are the problem, and "WIMIN" must re-engineer society - and it's institututions (us) - in order to "balance the injustices".

The bit about turning boys into little girls is valid.   Recent research in Quebec dealing with youth violence highlighted the fact that boys and girls cannot be socialized using identical methods, and boys must engage in "play" violence in order to learn limits on real violence.   

Where do violent men learn to be violent?   They don't - we are born violent.   Society teaches us not to be violent -96 % of us anyway.   The rest are imprperly socialized  - often by violent mothers.   Ever notice most of the teachers in grade schools are women, and how they insist we put our boys on Ritalin so they can then teach them like little girls?

It won't work.

Tom


----------



## LowRider

NMPeters said:
			
		

> Thanks GGBoy for your "insight"   . I, for one, am in the middle of writing to the Chronicle Herald as we speak (wirte). I am really so tired of him and his unsubstantiated and unfactual stories and the unfortunate part is that there are Canadians out there who view him to be a "military expert".



If you read the Chronic herald much you can see Scott Taylor's "biased brand of pretend journalisim"
is on par with a lot of the crap that gets published in that rag.Another good example is the incoherent left wing rantings of Marilla Stephenson.


----------



## atticus

MCG said:
			
		

> Further thoughts on this article: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28273.0.html



I clicked on the link and it says it doesn't exist!


----------



## McG

It had a few surgeries that resulted in a new address:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28300.0.html


----------



## marlene

Regarding Scott Taylor - perhaps the media is at fault as much as Scott Taylor for printing his "garbage". They are well aware of what they are printing and obviously it suits their purposes. 

merlane


----------



## FastEddy

LowRider said:
			
		

> If you read the Chronic herald much you can see Scott Taylor's "biased brand of pretend journalisim"
> is on par with a lot of the crap that gets published in that rag.Another good example is the incoherent left wing rantings of Marilla Stephenson.




Yes most the Public/Members know full well where Scott Taylor's Journalism is coming from. But like the Powers to Be indicate, he's best left ignored. Our concerns and efforts should best be focused on educating the Public/Members and CAF's to the merits of Female Personnel in all area's. A good example of ATTITUDES would be a post in this thread, such ATTITUDES are not created by Scott Taylor, but by ignorance and discrimination.

Throwing stones at Scott Taylor will only fan the flames of his particular type of journalism.  Again as the PTB have pointed out it is best to ignore him.


----------



## Glorified Ape

TCBF said:
			
		

> Ever notice most of the teachers in grade schools are women, and how they insist we put our boys on Ritalin so they can then teach them like little girls?
> 
> It won't work.



Mein gott, I agree with TCBF on something. It really is true that the educational approach to boys needs to be re-examined, especially with the amount of disregard that has been shown them in the last few decades when the focus shifted to girls because they weren't achieving as well in math and sciences. We really do try to emasculate and "feminize" our boys, contrary to their natural tendencies. 

I think Striker's point on the recruiting drive is apt - stop wasting money and focus on recruiting everyone - period. This just goes to show how idiotic hiring quota systems are.


----------



## FastEddy

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Mein gott, I agree with TCBF on something. It really is true that the educational approach to boys needs to be re-examined, especially with the amount of disregard that has been shown them in the last few decades when the focus shifted to girls because they weren't achieving as well in math and sciences. We really do try to emasculate and "feminize" our boys, contrary to their natural tendencies.
> 
> I think Striker's point on the recruiting drive is apt - stop wasting money and focus on recruiting everyone - period. This just goes to show how idiotic hiring quota systems are.




I guess you are unaware of our Teachers (male & female) plight and concerns about classroom behavior (Grade School in particular) these days.

These children (male & female) have mental disorders which produce extrem disruptive and violent behavior.

Prescription drugs, are used to bring them into a reasonably normal range of manageability. Without the fear that they might poke an eye out of one of their classmates. Also giving them a chance for a reasonable absorbsion of knowledge, without they would not be able to.

It really surprises me in this day and age that there are so many misinformed people I suggest you make the acquaintance of a number of Teachers, maybe even sit in a classroom session. Failing that, there are a great number of good books on the subject.

With regard to the Natural Male Tendencies your description would be, Tobacco Chewing, Sun Burnt Neck, Club Carrying, Drooling Brute. No wonder Domestic Violence is on the rise.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The number of children "mainstreamed" is insufficient to account for the number of children medicated.  What was unnecessary thirty years ago is unnecessary now.


----------



## TCBF

"I guess you are unaware of our Teachers (male & female) plight and concerns about classroom behavior (Grade School in particular) these days."

I have a son who is deaf and in a total communication program.  The fact is, no matter how well designed a program is, it can still be torpedoed by teachers who can't - or won't - do their jobs, principals who can't - or won't - supervise the teachers, and board staff who can't - or won't - supervise the principals.

Just another money swallowing ineffective bureaucracy.

The facts are, boys cannot - and should not - be raised as girls.

Teachers moan about class size "We can't teach thirty kids!"  Some of these teachers are 50 years old with a Masters Degree in Education.  Baby boomers like me.  They went to school with me.  We had thirty to thirty five kids in our classes.  If our teachers could teach us so well that some of us now have masters degrees etc. , why can't the teachers today do that?

Seventeen female teachers and a female principal: they all belong to the same union.  Parents are bailing their kids out of that school left and right.

Tom


----------



## pbi

Where is Female Soldier Drive? Is it anywhere near Veteran's Highway or Military Trail?

Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

It's not that kind of drive.  It's a recruiting thing: you go door to door asking if anyone has any female soldiers they can donate.


----------



## TCBF

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I guess you are unaware of our Teachers (male & female) plight and concerns about classroom behavior (Grade School in particular) these days.
> 
> These children (male & female) have mental disorders which produce extrem disruptive and violent behavior.
> 
> Prescription drugs, are used to bring them into a reasonably normal range of manageability. Without the fear that they might poke an eye out of one of their classmates. Also giving them a chance for a reasonable absorbsion of knowledge, without they would not be able to.
> 
> It really surprises me in this day and age that there are so many misinformed people I suggest you make the acquaintance of a number of Teachers, maybe even sit in a classroom session. Failing that, there are a great number of good books on the subject.
> 
> With regard to the Natural Male Tendencies your description would be, Tobacco Chewing, Sun Burnt Neck, Club Carrying, Drooling Brute. No wonder Domestic Violence is on the rise.



I started a new thread to re-direct the tangent: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28411.0.html (my reply is there).


----------



## FastEddy

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I guess you are unaware of our Teachers (male & female) plight and concerns about classroom behavior (Grade School in particular) these days."
> 
> I have a son who is deaf and in a total communication program.   The fact is, no matter how well designed a program is, it can still be torpedoed by teachers who can't - or won't - do their jobs, principals who can't - or won't - supervise the teachers, and board staff who can't - or won't - supervise the principals.
> 
> Just another money swallowing ineffective bureaucracy.
> 
> The facts are, boys cannot - and should not - be raised as girls.
> 
> Teachers moan about class size "We can't teach thirty kids!"   Some of these teachers are 50 years old with a Masters Degree in Education.   Baby boomers like me.   They went to school with me.   We had thirty to thirty five kids in our classes.   If our teachers could teach us so well that some of us now have masters degrees etc. , why can't the teachers today do that?
> 
> Seventeen female teachers and a female principal: they all belong to the same union.   Parents are bailing their kids out of that school left and right.
> 
> Tom




The day we started to take Education out of the hands of the Educators and into Civic Groups, Lawyers, Concerned Social Services and Parents was the day Education started to decline.
The hands of our Teachers are tied so tightly today, our Public Education System is the proof of the pudding.

As for Special Needs Education it has always been a vocation better suited to Women, the reasons being quite obvious.

As a point of interest, when was the last time you read about a female Child Molestors.

When you went to School, it was a whole different ball game. And as YOU ADMITTED, YOU TURNED OUT OKAY, I don't ever recall being raised as girl. Today you don't have to look very far for the root cause of the problems, any mirror will do. BUT OH! NO ITS THE TEACHERS FAULT Little Johnny is such a rotton foul mouth, uncontrollable SOB.

As for the Staff all belonging to the same Union, it would appear your reasoning is warped in that area also.


----------



## FastEddy

pbi said:
			
		

> Where is Female Soldier Drive? Is it anywhere near Veteran's Highway or Military Trail?
> 
> Cheers.




Sir,

It is always comfortering to know, that a respected contributor would make Lite of such a topic. I'm quite sure that a number of our Female Readers are howling in the isles.

Keep up the good work.

And as you say, Cheers.


----------



## Strike

It gave me a chuckle.  We are all a little too serious sometimes. ;D ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

I got to the 5th line in this article and quit.



> BYLINE:  Scott Taylor


----------



## TCBF

"Here's by beef: why would they get guys to design a bra?  It's bad enough I have to wear unisex (read: male) long underwear that was obviously designed by a man who thought highly of himself."

Well, a lot of us find them kind of tight.

"The day we started to take Education out of the hands of the Educators and into Civic Groups, Lawyers, Concerned Social Services and Parents was the day Education started to decline.
The hands of our Teachers are tied so tightly today, our Public Education System is the proof of the pudding."

Dead wrong, the best teachers know that activist parents can bring effective political pressure  to effect positive change.  Where parents and teachers cross sticks is when the teachers put their union ahead of the children.

"As for Special Needs Education it has always been a vocation better suited to Women, the reasons being quite obvious."

I guess they aren't that obvious to me, so I will ask you to list a couple.  The last principal of that school was a man, who ran a tight ship and ensured his teachers TAUGHT. He was not their friend, he was their boss. And he was a superb proponent of the total communication program.

"As a point of interest, when was the last time you read about a female Child Molestors."

The ones who sleep with their teenage students, get fired, and leave their husbands, you mean?
Are you suggesting that it is public policy to encourage only female teachers because the males might molest the children?  Please explain.

"When you went to School, it was a whole different ball game. And as YOU ADMITTED, YOU TURNED OUT OKAY, I don't ever recall being raised as girl. Today you don't have to look very far for the root cause of the problems, any mirror will do. BUT OH! NO ITS THE TEACHERS FAULT Little Johnny is such a rotton foul mouth, uncontrollable SOB."

No, I agree with you in that teachers cannot replace two (and it does take two - a man and a woman) parents.  That is not my point.  My point is that they cannot raise boys as little girls and expect it to work.  As well, they must meet and maintain their own professional standards, or leave.  Teachers - like soldiers - who cannot or will not do their jobs must be replaced.

"As for the Staff all belonging to the same Union, it would appear your reasoning is warped in that area also."

Kindly explain.  In Alberta, leaving a principal in the ATA is unfair to the principal, it makes it difficult to act on a teacher's issues if you both belong to the same union.  Ontario does not have that problem.

My son's school has some SUPERB teachers.  Some of the best in the province, I bet.  That school is bleeding kids, parents, and good teachers because of the failure in leadership at the upper levels.  The staff "Loser Ratio" has gotten too high, and when that happens - like in any other organization -  the good ones - including parents - just give up and go to another school.  Sad but true.

Tom


----------



## Strike

> "Here's by beef: why would they get guys to design a bra?  It's bad enough I have to wear unisex (read: male) long underwear that was obviously designed by a man who thought highly of himself."
> 
> Well, a lot of us find them kind of tight.



Maybe in the leg, but I seriously doubt you can fill in the rest.  They are made for men with no rear end and (pardon the expression) a large package.  Maybe I should start wearing them backwards.  They might fit better.


----------



## Cansky

OK as a female I will touch on that oh so "lets not talk about it topic".  That time of the month.  Now a days with modern medical advancements there are ways to ensure this doesn't arrive while on basic or in the field.  You can try depo shots but that doesn't work for all.  See if your doctor will prescribe a mono cycle birth control pill that you can take every day for the time your in basic then this won't be a concern. I did this while on tour in Afghanistan and never had to worry about feeling unhygienic for the 6 months. Considering we didn't get showers for the 1st month we were there.


----------



## Strike

Which brings up the nest point -- make sure you have enough of any perscriptions to cover your time in training.  And bring lots of feminine hygiene products.  If you don't run out, one of your roomates will, especially since BMQ/IAP can wreak havoc to the female system.  Ziploc bags are also essential.

Ref the hair, I have found the fastest way to do my hair is a low ponytail, braided, and wrapped around, held up with 4 bobby-pins for a bun.  It helps to keep it from interfering with any headdress you may have on.


----------



## bojangles

I have never heard of a mono cycle birth control pill? You mean you can go up to 6 months with no period at all?

Bojangles


----------



## Cansky

Yes you can go up to a year or more without a period.  The Depo shot some women are on it for years without a period (I personnally wouldn't use that method)  but some of the pills you can control when you want to have your period.  The one I used was Cyclen.  The key is that the pills for the whole month don't change hormone levels.  They should be the same color for all 21 days.   This won't work with the 28 day pills as the last 7 days have no hormones in them.  This can work for some women on the tri cycle pills (the ones with 3 colors indicating 3 different levels of hormones)  but not usually, or not as effectively for missing your period.  All you have to do is don't stop taking your pills.  So if you would take 21 days of pills then a week off, now you would take the next package with no week off.  My physician recommend this for up to six months in total but she did say it can be done up to a year.


----------



## bojangles

That's good to know. I am on the 21 day tricyclin so it should work. I will go talk to my doctor before I leave for sure. I am glad that someone pointed out the fact to cover your prescription throughout basic because I probably wouldn't have given it much thought until I started to run short on supply.

Bojangles


----------



## Strike

Another thing that is good to bring on course are lycra running shorts.  They cut down on chaffing immensly.


----------



## 28Medic

As a female, I found the following useful:
1. Bring baby wipes in a ziploc bag, excellent for the field: for face, hands, pits & bottoms. Keep a small pack handy in your jacket or webbing to use before meals.  Useful for garrison to clean flat surfaces quickly.
2. Bring a small travel size of baby powde(corn starch type) for keeping sensitive areas dry...this works for field and garrison.

Since summer is coming...eventually.  I found using a brand of hair products called "Citre Shine" worked well to keep hair in place in the field without attracting bugs. Any lemon based shampo/gel etc works. 
Same goes for moisterizers and wipes etc...try and choose non-scented varities.

That is very interesting about the continous birth control pills...a very cool application for females in the forces...but be careful to try out a new set of meds for awhile before showing up in St.Jean on them. You wouldn't want to find out that hormones didn't agree with you while you were there.


----------



## 9nr Domestic

bojangles said:
			
		

> That's good to know. I am on the 21 day tricyclin so it should work. I will go talk to my doctor before I leave for sure. I am glad that someone pointed out the fact to cover your prescription throughout basic because I probably wouldn't have given it much thought until I started to run short on supply.
> 
> Bojangles



Make sure you speak with your doctor and try this before you leave for St.Jean. BTW you are NOT on a monophasic pill (mono cycle) so it might not work.


----------



## STONEY

Good newspapers have editorials from various opinions left, right and centre + special interest groups.
Bad newspapers have only one view and are found mostly in dictatorships or one party states. The Comical Herald will be glad to receive all your letters & e-mails because it tells them their doing their job properly , stimulating debate. Scott Taylor love him or hate him does exactly what he's paid to do, stimulate debate . As for the guist of his editorial ,anybody who thinks the female soldier drive was a sucess is either from another planet or has escaped from reality. While there are many excellent females in the forces and no one debates that , its a simple fact that a very small % are interested in trying Cbt. Arms let alone be sucessfull at it. The General's target of 25% , if true was i think a bit unrealistic to start with.

cheers


----------



## pbi

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Sir,
> 
> It is always comfortering to know, that a respected contributor would make Lite of such a topic. I'm quite sure that a number of our Female Readers are howling in the isles.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> And as you say, Cheers.



Well, thanks for calling me a "respected contributor" as opposed to an "outdated old dinosaur who hates woman in the military", or something like that. If I am truly what you say, then I hope it is because, along with my massive store of amazing military wisdom, I try to employ a bit of humour, and to accept that sometimes I will be the butt of a joke, or I will get a good thrashing. May I suggest that you do the same?

And , as I have said before, I don't think we should by usng "sir" on this forum. I don't post with my rank and I wouldn't encourage others to do so. This is supposed to be a level playing field based on experience, knowledge and interest. Normal politeness should suffice unless of course people are going to be idiots.

But, all that said, I am sorry if I offended you or any female posters here.

And, as I say, "Cheers".


----------



## FastEddy

pbi said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for calling me a "respected contributor" as opposed to an "outdated old dinosaur who hates woman in the military", or something like that. If I am truly what you say, then I hope it is because, along with my massive store of amazing military wisdom, I try to employ a bit of humour, and to accept that sometimes I will be the butt of a joke, or I will get a good thrashing. May I suggest that you do the same?
> 
> And , as I have said before, I don't think we should by usng "sir" on this forum. I don't post with my rank and I wouldn't encourage others to do so. This is supposed to be a level playing field based on experience, knowledge and interest. Normal politeness should suffice unless of course people are going to be idiots.
> 
> But, all that said, I am sorry if I offended you or any female posters here.
> 
> And, as I say, "Cheers".




All of your points are well taken, especially the one on humor.
But with regard to this, I've noticed that certain member are prone to seeing this as agreement or endorsement of a subject. Especially coming from contributors like yourself.

Sorry to have bothered you with such trifling points.


----------



## pbi

> But with regard to this, I've noticed that certain member are prone to seeing this as agreement or endorsement of a subject. Especially coming from contributors like yourself.
> 
> Sorry to have bothered you with such trifling points.



I see what you mean. The point was not really a trifling one if it was that disturbing. I will try to think a bit more before hitting "Post" in future.

Cheers.


----------



## bossi

Oh, fer cryin' out loud ...
Youse pant-wearin' guyz are just tryin' to annoy us "Ladies From Hell", aren't you ... ???


----------



## Infanteer

What are you guys talking about?  ???


----------



## TCBF

"What are you guys talking about? "

Well......we WERE talking about a recruiting drive specifically designed to put more wiminfolk into the Cbt Arms, but we appear to have lost our way, thanks in a large part due to...well.......me.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Jarnhamar

> a recruiting drive specifically designed to put more wiminfolk into the Cbt Arms



What a horrible idea. Instead of trying to target someones race, gender or sexual preference, why not try to attract "people" who enjoy challange, want to help people and be a professional soldier.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> Honestly as much as it pains me to say it - the two 031 females in 1 PPCLI are some of the better troops. Instead of cryign about integration and other fluff - concentrate on the standard - achieve it or STFU.
> 
> The CF would have been served to a much higher degree by taking the $ that went into that studies and its spin offs, and buying bullets for troops to train.



AMEN BROTHER!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

IMHO regardless of race or sex, I think all occupations in Canada (including combat arms) should be filled with the best qualified first.If that means a 5 foot nothing chinese female is chosen over a 6 foot body building white male, because she wants to be there and can do the job better, then so be it, it will only make the forces stronger.

 There will always be people out there that say for instance, women could never do the job of an infanteer but that is in reality a biased opinion in that "Do you know every woman out there?

 No I dont think there should be any sort of drive to recruit women because if a woman truly wants to join a trade, and can do the job, nobody should say she cant.

  Put things into the perspective of deoderant testers.There are those out there that feel sniffing armpits are for them and there are those that wouldnt enjoy it.Should you then give a signing bonus and perks to attract more sniffers into the industry?Or should you leave things alone and let the nasaly challenged come out of the woodwork on their own.


----------



## Angela F.

Ok, I know that this is a pretty silly question, and that this is one of the least important things to be thinking about if you are going to BMQ, but talking about 'female issues' brought this to mind...   I would imagine there is not time to be shaving your legs regularly - lightning fast showers and all.   So I was wondering what most women choose to do about this.   Thanks!


----------



## bojangles

Beleive it or not...you're not the only one who has thought about this...so have I! Shave fast I suppose or the other way that I see it is I can shave my legs faster than most men can shave thier face. So, if the men have enough time to take care of thier business, I guess we do too.

Bojangles


----------



## LittlePammy

I would definitley agree with you on the speed that most women are able to shave their legs.  My ex husband would be done shaving half of his face meanwhile I had finished my lower legs and underarms in that same amount of time.


----------



## Angela F.

What about waxing before you leave? (ouch! :-X)


----------



## bojangles

I'll probably do that! Although it hurts a little it's worth the time saving.

Bojangles


----------



## LL

hi every one 
it just seems all the perspectives are from guys.(no offense) but i was just wondering where all girls are. I was really hoping if can any one (meaning female) tell me how they found the whole Basic training coarse and   what are all the positive and negative aspects of it. :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

There are a few out there.  Just keep an I out.


----------



## 9nr Domestic

There are some women around just keep looking and searching.....

here is a thread to get you started re: What to bring to St. Jean: Female perspective

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24969.0.html


----------



## bojangles

Hi LL,
I am a female but I can't help you with your questions about basic...well not yet anyway. I go for BMQ training on the 26th of this month. Do you have a date yet for when you are going? Feel free to PM me if I can answer any questions for you

Bojangles


----------



## canadiancarebear

Bring whatever you want for personnal items but be prepared to have them stuck in storage.  if your going officer you'll have your own little cupboard in your room where you can keep things like facial products,makeup, purse etc....not to sure if it is the same for the enlisted course.  Iam quite the heavy packer and I love my facial producys and such and i made out fine...good luck


----------



## GIJANE

I'm a chick too but i never did basic, just Arty battle school, i was a reservist, got in in '95, so i bypassed basic, goodluck.

Jane


----------



## Gunnar

How did you bypass Basic?  I thought everyone had to do Basic!


----------



## Lost_Warrior

Yea, that doesnt make much sense.  Everyone goes through basic..


----------



## GIJANE

o.k. let me re-phrase that    i did QL2/QL3 (basic)  reserve course, i didn't do Basic when i got in the reg force i did my Arty battle school, i didn't go to St. Jean.

Jane


----------



## combat_medic

I'm female and did my QL2 in '99. What can I help you with?


----------



## Gouki

BTW guys it makes perfect sense. Recruit School By-pass cause as she said she was a reservist with time in


----------



## belka

[Moderator edit - not appropriate]


----------



## goshofmosh

I'm female i'm 17  i've been in for about a year an half and just finsihed all my basic over last year and the summer and I had a blast you do get a little more critisim from some of the guys like one warrent called me a midget all summer but non the less it was fun just don't try and stick out as a female and just be one of the guys and everythings fine. the ruck sack was a killer for me cause i'm short but jst practice keep up in PT and everything will be good


----------



## Heavy_Duty391

Hey tx to all fr so good info...I wont have any problems with my hair, bcse I shaved it all...LOL
There is a question about how we will be able to keep contact with our people.
Are we going to be able to give calls, do we have access to a computer fr email and stuff???.  
How about cell phone are we allowed???...
I'll be fine, but I'm going to miss my man fr sure, just wanted to know how I'll be able to talk to him and how often????..lol...
My bf is a traffic tech. in Greenwood, NS...and I'm going fr Infantry (though one, huh, we wont be able to be together bfre atleast 2 or 3 years :'()...

Also, I heard that during basic in St-Jean, we have until like the week 6 if we by any idea wanted to change our trade?  Is it true or just a urban story...lol

thanks in advanced
Cheers


----------



## Pea

Heavy_Duty391 said:
			
		

> There is a question about how we will be able to keep contact with our people.
> Are we going to be able to give calls, do we have access to a computer fr email and stuff???.
> How about cell phone are we allowed???...
> I'll be fine, but I'm going to miss my man fr sure, just wanted to know how I'll be able to talk to him and how often????..lol...



I have not been to basic myself, as I am still in the recruitment process. But my boyfriend was in St-Jean for basic in the fall, and he usually found time to call me about twice a week. I know that after his 4th week he spent his weekends off base, relaxing, so he found more time to call me then. He also had access to a computer for e-mail, I know he said it was usually busy and it cost money to use it.
Hope that helps a little!


----------



## armygal

Ok sorry but I am going back to the topic of hair.  I have long very curly hair, and frizzy.  I really want to try to keep all of my hair.  I was wondering if anyone could tell me the best way to put it up and keep it down because it is frizzy. and one other thing do the bangs have to go up as well or can I wear them down.  Thanks in advance for the help.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

Gel, gel and more gel, and bobby pins will be your new best friends. And a hairnet on top of the bun, nice and neat.


----------



## armygal

Great I will keep all that in mind.  Now what about the bangs do they have to be put back as well.


----------



## LL

Thanks every one for all the advice. I just had one more question about "that time of he month". It might be silly to ask but what if you don't want to use the pills to stop your period.


----------



## LL

let me elaborate on that. I mean I don't suppose anyone would be given time off if you get cramps come during training


----------



## nurse sarah

Bangs...very attractive sticking up when you take off your beret! lol. I have bangs too. Basically just tuck 'em up in your beret and hope for the best when you take it off! In the field you dont really need to tuck them up since the helmet and funny hat come down more. A friend of mine has very long and curly hair. She found that if her hair was really wet it was easier to put up and i think she used hairspray as well as gel.(she has really crazy hair!) hope some of that helps! cheers!


----------



## qor556

LL said:
			
		

> let me elaborate on that. I mean I don't suppose anyone would be given time off if you get cramps come during training



Ah, you wish  "but MCPL I have cramps". The only situation I could see this working is if you are hunched over and in the fetal position lol


----------



## medicjade

Hi Everyone! I was just wondering if anyone else is going to Wainwright this summer for BMQ?? 

And thanks for all the great tips, I appreciate it!


----------



## qor556

Well I haven't completed it all yet but I can help out a bit...

Positive:                                                                                               Negative: (hmm does not even compare to positive aspects)
-test the limits of your "intestinal fortitude"  -drive, motivation               -less sleep than usual
-get a little dirty                                                                                    -its a "dry" course (no alcohol)
-become a part of a new "family"                                                            -having to deal with your female problems at the wost possible time
-get paid pretty well                                                                               -spend a whole 2 months away from friends and family (unless you see
-use weapons you legally can't in civi life (unless your from scarb.  )        them on your time off)
-actually have a balanced diet                                                                 -spending time up in the Meaf (if you are) 
-improve on your physical fitness                                                            -"Marching Everywhere" and having MPs that try to bust you for anything  :-*
~And serve your country.                                                                        -almost forgot, eating IMPs

remember your mind is your strongest muscle...


----------



## Glorified Ape

canadiancarebear said:
			
		

> Bring whatever you want for personnal items but be prepared to have them stuck in storage.   if your going officer you'll have your own little cupboard in your room where you can keep things like facial products,makeup, purse etc....not to sure if it is the same for the enlisted course.   Iam quite the heavy packer and I love my facial producys and such and i made out fine...good luck



Wha?! They didn't let us keep anything in those cupboards for inspection and the shoebox they gave us to keep personal items in (kept in the drawer under the bed) could fit very little. 

Just a question: why would you bother with the civvy-ablutions regimen when everyone's too busy to notice or care how you look? The women in our platoon dispensed with that stuff pretty quickly during the week and I can't think of a single one of us that cared.


----------



## LL

> Ah, you wish  "but MCPL I have cramps". The only situation I could see this working is if you are hunched over and in the fetal position lol




I thought so. lol.  how did you find the whole experience?


----------



## 28Medic

Back to the hair question...
I have very long, thick, curly hair and it is in long layers.
I recommend only using "hair pins"...not bobby pins. The difference is the shape, the hair pins are "v" shaped. They work better with thick or curly hair then bobby pins, when you buy a pack, there is usually three different sizes or thickness to the pins...I use only the thickest/strongest ones and chuck the other two sizes...so buy more than one pack.
Buy both hair nets and pins in the closest colour to your hair colour, I also recommend buying clear "ouchless" elastics to hold the pony tail...that way it won't ever show through.

*Directions for doing a lightening fast bun:*

Use damp hair, put in some sort of gel product/anti-friz product etc
Put hair into a pony tail...not too low and not too high.
Twist pony tail into a tight ringlet, as you do this, wrap the pony tail around itself, keeping it flat to your head.
Take a hair pin into one free hand (you should have already put a couple of hair pins in your mouth)
Take the hair pin and stick one end of the v shaped pin into your hair by your scalp and stick the other end of the hair pin into the bun.
Warning..do not go into the thickest part of the bun, try to catch the edges of the bun to secure the pins.
Follow a clock pattern in putting the pins in...ie. 3 o'clock then 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock and then 6 o'clock and then fill in where it feels loose.
Now put a thin hair net over top of the bun, by pulling it tight, then twist it over and reapply back over the bun, repeat until net is tight...you can then use one or two more pins to secure the net in place if you need to

Remember you won't be able to do this for field portions since you can't wear a helmet with a bun...for this do one or two french braids (try to avoid pins in the field...they hurt with helmets on)
Practice Practice Practice...I can do all those steps in less then two minutes.
As for bangs...I have bangs and they do some funny things sometimes...but even guys get beret head if they leave it a little long on top, so keep them a little shorter than usual and there won't be as much of an issue!

Good luck
Denise
(aka hair goddess)


----------



## armygal

Thanks so much Denise.  It sounds to me that you have the same hair as I do, and I really am determined to not cut it off while I am on BMQ.  I have 3 weeks to practice before I leave.  Once again thanks for your help and everyone else as well.

Armygal


----------



## qor556

LL said:
			
		

> I thought so. lol.  how did you find the whole experience?



It was some experience I tell you. For me personally the first week or two actually took a little bit of adjusting to get used to. It is the whole "break you down, build you up again" period. That is the time (at least I've observed) where most people decide if it is what they want to do or not. The most important thing is to get yourself into the mindframe that you should not take anything personally and look at it as a huge learning experience, trying to absorb as much as you can from your instructors. Looking back now the course was not very difficult (i stress now) and if you begin prepared mentally and physically and keep optimistic in the most adverse conditions you will do absolutely fine. I am still waiting on this summer to finish the rest of my training (BIQ) -should have done BMQ during the year- meh no loss. As for any other tips, you can find it all over the website but make sure you bring two shave kits-one for use and one for inspection, lots of baby wipes, surplus of hairnets (they rip all the time) and other hair products. Jeeze, all this talk about makeup, no need at all, cam paint will be the closest thing you will be using haha. Oh and probably a tweezer for those eyebrows if you have any extra time. What else, speaking of cam paint make sure you bring good facewash, I have seen people with the best skin break out.

I am not sure if you are doing the BOTP or just basic training (for my case reserve) but I assume it is similar. GOOD LUCK!


----------



## LL

by the way,coming back to hair. oh my hair!!! I definitely want to keep it all in braids b'cos if i let my 'fro' out it would take me at least an hour to comb it in the mornings!! (seriously, I'm not exaggerating.....OK maybe a tiny bit ;D). But I don't know if I can put my braided hair in a bun so I might have to go bald !!   Just kidding!! But  I might have to get it really low... :'( . If there's any alternative someone PLEASE!! let me know.


----------



## 28Medic

Dress regs now say that you can leave hair in french braids (one or two) with out tucking them or putting them in a bun.
Before this reg change, I used to do two braids and tuck the end up under and into the opposite braid and pin it there. Very Heidi....


----------



## swanita

Ok, here's the most important thing u need to know (been teaching for a while now, plus remember from my own way back when..) it's all mental. When there's screaming, don't take it personally it's part of an instructor's job (a perk i like to call it).  As long as you don't take things too personally & can get by with being physically uncomfortable at times, you'll do fine. The course itself isn't terribly hard as long as you do what your told, ask questions if you don't understand something, loose any attitude (learn to bite your tongue) you should do fine.

Hope that helps!!


----------



## LL

thanks everyone for all the advice. It was very helpful.

LL


----------



## medicjade

Thanks for the advice as well.. I needed it! I am going to Winnipeg on 30th of June for my BMQ/SQ, I am a girl, and I am excited yet nervous about what to expect. However, your words seemed to help with the iddy bitty nervousness I have.. Thanks again!


----------



## X Royal

If the hand grenade is still part of basic (BMQ/SQ) be forwarned they are very loud.

When instructing on a reserve TL2 basic in the early nineties in Ipperwash I had one female who was quite nervous of this phase. Thinking if I put her through the bay first when she succeeded the rest of the course would see how easy it was and the rest would proceed smoothly. *WRONG* Although nervous she prepared the grenade, removed the pin, thru the grenade and got down below the wall. All good.* BANG* She wet herself. Well I tried. ;D


----------



## NavComm

X Royal said:
			
		

> If the hand grenade is still part of basic (BMQ/SQ) be forwarned they are very loud.
> 
> When instructing on a reserve TL2 basic in the early nineties in Ipperwash I had one female who was quite nervous of this phase. Thinking if I put her through the bay first when she succeeded the rest of the course would see how easy it was and the rest would proceed smoothly. *WRONG* Although nervous she prepared the grenade, removed the pin, thru the grenade and got down below the wall. All good.* BANG* She wet herself. Well I tried. ;D



thanks for the warning, i'll make sure to pack my depends lol


----------



## scaddie

I'm female...have done BMQ, but am waiting my SQ/Infantry course this summer. So far, it's been awesome. Definitly one of the best decisions I've made so far in my life.  The  whole weapons thing creeped me out a bit at first, but after you go on your shoot and get used to them, they're so much fun.  PM me if you want.


----------



## jswift872

scaddie you in the PLF??


----------



## scaddie

Actually I'm with the West Novies.


----------



## jswift872

right on, i was just wondering, as I'm a sq qualified soldier waiting for BIQ this summer in the PLF


----------



## GIJANE

X Royal said:
			
		

> If the hand grenade is still part of basic (BMQ/SQ) be forwarned they are very loud.
> 
> When instructing on a reserve TL2 basic in the early nineties in Ipperwash I had one female who was quite nervous of this phase. Thinking if I put her through the bay first when she succeeded the rest of the course would see how easy it was and the rest would proceed smoothly. *WRONG* Although nervous she prepared the grenade, removed the pin, thru the grenade and got down below the wall. All good.* BANG* She wet herself. Well I tried. ;D



Wow, i hope she didn't go Arty  :

Jane


----------



## proudnurse

I was wondering if there were female soldiers on here too! If so it would be cool to chat with you and learn the challenges of army life from your point of view as well. Thanks ~ Rebecca


----------



## SemperFidelis

Hey all...Im 20 Female...I Just finished my interview, aptitude and medical few days ago and I have to do my fitness still...I have to call and schedule it myself so ill probably set it up for mid august...I applied for Combat Engineer..any gals headng that way?? I talked to my interviewer she said that my application probably wont go in for this selection board so Ill be on the Sept. 5th most likely and she told me to expect to be in the early to mid Oct BMQ ..Im excited..!!! You can contact me at semper_fidelis7@hotmail.com if anyone wants to chat it up!  :threat: :skull: :threat:


----------



## R.Jacquel

Ok I need this question to be answer by someone who is serving in the armed forces. I'm in a Police Foundations course and will be joining the military soon after I'm done, one of my class mates seems to think that women can fight on the front lines in situations other then extreme cases; ei: there vehicle broke down on near the front line and they advanced to the front line to meet up with friendly units. So are women aloud to fight on the front line? Thats my question.


----------



## George Wallace

YES!

There are women serving in Armour and Infantry.  There are also women serving in the Artillery and Engineers.  These women are in the Combat Arms and Combat Support.  There are also women serving in the Service Battalions and other Logistic jobs in the Combat Service Support Trades.  So there will be women serving from the Front right on back to the Rear.


----------



## wack-in-iraq

oh man, this one is gonna get ugly.........


----------



## Chimo

First, in asymmetric warfare that is being fought in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no front line. That is a dynamic of noncontiguous warfare. You fight the bad guys where they show up or the intelligence leads. 

If you check the stats on causalities the Americans have suffered in Iraq you will note many non-combat arms and women amongest them. Being is support roles does not negate them from the KIA list. Women do not have the opportunity to serve in the American combat arms units.  This is unfortunate for if they were able, I am sure, the Americans would experience the same level of professionalism that many of our women display in those very roles. Our women are "allowed to fight" where ever they are ordered.


----------



## combat_medic

Just to add to what's already been said, in the Canadian Forces women are allowed to serve with any branch, trade, ship, and in any form of duty, provided they meet the requirements. This includes Special Forces (although I don't think any are serving there yet), Search and Rescue (in which there is one woman... cheers to her), Submarines, all combat arms, pilots, and everything else.

The only exception is that of Catholic Chaplain, but that is an imposition set by the Catholic church. 

Now, since the question is answered, and there are about fifty thousand posts on women in the military, I'm locking this one up.


----------



## boots

In theory, women are equal to men in the CF. The rules say so, etc. Of course equal opportunity is something that's not usually quite real, let alone in something like the military. I hope it's not TOO much worse than the civilian world. Normally we have to work like 10 times harder than you guys for the same recognition. Maybe in the military it's more like 20-30 times? lol
What can I expect? I've already been warned about horny young guys who will try to do things for me in training to get in my favour, but not much else.


----------



## paracowboy

you can expect your Chain of Command to demand exactly the same amount of effort from you as they do any of your peers, regardless of gender, race, religion, or hair colour. You all start at the same starting line. Where you finish is entirely up to you.

Put forth the effort, be recognized as such. Screw up, same thing. After all, bullets and bombs don't care what's between your legs. Why should we?


----------



## Old Ranger

cuteboots said:
			
		

> I've already been warned about horny young guys who will try to do things for me to get in my favour.




That in particular is standard throughout the Animal Kingdom.
..and not just the young ones, just us older ones are more sophisticated about it.

As for the rest, Green is Green (or Cadpat)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_Normally we have to work like 10 times harder than you guys for the same recognition._ 

Maybe when you mentally put yourself behind this stupid self-imposed 8 ball it probably is.

MOD NOTE:  I'm getting sick of this battle of the sexes that has sprung up lately, there are websites who cater to just that kind of crap, go there and post.


----------



## Slim

Cuteboots asked me to post a reply of hers in this thread. As it is appropriate I am going to do so. For Cuteboots I say this it takes a very big person to admit to being wrong, especially when you believe that your stance is the right one...It takes a bigger person to admitit in public!

Good for you Cuteboots! 

Cheers

Slim

"If the military does not discriminate, then I am glad. That is what I was trying to find out. Either way, I intend to be the best soldier/sailor/aircrew I can, regardless of any real or perceived discrimination or lack thereof.

I am very inquisitive by nature. This sometimes gets me into trouble, as it seems to have here. I think this was a useful lesson for me in being more careful about how I say things. I'm sorry that my comments came across badly. I will strive to be more careful in the future.

I'd also like to add that I re-read my original post and I realise now that it was inappropriate. I'd like to apologise for being so offensive, and thank you for the opportunity to make amends.

Cuteboots"


----------



## sahands

I know that every guy who is in the army have to have their head shaved, what I don't understand is why women get special treatment? Virtually all the women get to keep their hair (at least to about shoulder length) while the guys don't get the same privilege, is there something that I've missed or are women getting simply getting treated better and receive such special privileges simply because of their sex?


----------



## Michael OLeary

No, men DO NOT "have to have their head shaved".

See this thread for CF Hair Regulations (males, females, cultural, & colouring)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22553.0.html

Now, do you have a point, or did you just want to bitch about something you haven't prroperly researched.


----------



## Infanteer

Do a search on women in combat and what not - this topic has been covered in great detail....


----------



## Munner

One thing that I would like to see go is the ponytails. I find a bun, or some form of hairstyle that keeps the hair up and off the shoulders looks more professional. On course you always hear that you have to work as a team - you try to be the same in every way - then when you are formed up you see trim collars and then one pony tail sticking out. 

I'm not trying to be a troll here, it's a valid concern. Any thoughts?


----------



## KevinB

:

You know its pretty sad to see Hair becoming an issue - or more accurately being protrayed as an issue.  I've been deployed with women, I've been on course with them - they manage their hair - we shave BFD...

 I really dislike trolls, or empty profile folks that toss out inflammatory comments, leads for threads without any solid basis.

 Back in the day, we all ran thru with the same hair (no women), these days I don't think they run 1's and 2's on candidates.  However who cares its hair - despite some bizarre blathering to the contrary having short hait does not make you a better soldier (neither does having the NAVSOF hippie look either) - You are the sum of you efforts and abilities.


----------



## NavComm

I got my hair cut at the canex with the men while in Borden. I didn't get a buzz cut, but a short woman's haircut. I can see this thread turning into a flame war. The guys never shaved their heads. Most got just regular short cuts. Guys at my unit have their hair tipped with colour, look very stylish and I've never heard any of them lament how they 'can't wear their hair long'. Women at my unit wear it above the collar or in a bun, relaxed pony tail sometimes (depends on orders of the day?).

When I was in Borden, it was over 40 c on the parade square, so the short hair felt good. I normally wear my hair short anyways, but I know guys at my unit whose hair hits their collar and it's not a problem as far as I know.


----------



## Slim

Forget it, this isn't going to happen.

locked.

  Sahands Sort yourself out and don't post garbage like this agian or you'll go through the warning system PDQ!

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Mirage

Sorry for digging up an old thread but this seemed the appropriate place to ask this question.

Regarding taking birth control pills at basic, do we need to let the instructors know we're taking them or bring some type of doctor’s note or prescription or do I just bring enough to last me through basic and they don't need to be informed?

Also are we allowed to bring Apron type drugs (Advil, Tylenol etc) to keep in our personal boxes?

I did do a search on various related topics but I found conflicting responses.  If anyone who been to basic in basic recently could reply I would be more grateful.


----------



## LittlePammy

Hi Mirage,
I am currently on my BMQ.  Just 3 weeks to go.  As far as BC goes, bring enough with you.  When you go out to Farnham, don't take the pink (sugar pills) just keep taking the actual BC Pills so that you don't end up with your cycle out there.   The women in our platoon were taken aside and it was suggested for us to do this as it can be quite messy with no showers when you are out in the field.   I have had no problems with bringing my Advil, tylenol, buckleys, neocitrine and all other medications that I have brought.  Mind you none of them are prescriptions so not sure what the procedure would be for that.  You do get sick alot there so be prepared.  I went 5 years without even so much as a cold and in the 8 weeks in St. Jean I have had Bronchitis twice.  
P


----------



## Mirage

Thanks for the info, one less thing for me to worry about before I go.


----------



## lemckert

well its people like this cadet who give them a bad name...


----------



## chrisf

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Few and far between....



At this juncture, I would like to make a comment concerning the NavRes, however, it may be construed as harrasment, and as such, I will refrain.

And on the subject of army stories not working on army women, true, but it's been my experience army stories don't generally work on civvie women either, and the joy of females in the army is that most have learned to accept or at least live with all dirty, disgusting, and downright things that come naturally to all males (Even gay men fart and scratch themselves in the morning. It's a fact of life.)


----------



## geo

Sigop...
If you think that what men do amongst themselves is disgusting you should see what women do among themselves (when they don't think someone is watching)

bunch of guys go into a strip club. they'll drink their beer, talk amongst themselves, watch the show but relatively well behaved - 
bunch of women go into a strip club - these "ladies" are bad, real bad...... (and willing to admit it)


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> Sigop...
> bunch of women go into a strip club - these "ladies" are bad, real bad...... (and willing to admit it)



Oh please Geo... Us ladies would never behave in such a manner!


----------



## Aislinn

Please tell me this topic is at its end. It's tiring, frustrating, and seldom interesting anymore. The cadet was, um, interesting though. I've never actually met anyone in cadets, despite my mom being a civvie instructor for them.


----------



## chrisf

geo said:
			
		

> Sigop...
> If you think that what men do amongst themselves is disgusting you should see what women do among themselves (when they don't think someone is watching)



No doubt, but I'm referring to the remarks of distgust we males recieve about it.



> bunch of guys go into a strip club. they'll drink their beer, talk amongst themselves, watch the show but relatively well behaved -
> bunch of women go into a strip club - these "ladies" are bad, real bad...... (and willing to admit it)



Several stories invovling women and strip clubs here that I'll refrain from telling


----------



## muskrat89

... and with that, I'll lock this - for the most part, it was a very old thread anyway. If someone has something substantial to add, PM one of the Mods to re-open, or better yet - start a fresh thread. Thanks.


----------



## Pte Barbie

Hey Everyone!

I am new to Army.ca and as well to the forces. Are there any other ladies who have joined that are on this site? I know there are plenty of men, obviously, and that there are a few resources I found on the net for wives of military men. Just bringing up some topics should there be other women in the military here interested in talking about being a woman in the forces.

In general, I wanted to bring up femininity. My boyfriend is afraid that I will lose it and turn into a guy during my training. I know that the training will change my life, but I don't think I am going to confuse myself with a man, ya know? If there are any men here as well who have some wisdom in this area I am more than welcome to hear different views.

Peace

Pte Barbie


----------



## old medic

Hello, and welcome to army.ca Pte. Barbie.

There are a number of ladies on this site.  Here are a few threads that might 
help answer your questions.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25011.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27970.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24969.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32145.0.html


----------



## Sepulchrave

After seeing those pics of the Nijmegan march, it occured to me that it's impossible for a group of soldiers to seem proud and martial when there is a squat middle-aged woman marching among them. 

Most discussion regarding this topic has been about the competence of women as soldiers. I'd like to discuss their effect on morale and the 'esperit de corps' of the male soldiiers and the perception of the armed forces among young Canadian men who form the vast majority of recruits.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

Oh Sh*t Heads down!!!


----------



## OLD F of S

Does that mean you only march with Britney Spears, get over it. 




                                 Regards OLD F of S


----------



## Fraser.g

If they can march then they can march

This is a troll fishing trip

Mods...


----------



## Slim

Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> After seeing those pics of the Nijmegan march, it occured to me that it's impossible for a group of soldiers to seem proud and martial when there is a squat middle-aged woman marching among them.
> 
> Most discussion regarding this topic has been about the competence of women as soldiers. I'd like to discuss their effect on morale and the 'esperit de corps' of the male soldiiers and the perception of the armed forces among young Canadian men who form the vast majority of recruits.



Locked

Sorry bud, 

I'm sure you know better. This one is going to cost you.

Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Unlocked.....keep it relevant folks....


----------



## WCST

Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> After seeing those pics of the Nijmegan march, it occured to me that it's impossible for a group of soldiers to seem proud and martial when there is a squat middle-aged woman marching among them.
> 
> Most discussion regarding this topic has been about the competence of women as soldiers. I'd like to discuss their effect on morale and the 'esperit de corps' of the male soldiiers and the perception of the armed forces among young Canadian men who form the vast majority of recruits.



Uh yeah. I'm going to attempt this one. I'm new here, so this may be my first AND last post, but lemme try.

First of all, if you're LOOKING at the pics of the Nijmegan march and not actually IN the pics, then I'd say any soldier who can finish the march, whether they're tall, squat, young or middle-aged, male or female is probably one up on you. If you can show me a picture where you're in the middle of the March, then perhaps you'd have a leg to stand on (no pun intended).

I've been in this outfit in one capacity or another for over 20 years, so perhaps, even though I'm not a "young Canadian man" I may have a point of view on the esprit de corps question.

If a guy has a problem with a chick working beside him, or as his boss, then he needs to take his head out of his butt and realize it's the 21st Century. We live in a 1st world country, not the middle ages in Morocco (nothing against Morocco, it was the first place that came to mind). 

Why judge a person on if they're a man or woman? Wouldn't you rather be noticed for your performance (or lack thereof) than your gender? The military can't get enough recruits as it is, never mind being choosy about gender. If a woman wants to do the job and CAN do the job, why not let her? What's the big dealio? 

Trust me, if someone is upset that there's a woman working beside him, it's HIS problem, not hers.

M :brickwall:


----------



## Gunner

> Uh yeah. I'm going to attempt this one. I'm new here, so this may be my first AND last post, but lemme try.



I don't think there was anything wrong with your first post and I hope you will stick around.  Welcome to army.ca.


----------



## Danjanou

I'm with Gunner, based on that post you'll do well here. BTW Morocco is one of the more "advanced" and progressive of the Arab nations in regards to social changes based on what I saw. You could even buy beer in the local corner stores. 8)


----------



## WCST

Thanks guys.

Ok, not Morocco. How about Saudi? Or Syria? Or Zimbabwe even?  

M :brickwall:


----------



## geo

WCST people who protest are often encouraged (enraged) to protest - to distract from their own shortcomings.
There are plenty of women who don't cut it in the combat arms - same as there are men who don't cut it in the combat arms.


----------



## WCST

Chimo, I never said there weren't women who couldn't cut it. You're putting words into my mouth and reading into what I said what you want to see. This is what I said, "If a woman wants to do the job and *CAN* do the job, why not let her?" That's what I meant, nothing more.

M :brickwall:


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

What effect does having women in the ranks have on fighting soldiers?  Honestly, it helps.  I remember during an infantry ex back in basic in '88, we had three women with us, one was your classic cheerleader type, and there was a lot of lip from one of the he-man athlete types about if they were tough enough.  I will always remember how cheerful she was as she carried that lame SOB's C2 and webbing in addition to her own on the way back down the mountain.  Turns out he was the one who wasn't tough enough.  One of the women washed out, two stayed.  That's a better record than the men had through the same basic training.  Having a few women around keeps the men more balanced, a good thing for troop performance when your overseas and under stress for a long period of time.  For anybody who wants to trot out that old problem nonesense about sexual tension destroying discipline; you neither give the men and women in uniform any credit for self discipline, nor have ever done a tour in Cyprus and had to watch the Turks with only male recruits   No offense to the homosexuals out there; the issue has always been professionalism, not sexual gender or orientation.


----------



## geo

WCST... I don't see where I am dissagreeing with you ???

If women WANT to be in a combat arm trade (example) and they are capable / competent at doing said job, then leave the to do the job.....


----------



## WCST

Yeah, sorry Geo. I misread your post.

M :brickwall:


----------



## Angel

Hey everyone!!
I am VERY new to this site.. & i am a female woundering about infantry  it really excites me, and i am in great physical shape ( well at least i think so ) Is It wrong for a female to be interested in it? I know here there are a few women in it but i am only now hopefully going away as of july for basic traning!! Yay for me  I am just a little worried i have no clue what to expect so any insite here or any information on what might be in store for me

Angel


----------



## MikeL

Search around, theres a few threads on females in the Infantry, what BMQ is like for females, etc.


----------



## Praying Mantis

Hi Angel  



> Hey everyone!!
> I am VERY new to this site.. & i am a female woundering about infantry Smiley it really excites me, and i am in great physical shape ( well at least i think so ) Is It wrong for a female to be interested in it? I know here there are a few women in it but i am only now hopefully going away as of july for basic traning!! Yay for me Smiley I am just a little worried i have no clue what to expect so any insite here or any information on what might be in store for me



It'll be soo fun! BMQ, for females, is no different than what it is for males. Well, I don't know what it's like for a male..  But, I had trouble with my PT, so if you're in good physical shape - don't worry about the PT part. You'll learn about the military way of life, and you'll write tests, you'll learn weapons, navigation, mapping, and drill. Just pay attention, and study for your tests. Look good for inspection! For example, make sure if you have long hair, no loose hairs are hanging out of your bun/braid  As long as you pay attention, act like a soldier, and work hard - it'll be fun! 

Good Luck!


----------



## Amsdell

I'm female as well.  My BMQ starts soon and I'm only really worried about my height.  Being 5'2", its a source of worry for me and was forever, (especially during gym class back at school where they would lineup everyone by height and I was always last).  The rest is fixable with working out.  To all the future CF women the only thing I can say is stop thinking of yourself as a woman and think of yourself as a soldier only.  It eases things.


----------



## NadineR

hey, 

how are women treated in the army...ive heard bad things but i dunno 
id love to do this ...just to really show my x boyfriend i can do something with my life 
instead of working in boston pizza or something 

Nadine


----------



## Pea

Hi,

Welcome to army.ca

The search function is your friend here. Most topics have been discussed many times and can be found by a simple search. I searched using "women" and found two relevant threads right away. For example:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27742.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25011.0.html

Please take the time to search before posting.

Also, MSN Speak does not fly here. Please use as proper writing skills as you can. It makes it a heck of a lot easier to read and that means more people will be inclined to respond.

Happy Reading.


----------



## camochick

Pea for mod, pea for mod!!! haha you're a bossy one, but I still wear the pants in this marriage haha!!! >


----------



## Pea

camochick said:
			
		

> Pea for mod, pea for mod!!! haha you're a bossy one, but I still wear the pants in this marriage haha!!! >



Isn't that what my fancy blue bar under my name means?......oh wait nevermind, I am just a subscriber.  ;D


----------



## Centurian1985

NadineR said:
			
		

> how are women treated in the army...ive heard bad things but i dunno
> id love to do this ...just to really show my x boyfriend i can do something with my life
> instead of working in boston pizza or something



Women have the same rights as men in this military force, same as on the civilian side of the street.  A lot of how you are treated depends on how you act, the same as with any other soldier.  However, be sure its what you want to do.  Dont join up just to 'show up' your x-boyfriend.  If thats all you want to do, get a richer or bigger boyfriend.  If you want to do something with your life, as part of improving yourself because you want to, the recruiting center cant be too far away...


----------



## TMM

NadineR said:
			
		

> id love to do this ...just to really show my x boyfriend i can do something with my life



The CF, and any employer for that fact, myself included could not care less as to what one's ex thinks of someone. All employers care about is what you can do, not who you do it for.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Not to denigrate the military, but there are lots of things you can "do" to lead a full and productive life short of signing up.  Working at Boston Pizza can certainly be included - its not necessarily what you do, but how you do it, that counts. The only one that will ultimately be able to make you feel satisfied in what you're doing is you. 

As indicated already, a talk to a recruiter would be a good way to start. That is what they are there for - look up Recruiting in the Yellow Pages, then come back here if you still have specific questions that they can't answer for you.

Good luck.


----------



## NadineR

well at least women got rights...and i want this for myself to...displine really..and i want to learn things
and be a better person ...but i also want to show my friends i can do soemthing to...
so ya ...but i dunno 
i want to join... 

Nadine :threat:


----------



## scoutfinch

You might want to develop a better command of the English language before going to the recruiter. 

Given your posts here, you reveal yourself to be an individual who fails to take pride in the message you wish to convey, too lazy to use proper English, and one who professes a dubious motivation for joining.  I am not sure these are the attributes being sought by the CF.


----------



## Burrows

Nadine, you're joining for the wrong reasons.  Joining the armed forces is something that shouldn't be taken up lightly, and should be done for yourself, not to prove yourself to others.  It requires serious long-term work.  Your reason for joining is to prove you can do something in your life, wrong reason.  You shouldn't have to prove yourself to anyone, just be the best you can be, and take a job you really want, not just one that you think can let you prove yourself.

You sure as hell don't need to prove anything to your EX-Boyfriend.  You aren't together anymore, and his criticism shouldn't affect you.  Do what you want, not what you think others want.


----------



## K_Johnston

I am fully for woman in the services, if they can do the job.  I talked to a armored vehicle mechanic at the local CF Base, and he was pretty mad because a girl got the same job he has, but cant carry all the equipment.  He can carry the wrench for the wheels and his full toolkit in one run.  He said (and I agree) it wasnt fair that she have that job if she had to make three trips to carry all the gear from point A to point B.  He was quite happy with another one though, who could carry everything (and kept singing her praises for the way she did it - adding a sling to the wrench).  If you can do the job, then please join, and ignore or report any jerks you come across, if you cant please pick something else.

Also should mention it since its come up quite a bit, meeting someone isnt a reason to join.  I will be going into the MP's (hopefully) within the next couple of years, because I like the job and feel I will be prepared to do it to the best of my ability.  Simple as that.


----------



## Michael OLeary

*Are we really ready for this?*
Women are not suited to combat role, Mike Strobel argues

http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2006/05/26/1598716-sun.html



> What a shame our armies are not manned, so to speak, by women.
> 
> The world would be at peace. Imagine all the people ...
> 
> You're dreaming, man.
> 
> Which leaves us with the thorny question of women serving in armies that are hellbent on slaughtering each other.
> 
> To me the answer is simple: Do not send women into combat.
> 
> Today, in Calgary, is the funeral of Capt. Nichola Goddard. She died last week in a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan. She was the first Canadian woman ever killed in combat.
> 
> "A soldier is a soldier," the DND tells me.
> 
> Hero-general Lew MacKenzie tells The Canadian Press: "The greatest respect I can pay to (her) is to treat it just like the death of another soldier -- with great respect and certainly no differently."
> 
> Fine. Capt. Goddard served and died, aged 26, for her country. She did it willingly and bravely. Nothing can diminish that.
> 
> GUT REACTION
> 
> But do not tell me your reaction to her face on our front page was the same as it was to the faces of the 16 brave Canadian men killed over there.
> 
> If you are human, you had an extra catch in your throat. You were uneasy, disbelieving.
> 
> Then, Len Fortune, a colleague and air force vet, shows me a page of photographs.
> 
> They are of American women killed in action in Iraq. The youngest is 19, the oldest 43. They are moms, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters.
> 
> There are 35, all killed by the enemy. Another dozen died in accidents. Four hundred have been wounded, many maimed.
> 
> It would be terrible if those faces were of young men.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it is even worse that they are of young women.
> 
> True, they are little more than 2% of the U.S. toll in Iraq.
> 
> But, I am surprised to learn, American women aren't even supposed to be in direct land combat roles.
> 
> Their deaths have come in mortar attacks on camps and ambushes of supply convoys.
> 
> Not what they call "combat arms" roles, though, of course, dead is dead.
> 
> "Should women go into a combat situation? We're already there. It's a moot point," a captain named Carmen tells the Philadelphia Inquirer.
> 
> This is new ground for the Yanks, too.
> 
> In Vietnam, eight female nurses died, one from hostile gunfire.
> 
> In the 1990s, distaff pilots and sailors were allowed. Only after 1994 could army women serve anywhere that put them in danger of capture.
> 
> Thus, Jessica Lynch's famous turn as PoW. And she was an unarmed clerk.
> 
> But Canada's is the only military in the world that puts females right up front, such as the observation post where Nicky Goddard died.
> 
> We can do so because a 1989 human rights ruling opened up all military roles to women.
> 
> "Through the '90s, we encouraged them to join 'combat arms,'" says DND spokesman Jay Paxton.
> 
> "The introduction of women increases the potential recruiting pool by 100% and provides opportunities for all people to serve their country to the best of their abilities.
> 
> "DND does not give any significance to gender in the armed forces."
> 
> Good for you. But the rest of us do.
> 
> NOT ABOUT EQUALITY
> 
> Even some feminists, at least those who are not knee-jerk on gender rights issues.
> 
> "We're adamantly opposed," says Janis Alton, co-chairman of Canadian Voice of Women for Peace.
> 
> "It gets mixed up with issues of equality, but it is not an enlightened step foward."
> 
> No. Women coming home draped in flags is hardly a sign of social enlightenment.
> 
> Yet there are 230 women among our troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> They aren't all in "combat arms," but they are all surely in harm's way.
> 
> Why our gut reaction to those photos of Capt. Goddard and her American comrades-in-arms?
> 
> This has naught to do with equal pay or equal rights or equal access or equal anything.
> 
> It has to do with the female of our species being kinder, gentler. The nurturer. Mom, for crying out loud.
> 
> It doesn't sit right.
> 
> We are used to men Killed In Action (KIA) in wars both hated and heroic.
> 
> We are not used to women KIA.
> 
> Why the hell do we want to get used to that?


----------



## couchcommander

So this gentlemen is arguing that we shouldn't allow someone to fight for their ideals, their beliefs, their values, their fathers, their mothers, their sons and daughters...because they have a pair of ovaries?


----------



## rick7475

If they can do the job, let them.

Police women have been doing an outstanding job on the line for decades and they face the risk of dying on duty. There are fire women, too.

Capt Goddard proved that she was great at what she did. Why deny the CAF such talent?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_We are used to men Killed In Action (KIA) in wars both hated and heroic._

Who the @$%* is this jerk-off to tell me I'm [ by means of "we"] "used to it".  I will never get "used to it".......talk about demeaning.


----------



## Tow Tripod

Mike Strobel
I cant believe that the Toronto Sun would publish a GARBAGE editorial like this.If a female from Canada is capable and willing to participant on combat operations all the power to her. In my opinion Mr Strobel you are diminishing the effort put forth by females in Canada that want and do participate on combat operations.The Canadian Armed forces is a equal opportunity employer to the bitter end.Mr Strobel you should hang your head in shame or at least give it a good shake!!!!

TOW TRIPOD

WE BREATH FIRE AND DEATH


----------



## GAP

Women are as capable as men when it comes to Combat Arms, but obviously some people don't get it. I find the article condescending towards women.
They are as brave and capable as any man out there and should be recognized for it. 

Are they different? Definitely!! But it is that difference that makes their inclusion so valuable. 

I often wonder how these pontificating reporters themselves would fare if embedded in the outfits, rather than sitting in Toronto and whining about something they know nothing about. 

I read the many articles by Christie Blatchford, who had an unbiased view of what it was like, I think it should only be fair to allow  Mike Strobel an "equal" opportunity. If fact, if we work at it, I bet we could "let" him have an exclusive interview with a Taliban fighter shooting at us at the very time he is shooting at us. Then he could find out for sure whether the Taliban distinguish the difference.   (Is anybody willing to "chip in" to pay for airfare over there for  Mike Strobel??)  rant off


----------



## aluc

_"I cant believe that the Toronto Sun would publish a GARBAGE editorial like this."_

Well, that's because the SUN is garbage! This editorial really makes very little sense, and is simply playing on the emotions of its readership. It's a rag worthy of cleaning my windshield.  Well, maybe except for the last page.....


----------



## CdnArtyWife

> GUT REACTION
> 
> But do not tell me your reaction to her face on our front page was the same as it was to the faces of the 16 brave Canadian men killed over there.
> 
> If you are human, you had an extra catch in your throat. You were uneasy, disbelieving.



Yeah, I had an extra catch in my throat, but not because Nic was female...

The extra catch was because I could relate to her, she was Arty, my hubby knew her, I had met her briefly, and she worked with several of our good friends, one of whom is now over there in her stead. 

But I felt no more sad than I did for Braun Scott Woodfield who was 2RCR or Cpl Jamie Murphy or Pte Nathan Smith. They all tugged at my heart, all the deaths do...as they do for everyone. We feel for all of them, then the pang of pride swoops in that they fell doing something they loved, serving their country for us at home. Each and every casualty in theatre has its own merrits that touch us. 

I think it is safe to say that Nic would say "hey, I'm just here doing my job...don't mind my ovaries" so if she wouldn't want people to make a big deal of her gender, then we should honor that.

Each and every death is a tragedy, regardless of how, or who.


----------



## Journeyman

Does anyone doubt that, if females were denied Combat Arms' line-serials, the Toronto Sun would be leading the torch-bearing mobs to root out that hoary Frankenstein monster of sexist CF oppression? 

We'd be bombarded with editorials demanding the CF get into the 21st century and accord our female soldiers their _rights_! Only backwards, undeveloped nations deny their women equality....(oh, and Notre Dame University, which for a Valentines Day basketball game was going to give the first 1,000 female spectators oven mitts - - 'cause women's place is, well, you know....)

And as for citing Janis Alton of Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, as being against women in combat.....gee, credible reporting there Mike. Let's file that with "Hells Angels think we have too much police presence." Of course, with this high-quality ( : ) style of journalism, Alton's quote, "We're adamantly opposed," could refer to _anything_. Based only upon what is here, it would not surprise me to find that Strobel had asked, "does your group support beating puppies," since he's obviously playing towards sympathies rather than thought. 

If he _had_ thought....his editorial would have merely echoed General MacKenzie: "The greatest respect I can pay to (her) is to treat it just like the death of another soldier -- with great respect and certainly no differently."  Full stop.


----------



## camochick

Way to go. Showing disrespect for a fallen soldier on the day of her funeral. Wow, Houston, we have a winner. I'm so glad to hear that this man thinks that I have no right to fight and perhaps die for my country if I so choose. It's 2006, this should be a non issue already.  >


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'm sure he has email.  Perhaps all those offended could let him know why.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

There are, if one digs deep (and I don't agree with them, incidentally), legitimate reasons to suggest that women might be less suited for combat than men (in general, as we've discussed here before)  - however, this article discusses none of them. There is also no legitimate reason to think that women are not suited for combat at all.  Again, nothing is discussed here but one person's opinion. The timing of this article is crass and the author comes off as a complete idiot. This was truly revolting. After the pouting about the PM, this is just another indication of how morally bankrupt the press has become in this country.


----------



## scm77

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I'm sure he has email.  Perhaps all those offended could let him know why.



Here ya go.

mike.strobel@tor.sunpub.com

or

editor@tor.sunpub.com


----------



## 2 Cdo

Maybe I'm not quite as thin-skinned as some, but I didn't see any disrespect in his column. A lot of Canadians, right or wrong, would agree with his column, again right or wrong. Now, I never served with Capt Goddard, but from the little I have read or heard about her she seemed like a fine young officer. I also tend to agree with Michael as I never get used to hearing about soldiers dying.

Again, for those who ranted about the Sun being a "rag" and for this column being "condescending" towards women, I honestly think you have read far too much into it and are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, right or wrong, maybe I'm just old fashioned, but the death of a woman or child anywhere does bother me more than that of a man. Don't get me wrong, both male and female deaths bother me but I think my upbringing tends to want to protect women and children, while letting men sort themselves out.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Pea

I definitely have to agree with the distasteful timing on this article. What kind of person with any kind of respect releases an article saying females should not be in a combat role, on the day of Capt. Goddard's funeral. I am sickened.

He says that we "ALL" felt worse when we saw her in the paper because she is a female. Well, don't group me in that, as I did not. The only time something would feel "worse" to me is if it was someone I knew or was connected to. I don't care if they are male or female, they are soldiers doing what they were trained to do.

I love how someone speaking as a "women's voice" is saying women shouldn't be in combat. Way to go princess, "fight for our rights", and then fight to get them limited.  : Thanks for coming out...

I have to agree with camochick on this one, it is 2006, why the heck are we still debating this nonsense.


----------



## GAP

I wonder if we would have had such a reaction if she had been killed in a traffic accident. Maybe women shouldn't drive. To dangerous.

She was doing her job, she was appreciateted for the professional she was, and our memory of her should be just that...the loss of a good soldier.


----------



## Rory

Maybe we should send Strobel to Afghanistan and let him see how you could be another local male or female but soon as you resist the Taliban, rattle of the AK is a comin. I just don't see his point, on one side ya it sucks we lost another soldier and thats a pain we have been going through for awhile now. But on another point he is basically saying women do not have the right to serve their country in their chosen way be it combat arms.


----------



## Gunner

> Does anyone doubt that, if females were denied Combat Arms' line-serials, the Toronto Sun would be leading the torch-bearing mobs to root out that hoary Frankenstein monster of sexist CF oppression?



I agree JM.  Newspapers operate in a competitive industry and their survival depends on selling papers, not informing/educating the public.  Bad/controversial articles and headlines sell those papers ....


----------



## military granny

My son knew Nichola and has told me she was damn good at her job, and was very good to the soldiers that served with her. Does this not say enough about women in the CF. Yes there are women in the combat arms as there are also women in Admin Coy's, Engineer Coy's and everywhere else in the CF, they are good at their jobs and that's why they are there.Don't get me wrong I'm not saying men aren't just as good at these jobs but all members of the forces choose where they want to work and excel at the jobs at hand.Nichola chose to be the FOO and from all accounts was a damn good one,and does it hurt any more or less cause she was a women....... no it still hurts because she was a part of the military family.


----------



## Gunnar

As has been discussed in the thread on the Ottawa Press corps, the press likes to make headlines, and spout outrage.

I find this issue particularly amusing, because the mainstream media has been pumping out the "first female casualty" line for weeks now, and most Canadians don't care any more than they did about the previous casualties....(10?).  Sorry guys...maybe this editorial is supposed to make us feel outraged, but it feels like too much effort.

**"Most Canadians" as judged by an informal survey of lunch-room and water-cooler discussions...How much have YOU  heard on the subject, except from the press, who appear to be trying again and again to make us upset, 'cept we're not buying into it.


----------



## Marauder

Well, I think Mike Strobel is not suited to a journalism role. Or any role that requires any critical thinking or intelligence.

You know what? Screw him. This weak-minded sucklechimp is feeling sorry about his widdle feelings of inadequacy because CPT Goddard had the gall to volunteer to serve her country and died defending it? Christ Almighty, there already too many people out there willing to live under the blanket of security placed upon them by people like CPT Goddard , and he's quesy because she's a female and was killed doing the job she trained for? Newsflash to the press, our people in A'Stan are not children, or mentally feeble, or one day went to the CFRC and the next magically found themselves in the sandbox in harm's way. OUR soldiers, the one's risking their *** for the body of Canada's citizens, are all (for the vast majority) intelligent, self-aware volunteers who have at least one year of military training before there is any thought of sending them overseas operationally. Someone in CPT Goddard's position has a lot of time, sweat, and blood invested in an Army career. Attendant to that is the knowledge that someday bad people might try to do bad things to them if the government of the day tells them to go into a hot zone. I keep hoping the MSM will pull their collective head out of their fat *** and recognize this, but they keep on proving me too optimistic of their intelligence and credibility.

Captain Goddard, you now are truly UBIQUE. I hope one day I will see you on the objective. Until then, we shall not forget.


----------



## Enzo

Wow, I've seen some crass things in my time. The timing would be amusing, if it wasn't for the... 'er, timing.

I don't understand why such people justify themselves by speaking for_ "all of us?"_ I don't recall being asked frankly. But since he wrote an editorial of such quality, I'm afraid it's back to the basics.

From the dictionary:
_*equality - |i?kwälit?|
noun
the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities*_

And of course, that leads us to the thesaurus:
_*equality
noun
1 we promote equality for women fairness, equal rights, equal opportunities, equity, egalitarianism; impartiality, evenhandedness; justice.*_

Yada, yada, yada... What year are we living in again? So much accomplished in our own minds, and yet so far to go eh. I was going to counter point that editorial, but why bother. I'd rather just send him an e-mail (thanks for that).

Our military is in Afghanistan fighting for the rights of everyone there, including the issue of equality for woman that is so fundamental. The idea is to bring about the advancement of such things as voting, education, working, etc. Many of these very same issues were hot topics for us as recently as approximately 60 years ago. When were Caucasian females granted the right to vote in Canada again? I'm not even going near the issues that confront minorities as recently as, today. These woman are our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, daughters, girlfriends, etc. Really?? No... REALLY bud? Thanks for clarifying that little point since apparently the Canadian public is a tad on the ignorant side of such matters. Woman are also our colleagues, bosses, coworkers, friends, confidants, lovers, and everything else that one can imagine. To be so condescendingly arrogant infuriates so many of my senses that I find the best recourse is to simply laugh, for that was a ridiculously laughable editorial.

In summation. Leading by example is amongst the finest forms of instruction. The Afghans are not stupid and they are watching and learning. So is the world. Female rights and equality? Canada is leading from the front whether mysogynists such as this care to admit it or not; that may be a harsh statement, but to patronize as he did doesn't lend itself well to love, especially when it's shrouded in such dispassion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Also, right or wrong, maybe I'm just old fashioned, but the death of a woman or child anywhere does bother me more than that of a man. Don't get me wrong, both male and female deaths bother me but I think my upbringing tends to want to protect women and children, while letting men sort themselves out.



Agreed to the point of wanting to protect women and children , however, once those children become funtioning adults they can make the desicion on how they wish to live, serve and, possibly, die. I don't think of her as our first female combat casuality, I think of Capt. Goddard, a fellow Gunner who gave everything she had,...for us.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Women are not suited to combat role, Mike Strobel argues"

Whoever wrote that subtitle into the article has vacated his intellect.  Strobel's article in no way attempts to argue that women are not suited to combat roles; the theme of Strobel's article is that some people are unsuited to observe women filling combat roles.  It wouldn't be the first time that one person's emotional instability has been promoted as a reason to restrain another person's freedoms, but I prefer not to go down that road again.  If someone wishes to argue that a person or class of people is unsuited to combat, he'll have to make that argument on the basis of that person or class of people's merits.


----------



## Taylor187

Mr. Strobel put a shot right into the forces when he said "To me the answer is simple: Do not send women into combat." and "It has to do with the female of our species being kinder, gentler. The nurturer. Mom, for crying out loud. It doesn't sit right." Someone feel free to tell him tough shit if it doesnt feel right to him. If it feels right to the woman in the LAVIII directing arty fire then give'er.

Strobel's problem is he cant grasp the fact that these women have bigger balls then he will ever have. Lets hope a woman throat punches him to show off thier kinder, gentler side of the nurturing mom.

The only thing that useless waste of air Mike Strobel (Or anyone at the sun, especially those who write every time we have a casualty in astan that its thier right to take close up photos of crying family members) should be comenting on is his fat gut, his bum ankle, and two belly dancing chicks.

/rant off


----------



## WogCpl

At first i wanted to tell this dickhead to pull back his foreskin and have a look at todays Canadian Military. We are not conscripts, we are a volunteer military, some of us, male or female, even joined because we wanted the life, not just a job or a paycheck. Then i thought about a few comments that were made in earlier posts, "how dare he write that", or "how can the sun print that". They do it because they can, because we cash the cheques that society writes, so let them, let strobel write his articles, let the sun print them, and consider it as a thank you to us for a job well done, cause if we were not doing it they would be in a gulag somewhere turning rocks into sand (not that i wouldn't like to see that !
Cheers Troops....everyone, everywhere!
Never forget!


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I'm sorry, but it is even worse that they are of young women.



Maybe to you asshole.

Honestly, even worse because it's a woman?  Lovely slap in the face to the families of all the male soldiers who died. We're sorry for the loss of your son, just be thankful it wasn't your daughter!

"Not suited to combat roles" is pretty clever. I'm glad we face an enemy that only attacks combat arms and stays away from support troops.

The Toronto star seems to be doing a great job at shitting the bed. Remind me never to pick up their paper.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And I don't think its right for those who are slammin' the Sun chain for this....check out the main editorial.
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/05/26/1598407.html
Reproduced under the fair dealings act.
Fri, May 26, 2006
EDITORIAL: Women have the right to be warriors

Today, a funeral will be held in Calgary for Capt. Nichola Goddard, the first Canadian woman to die in battle while serving in a combat role in our armed forces . 
In one sense, she is no different from her 15 male comrades-in-arms who have died defending our freedom in Afghanistan. They were all soldiers -- all Canadians. We owe them all an equal debt of gratitude. 

But in another sense, Capt. Goddard's death is different and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Simply put, her death has added significance because she is a woman. 
In the military family, Capt. Goddard may well be remembered as being no different from the men she served with. Those men may feel, and we understand that feeling, that to single her out on the basis of gender is to dishonour her. 
But for the rest of us, the death of a female soldier serving in a combat role is different, precisely because she is the first. 
  
Even here, we must define our terms, since there were many brave women who died in our armed forces in the service of their country in World War I and World War II. But not in a combat role, because back then it was not allowed. 
Now it is and Capt. Goddard is the first to fall in that role. She won't be the last. And so the question begs: Are we ready for this? Today on Page 6, columnist Mike Strobel makes an eloquent case for why women should not serve in combat. 

We respect that view. It speaks to the noble and ancient ideal of chivalry -- that women and children should always be the first saved, the last sacrificed. 
But while it is an eloquent argument, it is the wrong one. It's wrong because the issue has long been moot for the women who today choose to join our armed forces and to train in combat roles alongside men. 

As a nation, we chose to allow women to enter combat roles. We will betray them if we now have second thoughts about what the inevitable consequence of that decision was. 
Capt. Goddard made that choice, freely, not because she was a woman but because she was a Canadian who cared about her country and her world. To those who loved her most, she will always be a beloved wife, a wonderful daughter. 

For the rest of us, let us remember her, and all those who come after her, as they would want us to. As soldiers.


----------



## muskrat89

Much better..


----------



## boots

I sent the following to both him and the editor:



> To Mike Strobel,
> Are you uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being in harm's way because she's a woman, or because her being tougher than you upsets your view of us women as weak creatures who need protecting? Capt Goddard knew the risks when she signed up. So will I, when I make my application. I can't wait till I become eligible. Kinder, gentler, nurturing means nothing when fighting the enemy.
> 
> One of the things she died for is your right to present your sexist opinion. I hope you're at least grateful for that. I know I am. The loss of a male soldier is no less tragic. You do the many who have died to protect a great injustice.
> 
> Amanda


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The second article is MUCH better.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

Well...I am only a small cog in the big machine.  But here's my 2 cents.

This "man/guy/whatever" should tie up the boots that female or male soldiers/officers put on "over there".  THEN maybe...MAYBE...I would give 2 flyin' f**ks what he said.

Until then...find a hobby asshat.

It's about the "best person" for the job.  Period.

Go fly a kite.  (which means...)

I don't tell pilots how to fly planes.  Why do reporters/media think THEY are qualified to tell anyone anything about anything.

 :threat:


----------



## Strike

> But Canada's is the only military in the world that puts females right up front, such as the observation post where *Nicky* Goddard died.



Gee, he must have known her personally to be able to refer to her in such a familiar way.     Buddy needs to show a little respect.


----------



## a_majoor

Not like this topic is new or anything, look at the Ruxsted Group Editorial: "Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men" "on: November 15, 2005, http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36475.0.html.

Captain Goddard and the rest of our troops are willing to put it all on the line and accept the consequences. Can people like Mike Strobel say the same? The answer is _obviously not_, which is why I have all the respect in the world for my fellow service members, and none for people like him.


----------



## military granny

If this asshat would have listened to her fathers eulogy before his wrote this drivel he would have known that "Nicky" was a name the girl hated with a passion and the only person that ever got away with it was her commanding officer. She as well as every other member of the CF should get the respect they deserve they are Pvt. Capt. Sgt. etc. , Not some little nic name the media pulls out their a**. These men and women are protecting our rights and helping bring those same rights to other countries and IMPO they deserve all the respect the public can give.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I wrote the follwing to the editor , ido not see it being put in the paper but i really not like what he wrote. seemed to be out of the loop and still in the stone age.

Does it matter if we are ready or not. A soldier died, many Canadian 
Soldiers have died were we any more ready for them to die. Captain 
Goddard was an Army  Officer, no one forced her to join, one forced her to 
pick the trade of being Arty Officer. She decided that was what she 
wanted and she was very good at what she did in all accounts I have read.  I 
am a former soldier and served under Female Officers, I never saw 
anything different other then I called them Mame vice calling them Sir. Once 
you put on the uniform, you do not care what sex the leadership is, 
just as long as she/he can do the job and lead from the front. 

I personally am not ready to hear that former co-workers from my army 
days have died in combat, but when that happens I will face it and stand 
tall and honour my friends, and respect them for the job they picked. 
Instead of worrying if Canadians are ready for women to die in combat, 
lets
 support them and the men who are over there doing what  our country 
asked them to do. But remember our country does not ask them, once they 
join, our country tells them what  to do.


----------



## big bad john

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1990247.php

Military mom set to join Army at age 41

Associated Press



Laurie-Ann Fuca completes her push-ups in front of Sgt. 1st Class Adrian A. Munoz during her final physical fitness test at the Mountain View High School track in Tucson, Ariz., on Friday. At 41, Fuca, whose son is serving in Iraq, is the oldest woman in Arizona to enlist in the Army and will head to boot camp next week. — Greg Bryan / Arizona Daily Star / AP Photo

TUCSON, Ariz. — A Tucson woman is making history as the first Arizona woman to join the Army past her 40th birthday.

Laurie-Ann Fuca, a 41-year-old mother of four, leaves for boot camp Monday — three weeks after her eldest son was sent to Iraq at age 19.

The Army recently raised its maximum recruiting age to 42.

Fuca is one of a handful of older women nationwide now following their sons or daughters into the service, said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army recruiting headquarters at Fort Knox, Ky.

He said more than 1,000 new soldiers, male and female, have joined the Army or Army Reserve since a series of age limit changes recently went into effect.

In Arizona, eight people 40 or older have enlisted since January but Fuca was the first woman to do so.

She plans to become the Army equivalent of a hospital paramedic and aims to help wounded troops and civilians.

“I’ve always wanted to be in the military for a long as I can remember, but I never had the opportunity because I was a full-time mom,” Fuca said.


A native of Canada who has been a legal U.S. resident for the past decade, Fuca said the desire is probably in her blood. Her father and sister served in the Canadian army and her brother still does.

Still, Fuca said her friends “laughed their heads off” when she told them of her enlistment.

“They said, ‘No way — not you!’ “ Fuca said as she prepared to pack her duffel bag for basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. “My son was like ‘You’re crazy. Moms don’t join the military,’

“I told him a lot of soldiers are somebody’s mom, and he said ‘Yeah, but you’re MY mom!”’

Fuca’s husband, a former Tucson police officer, was initially shocked at her plans.

“I said, ‘Honey, you can’t even watch a war movie on TV. What are you going to do in the Army?’” said Vinnie Fuca, 49.

But he said he has helped her get in shape with daily runs and Army recruiting supervisors claim she now outshines many recruits half her age.

———

Information from: Arizona Daily Star


----------



## NavComm

Good for her! I did bmq at 46 yrs of age. Not sure I would want to try SQL though!


----------



## exsemjingo

That's a feel good story of the week for Paul Harvey!
Too bad the enemy does not care how well you feel.


----------



## Springroll

That is awesome!!

Definitely a good inspiration, thats for sure!


----------



## wildman0101

go girl go woohoo
                             scoty


----------



## fleeingjam

That truly is amazing

-Syed


----------



## NavComm

Usman_Syed said:
			
		

> That truly is amazing
> 
> -Syed



You know it's not all that amazing. When I did bmq in January I was 46 and another woman there was 43 - both of us have children. Perhaps it's just a sign that as a population we are staying healthier longer, taking better care of ourselves and realizing that 40 is no longer the 'beginning of the end'.

I think it's great she did it, but she's still a few years younger than myself and my platoon mate and several other women in their 40s that are joining the CF. IMO older members have a lot to offer and in many cases are more physically fit and can 'adapt and overcome' easier than some of the younger recruits.


----------



## NavComm

Now I was curious about this 41 yr old woman joining and people thinking it's so amazing so I got to wondering how many other 'older' woman are joining the forces? A brief surf of the web got me this:

Scottish mum becomes oldest Navy recruit
22 Jun 06
A 36 year old mother of one has become the oldest female recruit to join the Royal Navy, fulfilling an ambition she has harboured for 20 years.
more on the story here... http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/ScottishMumBecomesOldestNavyRecruit.htm 

 I wonder now who is the oldest woman to join the CF? I know there are men that are older but I have yet to meet a woman older than me that joined. Anyone know of any?


----------



## Big Foot

I had two older women on my CAP course, one was 51, the other was 56. The 51 year old unfortunately didn't make it through and the 56 year old was only around for one mod. Kudos for trying though.


----------



## big bad john

NavComm said:
			
		

> Now I was curious about this 41 yr old woman joining and people thinking it's so amazing so I got to wondering how many other 'older' woman are joining the forces? A brief surf of the web got me this:
> 
> Scottish mum becomes oldest Navy recruit
> 22 Jun 06
> A 36 year old mother of one has become the oldest female recruit to join the Royal Navy, fulfilling an ambition she has harboured for 20 years.
> more on the story here... http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/ScottishMumBecomesOldestNavyRecruit.htm
> 
> I wonder now who is the oldest woman to join the CF? I know there are men that are older but I have yet to meet a woman older than me that joined. Anyone know of any?



We already posted her story here http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45506.0.html


----------



## Shamrock

NavComm said:
			
		

> I wonder now who is the oldest woman to join the CF? I know there are men that are older but I have yet to meet a woman older than me that joined. Anyone know of any?



At 46 you're the oldest I know of, but I know one female who is 44 and currently doing her QL3 (but I believe prior she was a reservist).


----------



## George Wallace

I remember a couple of years ago, on the Fifth Estate, or W5, or one of those programs; a little piece on a Mother who was graduating in Borden on the same Recruit Course as her son.  They were both Navy.  Can't remember her age though.


----------



## Berenguei

That's great for all the ladies who did basic training in their 40's, and I'm all for that. 

I'll be doing my IAP/BOTC between September and December 2006, and I'll turn 40 in that period. I am a father of two kids, 9 and 2 years old. I can tell you this: CBC won't be making a piece about me.

For many years now, women have been fighting to be equals to men. A lot of people would say that men and women are equals as of now. But then again, we cannot pass under silence stories like the one reported in this thread. Why is that ? Why do we, as a society, need to underline such stories ? Why do we have to underline such positive discrimination ?

Remember when Capt. Godard (hope I wrote her name correctly) died ! The press went crazy with this story...our first female soldier killed in action.  Is it really more tragic than a male soldier's death ? 

I don't think so.


----------



## GAP

I would say most comments and such were complimentary. It's a huge change and challenge at that age, male or female. Guys probably find it somewhat easier, they are generally more familiar with the culture, but depending on what the female was doing prior to joining, there's a good chance there's a huge culture shock also.


----------



## NavComm

Berenguei said:
			
		

> For many years now, women have been fighting to be equals to men. A lot of people would say that men and women are equals as of now. But then again, we cannot pass under silence stories like the one reported in this thread. Why is that ? Why do we, as a society, need to underline such stories ? Why do we have to underline such positive discrimination ?


Very true. I don't understand it myself. There were men older than me (not in my platoon) and they didn't seem overly concerned with their age. I didn't compare myself to the younger ones either, though one woman on my course (39) constantly whined about her age. She seemed to want special treatment because of it, and many will say she got it!

I found at basic at least, age was not a factor. Everybody hurt, everybody pushed themselves. Everybody that made it, pretty much gave it their all.

BBJ sorry I didn't see the story was already posted.

51 years old, that's pretty good, although there are men doing bmq at that age and doing well.

I do think there is a woman at my unit that did bmq at age 47, but I could be wrong about that. I'm going to ask her next time I see her.

Either way, young or old, bmq is a challenge and those that make it have something to be proud of. It's the people who go on to SQL that impress the hell out of me. That is a physically demanding course. I don't know how NETP will be, but from what I hear, it's not terribly difficult.

GAP +1 on the culture shock. I think it's a culture shock for most people, but I found it difficult coming from a civvie job where I am pretty much in charge of my world to go to a place where I am lower than low! Oh that was different for me and took some getting used to. I have learned to keep my head down and mouth shut, well...most of the time


----------



## GUNS

Its not the age the military is looking at, its what that person has to offer.

I was accepted into the Reserves at age 52 and was offered a job with the Reg. Forces with signing bonus.

I have my inter-provincial ticket in Heavy Equipment Repair( Diesel Mechanic ). 

If you have a trade, they don't look at the age.


----------



## Quag

Berenguei said:
			
		

> For many years now, women have been fighting to be equals to men. A lot of people would say that men and women are equals as of now. But then again, we cannot pass under silence stories like the one reported in this thread. Why is that ? Why do we, as a society, need to underline such stories ? Why do we have to underline such positive discrimination ?



I know that I am going to open up a can of worms with this, but something that I have discussed in depth with many people I have been on courses is the equality of women in the forces.

I don't understand the argument from women who are always pushing for exact equality, yet they seem content to let some things slide by.

An example of this is the double standard in PT requirements.  Women are always pushing to be equal with men, however they don't seem to have a problem with having a lower requirement for PT scores.

There are many other issues that I can dive into, however I will leave it at this for now, to see how much dust I have stirred up.

Please understand that I support women in the forces, however it is my personal opinion that for some trades (combat arms), they should be able to do the same requirement as men for things such as PT.

Cheers


----------



## Berenguei

Quag said:
			
		

> An example of this is the double standard in PT requirements.  Women are always pushing to be equal with men, however they don't seem to have a problem with having a lower requirement for PT scores.
> 
> Please understand that I support women in the forces, however it is my personal opinion that for some trades (combat arms), they should be able to do the same requirement as men for things such as PT.



Yeah...it seems silly to have two sets of standards in PT, one for men, another for women. Your observation brings up the following question:

WHY DO WE DO PT ?

Well, obviously, it has to relate to the physical capacity for doing various tasks in a combat unit...tasks directly related to combat missions. Imagine that 95 % of the platoon are men, carrying 60 pounds of gear out on a mission. Wouldn't women doing PT with a sub-par performance (in relation to men) be handicaped by such physical training ? It is only reasonable to say that on the long run, they would be lagging way behind.

Women in combat should go head to head with men...à la _*''GI JANE'' * _ (Demi Moore) style !!!


----------



## big bad john

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1995571.php

Grandma wears Army boots — and boy, is she proud
Basic training ages with grace



Margie Black — mother, grandmother, prison guard — has a new title: Private, U.S. Army.

At 41, she’s more than twice the age of the never-been-away-from-home teenagers who fidget and fret at the L. Mendel Rivers complex, the Army’s front door to the newly enlisted at Fort Jackson, S.C. She’s been here less than a week, and her calm demeanor has earned her a nickname.

“They call me Mom.”

And she’s not alone. Since January, the Army has increased the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42, and people once deemed too old to fight have signed on the dotted line. 

David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, says the improved health and fitness of middle-aged Americans makes it possible for them to enlist. 

  
“People are living longer and are much healthier and physically fit into older ages than was true in earlier generations,” he said.

So far, only five people 40 and older — and 324 age 35 and older — have enlisted, Army records show. But members of their ranks are proving to be made of some tough stuff.

Pfc. Cindra Smith, 39, known as “Mama” or “Grandma” to some of her C Company platoon members at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is training to go to Iraq to disarm bombs like the one that seriously injured her daughter.

Smith, of Xenia, Ohio, fractured a hip during basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C. In March, her mother died of cancer. And in June, shortly after her daughter had a child, doctors found a tumor on her daughter’s brain stem, requiring surgery.

But after a 10-day leave to be with her daughter, Smith was back in training, an inspiration to others.

“She leads by setting an example,” said Luisana Valencia, 20, of Visalia, Calif., a private in Smith’s platoon. “We go on runs, people get tired. She pushes herself and doesn’t stop [and says], ‘Hey, I’m older than you, but I’m not giving up.’” 

Laurie-Ann Fuca, a 41-year-old mother of four, left for boot camp July 31 — three weeks after her eldest son was sent to Iraq at age 19. She’ll train at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.

Fuca plans to go into a medical specialty and aims to help wounded troops and civilians. A native of Canada who has been a legal U.S. resident for the past decade, Fuca said the desire is probably in her blood. Her father and sister served in the Canadian army and her brother still does.

“My son was like ‘You’re crazy. Moms don’t join the military.’ I told him a lot of soldiers are somebody’s mom, and he said, ‘Yeah, but you’re MY mom!’” 

One-stop recruiting

Ever since Margie Black was 19, she wanted to join the Army. Pregnancy with her daughter Ashley prevented that. 

When Ashley, now 21, got serious about enlisting in the Army recently, recruiter Staff Sgt. James Alston, dropped Ashley off at home and joked with Black about signing the mom up. A few days later, Alston called Black to tell her the Army had raised its eligibility limit to a day short of 42.

For Alston, it was one-family shopping. “Her daughter joined on Monday; she joined on Friday.”

;Black arrived at hot, humid Fort Jackson on July 20 to begin her four-year enlistment. After she graduates from basic training, she’ll get instruction to be a truck dispatcher. She wanted to be a sniper, because of the stealth required, but it’s closed to women. 

The Army has the military’s highest age limit. The Air Force and Marine limits are 27, while the Navy’s is 35.

Physical fitness, not age, should determine who serves, says David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.

“We used to use gender as a surrogate to determine if people could do the job,” Segal says. “We found out that, A, we needed women for the Army and, B, they could do the job. It’s the same with age. It really should be physical ability that should screen people out for military jobs.”

The basic training standards of earning 50 points in each category of the Army Physical Fitness Test have not changed for the new older recruits, and remain the same as they have been since 1998. Older male recruits may also join the infantry.

“If a 42-year-old wants to come into the infantry, he can,” said Army spokesman Ray Harp. “But the probability of someone doing that is not high.”

Raising the age limit of new recruits is one of many steps the Army has made to try to increase the recruiting pool: More soldiers are allowed in without high school diplomas, recruits now may have tattoos on their necks and hands, and more soldiers have been allowed in with lower Army aptitude-test scores. 

— Staff and wire reports


----------



## JBP

Berenguei said:
			
		

> Yeah...it seems silly to have two sets of standards in PT, one for men, another for women. Your observation brings up the following question:
> 
> WHY DO WE DO PT ?
> 
> Well, obviously, it has to relate to the physical capacity for doing various tasks in a combat unit...tasks directly related to combat missions. Imagine that 95 % of the platoon are men, carrying 60 pounds of gear out on a mission. Wouldn't women doing PT with a sub-par performance (in relation to men) be handicaped by such physical training ? It is only reasonable to say that on the long run, they would be lagging way behind.
> 
> Women in combat should go head to head with men...à la _*''GI JANE'' * _ (Demi Moore) style !!!



Lol...

Good thing he was banned already... But on that note, congratulations to these proud elder applicants and recruits!!! 

Also, I don't remember any of the women I trained with having to do LESS pushups or physical training then the rest of us... Those are only entrace standards, these girls in my platoon and 1 in my Section had to do all the same stuff the men had to do!

Cheers,
Joe


----------



## Quag

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Also, I don't remember any of the women I trained with having to do LESS pushups or physical training then the rest of us... Those are only entrace standards, these girls in my platoon and 1 in my Section had to do all the same stuff the men had to do!
> 
> Cheers,
> Joe



Irregardless, the double standard is there.

You should also know through course experiences that, yes, women do have to the same stuff the men do, however should they not be able to complete all 25 of those pushups or end up walking the last part of the morning run, it is acceptable.  Mind you, it is also acceptable for men, if they do the same.

The point is, the seperate entrance requirements for entrance requirements shows an extreme double standard in the Canadian Forces.

In my opinion, for certain trades (combat arms), the entrance standards should be the same for both men and women.  I am a supporter of women in combat arms roles, however I believe that the standards should be the same.

Cheers


----------



## newrecruit

And I thought I was too late to join the army at the age of 20.


----------



## Red 6

The US Army physical fitness test is normed based on age and gender. If you're a strapping lad of 19, you have to do your two mile run in 13:00 for a max run score. If you're 40, you get 14:02 to max your run. The push-up and sit-up are also normed for various age groups. It's no different for women. It isn't about a double standard. Women just have a different physical capacity level than men. I think it's great that older people are being allowed to serve in the Army. There are plenty of assignments that don't need a young buck old to serve in.


----------



## Shadowolf

Israel has allowed its women into the combat arms.

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=56933.EN

The Hour of the Female Warrior 

Sunday 20/08/2006 18:33 



   

IDF Female Warrior. Archive Photo: IDF Spokesperson

   The war in Lebanon in the last month was the first conflict in which women served in operational combat roles.  They fought shoulder to shoulder and back to back with the men, taking a full and equal part in the fight after steps by IDF to integrate women into its fighting forces.  And now, at the moment of truth, the women's sacrifices to the defense of the State of Israel is evident.  In the war in Lebanon women filled a wide range of assignments - as regular conscripts, career soldiers, and reservists. 

Women serve combat assignments as: Artillerists, anti-aircraft personnel, search-and-rescue personnel, combat pilots, helicopter pilots, sailors, mortar NCOs, and search-and-rescue NCOs.
?in technical assignments as: Mechanics, aircraft mechanics, electricians, and armament officers.
?in field assignments as: Operations officers and sergeants, intelligence officers, look-outs, radio operators, flight controllers, naval command centers, paramedics, and doctors.
?in other assignments connected to the current conflict as: Teachers and counselors in times of emergency on the home front, operators at Homefront Command's telephone center, triage officers, military police with various capacities, and communications officers and NCOs.

"Today it?s a completely legitimate thing" 

Staff Sergeant Orna Lachiani, 21, is an example of the integration of women in IDF's array of fighters.  "I've commanded launchers for one and a half years," she says.  "During the fighting I had command of my [launcher] for a period of about a month.  We were in all sorts of places in the north and I can say that they put us to sufficiently broad use.  We had more than a few successes.  We hit firing points of [Hezbollah] launchers, the launchers themselves, and more."

"What's more exciting," adds Corporal Denise Yifrach, 19, a member of Lachiani's crew, "the crew was all-girl.  We conducted a lot of fire missions.  It was very satisfying; we felt like we had power in our hands."

"I really love my assignment, it's simply fun.  I feel that I'm effective and that I do my duty in the best way.  When I told my parents what I'm doing they said that they worry terribly about me, but today they're really happy that I'm content and they support me 100-percent.  They're really supportive of me, like everyone who knows me.  I'm the only female soldier among my friends who went to combat service and it's really good to know you have behind you people who understand what you're doing and support it."

"Everyone's always coming and asking me, 'how, what and who?'" says Staff Sergeant Lachiani when asked how she feels being a female combat soldier in IDF.  "I've already gotten used to it, because it's happened since I enlisted, nearly two and a half years ago.  Women don't get easier or different treatment. I think it's the most legitimate and normal thing in the world that we all get equal treatment?.  Are there difficulties?  The younger of the female soldiers might sometimes complain about things like showers, hygiene, and things like that.  I've already gotten used to it."

"We and the boys are equal in everything," approves Corporal Yifrach.  "We do everything together, precisely the same missions.  They've always pushed us to do the same things the guys do.  Whether it's lifting heavy objects or anything else, they've made us feel that we are warriors in every respect."

"Awareness of the integration of women into the army is much higher these days," agrees Staff Sergeant Lachiani.  "Today it?s a completely legitimate thing, to the point where even the guys see the girls in equally.  There are some who still make a big deal out of it, but those are the minority.  Today it's quite accepted."


----------



## Wright

sigopgirl said:
			
		

> No offense guys, but I would really like to know from the ladies on this board as to what division they have applied for or are currently in. I have come to the conclusion that Army is best suited for me but then I am torn between Armoured/Artillery or Infantry. I have read tons of stuff on these sites related to each but nothing that really gives me much information as to what I am really in for as a 120 lb female all of 5 foot nothing. I am by no means a wimp but if there is a logical reason women avoid a certain area because perhaps the weapons weigh more than we do, I'd like to know before sending in my applicaiton.
> 
> :warstory: Bojangles


any comms trade, you can still get the combat experience, and spec pay, and lots and lots of tours, with still a bit of safets, really think about armoured though good trade, i was thiknin bout remustering in basic


----------



## newaecgirl

bojangles:

   If you really want a different perspective here you go.  I have been an army musician in the reserves for nine years, and it is probably one of the only trades where there is an equal number of men and women, and I have worked in bands that have more women than men.  That said...it is the band so does it really count?  

   I have just been accepted as an AEC, and I chose to go airforce over army, because I know that at 27, even though I can meet the pt standards they are not my strong suit, and I would not enjoy continuing in an army trade.  Having been in the army reserves for some time I have seen women of all shapes and sizes do well in all types of situations.  Only you can know what the bottom line for you is, and in the end you have to go with what you want to do...remember this is a career, not a passing fancy.  Good luck!


----------



## oblivioneclipse

Hi there. =)

This may have been asked already, but what's it like for a female in the infantry? I'm positive that I want to apply for the Reserve when my 16th birthday comes around, but I'm a little worried that being 5' 5" and all of 115 lbs will be a disadvantage for me. Are there any problems that I'll have to face being small, young and most of all, female?

I have no problems with working hard to try and excell, but I don't want to have guys helping me in things that I should be able to do, and all that. Thanks.

Susan


----------



## geo

Susan,
1 - welcome to the forum

2 - try using the user friendly search engine - it really does work 

3 - you are no less / no more handicaped than a 5'5" 115lb male.....

within the Reserves there are plenty of women who join.  Some stay, some don't.  Most start off wanting to prove to themselves (and others) that they can do it.. and take it from there.  Many will stick with it for a while and subsequently remuster to another trade like: Clerk, Storeman, Driver, Mechanic, medic, etc, etc......


----------



## oblivioneclipse

=) Thanks.

Lovely thing, the search engine.


----------



## WZukon

Bojangles, to answer your question “Where are the women in the CF”…they’re in the Reserve.  In the RMS trade.  The Reserve is about one quarter female, the Regular Force waivers around 13%.  That may not seem statistically satisfactory to women, but neither is it unexpected.  We all choose our occupations according to our interests and life goals, AND self-expectations, so today’s gender balance reflects the social values of a generation ago.  Often, to avoid being separated by a posting, one service spouse, usually the woman, would release and join the Reserve, and perhaps remuster to a trade that is needed everywhere, RMS being a good one.   Not too long ago there was not a lot of employer support for the service woman who chose to start a family, neither in policy nor in practice.  This has changed big time, in policy that is.  Legacy attitudes and practice still persist.

Now let’s look at lucky you, or any young woman considering artillery or infantry.  Starting your career when the CF stands as probably the best equal opportunity employer in Canada.  Add to that the push to increase women’s participation in peacekeeping operations.  The push stems from international recognition that almost all trafficking in humans is of women and girls, and that women and girls in areas of conflict are particularly vulnerable.  In 2000 the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which sets some pretty ambitious goals, including the goal of one third women on peacekeeping operations.  Canada is, of course, a signator to this Resolution.  In the years to come, women with the smarts and skills that can only be gained with the Land Forces will be assured of exciting, rewarding,…and demanding…careers.


----------



## navymich

WZukon said:
			
		

> Bojangles, to answer your question “Where are the women in the CF”…they’re in the Reserve.  In the RMS trade.  The Reserve is about one quarter female, the Regular Force waivers around 13%.  That may not seem statistically satisfactory to women, but neither is it unexpected.  We all choose our occupations according to our interests and life goals, AND self-expectations, so today’s gender balance reflects the social values of a generation ago.  Often, to avoid being separated by a posting, one service spouse, usually the woman, would release and join the Reserve, and perhaps remuster to a trade that is needed everywhere, RMS being a good one.   Not too long ago there was not a lot of employer support for the service woman who chose to start a family, neither in policy nor in practice.  This has changed big time, in policy that is.  Legacy attitudes and practice still persist.
> 
> Now let’s look at lucky you, or any young woman considering artillery or infantry.  Starting your career when the CF stands as probably the best equal opportunity employer in Canada.  Add to that the push to increase women’s participation in peacekeeping operations.  The push stems from international recognition that almost all trafficking in humans is of women and girls, and that women and girls in areas of conflict are particularly vulnerable.  In 2000 the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which sets some pretty ambitious goals, including the goal of one third women on peacekeeping operations.  Canada is, of course, a signator to this Resolution.  In the years to come, women with the smarts and skills that can only be gained with the Land Forces will be assured of exciting, rewarding,…and demanding…careers.



Considering Bojangles (sigopgirl) posted the original thread *over 2 years ago*, I'm sure that she is just fine with where she is as a female in the military now.  And she is certainly not "starting her career" anymore either.  :


----------



## armyvern

WZukon said:
			
		

> Not too long ago there was not a lot of employer support for the service woman who chose to start a family, neither in policy nor in practice.  This has changed big time, in policy that is.  Legacy attitudes and practice still persist.
> 
> Now let’s look at lucky you, or any young woman considering artillery or infantry.



19 years ago (tomorrow to be exact) I joined this outfit; at *the* point in time when the women of the CREW trials were just making their great inroads into the combat arms trades and the army of which you speak. To this date, I have YET to experience that 'legacy' attitude and practice you speak of above.


----------



## geo

19 Years?
Already?

You young pup!


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> 19 Years?
> Already?
> 
> You young pup!



Is that a legacy attitude I hear??  ;D

Thanks Geo!!


----------



## geo

Legacy attitude?

Nope.  from someone who joined in 1970, pert much everyone is a young pup


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> Legacy attitude?
> 
> Nope.  from someone who joined in 1970, pert much everyone is a young pup



Geo, maybe your oldsheimers is kicking in, but I've got to tell you that if you've been around since 1970 (I was 2!!); you are indeed one of our legacies!!  ;D


----------



## geo

Hehehe
.... I am not on the DA, 
there is no NSN stenciled upon my backside (or so the Mrs tells me)


Only 2.... Ooooo - I like em young (though there are limits on how far I will express that affection")


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> Hehehe
> .... I am not on the DA,
> there is no NSN stenciled upon my backside (or so the Mrs tells me)


Wait for it!!


			
				geo said:
			
		

> Only 2.... Ooooo - I like em young (though there are limits on how far I will express that affection")


I'm quite sure that what you meant to infer here....is that at your current age, you'd like girls who were only 2 when you joined....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

WZukon said:
			
		

> Bojangles, to answer your question “Where are the women in the CF”…they’re in the Reserve.  In the RMS trade.  The Reserve is about one quarter female, the Regular Force waivers around 13%.  That may not seem statistically satisfactory to women, but neither is it unexpected.  We all choose our occupations according to our interests and life goals, AND self-expectations, so today’s gender balance reflects the social values of a generation ago.  Often, to avoid being separated by a posting, one service spouse, usually the woman, would release and join the Reserve, and perhaps remuster to a trade that is needed everywhere, RMS being a good one.   Not too long ago there was not a lot of employer support for the service woman who chose to start a family, neither in policy nor in practice.  This has changed big time, in policy that is.  Legacy attitudes and practice still persist.
> 
> Now let’s look at lucky you, or any young woman considering artillery or infantry.  Starting your career when the CF stands as probably the best equal opportunity employer in Canada.  Add to that the push to increase women’s participation in peacekeeping operations.  The push stems from international recognition that almost all trafficking in humans is of women and girls, and that women and girls in areas of conflict are particularly vulnerable.  In 2000 the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which sets some pretty ambitious goals, including the goal of one third women on peacekeeping operations.  Canada is, of course, a signator to this Resolution.  In the years to come, women with the smarts and skills that can only be gained with the Land Forces will be assured of exciting, rewarding,…and demanding…careers.



Dude you are talking out of your @ss. Have you ever been to either Esquilmalt or Halifax or been on any of the ships? Obviously not, because if you had you would not have posted such an out to lunch comment.


----------



## armyvern

Ex-Dragoon

+2


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

WZukon


1 question.

Have you ever been in the Reserves?  In uniform?

Ok, so thats 2 questions.

The Reserve unit I belong to for a mere 17 years now has never been 25% female.  We, for a long time, had more females in the troops (Recce Sqn) than the O.R. had.

 :


----------



## Navor86

Moin,
first let me introduce myself
I'm  a 21 year male from Germany. I will start my military service as a Fallschirmjäger this July. So up till now I have more or less no military experience. Because of the latest developments (our Leopards for you) I got interested in Canadian Armed Forces.
Most relevant Intel I needed I got from wikipedia.
But One point I was not able to find, namely the employment of women in direct combat Units like Arty,Tanks and Infantry.
I used the search engine and found for example the 42 Page Thread about opinions on women in this roles,but after reading through about 20 pages and other search results  and getting no results I decided to ask my question directly. Hopefully the mods will not slain me for this.
So how many women are directly employed in Infantry Fighting Coy's, Recce and Tanks Squadrons or Arty Batteries?
Are there Numbers available or at least the average percentage of women in Combat Arms Bns?
Are they very few in Number or do they take a great portion?
Greetings Navor


----------



## niner domestic

The CBC recently did a story on Canadian Women in Combat Arms, included in the article was the stats for the Army.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html

DND  (www.dnd.ca) also has several reports on females in Combat Arms:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Minister/eng/cls-gis/sep-2.
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsc/d2000nws/1998/dec98/art15_e.asphtm
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/2_05/2_05_iwd_e.asp

and finally at the search page just using "women in Combat Arms this list came up:

http://www.index.forces.gc.ca/Search.aspx?language=en-CA&Screen=Basic

Also you can find information of females serving in combat arms at: http://www.minervacenter.com/ - this site is largely an academic site on the study of women in the military but there are some good resources available.  Hope this helps.


----------



## TN2IC

Einige wenige die Frauen im Heer dienen.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Captain Nichola GODDARD, MSM


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060312/afghanistan_female_soldier_060312/20060312?hub=TopStories

and I served with 2 others last tour in the Infantry (can't speak on the other Cmbt arms).


----------



## medaid

Recently with the collaboration between The Librarian and I, we've come up with the 'Gender and Recruiting' post on top of the Recruiting Forum. I started that post two nights ago, because I couldn't bare reading the comments posted by some of the potential applicants when it came to gender, and the replies by some forum members to these comments. 

Needless to say I was outraged and at times extremely annoyed at these posters. Why, you ask? The answer is simple.

I do not believe in gender differences and limitations. Yes, I will admit when I was a little younger, I thought of stupid things such as women should not work in certain fields. I will tell you straight up right now, that I no longer think that way, and I don't think anyone else should. 

We all have had bad experiences with people who don't carry their own weight in our work places, but why does gender automatically come into play when we become critical of these individuals? Should a soldier be counselled differently if they were of a certain gender? NO! There should absolutely NO reason to do that. 

A member of the Canadian Forces is a member of the Canadian Forces. Gender has NOTHING to do with their work ethic, performance or place in the Chain of Command. The PERSON does. I will honestly tell you that I will follow anyone of any gender into anything as long as they have proven to me that they can lead. That they can plan and prioritize and most importantly they can do their job. I don't care if you are a male or a female. If you mess up I will rip you a new one, the same degree, the same intensity, and the same quality every single time. By going 'lighter' or 'harder' on different genders merely reinforces the stereotype that we treat our soldiers differently. 

Keep in mind that this does not come into play when we are talking about basic compassion and everyday interactions with your fellow coworkers. Courtesy and common sense still prevails and exists here folks.

But sometimes people argue 'by treating me this way or that way, you are enforcing gender stereotypes'. 

NO I AM NOT! I am treating you this way, because I treat all people this way. I open doors for both genders, I DO push seats out for the ladies and I do stand when a lady leaves the table. Does that mean I am reinforcing gender stereotypes? Maybe. But I think I am doing it to be polite. 

Now, what sparked this little rant is because people these days place WAY too much on the small things in everyday conversations. By saying 'man power' instead of 'manpower' could be a simple mistake. Why are we going reading it as if it was the worse affront to people everywhere? Mistakes happen. Get over it!

'But, MedTech, you're not being sensitive to the issue at hand here! This is just a sign that oppression of genders still exist in modern day society. We want equality!' 

Well, fine, we can sit here and argue all day about oppression, equality and so on and so forth, till the current TF returns home, the next one deploys and returns home, and we'll still be at it. By crying out everytime something so minor happens, you are merely reinforcing the image you are trying to get away with! This is not saying that everyone should puff up their chests, work out like crazy and act 'manly', it just means, be yourself, take everything with a pinch of salt. If you REALLY have problems with something, there are channels to deal with that. Something as simple as addressing an e-mail a certain way, well go and talk to your boss. If you feel really offended submit a grievance. 

The point is, the Canadian Forces has already done much to improve the working environment for BOTH genders. That's right read it again, BOTH. Some will say that certain genders have no 'right' to be in a trade, organization blah blah blah blah blah. Get over it. It's a changing world. If a soldier can do a job just as well as the next soldier, there should be no reason why they cannot be in certain trades and so on. 

When any one joins the military they need to realise that this is the MILITARY. The military is routed IN and surrounded BY the traditions and methodology of the ARMY. Why? Because we've fought on land longer then we've fought on the Seas and the Air combined. The ARMY was always dominated by only ONE gender, now it is changing. The change is slow, but it is progressing.

So PLEASE everyone. Calm down. Time only goes forward for those of us who doesn't own a time machine. Gender equality will NEVER come because that is not how life works. But we're trying pretty damn hard to make it work. Please don't throw in wrenches?

End of rant.


----------



## Yrys

MedTech said:
			
		

> Recently with the collaboration between The Librarian and I, we've come up with the 'Gender and Recruiting' post on top of the Recruiting Forum.



Link : http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62718.0.html


----------



## Old Ranger

Maybe if certain people watched G.I. Jane it could help them understand gender differences and individual determinations to be the Best.

If Not there is one Quote from that movie that applies....


Did you know we have Girl Paramedics, and Boy Nurses too....

 MedTech!

Ben


----------



## Greymatters

...I think you scared them all off...


----------



## medaid

Who'd I scare off?  ;D


----------



## Greymatters

All the people who would disagree with you about gender in the military...


----------



## medaid

Sweet! My work is done!  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...


----------



## medaid

Meh, one more thing in life that's out of our collective control. No biggy.


----------



## Greymatters

That would make the CF about 99.9% 'gender effective'. That's better than most organizations...


...of course, we ruin it all by coming home from work and saying "Hi honey, what's for supper"...


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...



So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?


----------



## medaid

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> ...of course, we ruin it all by coming home from work and saying "Hi honey, what's for supper"...



Oh but GM, the term *honey* is unisex, and thus no gender. I think we're still doing good there


----------



## Yrys

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?



It's even possible to to a RC priest AND a woman, if you're willing to be expelled
by the Pope... Some women did that, a fews weeks ago, in Canada. I just don't think that 
the CF will ask one to be a chaplain.... 

Canada Catholics 'ordain' women

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697271.stm


----------



## dapaterson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?



I know the intent was to unify the Chaplain branch, combining the Protestant and RC occupations into a single occupation, but I'm not certain whether the paperwork is complete.  So, if the combination of the two occupations has been done, then you are correct.  If not, you will be correct in the future.

(And the fact that you're making such a comment is proof on first examination that you are a member of the RCR  )


----------



## cesare753

I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power. 


But what do I know?


----------



## stealthylizard

Is upper body strength the one and only concern of training?  I sure hope not.  How about abdominal strength?  Women beat men on that 9 times out of 10.  How about pain tolerance?  Again, most women beat guys out on that.  Women are usually better shots as well, because they have an extra point of contact with the ground (breasts for those that were wondering).  They have superior flexibility.  Better organizers.  The list can go on and on.

If upper body strength is the only concern, then it isn't really an issue when compared to everything else.


----------



## niner domestic

Cesare: I think you'll find that you've fallen into the myth category of physical training between men and women.  In a 1997 study in the UK the docs found a few things to remark upon with female recruits.  One was that they were subject to more injuries while training as they would simply try to keep up with the male recruits and load muscles and skeletal components to the point of injury.  The second was that once put on a training regime that the females would build the necessary strengths as their male couterparts and have less injuries - it just took longer.  

In other words, both male and female persons given the opportunity to strength build, will develop the strength with the exception that females may take a few weeks longer.  The really interesting part of the study was that the more the female recruits humped their rucks, the less they were prone to injury and the more they developed bone density (except in the first 3-4 weeks as this is the time period wheret "the remineralization process lags behind osteoclastic resorption and takes months to complete, so that bone is weakest after 3-4 weeks of continuous training—a phenomenon demonstrated epidemiologically amongst both athletes and military recruits" ).  Which meant they were less likely to be prone to pelvic injuries and large bone fractures and vertebre compromises after the stabilization of training levels.  

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279143

To quote from the article: A US Army study showed that the proportion of female recruits capable of passing strenuous physical tests rose from 29% to 40% after 8 weeks of basic training, yet when a similar group were trained over six months with additional resistance training, the proportion capable of achieving the test scores was as high as 78%. (Harman E, et al. Effects of a specifically designed physical conditioning program on the load carriage and lifting performance of female soldiers. USARIEM Tech Rep T98-1;November 1997)


----------



## Bobby Rico

Frankly, I don't see that big of a problem regarding the gender-issue in the Canadian Armed Forces, especially when compared to the US Military.  Physical strength counts for only so much in the Army- mental toughness I would say is just as if not more important, and I know plenty of women who are probably more mentally capable of doing jobs in the military than many guys I know are.  I think the real problem is the 'back-forties' mentality that unfortunately seem prevalant in the Armed Forces, especially in the the NCM ranks in the non-specialized trades.

And regarding Ceasare's comment-  Ask yourself this- since women have been allowed to join combat-arms in the military in this country, even if training standards have been reduced as a result, has our military become somehow less effective in war-fighting?  I'd say, hell no. Soldier-to-soldier, our boys and girls are just as good if not superior to other soldiers around the world, and half the time we're not even as well equipped, so what does that tell you?


----------



## Blackadder1916

cesare753 said:
			
		

> ... it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF,* the training has suffered significantly*, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, *training standards were lowered to compensate*, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.
> 
> But what do I know?



Okay, what do you know?  Which standards were lowered?  Is your statement based on documentary evidence or a comparison based on personal observation or experience?


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...


WAY out of lane, but for what it's worth, there are TWO specifications "closed" by the Catholics: priests AND nuns.  What about all the women Imams out there?  Oh, right, forgot about that.


Sorry, but as a Roman Catholic, I'll just say "bugger off" and "leave us alone".  We'll decide the criteria for for joining our various clubs, associations, trades, whatever.  


[/rant]


----------



## mover1

EXPRESS TESTING

If we are all considered equals then why are there different minimum standards in this area. 
I recently did the PARE test for the RCMP and it was non gender specific. If we truly are going to be androgynous in nature then we should reflect it on having ONE BASE STANDARD for every member.

This applies to both male and female of all ages. 
The scope of work doesn't change due to age or gender.

I know...I know this has been discussed in another thread  :boring:


----------



## armyvern

mover1 said:
			
		

> EXPRESS TESTING
> 
> If we are all considered equals then why are there different minimum standards in this area.
> I recently did the PARE test for the RCMP and it was non gender specific. If we truly are going to be androgynous in nature then we should reflect it on having ONE BASE STANDARD for every member.
> 
> This applies to both male and female of all ages.
> The scope of work doesn't change due to age or gender.
> 
> I know...I know this has been discussed in another thread  :boring:



As you freely admit that you are aware this is covered in many other threads...

Feel free to ask your question again in another  thread discussing PT standards etc...

Please though, don't forget to also add on to the question that you post there, that we are not just talking differences between male/female testing, but also between enviornments & trades etc as well. Some do express...some do not. The differentiaiton in PT test standards is NOT limited to differences between male & female test standards, let's try not to make it out to be so.

You could come over to the Army!! Where we all do the 13k, regardless of sex, trade etc


----------



## vonGarvin

The thing that people have (thankfully) realised is that although there are generalities when discussing masses of men and/or masses of women, those generalities don't mean squat when it comes to individuals.  Sure, men don't compete against women at the Olympics (in most sports, anyway), but there we are talking about the 99.9th percentile of human beings.  (the best of the best of the best of the best.  In other words, people who are freakishly fit).  Now, when it comes to reality, person "A" can be an LMG gunner in my company any time, so long as person "A" can hold, aim and fire that LMG effectively, can "hump their stuff" and be counted upon when the chips are down.  I couldn't care less what that person's gender, skin colour, religion, etc was.  The fact that they are man or woman is irrelevant.  Their abilities, however, are, and abilities are not the domain of one gender or the other (except for the vital abilities of standing to pee, childbirth, whatever  ;D)


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.



Because at 18 you've actually SEEN how training standards were lowered?  You've seen what it "used to be like"? Impressive if you have, what or where are you basing your information from?

If you're interestd about levels of training I'll PM you a little story about 4 male soldiers from a certain royal regiment you may be familiar with that I caught lighting ammunition on fire at a range.  Trained corporals. Talk about lower standards 

"Training standards" isn't how many push ups someone can do prior to joining the CF.

What would benifit the CF more than 9 push ups over 19 is identifying the soldiers who fake injuries (especially on BMQ type courses) and punt them right out of the forces. THAT in my opiion is a much bigger drain on training and effectiveness.

My biggest issue with all this gender stuff is that anytime you see anything to do with recruiting you're force fed a collage of racial and gender junk.
ARE YOU A FEMALE? ARE YOU A VISIBLE MINORITY?
Like give it a rest. Why not ARE YOU A WARRIOR?

How long before we see ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE TALIBAN THAT WANTS TO DEFECT? start appearing on our posters.


----------



## mover1

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As you freely admit that you are aware this is covered in many other threads...
> 
> You could come over to the Army!! Where we all do the 13k, regardless of sex, trade etc



  Vern 

Actually that was my point I was trying to make. 

I have been posted to the Army side. (Shilo) and I am a retread, Plus I would more than love to go out for a leisurely 13 k march and having fun, telling jokes, getting through a BFT than running in a stupid Gym with bad airflow for 6 min.  

Regardless of who or what a person is if they can make the minimum standard and be given the proper technical instruction on how to carry out their duties then they should not be restricted in what they do or how they are perceived. 

 We just need an equal minimum standard! 
Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others.

 you said sex trade


----------



## medaid

my computer was stupid last night and won't let me post. But meh, y'all covered everything that I could possibly think of as rebutals.  ;D Plus, I think it comes out more effectively from all those whove BTDT.

Cheers all!


----------



## Greymatters

mover1 said:
			
		

> Vern
> Actually that was my point I was trying to make. I have been posted to the Army side. (Shilo) and I am a retread, Plus I would more than love to go out for a leisurely 13 k march and having fun, telling jokes, getting through a BFT than running in a stupid Gym with bad airflow for 6 min.  Regardless of who or what a person is if they can make the minimum standard and be given the proper technical instruction on how to carry out their duties then they should not be restricted in what they do or how they are perceived.  We just need an equal minimum standard! Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others.



Dont forget the different test standards for people who are over a certain age!


----------



## mover1

I stated that in the last sentence.

"Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others."


----------



## Strike

Hey cesare,

Women can do quite a few things pretty well nowadays.  We can shoot, fly planes.  Heck, we're even allowed to drive in public and vote too!


----------



## tannerthehammer

If women ever want to truly break down gender barriers than they have to take it upon themselves to not accept some of the lower standards that are placed upon them with regard to fitness testing etc.  People initially thought that it wasn't fair for them to have the same standards but all that has done is hurt their campaign for equality.  Women must rise to the occasion and achieve the highest minimum standards regardless of gender if you see what I'm saying...


----------



## Roy Harding

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> If women ever want to truly break down gender barriers than they have to take it upon themselves to not accept some of the lower standards that are placed upon them with regard to fitness testing etc.  People initially thought that it wasn't fair for them to have the same standards but all that has done is hurt their campaign for equality.  Women must rise to the occasion and achieve the highest minimum standards regardless of gender if you see what I'm saying...



I see what you're saying, tanner.

For what it's worth:  I was one of the Sr NCOs who objected to women being given access to the full spectrum of CF trades.  Since that time, my mind was COMPLETELY changed - I learned that women are JUST as capable as men - and I won't get into the physical differences between the two sexes.

Studs are studs - gender doesn't matter.  Thud f**ks are thud f**ks - gender doesn't matter.  Most folks (CF included) fall somewhere between the two extremes.

This is a tired and worn out discussion.  Women are here (yeah!!! - and no, my wife DOESN'T frequent these means) - get over it.



Roy


----------



## cesare753

So basically you took everything I said and interpreted it as a sexist slur.

PLEASE.

I have ZERO problems with women in the CF, more thread specifically Combat roles, in fact my best military friend IS a female, we've been on every course together so far and are good friends civie side too.

I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is

a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out
and 
b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses

but of course, this argument will always be interpreted as "I'm just a sexist male that isn't tolerant of women in the CF"

so what ever.


----------



## GAP

Whether standards are being adjusted in some situations, I think the real question becomes, once everything is said and done, can they (male/female/whatever) do the job to the satisfaction of their team?....because that's who depends on them in a crunch. Everything else is academic...


----------



## mover1

cesare753 said:
			
		

> I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.
> 
> I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.
> 
> 
> But what do I know?



you know SFA my dear 18 year old reservist friend from Toronto.


----------



## armyvern

cesare753 said:
			
		

> So basically you took everything I said and interpreted it as a sexist slur.
> 
> PLEASE.
> 
> I have ZERO problems with women in the CF, more thread specifically Combat roles, in fact my best military friend IS a female, we've been on every course together so far and are good friends civie side too.
> 
> I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is
> 
> a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out and
> 
> b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses but of course, this argument will always be interpreted as "I'm just a sexist male that isn't tolerant of women in the CF" so what ever.



Oh please, _whatever_. Don't back-pedal now.

Here's your original post:



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied *that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF*, the training has suffered significantly, *women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate*, *thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out* on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.
> 
> I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.
> 
> But what do I know?



Interestingly, in your original argument you don't make a single mention of weak men, only weak women. Then you go on to wonder in amazement when you get called on it as to how it could be interpreted as sexist.

Funny you mention the lowering of the trg standards for zero trades, blaming it on those physically weak women ... but have failed to note that there is a significant difference in standards between trades, enviornments and what the minimum fitness requirements are, regardless of gender. Let's get a little serious shall we? There is a significant difference between trades, enviornments in those standards as well...is that the woman's fault too? 

You chose to focus on women's standards and blame that for the decrease in overall fitness standards, well I've got news for you; there was a difference in training and fitness standards between trades and enviornments long before those weak women were allowed, as part of the CREW trials, to enter those zero trades. 

What's the bottom line in all of this? Stop blaming the girls and get over it already. The vast majority of them bust their asses everyday just like their male counterparts do. The vast majority of them also perform their jobs just as well as their male counterparts do. Percentage wise, I'd say the men are no better off at achieving than the women are either. But enough with your managing to always blame the fact that there are shitty soldiers out there on the fact that women have lowered the standards. That's bullshit. If a soldier is useless and unfit, it's becuase they personally lack the personal drive, determination, initiative and fortitude to become a good soldier ... male or female.

Don't blame the fact you've got a shitty male or female co-worker who made it through the system on me and other women causing a lowering of the standards, blame it on the instructors or supervisors that let him/her get away with hanging around being a shitty soldier.

When they don't meet the standards, deal with it and boot their ass if required...guy or girl. But please, stop blaming the women by excusing the shitty soldier's personal responsibility.


----------



## Bigmac

Being a Med Tech I have worked with women my entire career, some are good and some are not. But the same can be said for the men I have worked with. 
     One example was on a Fall Ex many years ago and I was loading a vulcan heater onto a trailer. I had 2 males and myself and was looking for a 4th to grab a corner. A female Med Tech immediately moved to the vacant corner and awaited the word to lift. I stupidly asked if she was OK to lift for which she responded " You just worry about your end MCpl!" She had no problem lifting and I apologized to her for doubting her ability. I have seen many other occasions where females outperformed males on pure drive,determination and attention to detail.
      I still have a bit of old school in me when it comes to females in combat arms trades but I am trying to shake it. My 17 year old neice just recently informed me that she wants to join the CF and specifically wants infantry. Although I am not discouraging her I am concerned as she is very slim and weighs about 100Lbs soaking wet. Not saying she can't do it but with her slight frame she will have great difficulty with load bearing and rigours of infantry training. If I am wrong let me have it!
     My 2 cents.


----------



## niner domestic

Bigmac, go back and read that article I posted by the Brits.  It'll assure you that the load bearing gets better with the more load bearing one does (check the references the article give as well - it's all good stuff).  Your niece will be fine providing, as a good uncle that you are, you get her on a training program now...so she has a chance to build up that strength.


----------



## Bigmac

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Bigmac, go back and read that article I posted by the Brits.  It'll assure you that the load bearing gets better with the more load bearing one does (check the references the article give as well - it's all good stuff).  Your niece will be fine providing, as a good uncle that you are, you get her on a training program now...so she has a chance to build up that strength.



       Thanks for the info. I will be speaking with my niece this coming weekend. She is just at the deciding stage at the moment. If she takes the leap and applies to the CF I will definitely be providing her a training program. 
      My only issue with her is she has dropped out of high school at grade 11 with an incomplete. Her options are limited in the CF. The family has been trying to convince her to complete high school but she is determined not to go back. She is a lost soul right now and the way I see it the CF will give her the confidence and self discipline she so strongly needs and then maybe she will get her GED later down the road.


----------



## niner domestic

Why not suggest to her to try the reserves and when she can, do a few night classes her HS diploma? While she's waiting for her app acceptance, she can train.


----------



## Bigmac

At the moment my niece is not listening to reason. This weekend my wife and I are going to be talking to her in person instead of on the phone. Hopefully we can convince her to finish high school. My wife is an ex military member so can give her the female perspective of the CF.
     I have suggested the reserve option to her before so yes I will definitely pitch that option to her as well. She lives in the Belleville region so the Hastings Prince Edward Regiment is there. 
     Wish us luck!


----------



## vonGarvin

Bigmac said:
			
		

> At the moment my niece is not listening to reason. This weekend my wife and I are going to be talking to her in person instead of on the phone. Hopefully we can convince her to finish high school. My wife is an ex military member so can give her the female perspective of the CF.
> I have suggested the reserve option to her before so yes I will definitely pitch that option to her as well. She lives in the Belleville region so *the Hastings Prince Edward Regiment * is there.
> Wish us luck!


Luck!

And what a fine regiment The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment is!  Just ask Farley Mowat!


----------



## armyvern

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Luck!
> 
> And what a fine regiment The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment is!  Just ask Farley Mowat!



From a Loggie that used to work in their dungeon doling out the kit ... they're _OK_ I guess!!  >


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

All I'm going to contribute is this....

Men by nature have a higher peak physical strength than women.  If it only took more time for women to "train-up" to men's peak levels then you'd see women capable of competing in athletics against men.  We do certainly not see this in physical contact sports like hockey or football, nor even in non-contact sports like track & field, tennis, skiing or soccer.

Bottom Line:  There are fundamental differences which have to do with how we've evolved.  To pretend otherwise is disengenuous.

With that in mind, I'll leave it to those that serve to tell me how great an impact those physical differences have on field performance.  My own thought is that as a gender-neutral individual (can be female or a smaller male), I'm indifferent about limitations of physical attributes IF they make up for that by bringing other attributes to the table such as superior marksmanship, or communication skills, or specialized knowledge such as combat first aid.  In short, almost all shortcomings can be overcome if the individuals brings other skillsets to the mix, that otherwise you wouldn't have.  My only caveat is that being of a specific gender should not be a politically-provided "get-out-of-jail free card" to avoid physical training to maximize what potential they do have, as such dereliction constitutes negligence due to the fact a physical failure in the field can easily result in either yourself or comrade dying.  I candidly don't care about which gender you are, I believe there should be physical requirements applied to some trades that have to do with body fat, and relative strength to body weight.  Any deficiency in these should require manditory physical training until requirements are met....or the non-gender specific individual should transfer to a trade where physical demands aren't as strenuous and as such would have lower benchmarks set.



Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ruxted dealt with this subject about 18 months ago.

I still agree with this part: *"There are a few broad, general differences: most women are not as 'big' as most men but, pound for pound they may be just as strong; most women can get pregnant, no man can; most women have been socialized differently than most men. These factors may mean that: many women are unable to meet the physical challenges of some military occupations; many women need to have extended leaves to give birth and mother their infants; and many women who wish to serve in the military may eschew some occupations. That should in no way disqualify those who want to serve and who can meet the standards from serving wherever they can: at sea, in submarines, flying jet fighter-bombers, chest deep in freezing water building bridges, loading ammunition into a tank gun or in close combat in the infantry."*


----------



## mover1

Going to play devils advocate here and try to broaden the debate here. This is in no means an indication of my character its just meant to get the conversation going in a different direction.


 What about all those feel good stories out there and media ads that predominately show women on them.
Take the Base bus in Halifax with he huge ass picture of the old PAO from Cold Lake on it. 
All the feel good stories about a middle aged private who joined the military and is finding her career "challenging and rewarding" that resonate everywhere.
Is there not a disproportionate amount of public affairs time and recruiting time emphasising women and diversity. When is the last time we ever saw "Joe English" boy from Small town ... represented in a media piece.  
Will there and is there ever going to be an end to "Employment Equity"?  When will we as a society  progress far enough that this program will no longer be needed or has it already out lived it usefullness and can be seen as nothing more that reverse discrimination. 

any ideas? thoughts?


----------



## armyvern

mover1 said:
			
		

> Going to play devils advocate here and try to broaden the debate here. This is in no means an indication of my character its just meant to get the conversation going in a different direction.
> any ideas? thoughts?



Devil's advocate with whom?? Us women in the CF??

I'd argue that most of us agree with you. We are just doing our jobs as best we can, exactly the same as the guys next to us do. It certainly isn't us asking for special recognition and/or exposure to the public for doing that job.

Again, it comes down to the media ... and what their perception is of "what sells."

This was discussed and debated during the time period shortly after the CFs loss of Capt Nichola Goddard. The women on this forum, and indeed most that I know who wear this country's uniform, were totally against their emphasis of her as the first female combat death. Simply put, we are quite sure she (and we in similar circumstances) would rather be remembered as both the fine leader and person she was, and for the fact that she died doing something she believed in and representing this country proudly and honourably in paying that ultimate price in defence of the people's of Afghanistan.

Like we pointed out at the time, women have now been employed in combat arms trades and in those first line roles for 20 years. That's two bloody decades already. Us women are over it. Why does the media still emphasize it like it were something new or special just because an infanteer happens to be female for example?  I can't answer that, but perhaps when the media decides to admit to itself that women have been performing these jobs for those 2 decades and that it is only they who make a fuss over it; maybe the CF itself, myself, and the men I serve next to, can finally carry on like normal. 

You see, being a woman is really no big deal, or really anything special, until someone else decides for us that it will be so.


----------



## medaid

I will admit I am guilty of point out Capt Goddard on some of my recruiting drives. However, I definitely did not do this out of disrespect. I did so, merely to point out to the rest of the world (the people that I am speaking to), that women serve along side men, that they do their duty just as well as men, and they die just like men. I incorporated her sacrifice into the education of the Canadian public, those who don't get in touch with the military often, that YES we do have women serving in our forces, and YES they are more then capable of doing some of the exact same jobs as men. 

To me, when I wear my uniform and go into work. I see my fellow soldiers. My brothers, my sisters. There are no inferior to me. Some are good at their jobs and some aren't. This will be the same no matter where we go. Gender has nothing to do with it. I proudly serve with men and women everyday, and I just don't care. 

Oh, and my bad for doing this but... cesare753 stand by your points. Don't back pedal. If you think you're wrong, admit to it. It takes a bigger person to realize that they are wrong, then to back pedal and try to cover it up. I learned that the hard way. 

Also... I'm sure some Israeli tank commanders and other combat hardened verterans (all women), could probably out march, out shoot and out survive you in a firefight. You know how I know? Becuase they've BTDT GTT and they're still alive to do it all again.


----------



## pbi

> the last time we ever saw "Joe English" boy from Small town ... represented in a media piece.



Just about every newspaper article, web news or TV broadcast I see?  It's kind of hard to hide the fact of who makes up most of  the Armyy.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## mover1

Thanks guys,I was just trying to steerit off from another express test discussion. 

No body wants to touch on the emplyment equity question? ;D


----------



## armyvern

mover1 said:
			
		

> Thanks guys,I was just trying to steerit off from another express test discussion.
> 
> No body wants to touch on the emplyment equity question? ;D



Sure. Don't hire someone simply to comply with EE. Hire the best person for the job. How's that??  ;D


----------



## mover1

awesome!  

it this thread done yet?


----------



## medaid

Meh, I think so. I'm just glad that we've been able to discuss this for this long without turning it into a gender bash again. I thank you all for your contributions and thoughts. Maybe we can now toss this into the ethers of the internet?


----------



## mover1

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=3478



Female aviators reach beyond the sky



June 7, 2007




By Carmel Ecker


Women working in the male-dominated field of aviation will have a chance to inspire each other at the 2007 Canadian Women in Aviation Conference which starts this week in Victoria, British Columbia.  The conference is held every two years and features military and civilian aviators coming together for networking, professional development, a common love of aviation and to hear a wide range of female aviation experts and motivational speakers.

Having a female-focused event offers a unique opportunity for women in the field of military and civilian aviation, says conference chair Sergeant Stacey Haggar, an Airborne Electronic Sensor Operator (AESOP) at 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, located in Esquimalt, British Columbia.

"Aviation is male-dominated. There are very few women that work together in the same location doing the same job. At this conference, you get to meet people and share stories."

Past conferences have left Sgt Haggar awestruck, having listened to the stories from pioneers such as Major Dee Brasseur, who was one of the first two females to become CF-18 fighter pilots in the world.

"She's very energetic. She's got passion for what she does and she's a very dedicated person," says Sgt Haggar.


Maj Brasseur's planned speech for the June conference details her journey to becoming an CF-18 pilot and her experience during a flight safety investigation of an CF-18 crash in Inuvik, NWT, in 1990. 
Maj Brasseur's motivational words from previous speaking engagements gave this year's conference its theme: The Sky is NOT the Limit.  Each person should strive to meet his or her own goals, rather than allow themselves to be bound by other people's doubts or by social constraints, says Sgt Haggar. "It's about not letting limits be set for you."

Other speakers for this year include Major Charity Weeden, currently posted to NORAD in Colorado Springs, who will speak about space travel, including advances in privately funded projects. 

Motivational speaker and professional life coach Christina Sestan's talk is "Navigating from within." Lisa Soderquist, an avionics instructor at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, will speak about avionics for private pilots. Also taking the podium is Dr. Peggy Chabrian, president and founder of Women in Aviation International, which represents more than 7,000 people worldwide. She is a pilot and a flight instructor qualified to fly several aircraft, including helicopters and seaplanes.



With such accomplished women present, the conferences "are energizing. You meet all these people who've done amazing things," says Sgt Haggar. 
With a large number of military members participating as both attendees and speakers, women in the CF will find the conference helpful, she says. The networking portion will allow them to share common experiences and solutions to common problems.

"They'll walk away with knowledge they didn't have before, stories, validation, role models or how to be a role model."

The participants' chance to share their stories is a key part of the conference, whether they are tales of success or struggle in their chosen field.

Sgt Haggar says her own venture into aviation came later in life. Though she admired the aircraft that flew above her small Manitoba hometown, she never imagined finding a career in the skies.

Instead, she signed up for college in Brandon, Manitoba, after high school. But with a lack of direction after her first year, she decided to get a job and take time to find her calling.  It didn't take long for her to become restless and she was soon looking for a way out of Brandon. She found her ticket in the Canadian Forces and signed on as a meteorology technician.

Three years into her contract, she landed on HMCS Preserver where she was first exposed to CH-124 Sea King helicopters, and she suddenly realized that was where she wanted to be.  Unable to re-muster at the time because the occupation was closed, and later due to pregnancy, she waited seven years, until 1998 for her chance to become an AESOP. 
"I like a challenge and I like doing different things, and the Sea King world is definitely a challenge," she says of her career. "I love what I do. I love the helicopter."

When Sgt Haggar started she was one of just seven women in the occupation, and though aviation continues to attract more men than women, she's happy to see more women taking an interest in recent years.


----------



## Yrys

Seem like an interesting conference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 !

Is there one for all aviators ?


----------



## cesare753

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh please, _whatever_. Don't back-pedal now.
> 
> Here's your original post:
> 
> Interestingly, in your original argument you don't make a single mention of weak men, only weak women. Then you go on to wonder in amazement when you get called on it as to how it could be interpreted as sexist.
> 
> Funny you mention the lowering of the trg standards for zero trades, blaming it on those physically weak women ... but have failed to note that there is a significant difference in standards between trades, enviornments and what the minimum fitness requirements are, regardless of gender. Let's get a little serious shall we? There is a significant difference between trades, enviornments in those standards as well...is that the woman's fault too?
> 
> You chose to focus on women's standards and blame that for the decrease in overall fitness standards, well I've got news for you; there was a difference in training and fitness standards between trades and enviornments long before those weak women were allowed, as part of the CREW trials, to enter those zero trades.
> 
> What's the bottom line in all of this? Stop blaming the girls and get over it already. The vast majority of them bust their asses everyday just like their male counterparts do. The vast majority of them also perform their jobs just as well as their male counterparts do. Percentage wise, I'd say the men are no better off at achieving than the women are either. But enough with your managing to always blame the fact that there are shitty soldiers out there on the fact that women have lowered the standards. That's bullshit. If a soldier is useless and unfit, it's becuase they personally lack the personal drive, determination, initiative and fortitude to become a good soldier ... male or female.
> 
> Don't blame the fact you've got a shitty male or female co-worker who made it through the system on me and other women causing a lowering of the standards, blame it on the instructors or supervisors that let him/her get away with hanging around being a shitty soldier.
> 
> When they don't meet the standards, deal with it and boot their *** if required...guy or girl. But please, stop blaming the women by excusing the shitty soldier's personal responsibility.



The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?

My true argument is not that women in the CF is bad, but the lowering of standards on courses to accommodate this IS bad.

Get the idea?


----------



## Michael OLeary

cesare753 said:
			
		

> The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?



And you are stating this from long personal experience?


----------



## KwaiLo

Do the non combat arms need to be as physically fit as the combat arms?  If not, why not change the wording in the PT requirements.  Where it lists the requirements for men, substitute 'Combat Arms' and where it says women, substitute 'Non-Combat Arms'.

/my $0.02 (civilian) cents


----------



## Edward Campbell

Women began to serve in the CF during, about, the Boer War period.  They began to serve in very large numbers in the 1940s.  They began to serve in most CF occupational groups in around the 1960s and '70s.

There is no doubt that some standards changed.  There is little doubt that some of the changes to some of he standards has had some undesirable effects.

The 'integration' of women, in and of itself, did *nothing* to those standards.  The changes were caused by people – mostly senior officers and senior bureaucrats (and, therefore, in the '60s , '70s and '80s, mostly men) - who wanted to *ensure* certain outcomes.

To the best of my personal knowledge (which is not as much as some others here have but is more than most – I was there in the '60s, '70s and '80s) most women never asked for anything but a fair chance to prove themselves.  Most (almost all, I think) of the the women with whom I had contact were, by and large, opposed to _special_ treatment or _lower_ standards – they just wanted an even chance to compete for the occupation/speciality of their their choice – not all could make it to all jobs but they deserved, and still deserve, a chance to try.

No one is defending the _*excesses*_ – and there were some – which occurred when some senior officers, aided and abetted by some senior NCOs, decided, for themselves, that there were _*quotas*_ (despite the government's repeated assurances that there were none) and decided to allow quite unfit and unsuitable people – men and women – into the CF.  There is a famous story about the late BGen Don Holmes (late of The RCR) telling Ottawa *”Don't send me any more fat, ugly women!”* and then amending it read, *“nor any fat, ugly men, either!”*  We had too many fat, slovenly, unkempt service members; we still do; one is too many!

We need lots and lots of people in the CF: the best people we can recruit and train.  Standards, of all sorts, need to reasonably reflect our *requirements*; all personnel must meet all the standards applicable to their occupation/speciality.  That may mean that we have to tighten some standards to ensure that we don't have any more *”fat ugly men.”* or women, for that matter.  If there is a standards problem then it was created by DND's _leadership_, not my female service members, and they, the leaders, have to fix it.


----------



## medaid

cesare753 said:
			
		

> The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?
> 
> My true argument is not that women in the CF is bad, but the lowering of standards on courses to accommodate this IS bad.
> 
> Get the idea?



Sorry... I just don't buy your point. As WE the collective have asked both over and over again, from what experience are you saying this from? Also, we have told you that this was not the case over all. But I guess you just refuse to listen. One of _those_


----------



## cesare753

I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.

Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general. 

Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?

I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.
Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.


To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.


----------



## medaid

cesae753 please support your claim with facts and if possible reference them.


----------



## KevinB

Fact -- standards had been lowered BEFORE women where allowed in the cbt arms.
 How the frick do you think I made it thru in 1987...

cesare753, I know we have a rule on personal attacks -- but you are an idiot.


Internal unit standards are still going to be similar - due to the role of Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, and Armoured have not really changed in years.  Thus the job is still being done - there are men and women that CANNOT measure up to the required standard - but then there where Men who could not measure up to the standard prior to cbt arms being open to women.

I suggest you shut your 18yr old mouth - cuz none of us really appreciate your ignorant and uninformed comments.  A year or two in the Mo does not give you street cred to come here and offer your "experiences"


----------



## the 48th regulator

cesare753 said:
			
		

> I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.
> 
> Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general.
> 
> Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?
> 
> I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.
> 
> Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.
> Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.
> 
> 
> To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.




Do you feel that the combat readiness of the troops that have gone to Afghanistan and will be going are substandard?  If we were to raise the standard, and please explain where this level is, would our casualty rate be much lower?

This should be interesting, oh just to let you know "_through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military_." just tells us you were sitting on the edge of a conversation in the mess after ex with some of the loudmouths  jawing away.....

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP

> I care not that women serve in combat roles,FLIP so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered,FLOP even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.
> 
> Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", UH HUH, YOU ARE I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years. SO ONCE YOU MAKE CORPORAL YOU'RE GONNA QUIT?  Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.


 Gee, well we had better bring all those lower standard guys and girls back from Afghanistan, why they must just be seeping like crazy!!!


----------



## armyvern

cesare753 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.
> 
> ...
> To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.
> 
> ....



1)  Obviously, I believe you and your arguement trying to justify women as the cause of CF woes in training standards is right the frig out of 'er; and

2)  If this IS the case, please explain to me how & why, if the standards were indeed lowered to accomodate said females in those trades, then where exactly are the females at? Females make up the majoriy of the Canadian population, and by your reasoning (lowering the standards so women could pass and do those jobs) then females should also make-up the majority of the CF and of those trades. It's been 20 years after all.

Quite simply put, some women who do attempt those courses are failing, just as some men are failing. Why? Because they couldn't meet the standard and thus should NOT be there. Sex really does not matter. 

Get over yourself already. Quit blaming women for your problems. We've grown up and carried on; can't you? 

Edited to add: Son, I see I've got more time in uniform than you have out of diapers...please, do continue to tell me how it is out here in the real world...I beg you.


----------



## KevinB

More like more time on HLTA that he has in uniform Vern...


----------



## Michael OLeary

cesare753 said:
			
		

> I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.



Don’t hide behind the fact that you’re young and try to turn that into those who challenge you being the bad guys.  Man up and present your “proof”.



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general.



No, it’s your failure to present your message in supportable detail.



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?



Then explain to me why, when I was platoon commander the mid-1980s, we were releasing soldiers that would not have made it into, let alone survived in, today’s army.  That was long before we allowed women to serve in the combat arms.  You may believe that certain “standards” have been lowered, but you have deluded yourself into missing the point that our *expectations* for soldiers have dramatically increased.  Why do you think there are so many threads on this site talking about responsibility, education, demands of individual training, fiscal responsibility, etc., etc., etc.  We took in soldiers 25 years ago that wouldn’t get past the Recruiting Centre now.  So please, don’t talk to me about your idea of the “old Army.”



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.



That’s funny, I’ve met women in the combat arms, officers and soldiers, are more than equal to their male peers.  How many have you actually worked with?  Maybe it’s you and your sense of masculine bravado that’s being challenged here, and you want to mask it with big talk about the Army degrading standards.

Why don’t you get over yourself and work on being a better soldier in today’s Army rather than day-dreaming about “good old days” that you have no real experience of.



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior
> NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.



I don’t think you’re sexist, I think you are uninformed, and unwilling to take a realistic view of the Army today.  You mask your own lack of real experience and understanding by parroting empty verbiage and refusing to accept the views of experienced soldiers.

I have seen current units doing more and more complex training than we imagined possible 25 years ago.  I see units constructing ranges now I wouldn’t have dared proposing, and those who know me will attest that I did a fair bit of live fire range work in my time and was always willing to go to the limits of the safety manual as it was published then.  I believe we are already seeing the benefits of NCOs trained under these more demanding and more challenging conditions.  Your knowledge of the evolution of army training over the past few decades is very lacking. 



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.



Can you tell us exactly where the “drop in standards” has been affecting the Army.  It may be just me, but I see an Army which is much more capable than it was 20 years ago, which places greater individual and collective demands on its soldiers and gets more from each one of them.  What is your basis for actual comparison?

And I will state again, 25 years ago we had plenty of soldiers that would not have gotten through the recruiting system today, or survived in the demanding training environment we have today. 



			
				cesare753 said:
			
		

> To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.



And today we take young infantry soldiers, of either gender, instruct them in complex ROE, train then to use a vehicle-mounted weapon system that reaches our 2+ kilometres, and we trust them to make the proper decisions on when and what to engage.

Yup, we’ve lowered our standards haven’t we?

Stop selling your own generation short, you do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## armyvern

cesare753 said:
			
		

> I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within *my connections locally in the military*.
> 
> .....
> 
> To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet *DND lowered standards * anyways.



Can you please, on my behalf, please pass along to your local experts that those who wear the uniform are part of the DND (The Department of National Defense, who as far as I'm aware, have no minimal fitness standards for their civilian employees) but that our military standards are set by the CF (the Canadian Forces) who would be your actual employer?? The next time they pass on their _expertize_ to you up and comers, they at least might want to get that much right.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Suck back and reload, cesare753.

You have displayed poor judgement and immaturity - but no serious harm done: you'll grow out of both, eventually.

Some of us have a fair amount of service - a couple of people who have responded to you have more years of service than you have on earth.  According to your profile I retired, after 35+ years, before you started grade school.  By now you need to have *learned* from those smart, experienced and senior people that your views are wrong.  Admit that, put this new knowledge into your internal system and process it - decide that you want to watch, listen and learn to become the best soldier and best person you can be.  Understand that being the 'best' is not related, not even slightly, to sex, age, race, creed and so on - its is *all* about work, work, work!

Don't worry if Kevin calls you dumb; he says that to me, too; we're all dumb about some things - try to shorten the list of things about which you are ill informed.  In the interim: stop talking about them.

Good luck in your life and your military career.


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't worry if Kevin calls you dumb; he says that to me, too; we're all dumb about some things -



Details please....I don't think Kevin has that big of kahunas!!!  ;D


----------



## KevinB

I said it was a dumb idea for you to pay the bar bill, yet once again -- big difference


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I said it was a dumb idea for you to pay the bar bill, yet once again -- big difference



Actually, I think it was when I decided to hold forth, very briefly I hasten to add, about  :soldier: small arms.  As I recall I retreated, quickly, to safer ground: policy and strategy.


----------



## KevinB

I'd like to appologize -- while I can get emotional about that topic -- I did not intend any offence.


----------



## Danjanou

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'd like to appologize -- while I can get emotional about that topic -- I did not intend any offence.



You get emotional about who pays bar bills? I've heard that 8) 

As to the topic on hand and the pup trying ( and failing) to run with the big dogs here, add me to the list of those who based on his profile  was actually doing this for a living while he was still an evil gleam in his father's eye and who also thinks he's right the frig outta er bye.


----------



## Good2Golf

There are multiple standards out there -- they take not only acceptable physical gender differences into account but also operational employment requirements as well.  

In the end, if the CF on behalf of the GoC says that certain folks are good to go, through either achieving the requisite gender and/or employment requirements, then guess what...they're good to go!  

Hands up, how many men currently serving in the CF can do 80+ on the Cooper's Scale?  Thought so...'nuf said.


G2G


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

The majority of the trades in the CF can be done as well by the average military woman as military man.  For the more demanding combat arms, the standards are far higher, and there are fewer women who can make it.  Having said that there aren't all that many men up to the standard either.  Those who can make the standard, of either gender are the tip of the spear, the best steel we have.  The rest of the force is the body of the spear, and just as important, but does not have to be quite as hard as the cutting edge.  I have served with some women who made that standard effortlessly.  I have served with those of both genders who fell short.  Gender is like age, or race, something that is easy to use as an excuse based on individual failures, but utterly irrelevant to the question of wether any specific individual has what it takes.  If they have it, then man, woman, or Polar Bear, slap them in Cadpat and give them a rifle.


----------



## McG

cesare753 said:
			
		

> The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?


I suspect you are unqualified to make this connection, and I do not believe this connection to be true.  A lowering of fitness levels in the general population could force the lowering of CF fitness standards just to get sufficient recruits that meet the standard.  Alternately, reduced interest in the CF as a career could result in fewer applicants and the requirement to lower standards in order to meet requirements.

. .  but then again, have standards lowered?  What have they lowered from?  You can get recruited without meeting the standard, but once  you are in you will be trained up to the standard.  The nice thing about standards it that they are documented, so you should be able to provide time lines & quantifiables related to the standards drop.  If you manage to do this, then you might also want to find the proof that it is women's fault that standards have dropped.

As an aside, I find it interesting that your greatest concern is WRT the impact on combat arms.  However, you only talk about the CF fitness standards.  What about the Army fitness standards?  If you look into it, you will find that the BFT has in fact become more comprehensive recently with the addition of several upper body tests (ammo can lift, trench dig) that did not exist before.


----------



## ZipperHead

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> The majority of the trades in the CF can be done as well by the average military woman as military man.  *For the more demanding combat arms, the standards are far higher*, and there are fewer women who can make it.  Having said that there aren't all that many men up to the standard either.  Those who can make the standard, of either gender are the tip of the spear, the best steel we have.  The rest of the force is the body of the spear, and just as important, but does not have to be quite as hard as the cutting edge.  I have served with some women who made that standard effortlessly.  I have served with those of both genders who fell short.  Gender is like age, or race, something that is easy to use as an excuse based on individual failures, but utterly irrelevant to the question of wether any specific individual has what it takes.  If they have it, then man, woman, or Polar Bear, slap them in Cadpat and give them a rifle.



I didn't want to jump in on this thread, as it seems to re-hash the same-old-same-old, the above comment struck me as peculiar: where is it dictated that there is a "far higher" standard, officially, for the combat arms??? Generally, yes, for those serving in Land Force units (but not always, it seems) the standard is marginally higher (and some would argue the EXPRES test is harder, though I have only done it once..... 19 years ago, as well as the old 2 x 10 miler, so my recollection is hazy at best) with the 13km ruck march, casualty evacuation (to placate those that hate the term "fireman's carry") and trench dig. 2:26:20 is a ridiculously sufficient amount of time to do this, but some people are near collapse after doing this, and almost demand the rest of the day off after this staggering feat of endurance (sarcasm alert). Of course this is re-enforced by those (usually of a higher rank and/or lower standard of fitness) who insist that "You have 2:26:20, take every last second available". These are what I refer to as "60% soldiers". 60% on any given standard is good enough for them. Well, if you can barely make the 60% standard, under the most ideal of conditions (for 13km march: generally flat terrain, minimal weight, lots of advance notice (in form of "work up training"), water and juice and other refreshments at mid-way point) how would you be able to accomplish the same under realistic conditions. I'll allow those with *dismounted *combat ops experience (Op's Anaconda, Cherokee Sky, etc) to throw in their 2 cents if they feel that the 13km march standards served them well enough, as I haven't faced combat conditions, myself, other than carrying 100+ lbs in mountainous terrain (G8 security in Kananaskis), although don't think that I am comparing that to what those that went through the ops that I mentioned, but I do know that we had to train well above and beyond the 13km standard for that mission. My point here is that you'll never know what will be expected of you, so you should train for the unknown and unknowable (a tenet of CrossFit, BTW), not to the lowest standard possible. Yes, it's hard. The army (and military as a whole) should be hard. That _should_ keep the deadwood out. Instead, it seems we want them in. Go figure why we have these crises.....

I myself get tired of hearing of how the standard has been lowered, but gosh darn it!!! because of that, we haven't suffered for it, and we're better for it. Sure. If that's your opinion, sleep well at night. I feel that it has dropped, and we as a whole have suffered for it, and nobody can blame women, midgets or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarians, unite!!!) if they themselves are out of shape. Look at yourself in the mirror, and that is who is to blame if you aren't the best that you can be (mentally, physically, morally). I'm tired of people blaming society, the military, their neighbour for what is so readily apparent: take responsibility for yourself. The whole "Those who live in glass houses......" thing.

AL


----------



## geo

Heh... had to do the express test at my return from xmass leave - CDS came out with some wild and crazy idea that all CWOs, Cols (& Lcols in a posn of command) would have to lead by example & do it - regardless of express exemption... sigh!

And with April 1st, the 13Km standard.  Did that last friday.  Alan, you're right! Many thought they deserved the rest of the day off.... while I was "as fresh as a daisy" after a  bit of a clean up in the showers.....

I used my age as a tool to encourage some people my junior to catch up & keep up.  Of 98 to take the fitness test, 96 passed... reasonnable results


----------



## medaid

WOW when did my post become a part of the SUPER thread   I am glad to read some of the more experienced members of the forums bring up interesting facts and points with relations to CF and it's supposed lowered standards. 

cesare753... I told you stand by your points man... and admit that you were wrong. I guess once again, people just refuse to listen to logic and lessons learned.


----------



## canadianblue

DND lowered the standards? 

When I went through BMQ I thought they were trying to improve the training at the time. As well when I was doing BMQ men and women alike would have to meet the same standard, got yelled at the same, and in general had to go through the same hardships. I wasn't aware that the standard has been lowered that much. You'll have to be more specific in how the standards were 'lowered'?



> I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is
> 
> a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out
> and
> b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses



Be specific, and what courses have you done that would give you this kind of insight?

In my own opinion the smartest comment on here with regards to training standards was this one:



> What would benifit the CF more than 9 push ups over 19 is identifying the soldiers who fake injuries (especially on BMQ type courses) and punt them right out of the forces. THAT in my opiion is a much bigger drain on training and effectiveness.



In my own humble opinion as long as a person can do their job, and is able to do it then whats the issue. Are these supposed lower standards hurting us overseas, are we unable to do the job given because of these 'lower standards'. I haven't seen it, and so far my biggest gripe with the CF would have to be the MIR commando's who do everything in their power to ensure they don't go on a hectic 3km rucksack march.


----------



## Jimmy SG

No one has posted on this thread in over a month but I have a question. Why when this conversation comes up does the conversation always point out the women who cry to get out of work, or aren't physically fit enough to do the job. I know those women exist and have been unfortunate enough to have to "work" (using the term loosly) with them. However I have also had to work with men who can never get themselves out of bed in time to get to work or shave properly, or again aren't fit enough. It is not a problem that only happens with women. It happens with men too and the problem is in how then chain of command handles them. With all the "rights of individuals' it is not a simple thing to do up the paper required. And again that mountain of paperwork is no different to process a female then a male. the problem is not gender specific. 
And as to crying I have seen men do it to get out of work as well, it isn't as effective.


----------



## Greymatters

Jimmy SG said:
			
		

> And as to crying I have seen men do it to get out of work as well, it isn't as effective.



Really?  

Cant say I've seen it myself...


----------



## Jimmy SG

Needless to say it did not produce the same  "oh my god! How do I get it to stop?!?" responce from the Sgt


----------



## Greymatters

Id say the closest was in the early '80's on a YTEP program.  Suddenly, for no apparent reason, the guy at the back of the class stood up and said "I cant take it anymore! I freakin out man!".  Never seen again of course.


----------



## canadianblue

I've seen men cry during BMQ, but they usually VRed day one or two.


----------



## Yrys

That seem fast for people that went through the entire process of recruitment...


----------



## canadianblue

Well, one of the guys was extremely obese and couldn't even do one pushup, and the other had trouble walking up the stairs with a rucksack. Oddly enough both of them we're going into the infantry. :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hey we have a bunch of guys that came over for 1-08 and now say they can't shoot at people so its better to be quick then wait until your called on it.


----------



## Meridian

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Hey we have a bunch of guys that came over for 1-08 and now say they can't shoot at people so its better to be quick then wait until your called on it.



Pure curiosity, mind qualifying "a bunch"... Is that like 2, or like 50?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

at least 3.  3 to many.  I've been in another organization and just got back recently so there I've been out of the loop for a bit.  that's all I know and I hope that's all their is.


----------



## Greymatters

Who processes these people? (Rhetorical question) 
Arent recruiters supposed to weed out the ones who have limited chance of success?  (Sarcasm)
Or did they have degrees so they got sent to the front of the line? (Actual question)


----------



## armyvern

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Who processes these people? (Rhetorical question)
> Arent recruiters supposed to weed out the ones who have limited chance of success?  (Sarcasm)
> Or did they have degrees so they got sent to the front of the line? (Actual question)



1) Their CoC, Padres, Social Workers, etc when they DAG;
2) Recruiters have nothing to do with deployments, the DAG process is for this (the mbrs apparently failed to mention this tidbit at DAG);
3) What in the world does having a degree (or not) have to do with deployment problems?

In answering this, I am assuming that you were asking questions based on Lone Wolf Quagmire's post.  ???


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

not sure


----------



## Greymatters

Actually it was Sigs Guys post - sorry about that, I didnt clarify.


----------



## canadianblue

Greymatter I'm not a recruiter so I've got no idea. But I recall one member stating that the interview only took about 10 minutes, which in my own opinion seems pitiful if it's true. As for the people that are really out of shape, I've got no clue how they ever could have passed the physical unless they were exempt somehow. 

From my limited experience, I've always found most of the women to perform admirably when faced with most challenges. If anything I think that greater diversity in the forces is an asset, as long as it doesn't result in a general decay of the CF. 

BTW, from what I knew about them they didn't have any post secondary.


----------



## cameron

To my knowledge (please correct me if i'm wrong) Canada's is the only major western or western style military, apart from Israel, that allows women into certain fields like infantry and special forces.  Considering the fact that one of the CANSOFCOM members who got decorated just a few days ago was a woman, i'd say that the women in the CF certainly seem to be holding their own and kicking a$$ .  Seem to me that the Canadian military is years ahead of the Americans and Brits in this regard, another example of what a world leader this nation can be when it puts its mind to it.


----------



## geo

Mmmmph!


----------



## Brockvegas

Man, I don't know why this question was even posted in the first place, let alone 51 pages of responses!!!

If you're watching my back when we're in the field, I don't give a rat's ass about your plumbing, as long as you're gonna pull that trigger when the time comes!


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

There shouldn't be any double standard. I believe we can treat everyone equally, as for working with women i had a few bad experiences ranging from crying to mo stress resistance. Well, those things get to my nerve, it's personal.

But we're speaking in combat arms?...gender can't be a criteria. Maybe make a women only infantry unit, would make more sense.


----------



## geo

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> There shouldn't be any double standard. I believe we can treat everyone equally, *as for working with women i had a few bad experiences ranging from crying to mo stress resistance. Well, those things get to my nerve, it's personal*.
> 
> But we're speaking in combat arms?...gender can't be a criteria. Maybe make a women only infantry unit, would make more sense.



Ummm... and you haven't had that experience with some men/boys before?

An all woman infantry unit?... Please - gimmie a break.
1st off... there aren't enough infantry qualified women @ all rank levels to fill a complete slate.


----------



## 2 Cdo

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... *and you haven't had that experience with some men/boys before?*
> 
> An all woman infantry unit?... Please - gimmie a break.
> 1st off... there aren't enough infantry qualified women @ all rank levels to fill a complete slate.



Exactly Geo, I've had men cry on courses I've taught but so far no women crying. As for the all woman infantry battalion, that's not even remotely feasable now or in the immediate future.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

Didnt Bangladesh deploy an all women force to Leb? (or something liek that).
I know one country at least has sent an all women un force.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... and you haven't had that experience with some men/boys before?
> 
> An all woman infantry unit?... Please - gimmie a break.
> 1st off... there aren't enough infantry qualified women @ all rank levels to fill a complete slate.



Someone that cant take a minimum of stress isnt a real man and isnt made for army. I have yet to see a woman who can cope with stress without going crazy, even my girlfriend and my mother-in-law(who i thought had strong leadership assets) act bitchy, yell and ultimately cry when it doesnt work their way.

Alright then, why isnt there any more women in infantry? Because the guys act cruel on them and they get out? I don't think so... I'm not saying we should forbid access, but i guess you'd be blind to realize it takes exceptionnal women to be in the COMBAT arms, not just that girl you cross on the corner of the street. And i mean, personnaly i like to work with guys, how the hell can you talk about girls or your wife or whatever controversial/sexist subject if you automatically end up with a harassment complain???? That sucks.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Exactly Geo, I've had men cry on courses I've taught but so far no women crying. As for the all woman infantry battalion, that's not even remotely feasable now or in the immediate future.



Seeing as easy as they get it in courses, it's normal you don't see much girls crying.


----------



## PMedMoe

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I have yet to see a woman who can cope with stress without going crazy, even my girlfriend and my mother-in-law(who i thought had strong leadership assets) act bitchy, yell and ultimately cry when it doesnt work their way.



Maybe you should get out and meet some more women.  :



			
				SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> personnaly i like to work with guys, how the hell can you talk about girls or your wife or whatever controversial/sexist subject if you automatically end up with a harassment complain???? That sucks.



Are you implying that only women would find certain subjects harrassing?




			
				SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Seeing as easy as they get it in courses, it's normal you don't see much girls crying.



_Excuse me?_


----------



## Scott

Um, yeah, I would like some clarification on that little remark as well.

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## medaid

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Seeing as easy as they get it in courses, it's normal you don't see much girls crying.



Ah.... mon ami... how does foot taste? Maybe you can't taste it because it's deep down in your esophagus. Time to pull it out before you choke!


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

Hearing laughs every morning inspections in the room below on a basic course. ??? Can i call that easy? Wait...the only girl room. ??? Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe it's a coincidence that a instructor ended up with one of these girl after the course.  DAMN, that's a lot of coincidence.  Anyways dont take that as jealousy, i didnt like much the instructors,  nor was he my kind.  :-* I'm not in any case blaming the girls for the favored treatment they got. :blotto:

But we get one standard or no? And for my foot, taste like FROMAGE!  :blotto:

Dont get me wrong, i'm far from mysogism. And if you want explanations over the previous statements, all i can say is the experience makes up for the opinion and not the opposite.  And yes maybe i should meet more women, but it could be dangerous for my current relationship...I prefer not to tempt the devil.


----------



## geo

Siggie,
Some women have made it, some haven't... same as with the men.  It takes a real man to face facts and let actions prove who the real soldiers are - Fem and / or Male.

From an Engineer point of view, the life of a sapper is a hard & difficult place.  No harder / no easier than an infantryman's lot... (I'm an infantry retread).  I have had women working for me who have been just as competent, just as capable as the guys... PERIOD!

And I'm talking with 35 yrs of experience to back me up.


----------



## Franko

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Dont get me wrong, i'm far from mysogism. And if you want explanations over the previous statements, all i can say is the experience makes up for the opinion and not the opposite.



So you've been in for how long? Been on how many courses? How many operations have you been on? I'm thinking not many, if any at all.

Your opinion seems like a very biased one at best. Known a few females on a BMQ and chalk them all up to being one in the same.

I'll have to remember that for the next batch of newbies into the Regiment....one is a screw-up, they all must be in your logic.

General tripe that you are pushing out in this thread is not going to be tolerated very much longer. Nor will your little pot shot at your previous instructors.

Keep it up and you'll be on the ramp without a chute....

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Dissident

On that note:

Yup, I have seen females sleeping with one (or more) instructors on course.

BUT: If we were somewhere and 18 y/o, and there was 45 hot girls for 5 guys, I betcha we would be high fiving each other if we managed to "fraternize" with more than one female on the same course.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

-5 years.
-3 MILITARY courses.
-0 operation
-If you can't understand that different experiences make for different opinions, my opinion is biased.
-I had nothing against the females, they had it easy, bottomline.
-newbies are likely to screw-up.
-potshot on instructors? I named none. i just pointed out the guys that were doing the favoritism to make sure i get understood(which im unsure).

Why do you tolerate a controversial subject? If not to tolerate anyone's opinion and talk it out respectfully. 

As for Geo i'm 100% in agreement with you.

As to keep it up, i'll stop answering questions.

Jr. Member


----------



## armyvern

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> -5 years.
> -3 MILITARY courses.
> -0 operation
> -If you can't understand that different experiences make for different opinions, my opinion is biased.
> *-I had nothing against the females, they had it easy, bottomline.*
> ...


I call bullshit. Perhaps they just performed better than you?



> As for Geo i'm 100% in agreement with you.



Uhmmm, no you're not. You'd better re-read his post, no where does he infer that, bottom line, females have had or still have it easy.

He says that they performed on par with (ie the same as) their male counterparts, good _or_ bad. 

He's got a heck of a lot more experience than you;  I highly suggest that you suck back, reload, and gain from it.


----------



## PMedMoe

Thank goodness, the Voice of Reason!!  

Kind of reminds me of when I was on my Tfc Tech QL3 course, many many moons ago.....
They used to give us a reading assignment and then we would take turns and read it aloud in class the next day.  ???  Needless to say, another female and I, who used to sit at the back of the class, dozed off a lot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  One day, we were having an exam and one of the guys had been out partying until 0400.  Shortly after the exam started, his snoring started.  The Standards Sgt, who did not wake him up, said "That's not what I'm here for.  I'm here to answer any questions about the exam."  Subsequently, this guy failed the exam and had to do a rewrite.  Then he had the nerve to complain that us "girls" had it "easy" as we slept in class all the time and didn't get in trouble!    
I merely replied that I didn't sleep during exams and if I could sleep *and* maintain a 97% average, I failed to see the problem.  That shut him up pretty fast.  ;D


----------



## exgunnertdo

1.  There are good, bad and average soldiers, man or woman.  A man fails, he's just a soldier that failed.  A woman fails, and it's a *female* soldier that failed.  One male fails, that's just the way it goes, some can cut it some cannot.  A woman fails, we shouldn't question every woman's ability to do the job.  

2.  Criticism about female soldiers sleeping with instructors?????  You've got to be kidding me!  What about the incredible lack of professionalism/restraint shown by the instructor??  It takes two to tango, and I hold the member in the supervisory position responsible for that lapse in judgement (male or female), not the student.

3.  True story - on a leadership course of mine many moons ago, the whole course had evening show parade for quarters.  Some instructors were over laughing and joking with us (females), while the rest were over giving it to the guys.  The reason (admitted to us by the instructors)?  We had our s**t together, and the majority of the guys did not.  As a group, our shacks were cleaner, our bedspaces better, our t-shirts folded neater, our weapons cleaner etc...It may have looked to the outsiders that we were getting it "easier," but in reality, we had it more together.  The fact that we were "girls" may or may not have had something to do with it, but we've all been on courses where one room/section gets it together sooner than others.

4.  I have been on more courses than I can count where I was the only female, or one of two females.  Trust me, we did not have it easier.  Had to pass the same tests, same inspections, dig the same trenches, carry the same weapons...

5.  You want a workplace where you can whine and complain about your girlfriend/wife/latest hook-up?  And that should be a reason to say that women can't be in the combat arms?  What a weak argument...


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

I wasn't particularly speaking of the combat arms, i was speaking of my own experience. As for the combat arms i think it's exactly the opposite it doesnt go easier if you're a woman i think you got something to prove to others from the start... I mean to go to war in the infantry/tank/f-18/artillery/engineer(especially the ones working in minefields, i mean, you gotta to have steel nerves, the ennemy must think he's fighting some serious shit...

What tickles me is the double standard thing...I mean where is the equality in that?  might as well let my 8 month old in the army as he can do push ups on his knees(and i mean, he can do a shitload of them, my brains passes out counting before he starts to shed a single sweat drop)

I used wrong words, "they had it easy": i meant with the instructors, i should have been specific. They had to do the same crap, rucksack march, push-ups carrying C-7 and webbing. And i must admit that some girls impressed me( they were almost the same size than the rucksack and i never heard them complaining).

And about your 5th point, it's not exactly that...I mean the harassments complaint is there for a good reason, and i support it 100%. You can't really talk about sex, touchy subject, make any kind of jokes (if a female is around), 1st i don't feel comfortable with it, some kind of girls are Okay. But with the over-serious type no risk to take, and i dont want to hurt anyone's feeling. you know what i mean?

I agree with you on the 2nd pointm that's why i didn't put it that way...

Your 3rd point doesnt make sense as your part of that team?? Or maybe it's just me.

And about that Muaithai fighter(in earlier posts) talking about women would get raped and should have children. That's ridiculous, men can get raped as well. And personnaly i'd be PTS case to get a*** raped by 20 talebans! As for the children, well, men can have children too, they just dont bear them, just 9months difference.


----------



## armyvern

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> ....
> And about your 5th point, it's not exactly that...I mean the harassments complaint is there for a good reason, and i support it 100%. You can't really talk about sex, touchy subject, make any kind of jokes (if a female is around), 1st i don't feel comfortable with it, some kind of girls are Okay. But with the over-serious type no risk to take, and i dont want to hurt anyone's feeling. you know what i mean?
> ...



What??!!??

From experience (I'm a _"girl"_ BTW), the harassment complaint system is used just as often by men as it is women. As to your "if a female is around," I will also tell you, from experience (as an HA etc), that men are also offended by some of those "sexual" jokes (even when it is another man telling it) and put in complaints!! 

As to your "some kind of girls are OK with it" ... what the heck is that supposed to mean?? Some kind of men are _OK_ with it too; just as "some kind" of women and "some kind" of men are not!! And, some of all four types of the aforementioned men and women  are overly serious, and some are not. Are you getting it yet??

Gender (ie being a _"girl"_) has absolutely *ZERO* to do with it. It's all about how the _individual_ performs.

As to her 3rd point: It's exactly that!! Don't blame the girls for the unprofessionalism displayed by their instructors. Get the point? If not, maybe it is just you.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

That's just me. It has nothing to do with performance, i just dislike people losing their nerves quickly(women or men) and i was in a unit with many girl bosses and honestly i could often feel like i was in the titanic sinking. If i had been in a unit with women of steel, i would probably be saying the opposite.


----------



## armyvern

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> That's just me.



Have a nice career then.


----------



## Scott

SiG,

You're all over the place here posting crap. Stop now or be placed on warning. As well, mocking the Staff will not endear you to us.

I see you're posting in this thread, I highly reccommend re-reading whatever it is you have in mind before posting it.

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Franko

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> As to keep it up, i'll stop answering questions.
> 
> Jr. Member



Here's the ramp.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## PMedMoe

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> might as well let my 8 month old in the army as he can do push ups on his knees



If you've been in five years (as you've said), you would know that those push ups have not been around for quite some time.


----------



## Fry

Almost all of the girls in my basic platoon did real well with the PT portion... certainly out-ran a lot of the guys. Not one person had drawn the gender line either, it's all teamwork.


----------



## vonGarvin

I'll tell a story out of school about women in the CF:
Some are good.
Some aren't good.
Now a story about men in the CF:
Some are good
Some aren't good.
The end


----------



## armyvern

And they all lived happily ever after.


----------



## observor 69

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> I'll tell a story out of school about women in the CF:
> Some are good.
> Some aren't good.
> Now a story about men in the CF:
> Some are good
> Some aren't good.
> The end



Love it, that sums up what I sat and laboured over trying to express my feelings and experience with women in the CF.


----------



## 1feral1

Australia unlike Canada does not have women in combat arms trades, but there are loopholes, support trades attached to said units.

Australia has been challenged to open such trades to females by womens groups and politicians (all were told to stay in their lanes and butt out of how things are ran), but in short thats a long way from ever happening. A huge influence was the RSL (our legion), the Corps in question, and others, as there really is no such thing as being PC on this subject in our Army (yet). We do nothing to appease the minorities, as its all about combat power and its preservation.

I am far from sexist, but being at the pointy end for real, against an enemy with extreme islamic beliefs, who ALREADY have no respect for their own women, honestly I am happy we did not have any with us when, in fact things got hairy (shy of three females in total of the whole Unit who were outside the combat arms trades).

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Brockvegas

***DIRECTING STAFF***
If I am outside my own lane here, please feel free to delete this post, and PM me if there's a problem.

I've gone back and read over "Sig"s posts, and took a peek at his almost non existant profile, and I'm sorry but I gotta call bullshit on him even being in the CF. Just too many "civvy-isms" where there should be military terminology ie- "bosses" instead of Officers/Senior NCO's, etc.

Not to mention that he started back-peddelling so hard I could smell the rubber when our ladies called him on his comments.


----------



## armyvern

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> ***DIRECTING STAFF***
> If I am outside my own lane here, please feel free to delete this post, and PM me if there's a problem.
> 
> I've gone back and read over "Sig"s posts, and took a peek at his almost non existant profile, and I'm sorry but I gotta call bullshit on him even being in the CF. Just too many "civvy-isms" where there should be military terminology ie- bosses instead of Officers/Senior NCO's, etc.
> 
> Not to mention that he started back-peddelling so hard I could smell the rubber when our ladies called him on his comments.



He's legit.


----------



## Pikache

The DS sees all





			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Australia unlike Canada does not have women in combat arms trades, but there are loopholes, support trades attached to said units.
> 
> Australia has been challenged to open such trades to females by womens groups and politicians (all were told to stay in their lanes and butt out of how things are ran), but in short thats a long way from ever happening. A huge influence was the RSL (our legion), the Corps in question, and others, as there really is no such thing as being PC on this subject in our Army (yet). We do nothing to appease the minorities, as its all about combat power and its preservation.
> 
> I am far from sexist, but being at the pointy end for real, against an enemy with extreme islamic beliefs, who ALREADY have no respect for their own women, honestly I am happy we did not have any with us when, in fact things got hairy (shy of three females in total of the whole Unit who were outside the combat arms trades).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wes


And do you think any captured male NATO soldier is going to get a better treatment from Taliban or similar loonie types?


----------



## 1feral1

Hey, we could agree to disagree all we want about women in combat arms units, torture and rape are simply that, but overall the general western public would be more horrified if a woman was taken prisoner, raped and tortured than a man.

I have an opinion, and the last thing I want to do is start a shytestorm over it. My post was just comparing the CF policy to the ADF policy, nothing more.

I am no longer a member of the CF, and they practice what they do, but here the current model used by the Australian Army works for us. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## medaid

Sig... I'm glad that you're no where near my Bde, or do you work for me in my unit. I have no place for some one such as yourself.


----------



## armyvern

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Hey, we could agree to disagree all we want about women in combat arms units, torture and rape are simply that, but overall the general western public would be more horrified if a woman was taken prisoner, raped and tortured than a man.
> 
> I have an opinion, and the last thing I want to do is start a shytestorm over it. My post was just comparing the CF policy to the ADF policy, nothing more.
> 
> I am no longer a member of the CF, and they practice what they do, but here the current model used by the Australian Army works for us.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



Wes,

No shitstorm here. At least you put out the policy rather than just prattle off about the evils of women. There's a big difference.

As a female though, here's how I see it.

YES, the western public would be truly horrified if a female soldier was taken prisoner, tortured and raped. I would hope though that they'd be just as horrified if this were to happen to a male soldier.

Say you have a lassie able to volunteer to do the job and who can perform in that role just as well as a man. She is precluded by policy from doing so. If the reason that the policy precludes her from doing so is based on public perception in the west and how bad they would react to her rape/torture etc then, ironically, the policy effectively would be catering to exactly those political and self-interest groups who _don't_ want to see that occur to a female and believe that only male soldiers should be subjected to this possibility. Despite the fact other political and other self-interest groups were told to keep out of the debate. I'd argue that no-one _ever_ wants to see that occur, to a male _or_ female soldier. Either way the decision goes, it IS catering to _someones _ beliefs and interests. 

That's fine, as long as its catering for the right reasons. As a soldier, I'd hope those interests of the military I serve in, and their policy decisions, would be based upon the ability to soldier, warfight, and get the darn job done; not sex, and certainly not upon public, political, media, or even a fellow soldiers opinion about what the enemy _could_ do to me. The enemy _can_ do that to men too.



Edited for damn typos.


----------



## geo

Another point about the combat arms VS non combat arms trades.... 

with the nature of warfighting that has evolved in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq, there are no real front lines & safe(er) rear areas.  That medic / truck driver / mechanic outside the base perimeter is just as much at risk as the Infantryman / Sapper / Crewman / Gunner.... be they Fem / Male.


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> Another point about the combat arms VS non combat arms trades....
> 
> with the nature of warfighting that has evolved in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq, there are no real front lines & safe(er) rear areas.  That medic / truck driver / mechanic outside the base perimeter is just as much at risk as the Infantryman / Sapper / Crewman / Gunner.... be they Fem / Male.



There's a _big_ misconception out there about support roles. It's about the position they are in and the role they are filling, not the trade. There are zero trades working inside the wire at KAF too on a daily basis because that's the role they just happen to be filling. The support folk may not be out there daily, if ever as their role dictates, but there are indeed some out there.

I've gotten some really good pics from over there sent to me from some of the males _and_ females who have previously worked for me out in the middle of the big marijuana fields and outside the wire. Who'd have thunk it for a suppie eh?


----------



## 2 Cdo

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Seeing as easy as they get it in courses, it's normal you don't see much girls crying.



Hey Sig, right now I train Jimmies in Kingston. If you know anything about the military you'll recognize my name and figure out who I am. Looking forward to seeing you this fall for IBTS training! 

By the way, in over 20 years of service, I can't honestly remember how many courses(as both candidate and instructor) I have only had 2 people cry. Both Jimmies, both male. Maybe you were one of them!


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

I was just fishing, Vern is probably the only one who has realized it. I was wondering how a "seem so controversial subject" wasn't locked... I still don't have my answer. 

Seems like a rather touchy subject.

Goodbye and apologies.


----------



## armyvern

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I was just fishing, Vern is probably the only one who has realized it. I was wondering how a "seem so controversial subject" wasn't locked... I still don't have my answer.
> 
> Seems like a rather touchy subject.
> 
> Goodbye and apologies.



It's not locked because the women have been doing the job (CREW) for 19 years now.    

It may be a controversial subject for you, but the vast majority of us ... built the bridge and crossed it years ago. To us it's no longer controversial, the deed is done, the job gets done, and we are here to stay.

Have a good day yourself.


----------



## Chimo

Well stated, Vern. I cannot believe it is still an issue in some people's mind.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think you have been owned by so many people on this board Sig_22_Qc the only one that does not realize it is you, quit while you still have some dignity.


----------



## mudrecceman

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I was just fishing, Vern is probably the only one who has realized it. I was wondering how a "seem so controversial subject" wasn't locked... I still don't have my answer.
> 
> Seems like a rather touchy subject.
> 
> Goodbye and apologies.



Well I just read the thread and your posts.  If you were fishing...nah I'll call bs on that.  You just took a pounding and are saying "ya well I wasn't really fighting back, so there".

1 short story for you Sig.

Winter ex...I have my Tp- heading to our OP Base/Tp biv...I am up breaking trail for my sled, and hear a female voice "get up Bloggins.  Bloggins, get the puck up now!".

Bloggins, a male, after only 500 meters or so, who was in the 2nd harness on the toboggan, had fallen and was laying face first in the snow, unable to hold his body, his fighting and winter marching order, and pull on the tobaggan.  My 2 i/c was a female recce soldier, and she helped him up, helped him get out of his ruck, giving him the required amount of embarassing comments about his physical robustness, strapped his ruck on the top of the toboggan, and we carried on.  

Bloggins spent the entire winter FTX in the TENT (sick with SBS...Sore Bum Sydrome), when we were already doing a Tp task (our Recce Tp those days was 20 soldiers and 1 officer) with 14 all ranks.  He made it one less.

Thanks for coming out.

And if you read the words under my name upper left, you will see what I said to that young, weak male soldier who became a burden to us 2 days into the ex when we were all tired cold and overtasked...he tapped out when the first 5 man tent was up.   :

He (yes *HE*) was actually both...and then some.


----------



## geo

MRM... 
funny thing that - it is also quite probable that same said Bloggins would slag women Troopers in general to camouflage his shortcomings.....


----------



## mudrecceman

geo said:
			
		

> MRM...
> funny thing that - it is also quite probable that same said Bloggins would slag women Troopers in general to camouflage his shortcomings.....



Which he did do until that day.  His Tae Kwon Do braggings became myths and fairytales about the time his carcass hit the snow too.


----------



## armyvern

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Which he did do until that day.  His Tae Kwon Do braggings became myths and fairytales about the time his carcass hit the snow too.



Crap. I'd have loved to be present for this!! I have untold numbers of "requisite emabarassing comments" running through my head just thinking about it!! Be they comments for a male or female.


----------



## Remius

We had a guy once who spouted off about how weak females were and he didn't think they should be in the military let alone the combat arms.  I overheard him and told him my opinion that out of shape (he was out of shape, well, he was pear shaped but whatever) people shouldn't be in the military.  I then called over the three women in our company and challeged them to race each other for 500meters,  if the women won he'd quit if he did I would, needless to say he knew and I knew he couldn't beat them and declined.

Just be careful what you say...somebody might take you to task for it.


----------



## Fry

Exactly. Both  genders are capable of doing work in the CF.


----------



## wolseley

It has been almost 8 years since I was last on this, and I see that the same questions are still being discussed.  Given that I was the first female officer to wear the artillery cap badge, I feel that I can weigh in here with some authority.  
I have always maintained that women should be able to be wherever the men are given that they can meet the same standards. To allow women to meet a lesser standard than the males in order to respect the physical differences between men and women, however politically correct, does no good for anyone when it really matters.  If a woman can not carry a 200lb man in a fireman's carry (for example) then she probably has no place in the combat arms. The terrible, horrible fact is that there might be a day when one of her mates will rely on her to do that very thing.  Then, all the advances in women's lib won't mean a thing if she can't save someone who is counting on her.
I think some of the arguments that have been put forth as a means to keep women out of the combat arms are no longer valid.  There was an argument that stated that women shouldn't be in a combat arms unit because it would distract the men, is a. rather belittling to the men in the unit and b. no longer relevant in today's society.  The younger troops of today have grown up with mothers in the work force and women working in traditionally male jobs are no longer seen as mavericks.
Women in the combat arms, today, quite frankly, wouldn't  *shock* anyone the way it did in 1990 when I reclassified.
However, where the problem lies, I believe, is that women can often find themselves terribly conflicted as their personal life moves along with their career. Simply, it is not easy to balance a family and a combat arms career at the same time.  I know -because I tried.  It is one thing to see Daddy gone to dangerous places on deployment -it seems to be something else when it is mommy gone to such places.  Like it or not, it is difficult to deny our biological and physiological makeups.  Babies need mothers at home -not in Afghanistan and as a combat arms member, you have a much higher chance of finding yourself in such a place.  Look at all our senior officers -how many of them are mothers as well?  I think the statistics speak for themselves.   But just my humble thoughts.  Sheila


----------



## Yrys

wolseley said:
			
		

> Babies need mothers at home



I agree with most of your post, but it seems to me that babies need a parent or a significant adult at home, not
absolutely theirs mothers... (what about homosexual male parents, by the way ? ) .


----------



## geo

Glad to hear from you Sheila.
Most people here are pert much of the same opinion - though there are some young and old dinosaurs arround 
we let deeds speak for themselves.


----------



## armyvern

Sheila,

I'm aware of your strides both professionally and personally and I thank you for all that you have done in your support of the CF and in your service. You do us all proud.

As a female, with two children (who loved your book BTW), a service spouse, and many tours, I assure you it can be done, despite our makeup; but it certainly isn't for everyone and I have no fault with those who discover that it is not for them.

Then again, the CF isn't for everyone, regardless of sex. It's definitely something you have to love and enjoy doing.


----------



## wolseley

First, Thank you for your kind thoughts and it makes me quite happy that you liked my book.k (although I am assuming you mean my children's book?  Have you seen my new peacekeeping one?) I am surprised that you figured out who I was! : While I agree with what you are saying, the only question I might ask is this:  Do you think that females that are on tour in a combat arms role are in more danger than a female in a supporting role?  And, do you think that women that are in the combat arms have more chance of being deployed than a CSS role?  I am not sure what the answer is, hence my question.  I might argue that women in the combat arms (that are mothers) are in an even tougher position because they are a. in a hotter area and b. deployed more often, which, (if you can follow my babbling) means that it makes it that much tougher for them to try and do both?  But then I could be completely out to lunch (wouldn't be the first time) -I am up to my neck in boxes and rangy children (husband left his first day of work here at the new posting) and therefore, my opinion might be somewhat clouded.   ;   Sheila


----------



## armyvern

wolseley said:
			
		

> First, Thank you for your kind thoughts and it makes me quite happy that you liked my book.k (although I am assuming you mean my children's book?  Have you seen my new peacekeeping one?) I am surprised that you figured out who I was! : While I agree with what you are saying, the only question I might ask is this:  Do you think that females that are on tour in a combat arms role are in more danger than a female in a supporting role?  And, do you think that women that are in the combat arms have more chance of being deployed than a CSS role?  I am not sure what the answer is, hence my question.  I might argue that women in the combat arms (that are mothers) are in an even tougher position because they are a. in a hotter area and b. deployed more often, which, (if you can follow my babbling) means that it makes it that much tougher for them to try and do both?  But then I could be completely out to lunch (wouldn't be the first time) -I am up to my neck in boxes and rangy children (husband left his first day of work here at the new posting) and therefore, my opinion might be somewhat clouded.   ;   Sheila



"A Father to be Proud of" was a personal favourite of my children as they grew up. To be fair though, my daughter also liked "My Mom is a Soldier."

I think most females who came in as part of the CREW Trials, or who rerolled as part of the CREW Trials were privy to your name, amongst others such as Holly Brown and Linda Scrum. I recall many briefings where the women were gathered up for discussion groups and the like and filled out our little survey sheets. Kind of like a recruiting process for those women already in and serving.

As to your questions regarding women in combat arms being more at risk than CSS trades; I think that greater risk is evidenced and inherent in and of the the differences in their primary roles. That being said, there is also the element of manning position in-theatre that needs to be considered. It is entirely possible that a combat arms female may be employed within the wire by virtue of her CFTPO position for the operation while, at the same time, a female who falls into the CSS category can be filling a position that sees her frequently outside the wire as part on DPs, convoys, PRT tasks or other. 

Frequency of deployments for combat arms vs noncombat arms is also hard to pin down. I have more tours than my husband who is infantry. He deploys on operations only when his Unit deploys as a whole. My trade can be found deploying on every roto of every tour, regardless of where that tour is. That being said, our roles on tour differ quite significantly (obviously) so the stressors also differ.

I don't think we'll ever really be able to nail down how anyone, male or female, parent or not, combat arms or not, will make out on their tour prior to its actual occurrence as there are just too many factors that play a part. Excellent screening, family support and training remain the critical factors in ensuring success.


----------



## vonGarvin

Yrys said:
			
		

> (what about homosexual male parents, by the way ? ) .


Don't get me started!

But I do agree, having a parent at home (mom OR dad) is the ideal.  My sis worked while my bro in law stayed at home.  
Having both genders as a parent does more than support old traditions.  It teaches kids how to interact with said gender, and gives said kid a model, amongst many other things.


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "A Father to be Proud of" was a personal favourite of my children as they grew up. To be fair though, my daughter also liked "My Mom is a Soldier."


Hey, I've got those two books as well!  "A Father to be proud of" got my now ten year old through my first deployment to Afghanistan.  Though "My Mom is a Soldier" didn't really apply in our house, there were several friends of hers whose mothers indeed wore army boots!


----------



## time expired

I have followed this thread since its inception,and am very hesitant about 
expressing my views on the subject.What was the original question?,what 
is your opinion of women in the combat arms?.This seems like a simple
enough question one is either for or against however I have noticed that
some of the people who are sceptical,and that includes me,are attacked
using the usual PC tactics.First ones qualification to even have an opinion
are questioned,the next step is of course personal attacks, one is labelled
as a sexist and in this case a thinly veiled threat that you may even be a 
racist,and then the Mods jump in and threaten you with expulsion.A very
good example of the" Galileo effect".I find this very disturbing,have we
been so cowed and brainwashed by the Feminist movement and their
supporters that a opinion against women in the combat arms is not even
to be expressed?.
    Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience
with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember 
is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the 
men they were fighting along side.For example when women in a sub unit
were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the 
wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders
of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting
their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with
the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me
is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
                           Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

time expired said:
			
		

> Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember is *the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the men they were fighting along side*.  For example when women in a sub unit were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
> Regards


You make some good points; however, I think the biggest thing is that you do not question whether or not women can do it (I think you agree that physically, it matters not if one is a woman or a man, it's up to the individual.  Some men can hack it, some can't.  Same with women).  The opposition you bring forth is interesting, as it talks of the man/woman interface and states of mind (mainly of the men).  Having said that, I have also witnessed that with women in the combat arms, it was "different" at first, some guys acting as you state above.  But, as time progressed, it's become the norm to have women in the field around you, and after a while (once you get used to it, I guess), things are the same as before.  Some women are jerks, some men are jerks, but in the end, most are not.  Just as women faced certain barriers breaking into the work force (Remember, secretary used to be a "stereotypical" male job), there were/are certain barriers vis a vis women in the forces.
As stated elsewhere here, even in a "rear area" job, given that there is no more rear area as such, women can expect to be in combat as much as men irrespective of their trade.
And no, I don't think you're a sexist/racist/whatever.  You are sceptical, is all.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## HItorMiss

I myself am highly HIGHLY skeptical of woman in Cbt Arms. I have seen it with my own eyes and have been less then thrilled with the results in terms of their overall performance. Yes some men have been less then great at doing the job but so far from my experience if I took the women I have seen in Cbt Arms (Infantry as is my trade) and an equal number of men I would find the avg of poor performance on the physical soldiering aspect of that job to be much higher in the females. I am not saying that woman are not capable of doing the job, but I am saying saying so far few I have seen have been.

I believe the reason for this starts right at the recruiting level where our Physical Fitness standard is so highly skewed (Wrongly in my mind) And it never changes from there really.


----------



## armyvern

time expired said:
			
		

> I have followed this thread since its inception,and am very hesitant about
> expressing my views on the subject.What was the original question?,what
> is your opinion of women in the combat arms?.This seems like a simple
> enough question one is either for or against however I have noticed that
> some of the people who are sceptical,and that includes me,are attacked
> using the usual PC tactics.First ones qualification to even have an opinion
> are questioned,the next step is of course personal attacks, one is labelled
> as a sexist and in this case a thinly veiled threat that you may even be a
> racist,and then the Mods jump in and threaten you with expulsion.A very
> good example of the" Galileo effect".I find this very disturbing,have we
> been so cowed and brainwashed by the Feminist movement and their
> supporters that a opinion against women in the combat arms is not even
> to be expressed?.
> Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience
> with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember
> is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the
> men they were fighting along side.For example when women in a sub unit
> were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the
> wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders
> of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting
> their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with
> the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me
> is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
> Regards



Holy moly.  

Actualy time expired, two threads have been merged into one due massive thread. PC arguements from feminists?? Where are they?? I certainly don't see any on this board?? Brainwashed?? The trials were done. The women performed and did the jobs. There's no brainwashing about that. Anyone can express their opinion, that doesn't make their opinion correct. Especially when they voice their reasonings for that opinion, and it happens to be based on mythical women can't do the job and should be home in the kitchen commentary, you're quite correct that I'm going to post contrary to that. That's is what debate is all about.

Just because it has been proven, that's right - proven, in todays CF that there are indeed some (I didn't say all) women capable of performing these roles perfectly as well and as admirably as their male counterparts does not equate buying into some feminist crap agenda.

I assure you that I am no feminist. I'm just someone who believes that any person, regardless of sex, race, religion or other who wantrs to do a job and is capable of doing that job ... should be allowed the same opportunities to do that job. That certainly doesn't make me some PC feminist.

As for your quote above, and the remarks about the mods ... where did the mods comment come from?? Again with the slamming of the mods. You know what? It's getting really tired.  

That's kind of like passing the blame onto someone else for one's own actions ...

Kind of like your last paragraph above. Funny that, when the crap hit the fan the boys neglected to do their jobs in the IDF ... and you've somehow managed to make that the fault of the women. Seems like the males involved failed at their primary task; so it sounds like the men's fault in your example to me. Meanwhile the girls who did their jobs fine, should be barred from doing so because the men didn't?? Because old value culture says so?? No thanks. I value recognition for what one does, not prevention based on what males in this situation failed to do. That's their problem, not the womens. How utterly ironic is that??

It's been 20 years. The arguments have been given for both sides, the girls are still here ... still doing their jobs. 

Step out of the past, the CF is doing perfectly fine these days.


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Kind of like your last paragraph above. Funny that, when the crap hit the fan the boys neglected to do their jobs in the IDF ... and you've somehow managed to make that the fault of the women. Seems like the males involved failed at their primary task; so it sounds like the men's fault in your example to me. Meanwhile the girls who did their jobs fine, should be barred from doing so because the men didn't?? Because old value culture says so?? No thanks. I value recognition for what one does, not prevention based on what males in this situation failed to do. That's their problem, not the womens. How utterly ironic is that??



I think that time expired isn't saying that women can't do the job, I think his reference to one case (though true, isn't enough to warrant an opinion) outlines why, perhaps, men and women shouldn't serve together in combat (his opinion).  Now, I'll let him explain what he means, but I suspect from what I read is that he feels that the limits are due to the gender interaction, vice capabilities of women.
Now, I think you're right in stating that it's not a case of women not being able to do "x", whatever "x" represents.  I also agree with you that the CF has come a LONG way in proving that it can be done.  And, as others have pointed out, the standards should remainarbitrary and do NOT take gender into account: the job is the job is the job.  When you went through training, you had the same rucksack as the next guy (or gal), and had to go the same distance, carrying the same rifle (ah, the old FN C1A1.  I still remember my first: 7L 4246).


----------



## HItorMiss

Vern,

Before you make assumptions on the content and or action/reactions of those involved in that report I think perhaps you should read it. It highlights ingrained cultural values and lessons as being at fault for certain reactions. It does not place blame on either sex but lays it squarely at the feet of how we raise our children. What the IDF did with the findings of that report was entirely an institutional decision.


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Before you make assumptions on the content and or action/reactions of those involved in that report I think perhaps you should read it. It highlights ingrained cultural values and lessons as being at fault for certain reactions. It does not place blame on either sex but lays it squarely at the feet of how we raise our children. What the IDF did with the findings of that report was entirely an institutional decision.



HitorMiss,

I'm commenting on what info Time Expired has chosen to provide us with regarding this report.

He has made a statement about items in that report and I have adressed his statements. I haven't adressed the report, as it was not cited for resource. I addressed his comments only.

Cultural values are fine with me. If a woman can't do the job, she should NOT be there. But, that's the same thing for a guy. It really is that simple to me.

Culture is advancing every day. Some people refuse to adapt to changing cultural values, and some don't. In twenty years. Those cultural values are irrelevant to whether or not a woman CAN do the job.

Some people would argue that women should not be in first line combat roles because of those same "curtural valuies;" I am not one them. I say if she *can* do it, she deserves to be given the opportunity. It really is that easy to me.


----------



## HItorMiss

Though I wish I could agree with you on the concept of if she CAN do the job she should be allowed, I think you are ignoring the other side of that equation. That side being so long as we continue to raise our Son's to protect woman (IE: Girls are precious don't let things happen to them, protect your sister she is weaker then you etc etc) You cannot effectively integrate woman into that force as seamlessly as yo might like. The IDF report highlighted that issue. It's so driven into the majority of men that seeing a woman hurt require us to take more action then we would normally.

Do I think this is right, no I do not. But I have seen it with my own eyes ( no not in combat). And that is just one aspect of this issue but one of the Major ones. The other being as I have said, the PT standard and in all honesty my personal experience being that of disappointment.


----------



## time expired

OK Vern,you are right the trials are done and there in  lies part of my 
problem,you see I was involved in the trials as a section NCO i/c in
4 SVC BN. in the late 70s.I was appalled at the manipulation of info.,
the glossing over of problems that went into proving this trial was
a success and  that women belonged in a near combat role.Given this
distortion I am doubly suspicious of any results of conclusions reached
in trials conducted in a combat arms environment.At the time I become
interested in the subject and informed myself further,I read this report
in ,I believe a US Army related publication,as they were also bringing
women in increasing numbers into the military.This was driven, whether
you accept it or not, by the feminist movement in the US.I am not a 
sexist and feel that a woman should be allowed to do any job that she
is intellectually and physically qualified ,I always found independent
capable women very attractive and not at all threatening.However I 
also feel that in the case of the military the operational efficiency 
should be paramount and not be hampered by sociological factors
and given most men's cultural mind sets, women in combat roles are not
adding to this efficiency.Another thing Vern is most of us were given
our cultural values by women, our mothers.
                                                 Regards


----------



## Strike

HoM,

I respect your opinion as you are a level headed guy who had BTDT.  HOWEVER  ;D don't forget a certain Inf officer (female) who was the PA for the CLS a few years back (think she was RCR).  She made an immense impression on more than a few young men.  Of course, maybe it was her position as an officer that helped a bit as they were less likely to question her.  Then there is one woman I went to school with who was the first female ARMD officer.  She could run most men into the ground.  That's how high her PT standard was.

I remember talking to some crusty old CPO about when women were first introduced on the ships.  The Navy is very big on tradition and there was quite the uproar.  After a few years, things quieted down, and the ones who were the happiest with the results were these same crusty old POs.  Even the wives of the men serving commented on how their husbands were being more respectful to them!  (This from the wife of said crusty chief.)

We talk about culture and our attitudes about women having to be protected.  Most of us that are serving are of the opinion that we can protect ourselves quite well, thank-you.  And that likely comes from how we were raised.  So yes, there needs to be a change and the only way these attitudes WILL change is if we start on our own and stop perpetuating the myth that girls are made of sugar and spice.  We may well be, but I am made from unrefined, raw cane sugar and hot peppers!  How's that for spicy!



> So one sees the problem lies not with
> the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me
> is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.



Time Expired, different country, different culture.  Find me something from Canada.  Otherwise, this is just a fancy little story.


----------



## HItorMiss

Strike,

In all honesty right now I see those persons you have talked about as exceptions to the rule ( well OK not totally it might well be 50/50 at this point) I have known 2 officers who were great at what they did. I don't disagree with woman in Cbt Arms completely I just have probems seeing it totally working in today's culture. It has been mandated by the CF of course an it wont matter what some people feel I just hope that something seriously bad does not occur that throws the whole mess into a harsh light for public consumption.

Bah what do I know, in the end I just shoot people and I think I should stick to what I am good at  ;D


----------



## mudrecceman

In the end, I think part of the problem is the "she is good at XXY *for a girl*"...which goes in line (I think) with the points a few of you are eluding too.

If "we" can't measure our troops and officers by one measuring stick, things will never change.

And that, IMHO, is the key.  Throw away the "girl" and "boy" measuring sticks.  

One standard.

(ya I know people will say "it ain't gonna happen.  Those are the ones I am talking about.)

My 2 bones.


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Though I wish I could agree with you on the concept of if she CAN do the job she should be allowed, I think you are ignoring the other side of that equation. That side being so long as we continue to raise our Son's to protect woman (IE: Girls are precious don't let things happen to them, protect your sister she is weaker then you etc etc) You cannot effectively integrate woman into that force as seamlessly as yo might like. The IDF report highlighted that issue. It's so driven into the majority of men that seeing a woman hurt require us to take more action then we would normally.
> 
> Do I think this is right, no I do not. But I have seen it with my own eyes ( no not in combat). And that is just one aspect of this issue but one of the Major ones. The other being as I have said, the PT standard and in all honesty my personal experience being that of disappointment.



Girls can do the job and have been doing the job in the CF. The girls are already here, it's decided; and they aren't going anywhere.

That side as long as we raise our sons how?? My son has not been raised to think of women as weak and requiring his protection. My son has been raised to respect females and males and to value all people for what they do and don't do, and for the efforts that they put into their attempts at such, each on their own merits.

My daughter has been raised, not to think that she needs to be protected by man, but to be strong in her beliefs, and that if she wants to do something that she can do it; provided that she works hard, puts her her utmost 110% effort and believes in her abilities; as has my son. She has been raised with the very same values as my son.

Both have been raised to respect each other. Both have been raised to have no expectations of others, that they would not apply to themselves. 

WRT the PT standards, my thoughts on this have been expressed many many times on this site. One standard for all. That being said, I know how you feel about those who can't meet them. And I've seen males and females who didn't meet them. Both should be treated the same way. I'm not talking push-ups and situps either, as that isn't the PT standard for Cbt Arms or LF anyway, it's the 13km BFT. And males fail that too and, as far as I'm aware the standard is the EXACT same for both males and females in that Army fitness test, so the argument of lower fitness standards on the fitness test fro combat arms personnel is false. Their test is exactly the same, regardless of sex.


----------



## 2 Cdo

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WRT the PT standards, my thoughts on this have been expressed many many times on this site. One standard for all. That being said, I know how you feel about those who can't meet them. And I've seen males and females who didn't meet them. Both should be treated the same way. I'm not talking push-ups and situps either, as that isn't the PT standard for Cbt Arms or LF anyway, it's *the 13km BFT.* And males fail that too and, as far as I'm aware the standard is the EXACT same for both males and females in that Army fitness test, so the argument of lower fitness standards on the fitness test fro combat arms personnel is false. Their test is exactly the same, regardless of sex.



You had me until you called the BFT as a PT standard.  That's the first thing wrong with the Forces right there, the BFT is no more a measure of fitness than I am His Holiness the Pope! If anyone in the Forces fails a 13 km walk with a little bit of weight and does not have a precluding medical condition (Like an amputated leg) they should be released immediately. It's a f*cking walk, how does a person fail a walk?

By the way, I am also a little old fashioned and don't believe women should be in the combat arms. I'm sure some (very few) can do it, but I don't like it. No amount of discussion will change my mind, it's my opinion, but I will accept it as nobody important really cares what I think about it anyway! ;D


----------



## armyvern

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> You had me until you called the BFT as a PT standard.  That's the first thing wrong with the Forces right there, the BFT is no more a measure of fitness than I am His Holiness the Pope! If anyone in the Forces fails a 13 km walk with a little bit of weight and does not have a precluding medical condition (Like an amputated leg) they should be released immediately. It's a f*cking walk, how does a person fail a walk?
> 
> By the way, I am also a little old fashioned and don't believe women should be in the combat arms. I'm sure some (very few) can do it, but I don't like it. No amount of discussion will change my mind, it's my opinion, but I will accept it as nobody important really cares what I think about it anyway! ;D



Dude,

Not liking the fact that women are in the combat arms is a far cry from saying they shouldn't be in the combat arms ... especially when you've admitted that some can do it. There are people in my trade that I don't like in there ... but guess what ... they are still there.

I said the minimum fitness standard for the Army right now is the 13km BFT. There's already another thread on the board somewhere where I say it's too easy.

My response was in relation to HitorMiss' post that it has been his experience in the combat arms that women weren't meeting the same fitness standard as the men in the combat arms. I simply stated the fact that, as it stands right now, yes they are. The _*minimum*_ standard is the BFT and females and males are all required to make the same timing, dig the same trench within the same standard time, carry the same amount of weight on their backs, and to complete the 100m casevac.

His two posts are below, and both times he mentions physical standards as one of the problems. My point is that both men and women in the combat arms are required to perform the exact same fitness test to the exact same standard. There is only one standard for the 13km and the other tasks inherent with that LFC Fitness Test.

If the women aren't capable of completing that test, of course they shouldn't be there. Nor should any man. But, right now, it is the standard, and his remarks that insinuate that somehow in his experience the women are not meeting this standard (and are still employed in the combat arms) is not accurate. 



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> ...
> Do I think this is right, no I do not. But I have seen it with my own eyes (no not in combat). And that is just one aspect of this issue but one of the Major ones. *The other being as I have said, the PT standard and in all honesty my personal experience being that of disappointment.*





			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I myself am highly HIGHLY skeptical of woman in Cbt Arms. I have seen it with my own eyes and have been less then thrilled with the results in terms of their overall performance. Yes some men have been less then great at doing the job but so far from *my experience if I took the women I have seen in Cbt Arms (Infantry as is my trade) and an equal number of men I would find the avg of poor performance on the physical soldiering aspect of that job to be much higher in the females.* ....


----------



## HItorMiss

Vern,

The PT standard I was referring to was the very first entrance standard to the CF, as for the quote about the physical soldiering I was not referring to the BFT but oh say Section attacks, long humps or extended exercises, where in all of the above case's no female NCM I have personal experience have preformed anywhere near standard.

If you want to say they pass the BFT so therefore they are meeting the standard I cannot argue that as fact. If your saying that because they pass this test they are preforming all aspects of the job to standard then I sure as heck can argue that. Yes absolutely men fail at the above but as I pointed out far fewer in my neck of the wood's then woman have. That you can't argue as it's personal experience. Do I think some woman can do the Job, sure do I have seen 1 Officer who was absolutely amazing at what she did. However one positive example does not change my view on the subject.

And my initial argument was more on cultural norm in western society, which I agree with the findings of the study conducted by the IDF. Western Society sets itself up for failure in how it raises it's Male's to treat woman in a protective way verse true equality.


----------



## tree hugger

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I have seen 1 Officer who was absolutely amazing at what she did.


...but she shouldn't be allowed to be cbt arms?  Why again?


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss, 

Send the one's that can't perform off to range control like happens with the men. What's the problem again?? No, I don't know how the females that you physically work with each day perform their daily tasks, but I can assure you that there are men in your trade who don't either.

If they are still in your trade, that's a leadership problem, not a 'what sex they may be' problem.

Do you actually propose to say that because most women can't perform in the combat arms, that the ones who can ... shouldn't be allowed to??

Imagine if we applied that standard to the men as well. Sorry boys, but a couple of men can't do their daily tasks to a good standard ... therefore, even you men who CAN will NOT be allowed to join the combat arms either.

Ooops, there goes the combat arms off into non-existance. Why the double standard?


----------



## HItorMiss

Tree Hugger....




			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> *Do I think some woman can do the Job, sure do. * I have seen 1 Officer who was absolutely amazing at what she did. However one positive example does not change my view on the subject.




Vern easier said then done when a Bn has 4 women eyes are on them wether you want to admit it or not.....


----------



## HItorMiss

To further my reply to Tree Hugger,

I don't feel woman in Cbt Arms is a bad thing honestly, though so far in my eyes it's a dismal failure of an experiement. My argument was on the findings of the IDF report on the effect of woman on men in the Cbt Arms. who's findings I agreed with.

I have been side tracked on PT standards by Vern, who though is technicaly correct is way off the mark in my book. But we wont ever agree onthis subject so were both arguing to walls on in it.


----------



## geo

HOM,
The BFT is just the begining of the whole thing.  Both men and women have to perform in their job - at all times, throughout the entire year.... not just the one time the BFT is being performed.

And there are plenty of men that, for one reason or another, fail miserably while the women (most of them at least) succeed.

This year, out of the 90 odd that did the BFT with me, one man and one woman failed.... go figure.


----------



## tree hugger

How many would change your view?  ...Wait don't bother, I think I know the answer!


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Vern easier said then done when a Bn has 4 women eyes are on them wether you want to admit it or not.....



What does having eyes on them have to do with their ability to do their job?? What is this statement in relation to?


----------



## HItorMiss

Geo,

Re read my statement on the BFT.
As I have stated I was not referring to the BFT when I made reference to Physical Soldiering and when I did reference the PT standard was was referring to the very first standard when entering the CF,an no one here can argue that there is a lower standard for woman then men it's in black and white!


Vern,

It's simple shuffling off the 1% of failures to range control when it's men is simple....when you get rid of 3 out 4 woman well you get where I am going. Again I point out my main argument is base off the IDF report here people. We can argue PT or personal experience all we like no one is going to change there ideas on it.


----------



## armyvern

HorM,

That's a Leadership problem them. That's where it needs to get fixed. It's not going to be fixed by denying those women who can do the job properly the opportunity to do so. And the respect for those women who CAN do the job, will never be what it deserves to be if the Leadership isn't going to deal with situations like the one you've outlined.

Like I said, if they *can't DO * the job, they *shouldn't* be there (male or female). I have _no_ problem with that. But, neither those men, nor those women, keep themselves there ... someone is *allowing* them to remain, that's wrong.

Male or female:

I have never stated that someone who couldn't do the job should be allowed to remain.

I have stated that those who CAN do the job should be allowed to remain and do that job.


----------



## Scott

tree hugger,

Methinks you're trying to vilify someone here. HoM never once stated that women _shouldn't_ be in the combat arms. In fact, you put the words in his mouth, so to speak. 

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Geo,
> 
> Re read my statement on the BFT.
> As I have stated I was not referring to the BFT when I made reference to Physical Soldiering and when I did reference the PT standard was was referring to the very first standard when entering the CF,an no one here can argue that there is a lower standard for woman then men it's in black and white!
> ...



That's absolutely true. But it is not applicable to females in the combat arms. Once they have made it through their applicable combat arms qualification ... they are required to meet the exact same PT test standard as the men. We are talking about women in the combat arms in this thread.

PS ... there's also a lower PT standard for a man who's 30 than a man who's 23 on the Express Test. And that's in black and white too!! The difference in Express standard is not limited to a difference between males and females. But, regardless, that is NOT the standard fitness test for the Army nor the combat arms MOSIDs (thank goodness). Just thought I'd point that out for the uninitiated.


----------



## HItorMiss

OH for the love of GOD!

I am not arguing PT, we long ago agreed the system is flawed!!!!!! All I stated was that I had seen with my own eyes more woman fail the physical soldiering then I had men. I have seen Men fail absolutely and should they be removed YES they should!

What my main argument is, was based on the sociology of the western psyche of males and how they are raised!

As for the discrepancy in said PT standard I don't care if it's different for a 23 year old male then it is for a 30 year old male. In fact I agree with it. But what I want is for that difference to be across the board so the standard for the 23 year old PERSON is different then that of the 30 year old PERSON!


EDIT: My tirade on PT was after Vern clarified the PT standard stuff. although in terms of the BFT we all agreed the BFT is not nor should it be the standard of fitness as was pointed out if you cannot complete that your are in serious trouble.


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> OH for the love of GOD!
> 
> I am not arguing PT, we long ago agreed the system is flawed!!!!!! All I stated was that I had seen with my own eyes more woman fail the physical soldiering then I had men. I have seen Men fail absolutely and should they be removed YES they should!
> 
> What my main argument is, was based on the sociology of the western psyche of males and how they are raised!
> 
> As for the discrepancy in said PT standard I don't care if it's different for a 23 year old male then it is for a 30 year old male. In fact I agree with it. But what I want is for that difference to be across the board so the standard for the 23 year old PERSON is different then that of the 30 year old PERSON!



My post says PT test standards. Not PT standards. It makes specific mention of the express test as that is what you brought up.

So, now it's OK to have 23 year olds going combat arms meet a higher PT Test standard than 30 year olds going combat arms?? WTF?? They are all going to be doing the exact same job!! Why a different standard?? Make up your mind please. You either want one standard or you don't. 

You have slammed the system for allowing a difference in standard PT test requirements between male and female, but now condone different standards for different ages despite the fact they may be going the exact same trade. That's baffeling me.


----------



## HItorMiss

Vern after this I am done arguing PT standards period.

You made mention of the difference between 23 yr old males and 30 year old males....I pointed out that I wanted the standard to be the same for men and woman of the same age. I never not once said anything about standards in reference to the Cbt Arms and age difference on the express test don't put words in my mouth.

Now again I point out we agreed 4 pages ago that the system is flawed why are we still talking about it?

I said the BFT was not an indicator of trade performance physically for anyone. And then went on to say what I thought was.

Now care to argue the real reason I got involved in this thread?


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Vern after this I am done arguing PT standards period.
> 
> You made mention of the difference between 23 yr old males and 30 year old males....I pointed out that I wanted the standard to be the same for men and woman of the same age. I never not once said anything about standards in reference to the Cbt Arms and age difference on the express test don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> Now again I point out we agreed 4 pages ago that the system is flawed why are we still talking about it?
> 
> I said the BFT was not an indicator of trade performance physically for anyone. And then went on to say what I thought was.
> 
> Now care to argue the real reason I got involved in this thread?



Really?? I didn't say you made reference to age difference. I brought that up as a direct response to your post about there being a difference in standard on the Express test between men and women... to point out that there was also a difference between men and men in that very same test. Apparently, that's OK though as long as the men are different ages (and you did say that in a later post).

What's this?? :



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Geo,
> 
> Re read my statement on the BFT.
> As I have stated I was not referring to the BFT when I made reference to Physical Soldiering and when I did reference the PT standard was was referring to *the very first standard when entering the CF*,an *no one here can argue that there is a lower standard for woman then men it's in black and white*!



That's what I responded to you pointing out that you were correct but that there was also a difference in the test standards between 23 and 30 year old males, not just between males and females. I even quoted your above in that response. Your pointing out that you wanted the same standards for girls and guys, but that different standards for ages were acceptable (and that you agreed with that) came after my response to this post above. 

And as to 4 pages ago, no one has yet answered why a female who can and does do her job, shouldn't be allowed to. 

Not with anything other than cultural beliefs etc, and comments about how they may they may have been raised. I was raised differently I guess. 

I've always thought that you were recognized for what you *could* do, and earned the respect that is inherant with that, and that you would not be precluded from doing that which you could if you worked hard and earned it; regardless of sex.


----------



## armyvern

Oh yeah ...

Just to add:

HitorMiss:   :-*
I still loves 'ya bud.


----------



## HItorMiss

I said a sliding scale for both sex's was acceptable so long as it remains the same standard for age an not base on sex ( IE: standrad for 23 yr old men and woman is the same and the standard for men and woman of 30 is the same) and you and I both know why it exist and why it works.

Regardless of this argument one way or the other, you may argue you were raised different but I bet you the vast majority of men in your age group and even in mine were raised to treat woman differently when it comes to physically harmful things. You can say what you will but I tell you men can and have reacted different to women being in jeopardy then a man in the same circumstance. And therein lies the main issue with Woman in Cbt Arms. Can they do the Job most assuredly some can (just like only some men can do the job of Cbt Arms) But until western culture changes how it is we raise our children and its view of the sex's (which is slowly slowly changing) then this policy will in fact come back to bite us in the rear when something bad happens because of ow it is we are raised.


----------



## HItorMiss

Aren't you just swell yourself Ver  :-*


----------



## Greymatters

time expired said:
			
		

> Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the men they were fighting along side.



Time Expired, I know which report you are refering to and have read it myself.  That report was available to the leadership when the decision was made to allow women to join the infantry, and as far as I know it was taken into consideration, but it doesnt change the fact that there was no reason to bar women from combat positions.  In the end, if a female did not want to risk the probable consequences of capture by the enemy, it was their decision not to join up.


----------



## Shinigami02

time expired said:
			
		

> I always found independent capable women very attractive and not at all threatening. However I
> also feel that in the case of the military the operational efficiency
> should be paramount and not be hampered by sociological factors
> and given most men's cultural mind sets, women in combat roles are not
> adding to this efficiency.Another thing Vern is most of us were given
> our cultural values by women, our mothers.
> Regards



Thanks, we truely do it all for your attraction and enjoyment. : Being independant and capable as women has nothing to do with whatever sociological factors men seem to believe (or just you) that they impede our sucess in the combat arms. It's your problem that your mother raised you wrong in this respect, and it is also your problem that you believe we do not add to the efficiency of the combat arms. Take out every woman in the military and see that the nation would probably have to resort to conscription in this day and age. Seeing as how a large population of the country fit for service would never volunteer for it, and would rather spend time on their PSP's and Wii's. I don't even see how this topic is still going, because women make good soldiers, it is proven every day, and aren't going anywhere. This forum does show how many male soldiers don't have respect for their fellow soldiers that happen to be female. The most contradictory thing that keeps being repeated is that they know women who can do their jobs in an efficient manner, but they believe that women should not be in combat arms roles. Please, this is such a bad contradiction. 

Also in relation to this : "However I also feel that in the case of the military the operational efficiency should be paramount and not be hampered by sociological factors and given most men's cultural mind sets, women in combat roles are not adding to this efficiency." Female soldiers will now sit down and let you do your job...unhindered by the cultural weakness you were taught as a child.  :


----------



## Strike

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> You had me until you called the BFT as a PT standard.  That's the first thing wrong with the Forces right there, the BFT is no more a measure of fitness than I am His Holiness the Pope! If anyone in the Forces fails a 13 km walk with a little bit of weight and does not have a precluding medical condition *(Like an amputated leg)* they should be released immediately. It's a f*cking walk, how does a person fail a walk?
> 
> By the way, I am also a little old fashioned and don't believe women should be in the combat arms. I'm sure some (very few) can do it, but I don't like it. No amount of discussion will change my mind, it's my opinion, but I will accept it as nobody important really cares what I think about it anyway! ;D



Hey, I know of someone who lost her leg to cancer.  Didn't stop her from doing it!  And doing it well at that! (Not combat arms though.)


----------



## HItorMiss

Strike I think 2 Cdo was making a bold statement on injuries and not really setting a specific example. I myself know an amputee who fully intends to pass the BFT (And trust me he will).


----------



## 2 Cdo

The generalization I made was made with the intention to point out how ludicrous it was to consider the BFT a measure of physical fitness. I realize that an amputee could possibly do it (good prosthesis and all) and that myself have completed it with no problems shortly after having knee surgery once and days after having a vasectomy! 

I still think HitorMiss makes a good point in reference to western upbringing. I never argued that women can't do the job, just that my upbringing was such that protection of women and children was foremost. That is not a failing of leadership, as some have alluded to, more a failure of society. Look at the extra uproar in the press when Capt Nicola Goodard(spelling?) was killed. The first reports focused more on her gender than her ability to do her job.


----------



## HItorMiss

Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> Being in dependant and capable as women has nothing to do with whatever sociological factors men seem to believe (or just you) that they impede our success in the combat arms



True but it does bring up a dynamic your choose to ignore.



			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> It's your problem that your mother raised you wrong in this respect



You know that's funny because I'm pretty sure that's they way 99.99% of Parents raise their children, you can climb on whatever equality band wagon you want but that isn't going to change how it is the vast majority people  are raised. As an added side comment I some how doubt you would like the outcome of parents teaching their children true equality the first time some guy smacks the crap out of you because he has a beef with you and does what it is he would to do a guy. No I do not condone this event but it highlights a very real issue you ignored.



			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> and it is also your problem that you believe we do not add to the efficiency of the combat arms.



Actually it's a CF wide problem and one not yet addressed adequately by any level of the chain of command, other then to tell the rank and file to shut their mouths and not discuss the problem openly.



			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> Take out every woman in the military and see that the nation would probably have to resort to conscription in this day and age.Seeing as how a large population of the country fit for service would never volunteer for it, and would rather spend time on their PSP's and Wii's.



Actually  CF wide it's just over 10% or so my research into the topic suggest. And that percentage is significantly lower in the Cbt Arms (which this thread deals with in the specific) SO really no we wouldn't and Yes we could very happily continue our existence without woman at all. But we should not. The CF should be as diverse as the country it represents however that still does not address the main issue of where the CF is failing to properly intergrate the or mitigate how that diversity should work or how far it should really go.

1998 paper on the percentage of woman in the CF, I do not think the number has increased that much.
http://www.mdn.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=877



			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> I don't even see how this topic  is still going, because women make good soldiers, it is proven every day, and aren't going anywhere.



It's still going because it's a very real issue within the CF. Make good soldiers? Yes woman sure do and yes the prove it everyday. But in the Cbt Arms environment where do we say and how do we say Sorry you just don't make the cut without said women being hoisted up by feminist groups catching wind of the very likely high percentage of women who will not pass the grade and using it as soap box to hurt the CF?



			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> This forum does show how many male soldiers don't have respect for their fellow soldiers that happen to be female. The most contradictory thing that keeps being repeated is that they know women who can do their jobs in an efficient manner, but they believe that women should not be in combat arms roles. Please, this is such a bad contradiction.




No I think it shows how a very real issue is ignored and just how much it needs to be addressed. And the argument is not contradictory it's an observation based on personal experience. I believe Woman make excellent soldiers, however in terms of Cbt Arms the vast majority do not. A small minority do very well but the avg woman even in the CF would not cut it in the Cbt Arms or in my trade specifically.




			
				Shinigami02 said:
			
		

> Also in relation to this : "However I also feel that in the case of the military the operational efficiency should be paramount and not be hampered by sociological factors and given most men's cultural mind sets, women in combat roles are not adding to this efficiency." Female soldiers will now sit down and let you do your job...unhindered by the cultural weakness you were taught as a child.  :




Be snide about the sociological factors involved all you like but that will not change the fact that they are very real and have a huge effect in terms of how it is we operate as a military and as a society. You could come up with answers though as that would likely be a better use of your time then to come and waste it by blowing hot air in righteous indignation, but like the rest of us you don't have any but unlike many people here you don't want to take the time to think of and so it's easier to be snide and sarcastic and roll your eyes then it is to truly debate the topic.


EDIT: Spelling, Gammar etc etc (poorly), hey I'm a grunt you gotta cut me some slack.....


----------



## RCR Grunt

I've watched this thread closely for a while now ... how many female COMBAT ARMS soldiers do we have on the board right now?  It seems to me, unless I am mistaken and I very well could be, that alot of the comments are aboslutley baseless, off topic, and irrelevent.  Pt standards ... whatever, some females can do more pushups, sure.  That is not the topic.  The topic is Gender & the CF; Women in *COMBAT ARMS, INFANTRY, SPECIAL FORCES & BATTLE.*  The argument has been made that our upbringing, as males, has been to respect and protect women, be chivalrous.  Anyone who says different was either raised by wolves or should immediately go to the UMS to have their head removed from their arse.  THAT BEING SAID ... it makes it difficult for males in a male dominated trade to interact with females the same as they would other males.  THIS MAY LEAD to undue friction, conflict and controversey within the ranks.  Perhaps, and god of war forbid, it may lead to soldiers acting innappropriately in a combat scenario.  Have we done studies to prove this?  No, but the Israelis did.  Should we ignore what they have learned?  To answer that I ask another queston, can we afford to?  Do I think women should be in the CF?  Definitely.  Do I think they belong in the Combat Arms?  Not until we change the way we train, eliminating the gender barrier during Battle school by showing ABSOLUTELY ZERO TOLERANCE for any type of double standard and removing any type of ingrained cultural standards soldiers may hold with regards to the opposite sex.  Are we as a nation prepared to create soldiers like this?  The unspeaking, unfeeling "soldier of the future?"  The CF has long been held in regard by foreign governments for our ability to empathize with the people we are helping, would we remove this trait so that a handful of individuals can live the dream of being in the comabt arms?  Why should the majority, and I mean the country, its foreign affairs, and therefore its citizens, suffer to please the few?  If females belong in the comabt arms, we should have made drastic changes before allowing that to occur.  This thread is spiralling downwards rapidly, and I thought I would just put my 2 cents in before it dissapears into the crapper forever.


----------



## armyvern

Apparently I have been raised by wolves and am a wolf then. You see, my brother and I were both raised, and my son and daughter as well, to respect and be chivalrous of both sexes. Not just the female sex. No one has denied that being chivalrous or respectful is a good thing.  :

Get over it already.


----------



## HItorMiss

And you and I personaly agreed you were not raised in the norm and or majority way of thinking. I am not saying you were raised wrongly just differently then the majority.


----------



## armyvern

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> And you and I personaly agreed you were not raised in the norm and or majority way of thinking. I am not saying you were raised wrongly just differently then the majority.



If you want to believe that being taught to be respectful of each other, no matter the sex is not normal ... well, what can I say.

I'd also believe that this is exactly how most people were raised. My kids have been taught that they need to stand on their own two feet, based upon thier own efforts and merits. And if they do so, nothing can hold them back.

I see ZERO problems with raising my children to believe that, and in themselves and their abilities, regardless of sex. 

And he is exactly right, now that parenting skills are being questionned ...

this topic has indeed become way off topic....

and it's bullshit, quite frankly.

Vern out.


----------



## RCR Grunt

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> I've watched this thread closely for a while now ... how many female COMBAT ARMS soldiers do we have on the board right now?  It seems to me, unless I am mistaken and I very well could be, that alot of the comments are aboslutley baseless, off topic, and irrelevent.  Pt standards ... whatever, some females can do more pushups, sure.  That is not the topic.  The topic is Gender & the CF; Women in *COMBAT ARMS, INFANTRY, SPECIAL FORCES & BATTLE.*  The argument has been made that our upbringing, _*AS MALES*_, has been to respect and protect women, be chivalrous.  Anyone who says different was either raised by wolves or should immediately go to the UMS to have their head removed from their arse.  THAT BEING SAID ... it makes it difficult for males in a male dominated trade to interact with females the same as they would other males.  THIS MAY LEAD to undue friction, conflict and controversey within the ranks.  Perhaps, and god of war forbid, it may lead to soldiers acting innappropriately in a combat scenario.  Have we done studies to prove this?  No, but the Israelis did.  Should we ignore what they have learned?  To answer that I ask another queston, can we afford to?  Do I think women should be in the CF?  Definitely.  Do I think they belong in the Combat Arms?  Not until we change the way we train, eliminating the gender barrier during Battle school by showing ABSOLUTELY ZERO TOLERANCE for any type of double standard and removing any type of ingrained cultural standards soldiers may hold with regards to the opposite sex.  Are we as a nation prepared to create soldiers like this?  The unspeaking, unfeeling "soldier of the future?"  The CF has long been held in regard by foreign governments for our ability to empathize with the people we are helping, would we remove this trait so that a handful of individuals can live the dream of being in the comabt arms?  Why should the majority, and I mean the country, its foreign affairs, and therefore its citizens, suffer to please the few?  If females belong in the comabt arms, we should have made drastic changes before allowing that to occur.  This thread is spiralling downwards rapidly, and I thought I would just put my 2 cents in before it dissapears into the crapper forever.



Army Vern, you missed the highlightede portion, therefore I was not speaking of you, therefore the sarcastic comment was not required.  Do you agree or disagree that in order for females to succeed in the comabt arms drastic changes must be made to the way we train our soldiers?  I'm not questioning anyones parenting skills here, especially yours.  I've read alot of your posts and you appear to be very intelligent, level headed and a great asset to the CF.  However, your failing to see what point these references made to the IDF report are saying.


----------



## mudrecceman

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> The argument has been made that our upbringing, as males, has been to respect and protect women, be chivalrous.  Anyone who says different was either raised by wolves or should immediately go to the UMS to have their head removed from their arse.


agreed



> THAT BEING SAID ... it makes it difficult for males in a male dominated trade to interact with females the same as they would other males.  THIS MAY LEAD to undue friction, conflict and controversey within the ranks.


Disagree.  I never had that problem, with superiors,subordinates, candidates, course mates,peple in my Tp/Sqn...etc.  Not saying it doesn't exist...just that I haven't seen it "en masse".  So conversely, should males not be admitted or belong to the female dominated MOCs for the same reasons?



> Not until we change the way we train, eliminating the gender barrier during Battle school by showing ABSOLUTELY ZERO TOLERANCE for any type of double standard and removing any type of ingrained cultural standards soldiers may hold with regards to the opposite sex.  Are we as a nation prepared to create soldiers like this?


I thought the CF DID change the way they trained?  First of many examples that comes to my head...CLC 1993.  My fire team partner was a Fin Clerk, female.  She had to pass the same course, to the same (minimum) standard, that I did.  And she did.  Didn't make her a Superninjasniper.  That was...14 years ago?



> Why should the majority, and I mean the country, its foreign affairs, and therefore its citizens, *suffer* to please the few?  If females belong in the comabt arms, we should have made drastic changes before allowing that to occur.


Suffer?  In what way?  (serious question, I missed that somewhere along the line...)

You are one of those "guy" and "girl" measuring stick carryin' guys I was referring to earlier.   ;D  

"We" are the ones that need to drop the 2 measuring sticks and get on with trng the RIGHT people for the job.  The ones that pack the gear, want to be there, can meet the standard and DO meet the standard...regardless of if they stand or sit in the bathroom.  

There should be one question (Can person X do the job?) and one standard for ALL who do or try to do the job.  Regardless of...and before...anything else.  

My opinion on the idea that "we are raised to protect our females" is that this is true.  Is that a one way street though?  Mothers don't defend their young son's with tenacity and conviction?  Just a thought.

My experience  WRT this comes from being on courses, teaching on courses, working in garrison, on the field on ex (no operational or combat stuff), well pretty much any scenario possible in the army except operational / tour stuff from 1989 - Feb 2007 when I left the Army.  I have seen the old way and new way of thinking.  I have seen the "can" and "can'ts" from the boys and girls side of the house.  I was Armoured Corps, not Inf, which the issue seems to be REALLY centered around but have worked with female infanteers, herbies and sappers.  So thats where my perspective spans from.

Who belongs in the Combats Arms, SF and battle?  Those who can hack it.  That should be the only measuring stick.  And we all know there are men and women who can't.  

There seems to be two "cultures" being explored, WRT to this issue now.  The "average Canadian/society" culture and what we perceive their thoughts are, and the CF culture on the issue.

I wonder though...if I were to ask the troops, Snr NCO, WOs that served under Capt Goddard if they thought she was fit for the combat arms.


----------



## neko

I probably shouldn't have read this thread as alot of the comments really irked me. Enough that I've decided to wade in here.
 The carreer choices available to a women shouldn't depend on whether a man feels comfortable with her doing it. Why should we cater to you guys that way?  What makes you so bloody special that we should be denied our dreams, our choices because you feel uncomfortable? So some of you have been raised to protect women, trying to stop us from joining the combat arms because of your feelings about it is oppressive not protective. 
 I want to serve my country, I want to do my part in making this world a better, safer place for my children, joining the military as a combat engineer is my way of doing that. If I can't perform well in my chosen field, wether its do to not being strong enough or something else, then I agree I shouldn't be there and hopefully I would be able to chose a different trade, however I have every intention of succeeding.
 Why can't you guys just learn to function as a team with the women who can do their jobs well?

Just wanted to add that there are alot of men who are not raised to respect and protect women, I've had the misfortune of meeting a few myself. And we hear of plenty in the news. Get over yourselves guys, your not exactly seen as our saviours and protectors, just because your male.


----------



## RCR Grunt

I see I've ruffled some feathers ... good!   For Neko, I hope you are successful in whatever you choose to do, but to think that your joining a comabt arms trade is going to be just about you is ignorant.  I'm not saying girls cant or shouldnt, i'm saying men arent ready for it.  And, as the Israelis found, if the men arent ready for that handful of capable woemn, the WHOLE GODDAMMED TEMA SUFFERS!  For Mud Recce Man, I carry one stick and it measures the team.  I have seen the things I spoke of, the friction and controversy, I've been part of that, its no fun.  It does and can happen.  I'm not saying it will everytime, but it is a possibility, and one we are not prepared for.  The girls are here, and thats fine. The females want to fight... good more guns in the battle.  But, if the presence of a female witin the team can possibly disrupt the cohesiveness, should we turn a blind eye to that because she's qualified?  I'm not suggesting policy change here, I'm bringing up points for discussion.  Neko, you said "The carreer choices available to a women shouldn't depend on whether a man feels comfortable with her doing it. Why should we cater to you guys that way?"  Well, we were here first, why should we cater to you?  Men arent ready to fight alongside women, the same women we were raised to protect.  Mud Recce Man, what I meant was with changes in training to remove any cultural difference between a male and female soldier, we risk serious ramifications with regards to the conduct of our soldiers.  It is possible for the soldier to lose his sense of empathy for the people he is trying to help, thus making him less effective on a hearts and minds mission.  A diminished effectiveness will reflect poorly on the country, thus the citizens will suffer.  Maybe I'm right out of'er, and I probably am, but thats how I see it.  We werent ready for the girls!


----------



## RCR Grunt

Anyways, before i'm banned or slapped with a tuna or whatever, I'd just like to say thanks for breaking me in, this was my first heated exchange on Milnet.  That beng said I'm sure everyone thinks I'm a total Arsehole now!!   ;D


----------



## armyvern

Anyone's grunt ...

YOU are the ignorant one. Your problem ... is not the womans.

Who the hell decided it should be all about you and what you want because you aren't ready for it?? Do you have more than 19 years in?? Because if so, you've been a long time still not getting used to it. If you've got less time in, then those girls have been around doing the job since before you joined, so exactly what then ... would you be getting used to if they were there before your arrival?? 

If she can do her job, she desreves to be there every single bit as much as you do. If you want to continue living in a culture that says differently, that's your problem.

Thankfully, the CF has gotten over those sterotypical cultural values and now operates in the 21st century mindset. Perhaps it's high time you do as well.


----------



## Gimpy

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> I see I've ruffled some feathers ... good!   For Neko, I hope you are successful in whatever you choose to do, but to think that your joining a comabt arms trade is going to be just about you is ignorant.  I'm not saying girls cant or shouldnt, i'm saying men arent ready for it.  And, as the Israelis found, if the men arent ready for that handful of capable woemn, the WHOLE GODDAMMED TEMA SUFFERS!  For Mud Recce Man, I carry one stick and it measures the team.  I have seen the things I spoke of, the friction and controversy, I've been part of that, its no fun.  It does and can happen.  I'm not saying it will everytime, but it is a possibility, and one we are not prepared for.  The girls are here, and thats fine. The females want to fight... good more guns in the battle.  But, if the presence of a female witin the team can possibly disrupt the cohesiveness, should we turn a blind eye to that because she's qualified?  I'm not suggesting policy change here, I'm bringing up points for discussion.  Neko, you said "The carreer choices available to a women shouldn't depend on whether a man feels comfortable with her doing it. Why should we cater to you guys that way?"  Well, we were here first, why should we cater to you?  Men arent ready to fight alongside women, the same women we were raised to protect.  Mud Recce Man, what I meant was with changes in training to remove any cultural difference between a male and female soldier, we risk serious ramifications with regards to the conduct of our soldiers.  It is possible for the soldier to lose his sense of empathy for the people he is trying to help, thus making him less effective on a hearts and minds mission.  A diminished effectiveness will reflect poorly on the country, thus the citizens will suffer.  Maybe I'm right out of'er, and I probably am, but thats how I see it.  We werent ready for the girls!



So because men aren't ready for women in combat arms all the women who want to be in combat arms should suffer? Thats bullshit and if you honestly think that way you are stuck in the 50's. If men aren't ready then why should the women have to be the ones to deal with it?


----------



## mudrecceman

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> For Mud Recce Man, I carry one stick and it measures the team.  I have seen the things I spoke of, the friction and controversy, I've been part of that, its no fun.  It does and can happen.  I'm not saying it will everytime, but it is a possibility, and one we are not prepared for.  The girls are here, and thats fine. The females want to fight... good more guns in the battle.  But, if the presence of a female witin the team can possibly disrupt the cohesiveness, should we turn a blind eye to that because she's qualified?  I'm not suggesting policy change here, I'm bringing up points for discussion.



Thats the stick that counts and I thought you would have that one.  As I have said too, I am not saying it DOESN'T happen..only I haven't seen a great deal of it.  Things are different all over!  ;D

I see the points you are bringing up...and the dual "society" and "CF culture" questions that come out of 'em. 




> Mud Recce Man, what I meant was with changes in training to remove any cultural difference between a male and female soldier, we risk serious ramifications with regards to the conduct of our soldiers.  It is possible for the soldier to lose his sense of empathy for the people he is trying to help, thus making him less effective on a hearts and minds mission.  A diminished effectiveness will reflect poorly on the country, thus the citizens will suffer.  Maybe I'm right out of'er, and I probably am, but thats how I see it.  We werent ready for the girls!



What cultural differences, and are they to negate what happened to the guys per the IDF report?  I had seen that one before.  It happened.  Hard to argue facts.

Hopefully this thread stays on track.   ;D


----------



## armyvern

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> And, as the Israelis found, if the men arent ready for that handful of capable woemn, the WHOLE GODDAMMED TEMA SUFFERS!  For Mud Recce Man, I carry one stick and it measures the team.  I have seen the things I spoke of, the friction and controversy, I've been part of that, its no fun.  It does and can happen.  I'm not saying it will everytime, but it is a possibility, and one we are not prepared for.  *The girls are here, and thats fine. The females want to fight... good more guns in the battle.  But, if the presence of a female witin the team can possibly disrupt the cohesiveness, should we turn a blind eye to that because she's qualified?  *



She's qualified then she deserves to be there.

Effects Team cohesiveness?? Then get rid of the god-damned man who can't get past his sterotypical viewpoint ... because that is WHO is ruining the team. Not the woman doing her job.


----------



## RCR Grunt

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> She's qualified then she deserves to be there.
> 
> Effects Team cohesiveness?? Then get rid of the god-damned man who can't get past his sterotypical viewpoint ... because that is WHO is ruining the team. Not the woman doing her job.



... But what if its all of them?  Do we send her into battle alone?


----------



## armyvern

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> ... But what if its all of them?  Do we send her into battle alone?


Thankfully, the vast majority of men do not share your viewpoint. I'm married to one of those RCRs. Get over yourself already.


----------



## neko

Anyone's Grunt

 I disagree with you about men being raised as protectors of women, (I edited my previous post to add something about this). 
Maybe some of you are raised that way, plenty aren't and I've tangled with a few of them. We here about them in the news. I don't consider men to be a chivlarous bundh of creatures, when I meet one I could be running into a decent guy or a nasty piece of work. And just to clarify what the hell do you think you are protecting us from? Other men perhaps? Protecting women is not an inherent quality in men and it certainly isn't a major part of our culture. Women have suffered violence at the hands of men countless times, within the home and from strangers. 

And so what if men were in the combat arms first. That's a childish and unchilvarous argument. Why can't you guys learn to work with us anyway? Doesn't the military teach you teamwork? I thought that was a big part of the military, that it was necessary for the military to function well. If the men are the ones who can't work as a team punish the men not the women.


----------



## RCR Grunt

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> ... But what if its all of them?  Do we send her into battle alone?



The point of this ...

If you have a section of *SOLDIERS* and they are going overseas, but have been distracted and performing poorly in their duties as combat arms *SOLDIERS* because one of the other *SOLDIERS* for whatever reason, but that problem *SOLDIER* is "qualified,"  you advocate keeping that *SOLDIER* around at the risk of the other 9 *SOLDIER'S* well being?  If thats what you are saying, well I'll let someone else finish this post ...


----------



## Gimpy

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> The point of this ...
> 
> If you have a section of *SOLDIERS and they are going overseas, but have been distracted and performing poorly in their duties as combat arms SOLDIERS because one of the other SOLDIERS for whatever reason, but that problem SOLDIER is "qualified,"  you advocate keeping that SOLDIER around at the risk of the other 9 SOLDIER'S well being?  If thats what you are saying, well I'll let someone else finish this post ...
> *


*

If those 9 soldiers are distracted by a female doing her job then maybe those 9 soldiers need to grow up? Are male police officers stumbling over their feet when partnered with a female officer? No, so why should it be any different in the CF.*


----------



## RCR Grunt

... Because they arent in the CF and not in the CBT arms maybe?  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Gimpy

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> ... Because they arent in the CF and not in the CBT amrs maybe?  Apples and oranges.



Not really, if women can take part in other dangerous jobs such as police officers, firefighters and the like without men drooling or stumbling over them then why can't they do the same in the CF and combat arms trades?


----------



## RCR Grunt

... Because the average OPP officer or firefighter doesnt get mortared, blown up, burnt, shot at and rocketed, see his buddies guts splayed across the desert and be forced to leave him their to carry on the mission.


----------



## RCR Grunt

In any case, all I was saying is maybe its not the women, maybe its the men.  And, maybe there isnt a quick fix, a 3 day course isnt going to undo what my momma taught me, and it wont do it for others either.  I'm done here, seems I've been either been hung out to dry or I'm way off base, either way...enjoy your thread.


----------



## Gimpy

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> ... Because the average OPP officer or firefighter doesnt get mortared, blown up, burnt, shot at and rocketed, see his buddies guts splayed across the desert and be forced to leave him their to carry on the mission.



I didn't realize the CF has a monopoly on death and suffering. While those specific situations don't occur to police officers and firefighters they have to deal with Canadian civilian lives on a daily basis whereas troops deployed overseas never deal with their own citizens on a daily basis. Firefighters and police officers still have to deal with seeing dead bodies, saving lives, and harrowing situations, and my point still stands they don't have problems with women in their ranks.


----------



## RCR Grunt

When an OPP officer goes down, his partner will, no doubt have some time off to handle it... When we lost a man it was "suck it up, soldier on."  There's your difference.


----------



## RCR Grunt

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> In any case, all I was saying is maybe its not the women, maybe its the men.  And, maybe there isnt a quick fix, a 3 day course isnt going to undo what my momma taught me, and it wont do it for others either.  I'm done here, seems I've been either been hung out to dry or I'm way off base, either way...enjoy your thread.



Read it again, this time I mean it, seriously ... someone say something new and controversial so people will leave me alone.


----------



## HItorMiss

neko said:
			
		

> I disagree with you about men being raised as protectors of women, (I edited my previous post to add something about this).
> Maybe some of you are raised that way, plenty aren't and I've tangled with a few of them. We here about them in the news. I don't consider men to be a chivalrous bundh of creatures, when I meet one I could be running into a decent guy or a nasty piece of work. And just to clarify what the hell do you think you are protecting us from? Other men perhaps? Protecting women is not an inherent quality in men and it certainly isn't a major part of our culture. Women have suffered violence at the hands of men countless times, within the home and from strangers.



Neko your doing what you accuse Men of doing, highlighting the example of the minority an painting the majority with that brush. Wether you like it or not the vast Majority of men are raise to protect woman and cherish woman. Rightly or wrongly that's a cultural bias instilled in western childed for centuries. And As for what we are protecting you from well that  would be the ever elusive unknown factor of any conflict wherein you could/would/are hurt in. The IDF report highlighted that an injured woman received undo protection far past that of other males simply based on her sex and the instinctual reaction of men to protect women. What has not been said is how well those women were integrated into their units before Combat occurred, however knowing the IDF I would hazard that they were fully integrated and that it was a complete surprise to then when that instinc occurred.




			
				neko said:
			
		

> And so what if men were in the combat arms first. That's a childish and unchilvarous argument. Why can't you guys learn to work with us anyway? Doesn't the military teach you teamwork? I thought that was a big part of the military, that it was necessary for the military to function well. If the men are the ones who can't work as a team punish the men not the women.




We have and are working with you on a daily basis and were all one team that does it it's job to a very high standard, You missed that Grunt never said women could not do the job, in fact he said they could. What he said was that until Men change how it is we view woman, then  said women could or might become a detriment to the team and that IS unacceptable.



Vern,

You may not like the way the vast majority of people raise their children (myself included) but it's the cultural norm far an above the concept of equality. And it is that norm which could come back to bite our butt's unless the system of training changes to change the LEARNED instinct of the majority of men. And that change in training has ramifications we are going to have to address even as we change that training system.


----------



## HItorMiss

Gimpy your way off Base, though you're right that it's not as huge an issue it is still an issue even withing the ranks of the OPP and I believe every major police force in Canada. Also Again Anyone's Grunt is right, when it comes to dealing with the ramifications of death the Soldier gets the deal with it when your home Mission now. The Police officer has mandatory time off and counciling.

Also Combat that the Police face is far different from the Combat faced by the Soldier, The Police Officer "MAY" in the course of his/her career face on time they must use their firearm. Myself I have done more times then I want to talk about or ever wish to again. So it sure is Apples and Oranges the "MIGHT" vs the "WILL" makes that argument moot and notworth adding to this thread.


----------



## vonGarvin

Before this gets out of hand ("She said/he said"), here's my point of view:
(for starters, I am in the Combat Arms, have been since 1985 (reserve) and 1989 (regular force).)
I'll put it this way.  It matters not to me if my trenchmate is male or female.  What matters only is that he or she does his or her job.  Full stop.  
Now, I don't live in la-la land and I realise that men and women are viewed differently, for different reasons, in different situations.  For a female infantryman, she is often but not always looked on as "a woman" vice "a soldier".  This is not always the case, but in every case, it's not fair.  If she's a dirtbag, then she's a dirtbag.  Period.  If she's average, then she's average, not "average _for a girl_"
Now, keeping reality in mind, I have given "special" advice to women whom I've instructed (yes, infantry officers in training).  Keeping this generic enough, she was easily top third material on the course I was instructing.  One day after giving orders, I pulled her aside and told her that like it or not, she would be under a microscope because of her gender.  I told her that it definately was not the case with me, but that it would happen, that it would not be fair, but then again life wasn't fair.  The issue?  Her ballistic glasses were on her forehead as she gave orders.  Was it an issue?  Naturally not, however, some "men" would view that and say "Pffft: typical woman!" and unfortunately miss out on the very good set of orders she was in the process of delivering.  Yep, not fair.  Thankfully, such opinions or attitudes are less and less each and every year, but they are still out there.
My advice to her: give the bastards nothing.  She could outrun them, outjump them and outcommand them, but once she buggered up, someone, somewhere would simply go "tsk tsk.  That's what happens when you let women out of the kitchen."  She appreciated my advice and asked for more if anything "girly" came up.  Nothing ever did, and I can tell you all, hand on my heart, that no matter where she ends up as an infantry officer, that unit will indeed be blessed.
So, yes, some "men" out there will still act as though women are the "weaker" sex.  Whatever.  I say move on, find a new topic, and pass the beer, it's Friday already and I'm going home soon and my wife and are are going to celebrate the start of my leave.  W00t!


----------



## HItorMiss

Capt,

I truly respect your opinion you know I do, but you missed the issue. The debate was not, nor is it that of Grunts wethere woman can do the job in fact we have already said they sure could. The debate is now in my mind that of the issue of how it is men treat woman in situations of distress ( IE: wounded in Combat). As an aside I knew a Lt/Capt male officer who was just amazing for an officer not a Female officer but an OFFICER. I think my whole units less without her still leading troops.



EDIT: Have a few cold one's Capt they sure are tasty when you have no work the next few days


----------



## vonGarvin

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> EDIT: Have a few cold one's Capt they sure are tasty when you have no work the next *few days *


Actually, next few WEEKS 

 :cheers:

But, I do get the point.  My point wasn't that trainee "x" (get it?  "X" Chromosome?  HAHAHAHAHA) was good or not, but that it was unfortunate that she would be looked on as a "she" and not as an infantry officer.  Again, how men treat women.  In my case, not in distress, but in day to day relations between officers and NCMs.  That's all.


----------



## Staff Weenie

HoM - here's a question - seeing as we're nothing more than hairless apes with wickedly cool opposable thumbs.....do human males carry over a inherent behavioural disposition ('instinct' for lack of a better word) to protect females and young? I believe we do. Take a good look at how the other primates, and even other mammals behave when the herd/pack/family group is attacked or threatened. I did some research during Grad School on Biopolitics, and how we may have an evolutionary heritage that drives certain aspects of our behaviours, whether we want to admit it or not..... This may well account for the fact that while you can tell the men to treat all women fairly, under extreme duress, they will allow more of their underlying behaviours to come out. Heck, for all we know, it may be nothing more than a simple drive to protect the ability of the tribe to reproduce (don't mean to be offensive here). To me, it's not a 'bad' thing either, it is merely something to deal with.

But it all boils down to the same thing in the end - Recognize the similarities, recognize the differences, adapt, and make the mission succeed.

Capt S - you're absolutely bang on - I have one mission when I'm in the field - to ensure that our soldiers get the best damn health care possible. I really don't care about the gender, skin colour, or sexual orientation of the health care provider - as long as they are dedicated and professional live saving machines. That's it, that's all.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> HoM - here's a question - seeing as we're nothing more than hairless apes with wickedly cool opposable thumbs.....do human males carry over a inherent behavioural disposition ('instinct' for lack of a better word) to protect females and young? I believe we do. Take a good look at how the other primates, and even other mammals behave when the herd/pack/family group is attacked or threatened. I did some research during Grad School on Biopolitics, and how we may have an evolutionary heritage that drives certain aspects of our behaviours, whether we want to admit it or not..... This may well account for the fact that while you can tell the men to treat all women fairly, under extreme duress, they will allow more of their underlying behaviours to come out. Heck, for all we know, it may be nothing more than a simple drive to protect the ability of the tribe to reproduce (don't mean to be offensive here). To me, it's not a 'bad' thing either, it is merely something to deal with.
> 
> But it all boils down to the same thing in the end - Recognize the similarities, recognize the differences, adapt, and make the mission succeed.
> 
> Capt S - you're absolutely bang on - I have one mission when I'm in the field - to ensure that our soldiers get the best damn health care possible. I really don't care about the gender, skin colour, or sexual orientation of the health care provider - as long as they are dedicated and professional live saving machines. That's it, that's all.



You're first para is the one that people are ignoring. So far I've seen people losing their temper on this site and trying to one up each other with discussions of parenting skills. The people opposed to females in the combat arms have not once said females "couldn't do it" just that due to societal beliefs "shouldn't do it".

Vern my father taught me at a young age that there was no such thing as "mens" work versus "womens" work except in the military, specifically the combat arms. I believe him, I don't think women in the combat arms has worked out for the social engineering crowd. In my regiment we have had a grand total of maybe 20-24 women in the 20 YEARS that the infantry was forced to open up. A great social experiment that cost how many millions of dollars for approximately 1 female troop per year. We were told in 1987 that this would open the doors for females and we would become integrated along the lines of support units with the same percentage of females to males. When is this going to happen?

By the way, telling someone to get over themselves isn't very polite now isn't it! ;D You have a nice day!


----------



## Strike

> do human males carry over a inherent behavioural disposition



Ah, but if we all follow nature so closely, why is it the female of the human species that feels they have to dress up, wear make-up, and all that other junk, IOT impress the male of the species?  Everywhere else it's the male that has the impressive accoutrements -- birds, lions, silverbacks, even fish!

Sorry.  If you're going to use instinct then why aren't you guys walking around in heels to show off those wonderful calves for the ladies!  (Something I'm sure a few of us would like to see, if only for a laugh  ;D)


----------



## HItorMiss

Well on a genetic level Instinct and Genetics are two different things LOL, So Humanity evolved past males showing off and it changed to the Woman, still that rarely effects instinct.


----------



## Hot Lips

This is 2007 right?

Gender bias still exists and most likely will until the end of time...we will never change every person's values and beliefs systems...

All I can say is...the best person for the job...

I don't defend my gender...I see no need to do so...and to me the forces are genderless...

It still makes me grin to see such an ongoing debate about women though...

Cheers & Beers
HL


----------



## neko

HitorMiss,
 I wasn't trying to paint all men as evil nasty creatures, I don't believe that, and apologise that that is how it sounded. 
 I was trying to point out that not all of them are raised to treat women with respect and protect them, that there are plenty who are cruel and violent towards women. I didn't mean to say that all men are like that.


> We have and are working with you on a daily basis and were all one team that does it it's job to a very high standard, You missed that Grunt never said women could not do the job, in fact he said they could. What he said was that until Men change how it is we view woman, then  said women could or might become a detriment to the team and that IS unacceptable.


I didn't miss his point, what I wanted to do was point out that if it is the men that are causing the problem do to their feelings towards women then don't punish the women for it. 
I also wanted to address some of the guys who commented about men being raised to respect women, but then go on to say even women who can do well in the combat arms shouldn't be there because of how the men feel. Where is the respect there? Protective, maybe, but that isn't showing respect. Wanting a women to stay confined to jobs you are comfortable with her doing is more along the lines of oppressing her than protecting her. That 'you' was generic by the way, not directed at you HitorMiss.


----------



## RCR Grunt

neko said:
			
		

> I also wanted to address some of the guys who commented about men being raised to respect women, but then go on to say even women who can do well in the combat arms shouldn't be there because of how the men feel. Where is the respect there? Protective, maybe, but that isn't showing respect. Wanting a women to stay confined to jobs you are comfortable with her doing is more along the lines of oppressing her than protecting her. That 'you' was generic by the way, not directed at you HitorMiss.



Neko, this is being seen the wrong way.  I'm saying it from a *combat leader's* point of view.  There is a small piece of the team that may negatively affect the completion of a mission; therefore, this small piece must be fixed.  This is not aboout respect or equality or whatever buzz word you wanna use, its about the mission, and the completion of said mission.  If it was a weapon causing the problem, it would be removed.  In this case it is ingrained cultural traits, which cannot be removed so easily, therefore another fix is required.  I'm not saying your not a good soldier, and maybe your comrades have adapted, but how will we know until our worst nightmare comes true?  How will male soldiers react to a wounded, screaming female comrade?  Probably the way they were raised to, possibly to the detrement of the mission.  The comabt arms are not a special boys club that we have denied to women for some cave man like purpose, sometimes equality is just a bad idea.  And my opinion is that this is one of those places.


----------



## Greymatters

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Well on a genetic level Instinct and Genetics are two different things LOL, So Humanity evolved past males showing off and it changed to the Woman, still that rarely effects instinct.



Sorry, but I must disagree - both sexes prance and pose in front of the other with equal regularity. 

Reference to RCR, I worked in the PPCLI when the first female recruit came through, and I had no problem working with her, and neither did a hundred other guys.  The rest of the battalion were another issue.  Too many of them, especially the older NCOs, said "women dont belong", or even worse, refered to her as a piece of ass that should be screwed instead of treated as a fellow soldier.  This attitude was immitated by many of the younger soldiers, not because they believed it, but because the older ones believed it, and the older ones believed it beacuse that was what they were taught.  I have seen the same attitudes in reserve units where many of the younger soldiers are just out of high school and bring the same high school attitude with them to the army. 

The reference to 'genetics' and 'instincts' is a poor argument.  Instinctively, none of us are engineered to fly or jump through the air, yet many of us enjoy defying gravity, flying aircraft, jumping with parachutes, or bungee-jumping.  It is possible to overcome our instincts.  But it is not the protective instinct that needs to be overcome, it is the instinctive belief that women should not hunt or make war with the males. 

The same with our environment.  We all grew up in and adapted to environments that give us our basics for interacting with society.  The first thing that happens when we join the CF is that those values and experiences are broken down, and all soldiers are retaught the new standards by which they are expected to live and by which they judge others.  It is not our mothers and fathers who install a prejudice against women, it is the instructor who says "Good morning, ladies!" or "You run like a girl!" or "You smell like a french *****house" or screams "What are you, SOME KIND OF PUSSY!!?", all comments that denegrate women.  These are what cause male soldiers to think that working with or around female soldiers somehow lessens their effectiveness or reduces their manhood.


----------



## RCR Grunt

I agree with some of what you say, but I may be reading you wrong ... lets find out.  The problem lies not with the females, but with the males.  Which, if anyone cares to go back and re-read my posts, is what I have maintained all along.  The males have not adapted to the females and we are all suffering for it.  Is this an accurate interpretation of what you have posted, Grey Matter?


----------



## armyvern

And I'll wade back in once more to say that I have never said there should be lower standards of anything for women.

I have advocated that IF they CAN do the job up to par, that they deserve the opportunity to DO that job. Same for the men.

Is a fellow soldier male laying there "screaming after being injured" not going to be looked after the same as a wounded female soldier? I would hope that he would be. I highly suspect that screaming in pain when wounded is not a trait limited to the female sex. I would hope that instincts of fellow soldiers present when injuries occur is to indeed jump in there if at all possible and render aid in the hopes of saving lives. We all bleed the same, and we are all capable of screaming. I bring this point up only because it was mentioned in an earlier post.

As for the cultural argument about how some males may react to them, I can only say this:

Is it really fair to punish the women who CAN do that job because a male is not comfortable working with her? 

If you do not allow them the opportunity to do this ...

you will NEVER have the opportunity to become comfortable with it ... and attitudes therefore, will never change.

There was also another comment about where are all these women at then ... now that the CF has been opened up for them. Quite simply put is that overwhelming majority of females have ZERO desire to be combat arms, so they aren't joining. The ones who are joining the combat arms, are the ones who WANT to be there; I'd think that is a good thing.

I once had a female beside me in a trench who really didn't want to be there ... it wasn't a pretty scene. When her contract was due, she simply wasn't resigned. She met all the minimum standards so was quite rightly still employed, but the CoC dealt with the attitude side of it appropriately. Because it was the attitude that effected the rest of us. She didn't want to be there, we didn't want her there, and in the end ... she wasn't. Could she do her job? Yes. Could she do it without constantly whining and bitching about it? No. And in the end it came back to bite her, deservedly, right on the ass.

But that being said, the men we were with, came to eventually appreciate myself and the other female working with them. We earned it because we soldiered and did our jobs. They respected us for that. A couple of those men are members of this site and I still communicate with them and count them amongst my best friends. We were a team and we looked out for each other, and when it comes right down to it, that's what it supposed to be all about.


----------



## RCR Grunt

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Vern, you are not TCCC qualified, so you wouldnt understand what happens when a soldier is wounded, and I do not wish to go into detail about that at this time. I am qualified, and I have used it in combat.  I believe there is already a thread out there discussing that course, how it works and how it saves lives.  When I talk about all this "culture" and "instinct" crap, it is in a combat scenario, not in a training / garrison / "rear" area scenario, where a wounded screaming soldier in the middle of a firefight is a fact and a reality not just a scenario.  Do you have any experience in this?  Can you say how you would react to something like this?  If you can, them I'm sorry you went through that.  But, if you can't, I dare say that you may be "out of your lane."  When the man beside you goes down, you carry on the attack, you don't stick around to check him out or offer aid, you kill the enemy so no one else gets hit!  Can I do that if thats a female?  I don't know, and I hope I never find out.  The Israeli's tried it and it failed.  What makes us different from the Israeli's?


----------



## Greymatters

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> I agree with some of what you say, but I may be reading you wrong ... lets find out.  The problem lies not with the females, but with the males.  Which, if anyone cares to go back and re-read my posts, is what I have maintained all along.  The males have not adapted to the females and we are all suffering for it.  Is this an accurate interpretation of what you have posted, Grey Matter?



In a nutshell, that is essentially it.  The working situation has changed, and it is up to us men to adapt and overcome.  A lot of the barriers that are put up are put up by ourselves.

Just for amplification, Ive had to deal with these issues working with other forces overseas.   Several comrades (in a soldierly non-communist use of the term) from other countries I worked closely with were good soldiers and worked hard at their job, but found it extremely difficult to work with women in the field, not because women couldnt do the job, but because of personal beliefs that "women shouldnt be there".  This was true not only for working with women, but also getting teams to work together when one of the soldiers was gay, or had different coloured skin, or a different nationality or a different religion.


----------



## armyvern

Hmmm, I've only said that males and females bleed and scream the same. One does not need to be TCCC qualified to put that out in public. Nor anywhere in my post did I insinuate that you should stop the fight to render aid. Read it again. I quite clearly said if at all possible (as in ~ at the first opportunity), any good soldier knows that.

Don't presume to know my background, or to assume that I have not had the "opportunity" to be shot at, nor to deal with the effects of what a landmine can do to someone. You'd be wrong. I have been there, and I have reacted. No this didn't occur in Afghanistan if you're wondering, but another tour.


----------



## time expired

Watching this discussion going round and round in ever decreasing
circles,and having sarcastic remarks made about my Mother by some,empty-
profile 19 year old female makes me very angry.I just wish that I was a 
young soldier standing across from her in a ring with a pugil stick,maybe
I would get beaten,but I doubt it as I was a killer with a pugil stick.Then
she could join the other thread,you know the one, about the poor
women abused by evil men,I am sure there is one here somewhere.
 Anyway I'm outa here.
                             Regards


----------



## armyvern

time expired said:
			
		

> Watching this discussion going round and round in ever decreasing
> circles,and having sarcastic remarks made about my Mother by some,empty-
> profile 19 year old female makes me very angry.I just wish that I was a
> young soldier standing across from her in a ring with a pugil stick,maybe
> I would get beaten,but I doubt it as I was a killer with a pugil stick.Then
> she could join the other thread,you know the one, about the poor
> women abused by evil men,I am sure there is one here somewhere.
> Anyway I'm outa here.
> Regards



No, I'm quite sure there's no thread on this forum about "the poor women abused by evil men." Did you read her next post? She apologized and stated that she was not meaning to intend that all men were evil abusers of women for those who took it that way. She apologized and explained herself more clearly.

No one in this thread ever claimed that you, or anyone else, was abusing women by your disagreement with them in the combat arms. I think the term used was that it was 'disrespectful' of their abilities. That's a far cry from 'abuse' and I'm really unsure where you are coming up with the basis for your statement above from.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Vern, how is it disrespectful of their abilities. Most here have acknowledged that women can do the job, the argument has been should they. I hold nothing but the utmost respect for women. I came from one and I married one, and I would fight to the death for them.


----------



## armyvern

Interestingly enough, there are NO 19 year old females posting in this thread.

I do happen to have 19 years in though. Is it I to who you speak?? I don't see any sarcastic comments made by me about your mother however.

I do comments from me noting that cultural values are changing and advancing and that it was a good thing; if you happen to feel that means I am making a sarcastic comment about your mother, then I apologize to you.

I'd also encourage any posters who said my upbringing wasn't "normal" (it surely was, when I was raised to respect all people for what they do and how they do it regardless of sex, age, race etc) or that women were only in the combat arms because of "ignorance" to wade in any time to do the same.  

2 CDO,

As a female, I can assure you that if I CAN do the job just as well as the man, and I WANT to do the job, but am precluded from doing so ... then my abilities are indeed being 'disrespected.' IE: It is disrespectful to prevent someone from doing something they CAN do based on sex, race, age, religion etc rather than on performance. Because their abilities then mean nothing. That is disrespectful.

Say you're a blond, today we decide that even though you are para qualified and want to be a jumper and CAN indeed do the job, that we are just going to disqualify you from doing that because of your physical characteristic (being blond) despite the fact that you may be one of the top performers in your company. Would that sit well with you?? I doubt it. If your butt is not going to be allowed to do the job, wouldn't you rather have it be because you simply can't do the job? Or would you be OK with someone else deciding that despite your performance, a physical characteristic that does not effect you ability to perform is going to be the deciding factor?? Pretty disrespectful no?? It is when you are the one on the receiving end.


----------



## RCR Grunt

Ah, Vern, you are the master of the quote out of context... I make the same respectful points over and over again and you bat them back at me with misinterpreted information.  I'm done, have a nice thread.


----------



## armyvern

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> Ah, Vern, you are the master of the quote out of context... I make the same respectful points over and over again and you bat them back at me with misinterpreted information.  I'm done, have a nice thread.



Interesting comment. Your first line. I heard the exact same thing from another soldier in 1 RCR fellow just last night. What are the odds?? Oddly though, in this case, you threw the "are you TCCCs qualified" into the post and told me I was out of my lane. You presumed to know my background and were wrong. That's not me throwing misinterpretation at you. I simply answered your questions. Guess you didn't like the fact that I could. You have a good night too.


----------



## vonGarvin

EVERYONE TAKE A TIME OUT!
Before making any comments about how people misquote you, or this, or that, or whatever, remember that with text communication, body language isn't able to be read.  So what?  Well, it's hard to read people but easy to misread them.  As I was once told, "Attack the plan, not the man" (pun not intended).  So, point/counterpoint is ok.  Calling people out for misreading your quotes is just rude.

That is all, now "what if..."

;D


----------



## neko

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> Neko, this is being seen the wrong way.  I'm saying it from a *combat leader's* point of view.  There is a small piece of the team that may negatively affect the completion of a mission; therefore, this small piece must be fixed.  This is not aboout respect or equality or whatever buzz word you wanna use, its about the mission, and the completion of said mission.  If it was a weapon causing the problem, it would be removed.  In this case it is ingrained cultural traits, which cannot be removed so easily, therefore another fix is required.  I'm not saying your not a good soldier, and maybe your comrades have adapted, but how will we know until our worst nightmare comes true?  How will male soldiers react to a wounded, screaming female comrade?  Probably the way they were raised to, possibly to the detrement of the mission.  The comabt arms are not a special boys club that we have denied to women for some cave man like purpose, sometimes equality is just a bad idea.  And my opinion is that this is one of those places.


I do understand where you are coming from; if men aren't performing their jobs properly due to the women being around then the mission is at risk, understood. 
 I agree the problem must be fixed, however I'm saying that I don't believe it should be fixed by getting rid of the women. As for the comparison to the weapon well, yes if the weapon was faulty it should be removed, however if its causing a problem just because the men don't know how to work with it wouldn't the solution be training for the men? Why get rid of a perfectly good weapon when more training should solve the problem. You've admitted that the problem here is often the men's difficulty with working with women, so fix the men.


----------



## Yrys

neko said:
			
		

> You've admitted that the problem here is often the men's difficulty with working with women, so fix the men.



Make sense to me ...


----------



## time expired

Capt.Sensible,thanks for the good advice,I have put away my pugil 
stick and feel much better now.However I am not yet finished with this
subject,I think one area of confusion ,is the Israeli study concerning
women ,was a study based on their experience in COMBAT, and it 
should not be dismissed as not applying to the Canadian Forces 
because theirs is a different culture, are not valid,their culture is much
closer to ours than the Vietnamese for example.If one accepts the fact
that we raise an army to go out a kill our enemies and not to conduct
social experiments then I feel it behooves us to take such information
seriously.The Canadian military has not faced a true combat situation
since Korea and so far I have not heard any pro- contra opinions about
female infantry soldiers from A-stan.Maybe we will be able to prove
the Israeli study wrong.
                                Regards


----------



## time expired

Army Vern,I forgot,Check Shinigami O2s profile,
                                                  Regards


----------



## armyvern

time expired said:
			
		

> Army Vern,I forgot,Check Shinigami O2s profile,
> Regards



Ahhh, seen. And, thanks.

Vern


----------



## Shinigami02

Keep going, I would hate for this thread to stop because of me.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

As is said, it's a "touchy" subject. Everyone got their opinion on it. NEVERTHELESS. 

I've read some interesting points in regards of social issues, because it's all about it. It's a highly stereotyped social issue(the men only last line of defence) nothingmore. And probably stereotyped physically speaking and i guess i'm not out of my place to say that women are physically(overall avg stamina/strenght) disatvantaged by nature(or correct me if im wrong)? 

Quit babbling obout standards, we all know they already are low, they are unlikely to go up and if the army wants to keep up the (wo)manpower...

Link: Center for military readiness(USA) Women in land combat force: http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233 It worthwhile reading.


The other face of the medal would be like Army Vern's american counterpart(look blue text at bottom of page ) *myth and idiotic rumors * about military women:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html Make lot of sense.


I still think that everyone has the right to bear his own opinions regarding his own experience and values.
And i'll finish with a question, are soldiers ready to pull the trigger to shoot women or children combattants?


----------



## Brockvegas

I've shared my feelings on women in the CF---->


			
				Brockvegas said:
			
		

> If you're watching my back when we're in the field, I don't give a rat's *** about your plumbing, as long as you're gonna pull that trigger when the time comes!



Same goes for foreign combatants. If I'm staring down the business end of your rifle, I'm not going to stop to check your naughty bits. True, due to the society I've been raised in, I may feel worse about it afterwards, but I would rather feel guilt and come home to my wife, than not come home at all.


----------



## stealthylizard

Try to think of it from the point of view of an enemy as well.  Not so much with the current operations in countries where women's lives aren't valued as much as in the west, but elsewhere.  Imagine as the enemy having to force yourself to fire on a woman....... it may even give a few extra seconds, because of hesitancy, which may come in handy.  The Vietnamese were very briefly brought up but not really expanded upon.  How well did it work for them having both men and women fighting?  From what I have read, it worked to their advantage against the American forces, because of that hesitancy.  (Just asking because I virtually know nothing about that segment of war history, except for a few reading materials, and movies here and there.)  It is apples and oranges, but still........ if they could do it, why the hell can't Canada?  The two cultures aren't that diametrically opposed when it comes to gender.

The physical aspects are the same excuses that were used by many manual labour jobs, such as the oilfield.  For the most part, it still holds true, but the occasional female can still do just as well if not better than a lot of the males of the industry, and the men got over it (for the most part).  The weak ones are weeded out.  It is an entirely different industry, but still relevant due to the prevalent mindset that there are some jobs that women should not partake.

So what if it makes someone uncomfortable.  It might make a person feel the same way to fight beside a male that is different, either through religion, race, etc.  Do you then exclude that "different" person from fulfilling a role in the combat arms?  Hell no !!!(or it would still be off limits to anyone of colour, and in my opinion it is relevant based on feelings of comfort)  The uncomfortable one has to adapt and overcome.

And besides, it is nice to have a woman to look at once in awhile, instead of 100 other men, even if she is already spoken for, or not easy on the eyes, lol.  After a certain amount of time they all look good.  ;D


----------



## Ethier

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> The physical aspects are the same excuses that were used by many manual labour jobs, such as the oilfield.  For the most part, it still holds true, but the occasional female can still do just as well if not better than a lot of the males of the industry, and the men got over it (for the most part).  The weak ones are weeded out.  It is an entirely different industry, but still relevant due to the prevalent mindset that there are some jobs that women should not partake.



Well I agree if your a woman and can do the job than all the power to you irregardless if some think it could effect how men react to your gender because the reality is that the same could be said about brothers, family or even just good friends.

Now what I don't agree on is the difference in testing among male and female counterparts. Even the different testing for various ages I don't agree on. The reality is that companies whether it be the Forces (I'm not sure if they have different standards based on gender) police forces or others set about a minimum standard that they believe in the bare minimum that is required of an individual to be able to do that job. Now whether your a female, old man or ape, you still need to be able to do that job and should as common sense would be, pass the minimum requirements. Why woman have lower standards is beyond me, I remember going through police foundation in college when we had 26 students of which 7 were female. Now when testing came around, the results were: 14 men passed, 5 men failed - 5 woman passed, 2 woman failed. Now that would seem Ok except that 3 of those woman that 'passed' got scores high enough for 'their' minimum requirement but not high enough for the males standard. Yet all the men that failed had score high enough for the females standard. This baffled me and wasn't right in my books. Not that fact that those men didn't pass when the females did with the same scores but that those woman passed at all. If they can't meet the standards that are set up for the males then they can't do the job, period. Those are only minimum standards. I know for those testing, the woman struggled pulling the 150lb dummy and lacked the strength for the restraining exercise. Now would you want one of those woman that failed the men's but passed the females minimum be your partner if you were a cop when she struggled immensely on the restraining exercise and pull? Don't get me wrong of the 2 that passed the males minimum standard, they were both great for the job and the one did amazing in the testing in which I would have no problem with her becoming a police officer or being my partner for that matter, that woman was capable and I had nothing but respect for her.

All I'm trying to say is that there should be 1 standard for ALL because standards are what show if a person is capable or not of doing a job and mimic what is the MINIMUM requirement to accomplish that job. If you can't even meet the males minimum requirement, your not fit for that job. 

Again, I'm not sure if there are different standards for men and woman in the Forces, if not then good but if there are then I don't agree with it. I know there are different standard for ages and that again I don't agree on for the same reasons, minimum standards should not be bias to age, gender or anything else and should simple be a universal tool for determine if an individual can or can not meet the demands of that job.


----------



## armyvern

Ethier,

There's many threads on this site which discuss the minimum fitness standards required in the CF. I think you'd find that the vast majority of us, women included, agree with your sentiments that there should be one standard for all, regardless of age, sex, and trade, or environment.

The Canadian Forces does exist, after all, to defend Canadian sovereignty, by warfighting if necessary, and _that_ is a duty and responsibility we have all sworn to undertake. If the shit hits the fan, _no one _ is exempt from the requirement to man battlefield trenches if necessary; therefore we should _all_ be required to both meet and maintain the very same physical standard required to accomplish this task, should we ever find ourselves called upon by the Government of Canada to do so.

We have experienced like-situations in the past, and should be not be so quick to write-off their ever occurring again in the future; especially in this day and age. The naval clearance divers now employed in army roles in Afghanistan are an excellent example that highlights this necessity.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

The army is lacking personnel, if they'd put a one-for-all standard. Lot of old soldiers would have to get out, and lot of young to-be soldiers couldn't get in or they'd put a ridiculous standard to fit everyone.


----------



## armyvern

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> The army is lacking personnel, if they'd put a one-for-all standard. Lot of old soldiers would have to get out, and lot of young to-be soldiers couldn't get in or they'd put a ridiculous standard to fit everyone.



I know some who've gotten out because they couldn't handle the "easier" double standards anymore. They didn't get out because they couldn't meet them, but rather because the standards have dropped sooooooooooo much.

You should meet some of the people they're letting in these days ... certainly makes you think ...


----------



## mudrecceman

Perhaps a visit to F Div at CFLRS would be in order...that will open some eyes.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know some who've gotten out because they couldn't handle the "easier" double standards anymore. They didn't get out because they couldn't meet them, but rather because the standards have dropped sooooooooooo much.
> 
> You should meet some of the people they're letting in these days ... certainly makes you think ...



I assume you're not talking about physical standard, i know old or ex-military that had their basics in the  70's, 80's that are disgusted by today's basic training. I'm trying to figure... they had their basics given during the cold war, and i guess there was a trace of the korean war...
 They would never wanted to be instructors on basic training, because it doesn't make much sense to them; charter of the individul rights and shit.

 Okay maybe our generation is pathetic, we watched pokemons and shit, but we had GI joes and transformers to compensate.
I'm trying to figure what would be the next generation soldier[...]

I'd like you to tell me, "fictive" examples of what would be so poor soldiers, as to get their supervisers hand-in their release. I just don't get it. Not meaning to be arrogant or anything, i just really wonder, i'd met so many nostalgic been-in-germany "old fashioned" mcpl who kept talking about the "old army" and how wonderful it was, overheard 5 CWO who kept bitching about how weak, sloppy and disrespectful were the youngs now. Well, maybe just the typical older people grunting[...] I always had in mind that there's no poor soldiers, only poor leaders.


----------



## medaid

Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT crap. It was created for good reasons, and it has had a positive effect on the citizens of this country. But just like any piece of legislation, it can be abused, and that's what has happened in some cases. Obvious.

Believe it or not there are poor leaders AND poor soldiers. Don't kid yourself. If a troop lacks drive and initiative, is it completely the leaders' fault? No, the soldier is also to blame. If they were born a bag of hammers, and after intensive, and careful training and conditioning, they are STILL a bag of hammers, then well there you go. A poor soldier.


----------



## mudrecceman

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I always had in mind that there's no poor soldiers, only poor leaders.



I would have to whole-heartedly disagree with this statement.

I have seen and worked with both.  At various levels of the CF rank structure...


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

well my original word was : AND  S H I T(all the others laws whatsoever i have never heard of), not crap, i didnt mean to say it was CRAP or S H I T.


I understand your point of view, that as a leader you can get OUTSTANDING subordinates which eases your job(get it done). And your next posting you end up with bad ones, but i don't think anyone was born-soldier and i think that people can change/improve(if they want to). You can go across a bad soldier and a few years later he could be a keen one.

Glory or shame often(if not always) goes to the leader.  I would be glad if you convince me of the opposite.


----------



## Scott

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> well my original word was : AND  S H I T(all the others laws whatsoever i have never heard of), not crap, i didnt mean to say it was CRAP or S H I T.



Thanks for clearing that up, glad you were here to do that. Now please endeavor to let the members here use their own terms, not correct them if they choose not to curse.


----------



## mudrecceman

Sig_22_Qc

Based on the vast experience you have, perhaps, as you, or if you, progress up the ranks, in time, you will understand when you actually have had to lead people.

Otherwise, I could sit here and point out whats wrong with Tac Hel pilots.  Even though I am not, nor have ever been, one.

FWIW...the word you tried to use was changed by the system.  

And I disagree...I have worked with MANY people that were naturals at soldiering aka "born soldiers".  

For your LAST point...a good leader will pass that glory onto his/her troops.  

While having an opinion is okay, having something to base it on is much better.


----------



## mudrecceman

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> The army is lacking personnel, if they'd put a one-for-all standard. Lot of old soldiers would have to get out, and lot of young to-be soldiers couldn't get in or they'd put a ridiculous standard to fit everyone.



I remember being a young 21-22 year old Trooper on my Basic Para course...fit and full of it.  The "old WO" that was my Cage Commander at the Para Trng Coy could run me into the ground then...and I suspect that hasn't changed in the past...15+ years.

As a former staff member of CFLRS...there are LOTS of young people coming into the CF that are fit, as fit as my crop of fellow recruits were in 1989.

Have you ever heard of radio listening silence?


----------



## Sebastian U

I mean how much have standards dropped, some of the old tests don't seem that hard eithier. As a reservists on my BMQ just recently I got yelled, and pushed, and roughed around, called dirty names. All the soldiers on my DP1 could keep on PT from 5 to 11 km runs, or ruckmarches and thats being a reservist. 

I've also seen some pretty pathetic, weak, shitty excuse of soldiers. Who shouldn't be wearing Canada's uniform. But exactly how much has toughness and standards dropped, I don't know I've never been told about how tough it was in the 80s or 90s.


----------



## Kat Stevens

This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting here forever,
just because....


----------



## the 48th regulator

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> yes it goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever,
> just because....



_Both_ Ladies and Gentlemen,

That is the best post of the thread!

Brought a tear to my eye, tears of laughter, but none the less... :'(

 Kat once again

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> yes it goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever,
> just because....



 :rofl:


----------



## Haggis

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> yes it goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever,
> just because....






I keep coming back to this thread in the hopes that someone will post something useful/informative.


----------



## time expired

Haggis,
           The Israeli's  did.
                          Regards


----------



## armyvern

Or perhaps not. We've already decided that's a matter of personal opinion.

Really folks, let's not take this thread down that path again shall we??

It's already been there, done that, and this adds nothing new or informative to the thread either. Canada's military allows women to perform these jobs and isn't going to reverse it's position on it any time soon. Now, let this thread move ahead and don't turn it into yet another ... anti-women in combat roles thread...that's not what it's about.


----------



## R.O.S

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> yes it goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever,
> just because....



Just awesome.  

However I will add this. I believe that women are very capable of performing their duties within the CF and other demanding tasks. The real question is, important or not, is if society is ready, which it seems not to be. A wife will move around the country with her husbands different military posting, but will husbands do the same for the wives? Not that likely as it seems to stand right now. There is also the issue of mothers going overseas, and to the sad reality that they may not return, is society ready for these loses. Hardly. 

As a male, I am speaking from a male perspective. Maybe some of the females on this forum can clear up my thoughts..... because this forum has to go on and on an...............................................


----------



## time expired

ArmyVern,
              A matter of opinion?whose opinion?,does your years of
plugging away in Base supply qualify you to have an opinion on
women in the COMBAT role?,well yes it does, however its nothing
but an opinion and not a very well informed opinion at that.Before 
you go frothing at the mouth and send me a nastygram I could have 
said the same about just about everone who has posted here,no
one in the CAF has any first hand knowledge of women in the
combat role, and everything posted here is pure speculation.
However the Israelis do have a genuine opinion based on real
wartime experience, and that is not a matter that one can 
dismiss out of hand because it disagrees with ones preconceived
ideas or gender driven prejudices.
                                        Regards


----------



## armyvern

time expired said:
			
		

> ArmyVern,
> A matter of opinion?whose opinion?,does your years of
> plugging away in Base supply qualify you to have an opinion on
> women in the COMBAT role?,well yes it does, however its nothing
> but an opinion and not a very well informed opinion at that.Before
> you go frothing at the mouth and send me a nastygram I could have
> said the same about just about everone who has posted here,no
> one in the CAF has any first hand knowledge of women in the
> combat role, and everything posted here is pure speculation.
> However the Israelis do have a genuine opinion based on real
> wartime experience, and that is not a matter that one can
> dismiss out of hand because it disagrees with ones preconceived
> ideas or gender driven prejudices.
> Regards



Where the hell did that come from?? And what does being a mere plug of a supply tech have to do with anything?? I'm getting tired of that bullshit. Get over it already for crying out loud. Oh, and regarding no experience in the CF regarding women in a combat role?? You'd better search these threads again ... there is posts on here from boys who've done the deeds with women ... over there ... in a combat role ... in combat, and they overwhelmingly said the girls did fine, and so did the boys theywere working beside. Surprise surprise.

Oh, and to add: As a female I'd think I'd be just as qualified to speak of female capabilities in a combat role, as a male combat soldier trying to speak to what women are capable of. Get it yet?? If a man can say what a female is/isn't capable of and be considered qualified to do so based soley upon her sex and not her performance, surely to god a woman can/is.

Canada allows it. Whether a women can do her job or not is a professional thing which applies to both sexes.

Whether you want them there or not is a personal thing (ie... a personal opinion -- and it doesn't matter because THEY ARE there already).  Like it or not, that's the FACTS.


----------



## Strike

"A male gynocologist is like a mechanic without a car."

TE, so those of us who have female friends in the combat arms can't use how we see them performing as an example, but you can use the Isreali one?  I still only see 1 degree of separation there.  In fact, you use of the Isreali example seems to have more degrees or separation.


----------



## aesop081

Haggis said:
			
		

> I keep coming back to this thread in the hopes that someone will post something useful/informative.



Hows that working out for ya  ;D


----------



## TCBF

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... Now, let this thread move ahead and don't turn it into yet another ... anti-women in combat roles thread...that's not what it's about.



Really? Perhaps a brief review of Post Nr. 1 is in order:



			
				JES_12 said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I want to know your opinion about the women in the army?
> 
> HONOUR_12   :tank:



Seems to describe a pretty wide set of arcs to me.

 ;D

Intolerance is a double edged sword.


----------



## Haggis

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hows that working out for ya  ;D



You have to ask????

Here I am, back again, checking one more time....

Oh, Vern:  +1 dudette!  Give 'er!


----------



## armyvern

TCBF said:
			
		

> Really? Perhaps a brief review of Post Nr. 1 is in order:
> 
> Seems to describe a pretty wide set of arcs to me.
> 
> ;D
> 
> Intolerance is a double edged sword.



Actually, if you go through this thread, you'll find that's it's all a whole bunch of merged threads into this one topic title. Why's that?? Because each and every time when someone tries to answer questions for a female contemplating joining the combat arms etc or the CF in general --ie the "Gender & the CF part of the title-- ... yes the old thread about "are women treated worse in the CF than the men are?? " is merged in here too, it turns into just another anti-women in the combat arms thread.

This big merge, was an attempt to avoid that yet again. There are female out there with legit questions regarding that career option, and they deserve to get answers to those questions without having to wade through 10001 posts that answer none of them.

Vern


----------



## armyvern

Oh, and to re-iterate my position regarding intolerance, here's my mantra (as it has always been) on anyone doing any job. Civvie street, the CF, black, white, female, male ... it just doesn't matter:

"if they can do the job, they should be allowed to do the job, regardless of sex. If they can't do the job, they shouldn't be doing the job ... regardless of sex."

Doesn't seem too intolerant to me.


----------



## Munxcub

Makes sense to me Vern.


----------



## vonGarvin

op:


----------



## TCBF

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Oh, and to reiterate my position regarding intolerance, here's my mantra (as it has always been) on anyone doing any job. Civvie street, the CF, black, white, female, male ... it just doesn't matter:
> 
> "if they can do the job, they should be allowed to do the job, regardless of sex. If they can't do the job, they shouldn't be doing the job ... regardless of sex."
> 
> Doesn't seem too intolerant to me.



- I agree with that.

Now then, 

- If at times "it turns into just another anti-women in the combat arms thread" and that detracts from women wanting info about joining the CF, then perhaps merging the thread was done in haste.  To compile both (or more) threads then propose that discussion of the efficacy of women serving in Cbt A clouds the thread when juxtaposed with posts about women joining the CF , and that such posts discourage discussion of women in the Cbt A, defeats the purpose of compiling the posts - does it not?    But what is done is done, so perhaps we should be tolerant of posts bordering on such esoteric HR issues.

- This site holds many threads discussing policy old and new.  It would be intolerant of me, for example, to discourage a rational and intelligent debate on Armour merely because some positions disagreed with our present policy.  We have also had many threads commenting on military HR issues and policies.  I see no difference with females in Cbt A or submarines or whatever.  If females wish to start a thread on how they made (make) better Ocean Ops than men, I would remain tolerant reading those as well.


----------



## armyvern

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I agree with that.
> 
> Now then,
> 
> - If at times "it turns into just another anti-women in the combat arms thread" and that detracts from women wanting info about joining the CF, then perhaps merging the thread was done in haste.  To compile both (or more) threads then propose that discussion of the efficacy of women serving in Cbt A clouds the thread when juxtaposed with posts about women joining the CF , and that such posts discourage discussion of women in the Cbt A, defeats the purpose of compiling the posts - does it not?    But what is done is done, so perhaps we should be tolerant of posts bordering on such esoteric HR issues.
> 
> - This site holds many threads discussing policy old and new.  It would be intolerant of me, for example, to discourage a rational and intelligent debate on Armour merely because some positions disagreed with our present policy.  We have also had many threads commenting on military HR issues and policies.  I see no difference with females in Cbt A or submarines or whatever.  If females wish to start a thread on how they made (make) better Ocean Ops than men, I would remain tolerant reading those as well.



And, I agree with that. But, put it in it's own thread and keep it out of the thread meant to try and provide an easily searchable result for women who are trying to obtain current, actual info, and actualities of the fact that they can (and do) join the combat arms because our regulations allow that, and on what they will encounter when joining the CF that is relevant to their processing, treatment etc both in or out of the actual combat arms thread. Keep this one on topic.

If someone wants to start a thread titled "IDF study in wartime says get women out of front-line roles" or "do you want women in the combat arms" that's a whole different subject.

That's my point. The women deserve to have at least one thread here that stays on topic without becoming the usual trainwreck of anti-women in the combat arms thread yet again. And, that's also something that is common to this site: ie "Keep it on topic" or "get back on topic."


----------



## Greymatters

Perhaps a thread 'for females only' (4FO) would help?  That would definately keep the grumblers from interfering, but would restrict input from men who might be able to assist with queries...


----------



## armyvern

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Perhaps a thread 'for females only' (4FO) would help?  That would definately keep the grumblers from interfering, but would restrict input from men who might be able to assist with queries...



exactly, so instead we've tried to allow it to remain open for posts relevant to the topic and general questions those women have, and that men can quite frequently provide input on.

Those that wish to talk about soemthing else, can start a damn thread on that ...


----------



## TCBF

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Those that wish to talk about soemthing else, can start a damn thread on that ...



- He/She did, I believe it opened with:

 "Hi,

I want to know your opinion about the women in the army?"

 ;D

- But that thread was hi-jacked into a " thread meant to try and provide an easily searchable result for women who are trying to obtain current, actual info, and actualities of the fact that they can (and do) join the combat arms because our regulations allow that, and on what they will encounter when joining the CF that is relevant to their processing, treatment etc both in or out of the actual combat arms thread. Keep this one on topic."

- I imagine any new "Damn thread" started to actually discuss the socio-political ramifications of women in the Army/CF/Cbt A will no doubt be squashed like bugs and subsumed into the "Holy Mother ServicePerson" thread in any case.  But only time will tell.


----------



## armyvern

TCBF said:
			
		

> - He/She did, I believe it opened with:
> 
> "Hi,
> 
> I want to know your opinion about the women in the army?"
> 
> ;D
> 
> ...



Yes she did. Note that it does not say "I want to know your opinion about women in the combat arms" so why do they all turn into threads about that??

Note also the change to the topic title when they were all merged together  ...

Really guys, I'm sure you get the picture.

I'll start the other thread for you all even. I know it's an opinion carried by many, this just isn't the thread for it.


----------



## kawigirl

Hi There,
Guys included. I was just reading some of the topics rearding running, pushups and situps and I find that they are very geared to men. (50-60 pushups at a time) I don't know to many if any girls that can do that. So I thought that I would start this area to chat. And there is alot of mature women and men just entering the forces. Like me, 35 years old, mom, wife and starting a new career after 16 years. I can almost run 3km, non stop at an OK pace, do 31 situp in 1 minute and just barely do 10 pushups. But I am making an effort to go to the gym 3 times a week and trying to run outside instead of on the treadmill. I start my BMQ in June. Very excited, very nervous and I know that I will be the weaker link at PT(running), but I may be really great at other things. I know that I had one of the best pairs of boots in cadets. And the two people that were better tan me, well they used some fancy paint type polish that is like a mirror, but watch out when it rained...hahaha!! So lets talk girl talk or mature men talk...I love and support the CF as my husband is also part of the CF. And if any of this offends anyone it is NOT suppose to. I would just like to know and talk about more realistic PT problems and solutions than the people that can do the 50 pushups, 60 sit-ups and run 20 km no problem.....Cheers, Kawigirl


----------



## Celticgirl

Hi, Kawigirl. I can relate to a lot of what you have posted. My boyfriend/fiance is an officer in the air force and I just applied a little over two months ago. I've been working out for a few months in an attempt to get into kick-ass shape for basic training and the career that awaits me (I hope) in the CF. I'm 36 and a mom, and I am also changing careers after several years of doing something else, so we have plenty in common. 

In the beginning, I did not have the strength to lift myself up to do ONE push-up. It took me well over a month of attempting every day (really!) to be able to do ONE. Currently, I can do 12 consecutive push-ups and not easily. My goal is to be able to do 20+ push-ups by August. I don't just want to pass the express test; I want to be exempt in every category. I do 30 sit-ups at a time, but haven't timed it. I'm sure it's probably about a minute as I don't rest in between. As for running, I started out with a walk/run routine until I could do a few kms without stopping. Now I am running approximately 6.5 km four times a week and aiming for 8 km starting next week. It gets easier, but it never really gets easy. Working out at the gym is something new to me and I started less than a month ago. However, I have found that it has made a difference in my upper body strength, which has helped me get to the point of doing 12 push-ups (I think I was doing 5 consecutive when I first joined the gym). I'm not overweight, but I have lost 11 lbs in the past few months and feel that my endurance, flexibility, and strength have all improved significantly. What am I forgetting? Oh yes, I swim a couple of times a week (30 laps) and I do tae bo once a week, which is an AMAZING workout. I'm thinking if I can't handle PT and obstacle courses at basic after all this, there is something wrong.  ;D

I was given some great advice by members of this site a while back to run outside rather than on a treadmill (as I was contemplating buying a used one at the time), and I feel it really did/does make a difference. When I do run on a treadmill (usually only when visiting my bf), I don't feel like I get the same workout as I do running outdoors. My mother thinks I am nuts because I run when it rains, when it snows, when it's cold, anytime at all. I said to her that if/when I go to basic training, I will not get to opt out of PT because of the weather, so I might as well get used to it now!

Great idea for a thread, by the way. I get a little intimidated by all those 'how to do 50 push-ups' type posts as well.


----------



## kawigirl

Thanks Celticgirl,
I leave for basic at the beginning of June. And I am scared, nervous and just hoping I can do it. I run outside as well. It sounds as if you are well on your way to a great start. I also want to exempt, but I will take a pass for now. Good luck in your new career choice. What trade are you going? I am going Med Tech. I will try to keep you updated on my BMQ...when we are aloud to use the internet..(LOL)

Cheers, Kawigirl


----------



## RobJackson28

Given the dedication, I hope all the best for you two. 

Kawigirl, are you entering reg or reserve?

Edit: After browsing through your other posts seems you're going reg force


----------



## Celticgirl

kawigirl said:
			
		

> What trade are you going? I am going Med Tech.



Aerospace Controller


----------



## Celticgirl

RobJackson28 said:
			
		

> Given the dedication, I hope all the best for you two.



Very nice of you, Rob. Thank you.


----------



## Kruggle

Hi kawigirl and Celticgirl,

I am a 20 year old, 5'7, and 110 pounds female. I am so glad that I am not the only one who can't do 50 push ups. I can't even do ONE push up. I have been trying to do just one for the past month, but I still can't. I am looking at getting a personal trainer once I am done with this semester and I really do hope that will help me. 

As for running, I need to buy proper running shoes so that I won't torture my feet and knees. I have been running at the field, but I really haven't been running as much as I should. There are just too many cubs around my neighbourhood and it gets a little scary when I see their mother dashing out from the forest looking for them. I can only do about 20 situps now so I am still working on it. I am not sure how to prepare for the grip test, but I play the piano and violin and we need to have pretty strong fingers in order to play well. I don't even know if that's related but I have been practicing those instruments just to make myself feel better about my grip.  

Nutrition wise, I have been including 2-3 types of veggies, 2-3 types of fruits and some meat in every meal. I also have a little bit of cheese/milk/pistachios some time during the day and I drink 2L of fluids everyday (water and juice). I don't drink coffee or alcoholic bevarages and chocolate is the only junk food that I eat. One piece of advice that I got from my friend was to buy expensive chocolate whenever I had my cravings so that I could only afford to buy a few pieces a month. Also, if you care to compare the nutrition information for different types of chocolate, the expensive types tend to be a little healthier (or should I say not as unhealthy  >) My friend limits her coffee intake by getting expensive coffee only. She used to buy 1-2 cups from Timmies every day, but now she's down to 1 cup from Starbucks every week. Anyway, what I am trying to say is nutirion has a lot to do with fitness, so make sure you are eating well. 

Good luck to both of you and let's keep each other posted about training!


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> I can't even do ONE push up. I have been trying to do just one for the past month, but I still can't. I am looking at getting a personal trainer once I am done with this semester and I really do hope that will help me.



Kruggle, if you see in my above post, I was having the exact same problem. A big help for me was going to the gym and doing various exercises with barbells & machines to strengthen my arms, shoulders, and chest. The trainer at my gym (who is also a family friend and so spends a lot of time with me when I'm there) also gets me to work on the "belly" (abs) a lot and I do some core strengthening exercises on a stability ball. He says working on your core will also help with the push-ups. All of this has been working well for me, but as I said, I still struggle and can only do 12 consecutive push-ups max right now. I don't know if you swim at all, but that could help, too. I do 30 laps twice a week and I alternate between the front crawl and the breast stroke (5 of one, then 5 of the other, etc.). Good for cardio, good for working out your arms, and there is a swim test apparently in basic training, so swimming practice can only help. 

The one thing I need to do is cut back a bit on my coffee consumption. I'm a bit of a coffee fiend, so it won't be easy. I know that I drink too much of it, though. Gradually, I am replacing coffee with water, and at some point I may whittle myself down to a cup or two and then drink water the rest of the day (I don't drink pop and only drink juice every so often, not every day). No offense to your friend, but Starbucks coffee?   That stuff is like jet fuel!!  ;D


----------



## Kruggle

Thanks for your response Celticgirl.

I don't notice the difference between Timmies and Starbucks as I don't drink coffee, but one thing I do notice is that those who like Timmies dislike Starbucks and vice versa.  ;D I love the smell of coffee and I personally think Starbucks coffee smells better. (or maybe I like it because I like whipping cream?)

Swimming is actually my favourite sport and I go to the pool whenever I get a chance. Going into the hottub/sauna/steam room after an hour of swimming is probably one of the highlights of the month. I really should start swimming a lot more in order to improve my pushup skills. However, it takes me forever to untangle my hair after I get out from the water. Any advice?


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> However, it takes me forever to untangle my hair after I get out from the water. Any advice?



Buy a good leave-in conditioner and a swim cap!


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Guys,
I am also a tea lover, well Timmie's steeped tea. Yummy, but I did go from a large double-double to a small single-single. I also do watch my food intake. I don't eat beef unless I really crave it. I eat alot of fish and chicken. Lots of fruit and vegtables . And 1cups-1 1/2cups of rice/potatoes/pasta a day and I have also changed from white bread, to whole wheat or multi grain. And one other thing is I am famous for missing breakfast. But a wise friend once told me that even if you eat a 1/2 bagel with peanut butter and 1/2 banana it will hold you over until lunch and you dont seem to eat more at lunch or be tempted to eat those "not of nature" foods  I also like granola and yogurt and my cereal with skim milk. That's the extent to my boring breakfast. Wow, I am so glad I did this forum. It so nice to know that everybody in the CF isn't an elite athlete. (Love you guys ) By the way thanks Rob, any words of encouragement are always so reasuring that I can do this as well as I have "friend" behind me. 

Kawigirl


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Kruggle,
My pre military enrollment job has been a lifeguard for about the past 16 years. I can give you some work outs for your swimming and also a swimcap is a great, wonderful, fabulous, super duper good piece of equipment for the pool. But I have a better suggestion than leave in conditioner, (sorry Celticgirl) but I have had my fair share of knots and tangles. Go to the dollar store and buy yourself some conditioner and put that in your hair before you go swimming and dont rinse it out until your done. Plus you do sweat in the pool when you are working out so you get the heat of your head under the swim mixed with conditioner and waalaa instant spa treatment for free.

Hope this helps...Kawigirl


----------



## Kruggle

kawigirl said:
			
		

> I don't eat beef unless I really crave it.



Is beef bad for your health? I have never had beef before other than food that says it _may_ contain beef. When I was young, my family never had beef as part of our diet, so I never really bothered to include beef as part of my diet. I was thinking of eating a little bit of it just so I get enough of a variety, but if it's not great for your body, I guess I shouldn't bother?


----------



## Celticgirl

kawigirl said:
			
		

> Hey Kruggle,
> But I have a better suggestion than leave in conditioner, (sorry Celticgirl) but I have had my fair share of knots and tangles. Go to the dollar store and buy yourself some conditioner and put that in your hair before you go swimming and dont rinse it out until your done. Plus you do sweat in the pool when you are working out so you get the heat of your head under the swim mixed with conditioner and waalaa instant spa treatment for free.



Kawigirl, I meant that she should put the conditioner in her hair before swimming. I think that's the same thing, isn't it? Or does a regular conditioner work as well or better?


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> Is beef bad for your health?



It's red meat, and red meat is less healthy than poultry or fish.


----------



## Kruggle

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Kawigirl, I meant that she should put the conditioner in her hair before swimming. I think that's the same thing, isn't it? Or does a regular conditioner work as well or better?



I am also confused. I am guessing a regular conditioner that goes with a regular shampoo is better than an actual leave-in conditioner?


----------



## kawigirl

Hi Kruggle,
I dont eat red meat by choice, I'm not sure of the whole nutrition thing about it but I know that my body and red meat don't mix well at all.
I just eat fish and chicken, as it is less greasy, but that depends on the way you cook it too.

Hi Celticgirl,
I personally found that with leave in condition being a very light usually wont last the whole time you swim, where conditioner is a bit heavier and stays in better. It also protects your hair shaft from breaking due to too much chlorine. Also just to let you know a pool that is Ozone, does have chlorine in it. Just not as much.

Cheers, Kawigirl


----------



## Celticgirl

kawigirl said:
			
		

> Hi Celticgirl,
> I personally found that with leave in condition being a very light usually wont last the whole time you swim, where conditioner is a bit heavier and stays in better. It also protects your hair shaft from breaking due to too much chlorine. Also just to let you know a pool that is Ozone, does have chlorine in it. Just not as much.



Good to know! My concern was that a regular, heavy conditioner might be kind of 'icky' in the pool, but I suppose with the swim cap on, not so much. I will try it!


----------



## Kruggle

Thanks a lot kawigirl and Celticgirl! It feels great to know I am not alone in this 'battle'.


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Celticgirl,
It's our little secret  as this probably isn't a practice that the pool maintenance pool wants to know but I know alot of lifeguards taht all do it. Oh one other thing it does however make your swim cap a bit harder to get on, but sooooooooo much nicer coming off!
Kawigirl


----------



## scoutfinch

Congratulations to those who have made the decision to join a little 'later' in life.  It's nice to have a little company.  I assure you that 2 years ago, I was the only person I knew in our demograph!

I read an article in the paper about 2 months ago (and I can't remember which one but it might have been the Ottawa Citizen) that discussed the fact that there had been a dramatic increase in the number of women in their mid 30s going to the recruiting centre for the first time.  

Have no fear -- stay healthy and fit.  No one expects you to do 50 pushups.  You will be expected to be fit and to work hard.


----------



## Springroll

AMEN, scoutfinch!!!
For me being on the more "mature" side of the demograph, it definitely was a bit more of a struggle in some aspects, but I believe that by joining when i was older, I better prepared myself mentally for it. They helped me prepare physically. Running is definitely not my strongest part, but I trudged through, shins ready to burst and pulling up the rear...lol

Your physical fitness will be brought up to a standard you never knew was possible from your body, when you are at BMQ, but I definitely give you guys kudos for starting early!! 

I recently sprained my ankle, so have been unable to do anything really physical, but thanks to my 9 yr old daughter and her nagging, as soon as I get the ok from the dr, we will be going on runs together...she wants to run better for cross country and track, and I can use the motivation from her.

I wish you guys the best with your future careers...your gonna love it!!!


----------



## Fraser

I was flipping through the topics and i came across this one. I have some tips/questions. When running on the treadmill, if you have to, make sure you put the incline up to 1-2 to make it "simulate" running outside. If you have a choice to run outside or on a treadmill( AKA Dreadmill) go outside. On the treadmill i can run 2 miles, and i can only run 1-1.5 miles outside. The tredmill does a bad job to simulate running, it shortens your stride and does most or all of the work for you. Also get an Ipod/MP3 player when you work out, you can do so much better when you are pumped up. When you are doing push ups, are you doing bicep or tricep (your arms under your shoulders) push ups? Just because I can do 40-45 bicep push ups but i can only do 20 triceps push ups. It sucks, iv been training for awhile and i was always doing bicep and now i learned that i will do tricep push ups during BMQ.


----------



## kawigirl

Hey All,
I was talk ing to a PSP staff today and she knows I am leaving very soon. And that I also hate the treadmil. But she did give me a training tip for the shuttle test. 

Walk for about 30 seconds -1 minute to get the groove of the treadmill, then increase up to 8.5 and do that for 1 minute, then increase again to 9 and do that for 1 minute and the so on,  Ths will help us "more mature" women with the shuttle run as we only have to run up to level 3 to pass. But aim higher ladies, we can get to at least 5 to be exempt. That is only 5 minutes of straight running.  >   

Best of luck,
Kawigirl


----------



## bms

There is a trick to the shuttle run. Each stage is 1 minute. So, if you have a watch with a timer, you can just set it going at the start of the test. This way, you'll feel motivated because you know how much more time to the next stage, and therefore you will either be able to tuff it out once you reach your limit to the next stage, then possibly the next. And, you'll also know not to quit when you only have 10 seconds left for the stage  

 Regarding push ups and sit ups:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/68178.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/73657.0.html


----------



## kawigirl

Thanks BMS,
At this point in my almost leaving to St-Jean, I am trying anything and almost everything to get those damn pushups done. Then I thought I was doing great with them, then a gguy in the gym said I pretty much have to have my chest on the floor, but not rest then go up. Well to make a long story short my 10 pushups I thought I could do, I cant even do 2 now.....AHHHHH!!!! I am in so much trouble...

With great frustration,
Kawigirl


----------



## RCDtpr

Well on the plus side Kawigirl, being 35 you only have to pull off seven push-ups.  This should be a pretty easily attainable goal.  I understand nobody wants to do just the minimum, but if that's all you can pull off that's all you can pull off.  Nothing to be ashamed about.  You have to do a retest for the express once a year if you're not exempt so that can be a goal you work towards for next years testing.

Don't get too frustrated, I'm sure you'll do fine.

P.S. When I went through basic a little over a year ago as long as you passed the shuttle run you weren't sent to the warrior platoon or whatever it was for remedial PT.  Some of the guys and one of the girls failed the pushup's but passed the run on week 1.  All they had to do was a push-up retest week 10.  Again I'm sure you would rather avoid that but it's something to keep in mind so you're not worrying too overly much.


----------



## armyvern

Well, 

Here's one from me. I'm old. 5'7" - 168lbs.

This morning I did 39 pushups and oddly enough, I'm 39 years old. I did those 39 fresh this morning though and I'm quite sure that I'd have done less after the ruck march.

Running 20kms!!?? Holy crap over!! Noooooooooo. Running hurts my knees -- it's painful -- I hate running (sometimes _they_ make me do it though). I'd much rather march 20km than run 1km. We are not all pro/semi-pro runners.

It gets easier with time ladies, remember that. The CF has been paying me to go to the gym for 20 years; I figure I may as well.

Oh yeah -- I'm a sirloin (rare), carrots, broccoli, cauliflower and potato girl. If it's on the menu, that's what I'm having with a nice great big hot fudge sundae for desert.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hold the pickles......


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hold the pickles......



As long as it's not you holding my pickles -- I'm good. Thief.


----------



## kawigirl

Nah, this girl likes pickles...hold the beef..Hmmm, that doesn't sound right  . But I hope you know what I ment..LOL!! Thanks for all the confidence boosts. I think I can do the shuttle run, and defineatly don't want to go on warrior platoon. But I still have 4 weeks left.

Cheers, Kawigirl


----------



## Celticgirl

I seem to have hit a plateau with the push-ups at 12. I went to a pilates class last night (first time) and I think that pilates might be able to help me with strengthening the muscles I need for push-ups. I'm not too worried about the shuttle run part of the EXPRES test at this point because I think my fitness level is now (or should be) high enough to get an exempt. It is only the push-ups that I still worry about. Ah well, by the time this security clearance comes through, I will either be able to do three times as many push-ups as I can now, or I'll be so old, I will have forgotten what a push-up is.  ;D


----------



## RCDtpr

To get an exempt status they add together all four scores from grip, run, push-ups, and sit-ups.  You can't just get exempt in one part of the test eg. the shuttle run.  At least that's how it was last time I did my testing.


----------



## aesop081

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> To get an exempt status they add together all four scores from grip, run, push-ups, and sit-ups.  You can't just get exempt in one part of the test eg. the shuttle run.  At least that's how it was last time I did my testing.



thats how it is. For example, for me to get exempt i need level 8 on the run *and* a combined score of 162 for the rest.


----------



## Celticgirl

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> To get an exempt status they add together all four scores from grip, run, push-ups, and sit-ups.  You can't just get exempt in one part of the test eg. the shuttle run.  At least that's how it was last time I did my testing.



That is good info to know, thank you. It would appear that I need a level 5 on the beep and a "99" on the rest to be exempt. Do you (and Cdn Aviator, I'm including you on this question, too) know how that score is calculated?


----------



## aesop081

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> That is good info to know, thank you. It would appear that I need a level 5 on the beep and a "99" on the rest to be exempt. Do you (and Cdn Aviator, I'm including you on this question, too) know how that score is calculated?



They add up the left hand grip, the right hand grip, the number of pushups and the number of situps you do. Simple as that.


----------



## Celticgirl

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They add up the left hand grip, the right hand grip, the number of pushups and the number of situps you do. Simple as that.



Seen. Thanks!


----------



## Celticgirl

Hey kawigirl, I just wanted to mention that I took your advice re: regular conditioner and it worked very, very well! A little slippery trying to get my swim cap on, but the end result was well worth it. 8)


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Celticgirl,
I'm glad you tried it and it worked for you, one other hair care tip....go into the sauna or steam room after your swim too. Double the benefits. Now off topic, I filled out my security form when I first enrolled, then when I got sent my joining information package , there was another one to fill in. This one asks for the last 10 years of residence and everyone in your family, mom, dad, brothers, and sisters (inlaws, step and half) place of employment and address. Then I don't know how true this is, but I was told that when I get sworn in I have to fill it out again???? I just photocopied the last one and I will take it with me. But wow!! lots of paperwork (repeats).
Anyways have a great night,
Kawigirl


----------



## Celticgirl

kawigirl said:
			
		

> Hey Celticgirl,
> I'm glad you tried it and it worked for you, one other hair care tip....go into the sauna or steam room after your swim too. Double the benefits. Now off topic, I filled out my security form when I first enrolled, then when I got sent my joining information package , there was another one to fill in. This one asks for the last 10 years of residence and everyone in your family, mom, dad, brothers, and sisters (inlaws, step and half) place of employment and address. Then I don't know how true this is, but I was told that when I get sworn in I have to fill it out again???? I just photocopied the last one and I will take it with me. But wow!! lots of paperwork (repeats).
> Anyways have a great night,
> Kawigirl



There is no sauna or steam room where I swim. lol    As for the security forms, we were told different things. I was told that after having filled out the more extensive 10-year form early due to having lived in Asia, the "good news" is that I wouldn't have to do it later.


----------



## George Wallace

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> ........ I was told that after having filled out the more extensive 10-year form early due to having lived in Asia, the "good news" is that I wouldn't have to do it later.




WRONG!  I hope you kept all that information.  You will have to redo it every five or ten years, depending on what level of Security Clearance you attain.


----------



## Celticgirl

George Wallace said:
			
		

> WRONG!  I hope you kept all that information.  You will have to redo it every five or ten years, depending on what level of Security Clearance you attain.



Let me clarify. They told me that I would have to do it again in the future, as you said, but not this year. What kawigirl said is that she was told she'd have to redo it upon being sworn in. I wasn't told that. I was told I was good for a number of years. They were nice enough to give me a disk to keep my information on, though, so that when I did have to fill out the form again in future years, I'd still have the info.


----------



## kawigirl

Celticgirl,
You are so lucky, they gave you a disk..I had to photocopy mine and I now have about 3 copies of it in my filing cabinet..LOL! One good thing is that most of my information and my husbands' information is the same, so if for some reason I loose mine I can use his ! Oh off topic, the small Timmy's tea thing...Yah well I scrapped that becauses I bought a large tea yesterday and I forgot about it, so I went to reheat it in the microwave, but first dumped it into a regular mug and it fit!! So long story short you can order a large coffee or tea as it is the same size as you would have at home... :,
HAve a great day....
Kawigirl


----------



## wildman0101

1 push-up ????? are you going thru basic???? i believe 24 is the minium ...to join...the cf ...then again 
i could be wrong....but 1 ?????


----------



## PMedMoe

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> i believe 24 is the minium ...to join...the cf ...then again i could be wrong....



All one has to do is pass the ExPres test for the military.


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Wildman,
There is a certain amount of pushups that you do have to do on your fitness test, but that depends on your age and sex. And you dont have to do 24 to get in. For me I only have to do 7. And I am not on basic yet, but I will be in June. Hense this "Girls in the gym"  forum, so anybody can give tips on the shuttle run, pushups, sit ups nutrition, and as you can see swimming tips. Every little bit helps. So you could give your advice on how to do efficient pushups!!! 

Have a great day,

Kawigirl


----------



## Gunner98

George Wallace said:
			
		

> WRONG!  I hope you kept all that information.  You will have to redo it every five or ten years, depending on what level of Security Clearance you attain.



Great topic and discussion ladies et al.  *In fact, once you are in the CF* you do not have to re-do the Security Clearance Info, it is stored to an on-line program (Security Clearance Processing System on the Provost Martial Site) once and then only verified every 5 or 10 years. You may retain a copy for future reference but you do not have to resubmit for renewal.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

kawigirl said:
			
		

> Hey Wildman,
> There is a certain amount of pushups that you do have to do on your fitness test, but that depends on your age and sex. And you dont have to do 24 to get in. For me I only have to do 7. And I am not on basic yet, but I will be in June. Hense this "Girls in the gym"  forum, so anybody can give tips on the shuttle run, pushups, sit ups nutrition, and as you can see swimming tips. Every little bit helps. So you could give your advice on how to do efficient pushups!!!
> 
> Have a great day,
> 
> Kawigirl




That maybe the min to do to get in but be prepared to do more than that on your courses, you are expected by Course Staff to be able to do the same amount as your male counter parts.

So my advice as an Instructor is to try and achieve the male standard as a min.


----------



## George Wallace

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Great topic and discussion ladies et al.  *In fact, once you are in the CF* you do not have to re-do the Security Clearance Info, it is stored to an on-line program (Security Clearance Processing System on the Provost Martial Site) once and then only verified every 5 or 10 years. You may retain a copy for future reference but you do not have to resubmit for renewal.



One has to remember that this is an electronic database and subject to whatever quirks the program running it may have.  KEEP your copy, so that you will only have to update it when necessary later.  If you require that information for another Government Dept or another Clearance other than DND, you will have it.  As I work with this system, I have come across one or two glitches.  It is always best to back up all your "Records" with copies at home.  (Not just the Security Clearance info, but your Pay, Course Reports, CF Expres, Posting Msgs, Education, etc.)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

George, isn't that info also held in hard copy on your PERS file?


----------



## George Wallace

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> George, isn't that info also held in hard copy on your PERS file?



No. Your Security Clearance is not held in your Pers File.  Your Pay Records are in their own separate Files.  Crse Reports, Education Crses, Outside CF Crses taken are (if the pers bring in their Certification to be photocopied and added to Pers Files.) kept on Pers Files.  Conduct Sheets should be kept with Pers Files.  A copy of your CF Expres should be, but often isn't, kept on your Pers File.  UERs are often not updated, and are not kept with the Pers Files.

It is always best to keep your own file at home, so that if there is any errors or omissions, you have something to back up your claims.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programs......


----------



## kawigirl

Hi NFLD Sapper,
I was only saying that for a females express test to pass we only need to do 7 if your over 35 and 9 if you are under 35. For myself I can do the run, the situps and the grip test but I struggle with the pushups. Myself, Celticgirl and a few other people in the room are trying to increase our pushups, it is just hard. And we do understand that in basic we do more than the minimum, but if that is all you can do, then that's all you can do. At least we passed our PT test. If you have any advice on how to improve pushups please feel free to share your wisdom.

Thanks, Kawigirl


----------



## Rodahn

As "they" say Kawigirl, practice makes perfect. Have you tried by starting off by doing the "ladies" push ups first, and then trying the mens? That might help a little bit.

Best of luck.


----------



## kawigirl

Hey Rodahn,
Nice bike by the way...I just sold mine. I had :'( a Kawasaki ninja 600 ZX. I intend to buy a new one next summer. Anyways I do men push ups until I can't do them any more then change to girl pushups. I have heard that it is all about muscle memory. But I dont know. I'm just doing what I can...

Thanks, Kawigirl


----------



## exgunnertdo

Re pushups - I do "ladies" push ups most of the time.  I can do way more when I do them from the knee.  The point is to build the upper body muscles, not to strain your back, which we ladies suffer from with traditional pushups.  It all has to do with centre of gravity.  The guys centre of gravity is the middle of their chest, ours is our hips, which is why push ups hurt our backs - the back is trying to support that heavy part.

In any event - I do ladies push ups, and weights to work the upper body, and I do core strengthening exercises to work the back/abs.  Then every few days I do men's push ups to combine it.  It sort of breaks up the difficulties we have with push ups into the two separate parts - upper body and back.


----------



## Celticgirl

I stopped doing push-ups from the knee a couple of months ago because I found that they weren't helping me to achieve more push-ups from a plank position. (I don't like saying men's and women's push-ups because it makes us sound weak and girly. ) Anyway, this may or may not be the case for other women. I have found that exercises with barbells and weight machines have helped me, but it continues to be a struggle. My goal is to do more than 20 by summer's end. If I should be lucky enough to get on the officer course for August, that ought to be a good starting point.


----------



## breezie

Hi all! As far as those security clearance forms, you should try filling them out after living in 3 countries in the last 10 years, and moving more than once a year in that time! It took me almost a month to get all the info! Oh well, at least I have it now, and I'm definitely keeping a copy!

For training, I started training two years ago when I decided I would join the forces (I was still living in Japan at that time). I had a roommate help design a weight training routine for me (Japanese trainers didn't speak English, and they wouldn't have known what to do with a woman who wanted to enter the military anyway!), and that made a huge difference. I started by only being able to do one or two pushups, to now being able to do about 20 or so. I'm currently doing 3 sets of 8 once a week, but I'm doing them really really slowly. That is one great workout! I also started out only being able to do a quarter of a chinup, and now I can do 3-4 no problems, depending on the day! I started doing reverse chins - jumping up so you're in the "up" position, then slowly lowering yourself to full extension, and doing that until I had built up enough strength to come up from the bottom just using my arms. As far as weight training, I do lots of squats, bench presses, lat pulldowns, bicep curls, dips, military press with a barbell, etc. Basically anything and everything gets mixed into my routine at some point during the week (I rotate 3 different routines, check out stumptuous.com for some good women's training ideas). I always keep a record of what I do every day, and when I find that I've plateaued at a certain weight for too long, and can't seem to go past it, I will change my routine. 

I also did the running routine on coolrunnings.com, building up to a 5km run using that program. Now I can do 5km without much problem, and even did a 10km run a few weeks back. I'm allergic to aerobics and step classes and such, they make me nuts, all the women going "Woo, feel the burn, lift those thighs!". I just stick to running, and some work on a rowing machine. I try to do as much as I think we'll encounter in our actual training, I can't imagine a bunch of big macho guys doing step aerobics.

So, hope that helps, and good luck with your training! You can do it, you just have to work at building yourself up.

Cheers!


----------



## breezie

Oh, forgot to mention, I'm 35 and about to enter RMC this August. No kids though thankfully!! ;D


----------



## Celticgirl

Breezie, I also moved about a dozen times in the last 10 years. It took a while to track down some of the old addresses! How long did it take you to get your clearance? Were you teaching ESL in Japan?

I don't do any chin-ups or pull-ups at the moment, and I'm thinking that I am going to have to add them in to my workout routine. I just hope that I can build arm strength without ending up looking like Sarah Connors in the Terminator sequel!


----------



## Yrys

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I don't do any chin-ups or pull-ups at the moment, and I'm thinking that I am going to have to add them in to my workout routine. I just hope that I can build arm strength without ending up looking like Sarah Connors in the Terminator sequel!



Why ?!? I love Sarah Connors ( I prefer when played by Linda Hamilton, 'to) !


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This thread is useless without pics..... >


----------



## Celticgirl

Yrys said:
			
		

> Why ?!? I love Sarah Connors ( I prefer when played by Linda Hamilton, 'to) !



Me, too, but the arms are just a little too bulging to be feminine in my opinion:







Mind you, she could probably pop out 100 push-ups pretty easily!  ;D


----------



## Yrys

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Me, too, but the arms are just a little too bulging to be feminine in my opinion:
> 
> Mind you, she could probably pop out 100 push-ups pretty easily!



... and some 'mazing others stuff.

She was bulging, but less then some culturists females...


----------



## breezie

Yep, teaching ESL and doing work for the Embassy. Chinups are important, as I think they'll be making us do them in basic. Good for getting your butt over the rope wall too! 

I love my sculpted arms! I'll never look like Linda Hamilton, but when I flex my arm it's pretty impressive! I used to have 2 four year olds hanging off each arm when I was teaching - they thought it was terribly fun having such a strong teacher!


----------



## Celticgirl

Point taken on the chin-ups. I'll start working that in to my gym routine. (I'm betting it will be a while before I can do one, though.)

Breezie, I taught ESL over in South Korea and Taiwan many moons ago. My stint in Taiwan fell into the 10-year time period and therefore, I'm waiting to get clearance before my application will be further considered/processed. Apparently, the hold-up is on Taiwan's end and hopefully they get on the ball soon. I think I asked you this already but didn't see a response - did it take you long to get your clearance?


----------



## breezie

Sorry, forgot to respond to that question. I applied in June or so last year, did my interviews and such in November, and was told in Feb that I got in. I had done lots of the police checks, etc myself for Japan and NZ before returning to Canada. I don't know if they used them or not, but that may have sped up the process a bit.


----------



## Celticgirl

breezie said:
			
		

> Sorry, forgot to respond to that question. I applied in June or so last year, did my interviews and such in November, and was told in Feb that I got in. I had done lots of the police checks, etc myself for Japan and NZ before returning to Canada. I don't know if they used them or not, but that may have sped up the process a bit.



Thanks for the response. You did the checks yourself as well? Interesting.


----------



## George Wallace

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Thanks for the response. You did the checks yourself as well? Interesting.



I believe if you ask at the CFRC, they may suggest that you can pay out of your own pocket to have these checks done.  Much the same as you can pay out of your own pocket to have a Credit Check or a Criminal Check done on yourself here at home.


----------



## Celticgirl

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I believe if you ask at the CFRC, they may suggest that you can pay out of your own pocket to have these checks done.  Much the same as you can pay out of your own pocket to have a Credit Check or a Criminal Check done on yourself here at home.



I hadn't realized this was an option! Thanks, George. I will check with the CFRC a.s.a.p.


----------



## Celticgirl

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This thread is useless without pics..... >



Is that why so many men are browsing this thread? Checking for pics?


----------



## breezie

Probably. Most men seem to need visuals to keep their interest for more than a few minutes!! :-*


----------



## Celticgirl

Here you go, guys.


----------



## Yrys

mmm, got any male version for women ? (without gross muscles, please   )


----------



## vonGarvin

Yrys said:
			
		

> mmm, got any male version for women ? (without gross muscles, please   )


No, thanks. These pics do me just fine.  ;-D


----------



## Celticgirl

For Yrys:


----------



## breezie

Funny how this thread has gone straight to the gutter! ;D


----------



## Yrys

Nah, Celticgirl jut got it out of the gutter with her lattest pic !


----------



## Celticgirl

Yrys said:
			
		

> Nah, Celticgirl jut got it out of the gutter with her lattest pic !



Equality in all things, even sexism, eh?


----------



## Rodahn

What's good for the goose is good for the gander or some such......


----------



## armyvern

Rodahn said:
			
		

> What's good for the goose is good for the gander or some such......



Here's one for you then ...


----------



## vonGarvin

I need some alone time...


----------



## Teeps74

After 10 years... I need a smoke now...  >


----------



## Celticgirl

Ummm...you guys don't get out much, huh?  :-\


----------



## Yrys

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Ummm...you guys don't get out much, huh?  :-\



In the case of Mortamar, I would say that he get out to much (training and courses),
not home with his wife and kids often enough ...


----------



## vonGarvin

Yrys said:
			
		

> In the case of Mortamar, I would say that he get out to much (training and courses),
> not home with his wife and kids often enough ...


You said it *sigh*
I need to get home....and SOON


----------



## Gunner98

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's one for you then ...



Vern,

Is this the new dress standard, I always said less is more.  Imagine what an RSM would say if this was posted to an Sun newspaper, unless of course, she was one of the fine soldiers in the photo. :

As for the exercise photos, the blonde in the white and orange outfit does not seem to age, she has looked the same for more than 10 years, oh,  ;D maybe it is the same photo. ;D


----------



## armyvern

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Is this the new dress standard, I always said less is more.  Imagine what an RSM would say if this was posted to an Sun newspaper, unless of course, she was one of the fine soldiers in the photo. :



What!!?? Female Canadian soldiers would never do anything like that.

Check out the shorts -- those girls are US. It'd be cute to see the ruckus it'd cause if published in the Sun though --- someone would look silly.


----------



## Teeps74

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Ummm...you guys don't get out much, huh?  :-\



What is this "out" you speak of? There is something else other then work?


----------



## Yrys

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> What is this "out" you speak of? There is something else other then work?



No, no, keep your nose down on your job   ...


----------



## breezie

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What!!?? Female Canadian soldiers would never do anything like that.



Speaking for myself, I'd love to show up in something like that once in a while! Oh the ruckus we would cause!! ;D]

Mind you, that's probably why that uniform would never be issued!


----------



## Yrys

breezie said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself, I'd love to show up to PT in something like that once in a while! Oh the ruckus we would cause!! ;D



Promise her that all men will be in chaps if she do, you could be surprised  ...


----------



## breezie

Okay, I'm not even going to write what I would like to about that, because this thread will truly sink even lower into the gutter! I'm loving the picture in my head though!


----------



## Yrys

breezie said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm not even going to write what I would like to about that, because this thread will truly sink even lower into the gutter!



Oups, sorry  :-[.

Don't want to start another split in Radio Chatter!


----------



## Baqi

I have a question for all you girls; How the heck did you train for doing consecutive push ups and how long did you train for?? I am having the hardest time trying to do NINE push ups!! I have my physical this friday, I can do a 3 mile run no problem, and the sit ups are also not a problem but I am having a lot of trouble with push ups! I have increased my calorie intake to build my upper body muscles!! I really want to try to get my BMQ this summer, but according to my recruiter if I fail (God forbid) the physical fitness test I have to wait a period of THREE MONTHS before trying again!! So, I may change the date of my physical test. Any suggestions would be helpful!  :-\


----------



## Gunner98

One way to strengthen your upper body is to adopt the three basic push-up positions (top, middle and start) and hold them for as long as possible for a few repetitions.  By holding to near fatigue you can increase your fatigue threshold which in time will build strength and allow for more repetitions.  Another important aspect is breathing, you should inhale at the start position and slowly exhale as you push upward, and inhale again as you move to the the rest or start position.

There are several good threads on here that discuss push-ups, just type push-up into the search panel.


----------



## breezie

I wouldn't try to eat more calories to put on muscle, as there's no guarantee it's going to turn to muscle in your upper body. It could turn to fat on your hips, which would make doing pushups even harder. The only way (that I know of anyway) to get stronger is to do lots and lots of weight training. I've been training for about 2.5 years, and I've made great progress since starting. I started slow, and just slowly built myself up to being able to do the minimum physical requirements. Of course, I'm not happy with being able to do just the minimum, so I keep pushing myself to improve. Try lots of different things (within reason!), to mix up your workouts and work your muscles in a more rounded way. I have 3 weight routines that I use (about a half hour each) each week, and on the opposite days I do cardio. Try to do as much full body exercises as you can (squats, pushups, chinups, etc.). Keep a record of what you do every time you workout, and never be satisfied with your current level, always try to do a little more than you could on your last workout (don't hurt yourself though!). Also, do check out stumptuous.com, she's talking about weight lifting and strength training for women, and she does it in a very accessible and funny way. (Of course she's funny, she's Canadian!). She also has lots of information about nutrition, and dispels many myths about weight training, fat loss, etc.

Good luck!


----------



## Celticgirl

Which is more beneficial - chin-ups or pull-ups? I understand that the grip is different with each (palms toward you or away from you). I want to start doing chin-ups, pull-ups, or perhaps both. What do you gals (and guys) do?


----------



## breezie

I do them with my palms towards me, as that's how they describe to do them in the physical standards brochure. With your palms toward you, you are working more of your biceps, and with them facing away from you (so you are looking at the back of your hands) you work more of your lats. The second version is definitely harder, but good if you want a challenge.


----------



## blacktriangle

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Which is more beneficial - chin-ups or pull-ups? I understand that the grip is different with each (palms toward you or away from you). I want to start doing chin-ups, pull-ups, or perhaps both. What do you gals (and guys) do?



I practice both. Chin up's to satisfy PT needs and work my arms. Pull ups for realistic strength.

Think of it this way, how many times is someone going to pull themselves over a wall/obstacle with their palms facing in like a chin up? Not very often from my limited experience...


----------



## Baqi

Thanks all!!
@ Frostnipped Elf the fatigue threshold technique is what I am trying (although very poorly) right now! Also, conditioning to breath properly is something I really need to work on because I’ve noticed that I hold my breath while attempting to do push ups! 

@Breezie..Thanks I guess I should heed caution when chugging yogurt and milk every morning!! hahahha My Dad thinks it’s what’s going to really help me!! (I think it’s only slowing me down) lol Weight Training it is (Uumm.. starting Tuesday)! Thanks for all the good advice! 


And Good luck to you all too!


----------



## megany

Baqi - milk is still good for you!  Lots of people I know cut it out because they're worried they'll gain weight, but milk after a workout helps with building muscle.  My trainer was always pushing me to drink it after a weight session.


----------



## Celticgirl

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I practice both. Chin up's to satisfy PT needs and work my arms. Pull ups for realistic strength.
> 
> Think of it this way, how many times is someone going to pull themselves over a wall/obstacle with their palms facing in like a chin up? Not very often from my limited experience...



That's a very good point. I am sure there will be walls to go over in basic training.   I think I'll start with chin-ups first and then when I get a bit stronger, I'll try doing pull-ups, too. Both would probably help with the ability to do more push-ups. I haven't been able to go beyond 12 and can only do 8 or 9 some days. Frustrating!


----------



## Baqi

megsy said:
			
		

> Baqi - milk is still good for you!



Thanks Megsy, but no worries I am a diary addict!! lol sigh


----------



## garb811

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I hadn't realized this was an option! Thanks, George. I will check with the CFRC a.s.a.p.


The problem for you is you have already departed the country.  Many countries require you to attend the Police Station in person to have these done on your own as per the process I described in your "Journey Begins" thread.  Even if you can do them while not in the country, it can take as long as the formal clearance process.  ie. it can take 4-6 months to get Certified Record Checks done by the RCMP.


----------



## Celticgirl

garb811 said:
			
		

> The problem for you is you have already departed the country.  Many countries require you to attend the Police Station in person to have these done on your own as per the process I described in your "Journey Begins" thread.  Even if you can do them while not in the country, it can take as long as the formal clearance process.  ie. it can take 4-6 months to get Certified Record Checks done by the RCMP.



If only I had known 9 years ago that I would need to get a security clearance from Taiwan.      ((sigh))


----------



## WaveDancer

I just found this site yesterday and am sooo happy! My application is going in next Thursday...I'm so excited. And, like some of you I'm a little more seasoned - going on 41. 

Like all of you I've also started training in preparation (and in the hopes I'm accepted). When I found out about the swimming requirement I decided to add swimming to my regime too. Thanks for the tip on the hair conditioner - I'll be sure to do that. The club I go to has a steam room and hot tub that I sooo enjoy. 

I'm striving to achieve the male under 35 numbers. The most difficulty I'm having is improving my running time. I can run 5km without a problem - the problem is I'm not fast enough. I've always been able to go distance for forever but have just never been able to develop any speed. Any suggestions? 

It's so exciting to hear some of you are so close to departing - good luck! Thanks for any suggestions you might be able to offer re: the running.


----------



## Celticgirl

WaveDancer said:
			
		

> I just found this site yesterday and am sooo happy! My application is going in next Thursday...I'm so excited. And, like some of you I'm a little more seasoned - going on 41.



Seasoned? What are we, the spice girls? 

Welcome aboard! What are you applying for if I may ask? 

As for the running time, I am not sure what the best way is to improve it, but I find starting with a slow jog and then increasing speed by a bit every few minutes works for me. At the end of my run, I try to just run full out for 3-5 minutes (as much as I can stand without losing my breath). This is my way of preparing for the Expres test. My fiance tells me that I'll be so full of adrenaline on the day of the test that I'll probably surprise myself with my performance. I can see that. I do more push-ups at the gym with my trainer looking on than I do at home alone. Strange!


----------



## WaveDancer

Hi Celticgirl! Thank you... I'm applying for Regular MARS through the CEOTP.

Aren't the spice girls a band?  8) I'm dating myself! Hope I didn't offend. I just asked a friend in the Reserve today if he thought I should hide my grey for the interview  : (ie: the salt & peppa that's starting to peak through)  and I couldn't think of something better than 'older' or 'more mature' to say.   You know what I mean 

I was just reading another topic in this forum 'Running' (sorry I don't have the link) that made some references to Running Room. I have one locally so I think I might check them out. The change up in program and camaraderie might be nice. I'll try your idea too. Maybe I need to find a way to push myself differently than I have been - alternate my long runs with shortening the distance but pushing the speed.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch whether or not you posted your element in any earlier posts...if you don't mind me asking - what are you applying to?


----------



## Celticgirl

WaveDancer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I didn't catch whether or not you posted your element in any earlier posts...if you don't mind me asking - what are you applying to?



Reg force, Aerospace Controller, DEO. I have hit 2 snags thus far, one medical and one with the pre-security screening. Hopefully, I'll get in before I'm 40 (I'm 36).


----------



## WaveDancer

Wow, that sounds great! The occupation I mean, not the snags.   I think the cutoff is 45 so no need to panic...yet! 

Good luck! Man, it's discouraging to hear about some of the snags people run into. It sounds though, like most of them get worked out.  I can only hope mine will go smoothly.


----------



## aesop081

There are girls in the gym ?

Maybe i should go to the gym more then...... ;D


----------



## Celticgirl

WaveDancer said:
			
		

> I think the cutoff is 45 so no need to panic...yet!



The cutoff is 45? I thought it was a bit higher than that...like 55. I think once I hit 38 I'll be done though. I'll either be in or done.


----------



## Celticgirl

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There are girls in the gym ?
> 
> Maybe i should go to the gym more then...... ;D



Where have you been? Didn't you see the pictures I posted?  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

WaveDancer said:
			
		

> I just found this site yesterday and am sooo happy! My application is going in next Thursday...I'm so excited. And, like some of you I'm a little more seasoned - going on 41.
> 
> Like all of you I've also started training in preparation (and in the hopes I'm accepted). When I found out about the swimming requirement I decided to add swimming to my regime too. Thanks for the tip on the hair conditioner - I'll be sure to do that. The club I go to has a steam room and hot tub that I sooo enjoy.
> 
> I'm striving to achieve the male under 35 numbers. The most difficulty I'm having is improving my running time. I can run 5km without a problem - the problem is I'm not fast enough. I've always been able to go distance for forever but have just never been able to develop any speed. Any suggestions?
> 
> It's so exciting to hear some of you are so close to departing - good luck! Thanks for any suggestions you might be able to offer re: the running.



You could try doing hill sprints.  

I used to use them for hockey, lacrosse and rugby training.  It's quite amazing what even 2-weeks of hill training can do to your whole body.

Additionally, since I was equally concerned with upper body strength, I used to do them with light weights in my hands too which does a tremendous job.

Bottom Line:  It adds muscle and tones you VERY quickly and in concert with your usual long distance running may give you the boost you need.

Good Luck and let us know how it goes....


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## WaveDancer

Thanks Matthew...I'll have to give them a try.


----------



## jazzy0410

Thank for you this tread ladies. It's been really helpful. I'm glad i won't be the only women at BMQ when it does happen (hopefully). I'm only in the begining stages . After years wanting to apply - i finally did it. And air force it is - hopefully  as a AVS tech. I was afraid i was going to be the oldest on my course since i'll be 26 in October but i see now i'm considered still a 'youngie'

The push-up tricks really helped. I'm doing about 25 now.  I've always been somewhat in shape since  i swim every morning.  and i try to run 3/times a week. and do wheight training  3times a week as well. (i alternate) . I do sit ups and pushings before going to bed. and kaying when its nice out. I think i should be alright. Its weird thought i can do push ups fine but sits up i have a hard time with. any tricks for that? 
Any tips are welcome!Anyone else where joining the Air force or as a AVS tech!


----------



## Celticgirl

How are the girls doing in the gym this week? 

I've been away on vacation and haven't worked out for 2 weeks, so today I went for a run and hoped that I wouldn't pass out.  ;D  I managed to do my 8 km in my usual 40 minutes, though, so I was happy about that. I have an appointment with a specialist in 2 weeks' time (in hopes to get a medically-based decision overturned and get into the CF) so I now have that 'gotta get into shape' feeling once again. It's time to get working on the push-ups and sit-ups! 

Jazzy, I don't have any advice for sit-ups, but perhaps someone else here does. I just keep going until I can't do them anymore. I'm going to start timing myself to see how many I can do in a minute. What is a good number of sit-ups to aim for in a minute? Forty? Fifty?


----------



## breezie

I've been using the army fitness manual for the last few weeks (you can find it online if you google 'army fitness manual', and click on the first one that comes up). It seems really well balanced with cardio, both power and endurance, and of course weights. It's a 12 week program that's supposed to take you from basic entry physical standards, up to where you would be at the end of basic training.

As for the situps, I think there are some threads I saw in here somewhere about that.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

jazzy0410 said:
			
		

> Thank for you this tread ladies. It's been really helpful. I'm glad i won't be the only women at BMQ when it does happen (hopefully). I'm only in the begining stages . After years wanting to apply - i finally did it. And air force it is - hopefully  as a AVS tech. I was afraid i was going to be the oldest on my course since i'll be 26 in October but i see now i'm considered still a 'youngie'
> 
> The push-up tricks really helped. I'm doing about 25 now.  I've always been somewhat in shape since  i swim every morning.  and i try to run 3/times a week. and do wheight training  3times a week as well. (i alternate) . I do sit ups and pushings before going to bed. and kaying when its nice out. I think i should be alright. *Its weird thought i can do push ups fine but sits up i have a hard time with. any tricks for that? *
> 
> Any tips are welcome!Anyone else where joining the Air force or as a AVS tech!



If you're having problems with sit-ups, it probably means your overall core musculature is weak.

In that case, struggling to just focus on sit-ups can actually be counterproductive.  Instead try to do anything you can that requires core stabilization as part of your workout.  Any activity that requires rapid & violent change in direction will help - tennis, squash, basketball, etc.  More direct is to just transition to free dumbells (not the little weiner ones - 15lbs minimum) to do your upper body work (works best if you're standing) and you'll find ALL your core muscles improve.  If you then add-in some work with an exercise ball, you'll get to where you want to go very quickly (less than 45 days).  

Bottom Line:  If you are where you describe, step one should be building the muscle to be able to do the sit-ups, rather than vice versa. 


Good Luck, Matthew.   

P.S.  Once your core starts to tighten (you'll know it because you'll feel it), especially for women, Sicilian Crunches work very well with the caveat that you have to make sure you do the matching lower back extensions.  The attached is good option because it's on an exercise ball which is superior to working out on the floor:   

http://www.bodyessence.ca/Pages/Main/siciliancrunches.html


----------



## Captain Coffee

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's one for you then ...



Girls with guns.....still stirs the old....heart.


----------



## Cloud Cover

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's one for you then ...



too funny- I'm in the maple leaf lounge in Ottawa. I just clicked on the image [and I must admit I was expanding it a bit],  and then heard someone behind me clear their throat quite loudly. It was Beverly McLachlan, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who clearly disapproves [must be the guns].


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now that just made my day......


----------



## Luvs 2 Curl

Thank you so much for starting this thread.  I am 31 yrs old and have applied for AVS Tech.  The process has gone very quickly for me - I applied the 1st week of June and have already completed all testing and interviews. I am waiting for my doctor to return from holidays so she can sign a couple of forms for my medical clearance and have been told to prepare to head off to BMQ late August or early September.  The push ups seem to be the common denominator here and I would like to pass on some advice given to me by my CF interviewer.  She recommended starting with your hands on a desk or table (kitchen counter works too) and doing as many push ups as you can.  Then when you can do 20 easily, move down to a chair seat, and eventually the floor.  I try to do 30 on my desk at work during the course of the day and have noticed a huge improvement when I do the plank push ups (every night before bed).

I hope that helps someone!


----------



## Celticgirl

That's a great tip, Luvs 2 Curl, thanks! I have been getting really slack with the push-ups, so I must get cracking. I haven't done any chin-ups yet, either. This heat doesn't help with the motivation factor.  

However, I'm pleased that I was able to do a 10 km. run last week. That is going to be my new standard...10 K / 3 X per week. People are starting to comment on my 'fit' appearance, so all the workouts are paying off in more ways than one.  ;D


----------



## CountDC

WaveDancer said:
			
		

> I just found this site yesterday and am sooo happy! My application is going in next Thursday...I'm so excited. And, like some of you I'm a little more seasoned - going on 41.
> 
> Like all of you I've also started training in preparation (and in the hopes I'm accepted). When I found out about the swimming requirement I decided to add swimming to my regime too. Thanks for the tip on the hair conditioner - I'll be sure to do that. The club I go to has a steam room and hot tub that I sooo enjoy.
> 
> I'm striving to achieve the male under 35 numbers. The most difficulty I'm having is improving my running time. I can run 5km without a problem - the problem is I'm not fast enough. I've always been able to go distance for forever but have just never been able to develop any speed. Any suggestions?
> 
> It's so exciting to hear some of you are so close to departing - good luck! Thanks for any suggestions you might be able to offer re: the running.



When I did X-Country in school we use to build the speed by doing a regiment of jog/run.  Jog for 5 minutes then run full out for as long as you can then jog another 5 minute, repeat as often as possible.  We usually did this for an hour several days a week as group training plus whatever we did on our own time.  On my own time I used to do 5-10 miles a day (dating myself) stopping every mile to do either pushups (knuckles), situps or chin ups (as many as possible).  Then I joined the military and all that went away after the first year in.  Thank god these days they allow us time for PT!!


----------



## Kruggle

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering if any of you could help me with this one. Leaving conditioner in my hair when I go swimming was an excellent idea, so thanks again for that advice. However, right now my concern is that when I am in the pool, my face feels very dry, even though I always put lotion on after I wash my face in the morning.  After I get out of the pool, I sometimes put a little more lotion on, but I am afraid that it would be bad for my skin, as the lotion might get my pores clogged up (who knows what's in the pool) without washing my face properly with a cleanser and all. I don't want to wash my face more than twice a day, as it's not great for my problematic skin either.  :-\

Once again, any advice would be much appreciated.


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle, I would say just apply moisturizer after swimming. That should take care of the dryness and I don't think it will "clog" your pores - just make sure you rub it in well.


----------



## armyvern

Kruggle said:
			
		

> Hey everyone,
> 
> I was just wondering if any of you could help me with this one. Leaving conditioner in my hair when I go swimming was an excellent idea, so thanks again for that advice. However, right now my concern is that when I am in the pool, my face feels very dry, even though I always put lotion on after I wash my face in the morning.  After I get out of the pool, I sometimes put a little more lotion on, but I am afraid that it would be bad for my skin, as the lotion might get my pores clogged up (who knows what's in the pool) without washing my face properly with a cleanser and all. I don't want to wash my face more than twice a day, as it's not great for my problematic skin either.  :-\
> 
> Once again, any advice would be much appreciated.



Well, swimming 4 hours a day between the ages of 7 & 20 saw me first using a PH Barrier Cream to protect my face and hands from chlorine. It kept the moisture in my skin and the chlorine away, and stayed on while I swam. It washed off with warm water once one added soap.

I switched out to this when it became easier to get:

http://www.dermaltherapy.com/skin-care/barrier-lotions.html

But needless, your local drug store pharmacist should be able to point you out to an effective over-the-counter barrier cream capable of handling chlorine.


----------



## Kruggle

Thanks a lot, girls!


----------



## Celticgirl

Wake up, thread! 

With basic coming up in 4 months for me, I need to really get cracking on the PT. Lots of time to make some improvements, but I have a long way to go.

Today, I did 12 consecutive push-ups (proper ones) and 30 sit-ups. I figure I need to be doing double that in both exercises. I've slacked a bit on my running, cutting down from 3 times a week to about once a week, but I'm back on track (literally ). So I'll be doing 10 K runs three times a week. I am averaging 48 minutes, but hope to improve my time by Christmas. I haven't swum in a while, but I plan to get back into that again, too, now that school is back in session. I figure twice a week for lap swims, then some weights a couple of days (mostly for arm strength) should round out the PT. I still haven't added chin-ups, either. Trying to figure out where I can do them!

How are you all doing with the PT? What is your schedule like now?


----------



## Kruggle

I also need to work much harder on my PT. Yesterday, I renewed my gym membership (just in time to get $100 off from student discount because my student card expires today  >) It really helps a lot that school is starting so soon again, because I will only be working after school hours with the autistic children. In the mornings, I will have some time to work on my PT. 

My siblings got me a new IPOD, some work out accessories, and a puppy recently. They also mentioned that they would like to attend my graduation ceremony (_if _ I make it into BMOQ _and _ manage to graduate...). My elder sister offered to take my younger brother and I on vacation somewhere as my grad present (possibly to Australia so that I could see my cousin who's also one of my very best friends!!). It's really nice of them to be so thoughtful of my worries and I am determined to work on my PT as much as possible so that at least I can have one less thing to worry about for Basic. 

Swimming and running are probably the easiest for me, so I will work on those first to get my momentum going. Sit-ups are not too bad, but I definitely need to pull my number way up. My push-ups need a ton of work, but I have been working on them. Hopefully they will be better once I being to swim and run more regularly. My dance classes are starting on Sunday and they will be 2 hours of instruction and 2 hours of practice. I am thinking of signing up for swimming lessons as well, because I could definitely work on my techniques. I am still thinking about it though..

Celticgirl, what is your workout routine like?


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> Celticgirl, what is your workout routine like?



Here is what I am planning:
Mon, Wed, Fri - running approx. 50 min. (10 km.)
Tue, Thu - swimming approx. 50 min. (40 laps)
Wed, Sat - weights and chin-ups
Every day - push-ups and sit-ups

Goals:
Push-ups = 25
Sit-ups = 50
Chin-ups = 5 (since I can't currently do any)
Running = 10 K in less than 45 min.
Swimming = 40 laps in less than 45 min.


----------



## aesop081

I went to the gym this afternoon and was very disapointed..........

There were no girls there. You guys lied to me  :threat:


----------



## Celticgirl

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I went to the gym this afternoon and was very disapointed..........
> 
> There were no girls there. You guys lied to me  :threat:



Wrong gym!  ;D


----------



## Kruggle

Actually, the gym that I usually go to always have way more girls than boys. I have always thought that maybe it's because girls are more or less a bit more self-conscious about their image and weight, but maybe that's just where I am from...

Anyway, I haven't thought about timing my laps for swimming, but maybe I should start doing that, too. I am worried about the treading water part of the swimming test. I can tread water for around 5 minutes, but I don't think I can tread well well with the combats and all. Also, I don't know how to somersault, but I think one of the requirements is that we need to somersault into the water..  :-\


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> I don't know how to somersault, but I think one of the requirements is that we need to somersault into the water..  :-\



It's just a forward roll. Tuck your body in, roll into the water. Much easier than diving! 

As for treading water, I don't imagine wearing clothes (Cadpats or otherwise) would hinder you very much. You only need to do it for 2 minutes, which isn't long at all really.


----------



## Celticgirl

@Kruggle - You've probably already seen this video, but if not, you may want to check it out because you can see the somersaults pretty clearly in one part of the video. Once you see how simple it is, I think it'll put your mind at ease a bit. 

Basic Officer Course Video - CFLRS


----------



## aesop081

Kruggle said:
			
		

> Also, I don't know how to somersault, but I think one of the requirements is that we need to somersault into the water..  :-\



Do you know how to fall on your face ?

Problem solved.


----------



## wildman0101

regards the exspress test i stand corrected,,,,
regards combat swim test if i remember corectly
it didnt matter how you entered the water 
duck tuck and roll,dive,,,step off the high dive 
board,,,or coannon-balled as long as you did 
your 2 min you qualified...lol..
i apologise for the late post re: the exspress test
                       best regards all,,,
                                 scoty b


----------



## armyvern

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> regards the exspress test i stand corrected,,,,
> regards combat swim test if i remember corectly
> it didnt matter how you entered the water
> duck tuck and roll,dive,,,step off the high dive
> board,,,or coannon-balled as long as you did
> your 2 min you qualified...lol..
> i apologise for the late post re: the exspress test
> best regards all,,,
> scoty b



Close. All three entries were used:

*Step off the high platform* (with uniform/lifevest) - arms crossed over chest and ankles crossed for water entry, upon surfacing make your way to the side of the pool and exit.

*Stride jump* into the pool (with uniform/lifevest) ... swim your distance without touching the sides/bottom etc and exit the pool.

*Forward Roll* into the pool in uniform (no lifevest) ... surface and tread water.


----------



## wildman0101

armyvern,,
                right you are correct... i mish-moshed it... 
                owe ya a beer lol...
                                      scoty b


----------



## Kruggle

I love this thread so much. Everytime I ask something, there's always speedy and helpful responses.

Thank you everyone. Special thanks to CG


----------



## Shamrock

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Close. All three entries were used:
> 
> *Step off the high platform* (with uniform/lifevest) - arms crossed over chest and ankles crossed for water entry, upon surfacing make your way to the side of the pool and exit.
> 
> *Stride jump* into the pool (with uniform/lifevest) ... swim your distance without touching the sides/bottom etc and exit the pool.
> 
> *Forward Roll* into the pool in uniform (no lifevest) ... surface and tread water.



However, to qualify as Shamrock, one needs to:
*Step off the high platform* and upon surfacing remain dry.
*Stride jump* into the pool and have the water part before you.  Walk to the other side.
*Forward Roll* into the pool in uniform and walk across the surface of the water.


----------



## armyvern

Shamrock said:
			
		

> However, to qualify as Shamrock, one needs to:
> *Step off the high platform* and upon surfacing remain dry.
> *Stride jump* into the pool and have the water part before you.  Walk to the other side.
> *Forward Roll* into the pool in uniform and walk across the surface of the water.



Sham,

I know that you didn`t think I`d recognize you without your sandals on, but trust me on this, when I made you --- I was only joking.  



What the heck is going on with my ``` They are all facing the wrong way!! HELP!!


----------



## Shamrock

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sham,
> 
> I know that you didn`t think I`d recognize you without your sandals on, but trust me on this, when I made you --- I was only joking.



You're only pissy because I'm the rock you can't lift.


----------



## armyvern

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You're only pissy because I'm the rock you can't lift.



Just be advised ... I made you like that "with intent".

When I created man, I made sure to ensure that at his best, a man is still only three-fifths a woman.

Just so you know.


----------



## Celticgirl

Kruggle said:
			
		

> Special thanks to CG



You are so very welcome, Kruggle.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> When I created man, I made sure to ensure that at his best, a man is still only three-fifths a woman.
> 
> Just so you know.



This sounds about right.  ;D


----------



## brave little soldier

Hello girls,  

I had so much fun reading your messages... Don't worry, all will be fine... When in doubt, think of G.I. JANE !

Yes, G.I. JOE can run  , do push-ups, sit-ups  , dig a hole  (not really digging anymore) and carry his weight over his shoulder...  ON THE DAY OF PT TEST... because the following week, he is OUT OF COMMISSION !  

Enjoy !


----------



## armyvern

Female Soldiers ... they're out there these days ...

Just came across this video on youtube. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKQzOei4mUo

Makes me think yet again how absolutely 100% useless I feel sitting here in Canada ...


----------



## littlelizzard

Hey Girls: Glad your working hard, I'm trying So where abouts are you gals doing your basic training at?


----------



## S.Stewart

As much as I would love to say there is no such thing as a useless soldier Vern, we both know this is untrue, as there are useless people in every occupation. The reality is however, that you are just not one of them.  

We as humans often associate being useful in the physical sense, when in truth that is just a small slice of the pie, the knowledge that I have seen you pass on this board is a fine example of that, and I have no doubt in my mind that this is the same thing those physically around you experince.

Words often hold more weight than actions, and in any workplace often those that take the extra step to pass on their knowledge other than just do their job, make much more valuable employees.


----------



## The Bread Guy

What SS said - besides, you can't have ALL the hotties deployed @ once, if only for the morale of the troops @ home, right?


----------



## gaspasser

Vern, you are never useless... ;D
But not yet ready to put out ot pasture either... ;D

"What SS said - besides, you can't have ALL the hotties deployed @ once, if only for the morale of the troops @ home, right?"
Diito...especially in those cutie shorts...but we digress...
I'm glad to see, and witness over the years, the influx of females into ALL trades and finally out of the "girlie" trades that they were stuck into joining.  
Girls in the infantry...looks good on ya!!!!


----------



## Celticgirl

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see, and witness over the years, the influx of females into ALL trades and finally out of the "girlie" trades that they were stuck into joining.
> Girls in the infantry...looks good on ya!!!!



There are still many people out there who believe women don't belong in the military. As nurses and clerks, sure, but not in any of the other myriad pivotal roles. Certainly not infantry or artillery. My father told me just the other day that it's dangerous (to have women in trades like infantry) because the men would be focused primarily on keeping the women safe (chivalry and all that). I find that to be an antiquated notion of laughable proportions. Doesn't everyone in the platoon look out for each other regardless of gender? Why should some animals be more equal that others? The women are in uniform with their own weapons, not in poodle skirts waving hankies. However, I don't for a moment think he is the only person who thinks that way. 

Like BYT driver, I think it's great  to see women in all trades nowadays, but especially in the 'traditionally male' ones. Hopefully, we can change some currently held attitudes about women in the military.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've had poor male and female soldiers on courses, in my Troop, in the field, in garrison, etc etc.  Their discipline and mental set of brass ones were the difference if they were a good troop or not, not if they 'sat or stood'.

I'd like to think we're past this now, and here is one example of why we should be...


----------



## armyvern

This is not a thread about me.   (Thanks for the compliments though anyway).

I really meant that I'd rather be there being "more useful" -- right in the pit of the stomach I felt it. Sometimes something I will see, or hear, or read will cause me to have that feeling of "yearning" ... that video was one. That video could have been of male soldiers or a mixture; it wouldn't have mattered - it was the feeling I got watching it. Happy kids, you know? Troops doing great things. The bright side of what happens over there that "we" know happens daily, but that Canadians never seem to see or hear about over here.

I guess, in the end, it reinforces to me exactly why this mission is good ... and makes me want to deploy again right NOW - instead of "later". Perhaps, even "jealousy" would have been a more appropriate word to use.


----------



## Celticgirl

littlelizzard said:
			
		

> So where abouts are you gals doing your basic training at?



I'll be doing mine at St. Jean in January.

I didn't do so well this week with my training plan, unfortunately. The little one had the flu, so running was out of the question. This coming week, I'll have to get back on track with that. I did do push-ups and sit-ups every day - Sit-ups are coming along well, but I'm still stuck at 10 push-ups.


----------



## HansonSherren

I'm so happy I found this thread!
I have some questions and am hoping I could get some answers... *please*

Ok.. so I'm 28 years old - mother of two - fantastic hubby not in the CF supporting me all the way in this.. I will be handing in my papers tomorrow so Lord knows when I'll be accepted/going to Basic Training.  I have a personal trainer and am working hard at getting in shape... currently I can do 16 sit ups, 2 push ups and can run for 3 minutes straight - THIS IS IT!  OH - and ZERO chin-ups! I know I have lots of time to accomplish my goals to pass the fitness test, but I'm panicking!  
So my main question is this - what happens if you get there, do your testing and fail everything?  Is there a retest done a week later and then you better have passed?  What's this shuttle test all about?  Can anyone give me details?
I'm not a runner by any means - I could march till the cows come home but running isn't for me - I'll ensure I can run 5kms before I leave though... that's for sure... 

*sigh*  

I fear the unknown but am SO excited for all of this - and mainly just to be done of it so I can start my career!

Any tips for me anyone?

Thanks so much.......


----------



## armyvern

For the first link, click on the two attachments found at the very bottom of the first post ... you should find your answers there. Then some more links to the Shuttle run, running techniques etc.

PT Testing info for BMQ

Questions about the Shuttle Run

PT Testing for those heading to BMQ/BOTP

Running Problems & Training Techniques

Beep Test (Shuttle Run)

20m Shuttle Run

Oh yes, good luck with your paperwork ... and your workouts!!

Veronica


----------



## HansonSherren

Thanks for the info Veronica - but I'm still stunned when it comes to figuring out the shuttle test.. what is it exactly?  I'm wondering how to figure out if I'm prepared for it or not - well I know I'm not prepared for it but I want to see how far OFF I am from being able to pass.  I have a treadmill that measures speed in Miles... and I have an incline button, but it doesn't tell me how high the incline is.. I kinda have to guesstimate it.
So I'm seeing a bunch of numbers and you have to get this level or that level, and yada yada - I have NO idea what any of this means and if someone can help put this info into laments (sp?) terms for me - that would be so great...


----------



## Celticgirl

HansonSherren said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info Veronica - but I'm still stunned when it comes to figuring out the shuttle test.. what is it exactly?



Check out this YouTube video: Beep Test. It will give you a pretty good idea of what the 20 msr (beep test) is going to be like. There are lots of other examples like this one on YouTube, too. It's one thing to explain it in text, but when you see it for yourself 'in action', that can help you understand what you (and all of us) are preparing for.


----------



## armyvern

HansonSherren said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info Veronica - but I'm still stunned when it comes to figuring out the shuttle test.. what is it exactly?  I'm wondering how to figure out if I'm prepared for it or not - well I know I'm not prepared for it but I want to see how far OFF I am from being able to pass.  I have a treadmill that measures speed in Miles... and I have an incline button, but it doesn't tell me how high the incline is.. I kinda have to guesstimate it.
> So I'm seeing a bunch of numbers and you have to get this level or that level, and yada yada - I have NO idea what any of this means and if someone can help put this info into laments (sp?) terms for me - that would be so great...



http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/70143.0

If you're only able to run for 3 minutes --- you're far off at this point in time. 

It's 20 meteres. The time you have to get between line A & line B decreases (ie you need to start going faster and faster) as you proceed up the levels.


----------



## HansonSherren

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Check out this YouTube video: Beep Test. It will give you a pretty good idea of what the 20 msr (beep test) is going to be like. There are lots of other examples like this one on YouTube, too. It's one thing to explain it in text, but when you see it for yourself 'in action', that can help you understand what you (and all of us) are preparing for.



OMG thanks so much for that - I know what you all mean now! LOL I can definitely see why it's easier to show someone than explain it.. I had no idea.. now I understand - WOOT! lol  Thanks!!


----------



## Celticgirl

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've had poor male and female soldiers on courses, in my Troop, in the field, in garrison, etc etc.  Their discipline and mental set of brass ones were the difference if they were a good troop or not, not if they 'sat or stood'.
> 
> I'd like to think we're past this now, and here is one example of why we should be...



Military folks may be 'past' it, but I don't think the general civilian population is. I've received mixed reviews about my joining. Some folks see this as evidence that I'm a few sandwiches short of a full picnic.  Others, however, think it's a fantastic career choice. 

I have noticed that the Forces Recruiting site has done a great job of representing female soldiers in various roles, but I can't say the same for their TV ads.  :-\


----------



## George Wallace

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Military folks may be 'past' it, but I don't think the general civilian population is. I've received mixed reviews about my joining. Some folks see this as evidence that I'm a few sandwiches short of a full picnic.  Others, however, think it's a fantastic career choice.



Reading many other posts from the membership of this site, this is a common occurance and not related to gender.


----------



## Celticgirl

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reading many other posts from the membership of this site, this is a common occurance and not related to gender.



Very true, George, but I've heard some gender-related comments in my case...such as how I must feel nervous about doing basic training with "a bunch of guys".  : My father, on the other hand, does not mince words: "Women don't belong in the military."  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Very true, George, but I've heard some gender-related comments in my case...such as how I must feel nervous about doing basic training with "a bunch of guys".  : My father, on the other hand, does not mince words: "Women don't belong in the military."  ;D



You can always come back to that with "I heard that changed yesterday, when we got that 'lectricity stuff and indoor plumbing!"


----------



## Celticgirl

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You can always come back to that with "I heard that changed yesterday, when we got that 'lectricity stuff and indoor plumbing!"



Well, he's 77 and I doubt he'll change his opinion anytime soon, Eye. "Old School" thinking. He also bet me $100 that I will quit basic because I'll find it too hard, stressful, whatever. You can believe I took that bet.


----------



## medaid

Someone once said "America's not ready for women in a combat role. The instant they see their daughter on TV dead in a warzone it would be the end of it."

It's cultural more then anything else. 

I think women are just as good as men in some regards, better in others and worse in some. Just like men aren't good as women in many things. We are built for different roles, and I mean that. It's physical, some women can over come what the majority of men can't. Vice versa. 

What I'm saying is anyone can join, not everyone will make it.


----------



## Fusaki

> I think women are just as good as men in some regards, better in others and worse in some. Just like men aren't good as women in many things.



So true.

My girlfriend makes an awsome sandwich.


----------



## whitey

lol, I just spit my coffee out all over my keyboard.


----------



## crystalrh

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So true.
> 
> My girlfriend makes an awsome sandwich.



Funny you say that, I was just admiring my boyfriend earlier on how good the toilet looked after he cleaned it.


----------



## armyvern

Does anyody here wield a mean vacuum?? 

I'm hiring. Hate vacuuming; male, female --- no matter.

Molly Maid is all booked up. Dammit.


----------



## Gunnar

> Well, he's 77 and I doubt he'll change his opinion anytime soon, Eye. "Old School" thinking. He also bet me $100 that I will quit basic because I'll find it too hard, stressful, whatever. You can believe I took that bet.



Something to think about when you're 9 K into the 10K run.  Now you *can't* quit.

You can run a lot on being ticked off, I'd wager.


----------



## Celticgirl

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Something to think about when you're 9 K into the 10K run.  Now you *can't* quit.
> 
> You can run a lot on being ticked off, I'd wager.



Exactly, Gunnar. It's just more fuel for the fire, which is never a bad thing when we are talking about motivation.


----------



## mp_ada

OK, I'm dusting off this thread, just as I am dusting off my sneakers...    Ok, so I usually work out in spurts and I just last week got a fitness routine from a trainer at the gym.  I've got about two months to get whipped into shape (i've been told this is plenty of time...which I certainly HOPE so!)  I'm 28, single mom, and am prepared to work hard to attain my desired fitness level!  My trainer has me doing a full body weight routine (takes about 30-40 mins 3 times per week) then interval running 2-3 times per week.  The intervals consist of 4 rounds of 4:00 minutes of Low-Moderate running followed by 0:40 seconds of sprinting.  The L-M running will decrease by 0:15 seconds each week and eventually you will add in another round when you get down to 3:00 L-M running.  ANYWAYS, I am really hoping this will be enough.  I am still trying pushups every day as well and working on situps too.  I am worried because this doesn't feel like a lot of running, however, he's also told me not to overdo it.  I am also running the occasional 2-4 km on top of the weights and intervals most days (if not everyday then every second day).  Any suggestions from anyone who can tell me if they think this will be enough??


----------



## Celticgirl

Thanks for breathing life back into this thread, ada! 

I would say that your trainer knows more about this stuff than most of us non-trainers, but it definitely sounds like a good workout regimen. How are the push-ups and sit-ups going? I got a little adventurous yesterday and did 120 sit-ups (4 sets of 30) and then 42 push-ups (7, 10, 14, 10...and one, lol). I was trying to do another 7 on the last set but after one push-up, I had a muscle spasm in my lower right arm. Down on my face I went.    Today, I am somewhat regretting doing so much because I am extremely sore. However, it's probably good that I push myself a bit more as I get closer to the start of BMOQ. I went for a run today and was thinking "I fly out in 39 days, OMG...".   Time to get our butts in gear! 

So what day shall we do our mock shuttle run?  ;D


----------



## mp_ada

Well I'd say anyday is fine with me!!  I am soooo sore today.  i did like 2 pushups today and just about died.  :-[  i'm going to the group Centergy, however you spell it, class tomorrow (its like a mixture of Yoga and Pilates).  I've always found that if I'm sore, that class heals you up in a hurry!


----------



## Celticgirl

Yes, I suppose the stretching would be good to heal sore muscles! I am going to check out a new fitness centre tomorrow. I need to do more strength training over the next 5 weeks or so. I'm glad in a way that I am sore right now because it means my muscles are building up and getting stronger. 

What about Tuesday for the mock shuttle?


----------



## mp_ada

Oh ya, that'll be good to give you a boost!!!  Pump you up!  lol  Tuesday's good!


----------



## Celticgirl

I tried the new fitness place today. I wasn't too fussy about the whole 'circuit' thing (new machine/activity every 30 seconds), but as long as I can do my own thing when I'm there, the price and flexibility work for me. Plus, today was free.  ;D  The woman working there also measured my body fat percentage - 23.7%  Is that good? That seems high to me, so I'll have to look up some info on body fat % online. The bonus was that she thought I was 20! Either her eyes are _really_ bad or that was a huge compliment!  

Ada, I'll send you a message Monday night when I get in to Fredtown so we can figure out a time. My schedule is completely open, so if you are working or have something else on the go, we can work around your schedule.


----------



## Raylee

kawigirl said:
			
		

> Hi There,
> Guys included. I was just reading some of the topics rearding running, pushups and situps and I find that they are very geared to men. (50-60 pushups at a time) I don't know to many if any girls that can do that. So I thought that I would start this area to chat. And there is alot of mature women and men just entering the forces. Like me, 35 years old, mom, wife and starting a new career after 16 years. I can almost run 3km, non stop at an OK pace, do 31 situp in 1 minute and just barely do 10 pushups. But I am making an effort to go to the gym 3 times a week and trying to run outside instead of on the treadmill. I start my BMQ in June. Very excited, very nervous and I know that I will be the weaker link at PT(running), but I may be really great at other things. I know that I had one of the best pairs of boots in cadets. And the two people that were better tan me, well they used some fancy paint type polish that is like a mirror, but watch out when it rained...hahaha!! So lets talk girl talk or mature men talk...I love and support the CF as my husband is also part of the CF. And if any of this offends anyone it is NOT suppose to. I would just like to know and talk about more realistic PT problems and solutions than the people that can do the 50 pushups, 60 sit-ups and run 20 km no problem.....Cheers, Kawigirl


I hear ya! I'm in great shape for my size; I can run 6k no problem, push ups and sit ups are easy but the one thing that truly ERKS me is fireman's carries. I'm reserve infantry and last summer on my dp1 they expected me to fireman carry a guy who was well over 150 pounds when I'm 115! DUH I can't run with that! For assault boats I was expected to lift my 230 pound instructor onto the boat, which I could do with assistance but not on my own so in turn I got marked a 2 for physical fitness for that week when I've always been exempt from my express tests and everything.. go figure.


----------



## Lil_T

the problem with women and pushups is the difference in centre of gravity than men.  My push ups are slowly improving - very slowly.  but they're getting there.

I have been practicing the fireman's carry with my 12 year old who weighs about the same as I do.  Not a big deal.  Not sure I could fling a 150 pound person over my shoulder though.


----------



## Braver.Stronger.Smarter.

Celticgirl, what fitness centre did you go to? From the description (30 second circuit training) it sounds like Curves and, if it is, I was wondering what you think of it. There's one in my small town but I've never gone before.


----------



## Celticgirl

Braver Stronger Smarter said:
			
		

> Celticgirl, what fitness centre did you go to? From the description (30 second circuit training) it sounds like Curves and, if it is, I was wondering what you think of it. There's one in my small town but I've never gone before.



I think it used to be a Curves, but it's under new management, and is now called Fitness Connection. I don't find the 30-second circuit training does anything for me, actually.  :-\ I tried it - did three full rounds of it in a row the other day - and found it just wasn't enough of a workout for me. So I will try to pick times to go there when it's pretty empty so that I can use the equipment I want for longer periods. In these remaining weeks, I mainly want to get my arms a bit stronger. I can do 15 consecutive push-ups now, but want to do 20 before I get to the Mega. For cardio, I still run 3 times a week, so I think I'll be okay with that. Ada and I are going to do a mock shuttle this morning, so that will hopefully give me some idea of where I am with my VO2 max.



			
				Lil_T said:
			
		

> the problem with women and pushups is the difference in centre of gravity than men.  My push ups are slowly improving - very slowly.  but they're getting there.



I have never heard this before. How can our "centre of gravity" be different?


----------



## Lil_T

women's centre of gravity is in their pelvis, while men's centre of gravity in in their chest.  having a centre of gravity that is closer to the pivot point (ie your toes) makes the push up more difficult because it places 90% of your body weight on your arms on the way back up which is a big change from the 45-50% that is placed on your arms in the up position.  Whereas for men, because their centre of gravity is higher and thus further from the pivot point the push up is easier because there isn't as big a weight change on their arms.  Not saying that pushups are impossible for women just that it's more difficult.  

A woman's body structure is such that they have a lower center of gravity, because of their wider hips and heavier bond structure in the lower abdominal part of the skeleton, as compared to men's structure. Men in general have wider shoulders as compared to women.

This lower center of gravity is the main cause for women to be able to bend forward in the kneeling position without falling over forward. When men try to bend over, they will fall forward because of the location of their center of gravity. When this center of gravity passes beyond the knees, their bodies will topple forward.

_*I tried this on my bathroom scale (which is where I'm getting my numbers from)_


----------



## Celticgirl

Lil_T said:
			
		

> women's centre of gravity is in their pelvis, while men's centre of gravity in in their chest.



OK, I see what you are saying. I guess we females just need to build up our upper bodies more (via weight training). I have recently started working out at the gym again and already find it is making a difference in my upper body strength. 

We did try the mock shuttle today, but got cut short by an aerobics class coming in. We were at level 5 when they came in and were prepared to keep going, so I think we're doing okay (huh Ada?  ). Tomorrow, we'll try it again, hopefully without interruptions. My fiance showed us how to pivot properly before we did it, so a few more practice runs and we should be good to go.  8)  :blotto:


----------



## PanaEng

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Whereas for men, because their centre of gravity is higher and thus further from the pivot point the push up is easier because there isn't as big a weight change on their arms.  Not saying that pushups are impossible for women just that it's more difficult.


Right in everything else except this.
Yes, it is exactly a lever thing but your assertion is wrong. Think of it as a wheelbarrow, the closer the weight is to the wheel the easier it is to lift the handles and carry the load - if you load up closer to the handles, it becomes heavier. Therefore, if you have your centre of gravity near where you are putting your effort (the arms), you have to lift more weight; the closer it is to the pivot point (the wheel, your toes), the less weight you have to lift.
I am an engineer so it is easy to see but if you don't want to take my word for it try it: use a long stick (broom handle, 2x4, etc.), put one end on the ground and tie a weight near to the other end; lift it; now try moving it closer to the pivot point...
So the difference is purely physiology. Men are built with more muscle/capacity in their chest and shoulders which more than compensates for the lack of lever effect. Also, having the centre of gravity near their hips, women have to put more strain (pressure) on their backs while doing a push-up. All that to say that yes, it is more difficult for women to do push-ups (but not from the lever effect).

hope that clarifies things.

As for suggestions on how to improve. I agree with all the ones given previously. But I would add that don't limit your push-ups to the gym. Do some when you get up in the morning; do some when you get in from work; do more when you get bored (at work, etc.) and do them a bit differently every now an then (wide stance, close, fingers in, etc.)

cheers,
Frank


----------



## PanaEng

Forgot to add:

Good luck to all of you - we need more personnel like you.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Lil_T

thanks for the clarification.


----------



## mp_ada

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> OK, I see what you are saying. I guess we females just need to build up our upper bodies more (via weight training). I have recently started working out at the gym again and already find it is making a difference in my upper body strength.
> 
> We did try the mock shuttle today, but got cut short by an aerobics class coming in. We were at level 5 when they came in and were prepared to keep going, so I think we're doing okay (huh Ada?  ). Tomorrow, we'll try it again, hopefully without interruptions. My fiance showed us how to pivot properly before we did it, so a few more practice runs and we should be good to go.  8)  :blotto:




Hahaha, yes, those darn step classes   We did awesome!!  AND, guess what???  I did some for my bf last night and I got UP off the floor (not the whole way mind you but even just a little bit more than yesterday morning!!!)  So I guess I will see progress right??? He didn't believe me, he still said I COULD do it, I was just giving up.  Sheesh!


----------



## missmague

Hey Ladies, 

I have just started working up to the basic requirements for physical testing. Hoping that I am not a long way off, but it seems like it right now. I can do 12 sit ups - 0 real push ups (3 on the knees) - haven't attempted chin-ups as I figure if I can't do a real push-up I most likely cannot do a chin-up. I tried a 1.5  mile run (which I believe is about 2.4 kms) which took me almost 20 mins. So as you can tell I have a lot of work to do before I even meet the minimum. 

Any advice on what I should do to get to that level when basically starting from nothing? Right now I am just running as far as I can and walking the rest. Doing as many sit-ups and push-ups as my body allows and lifting weights to try to get some strength. I do it on a daily basis. Any idea on how long it would take me to get to the minimum? I don't want to put in an application until I know I can meet the minimum standards at least.


----------



## Celticgirl

missmague said:
			
		

> Hey Ladies,
> 
> I have just started working up to the basic requirements for physical testing. Hoping that I am not a long way off, but it seems like it right now. I can do 12 sit ups - 0 real push ups (3 on the knees) - haven't attempted chin-ups as I figure if I can't do a real push-up I most likely cannot do a chin-up. I tried a 1.5  mile run (which I believe is about 2.4 kms) which took me almost 20 mins. So as you can tell I have a lot of work to do before I even meet the minimum.
> 
> Any advice on what I should do to get to that level when basically starting from nothing? Right now I am just running as far as I can and walking the rest. Doing as many sit-ups and push-ups as my body allows and lifting weights to try to get some strength. I do it on a daily basis. Any idea on how long it would take me to get to the minimum? I don't want to put in an application until I know I can meet the minimum standards at least.



It sounds to me like you are doing a lot of the same things the rest of us are doing or have done. Back in February, I couldn't do a single push-up either. It will come, just don't let yourself get discouraged.   My advice is to seek the help of a personal trainer. I did that for one month and it made a big difference in what I could do! After that, I had a better idea of how to help myself get where I need to be. 

Are you going reg force or reserves?


----------



## ltmaverick25

I am not a girl, and I am not all that old yet (32 on the 23rd) but I can relate to the struggle.

Ive been in the reserves for the past 14 years, when I started I could run circles around people, sadly after way too many sports related and some military injuries and some athesma those days are long behind me.

Im now going to the reg force as an officer, which should happen in the next few months and I had to pass the express test in order for my paperwork to proceed, this was back in August.  I was extremely unprepared and it was a struggle, I had to shock the system a bit.  Thanksfully I was not too far off the mark except for the running part I was ok.  Here is what I did that worked for me though.

BEEP TEST:

My minimum pass mark is 6.0  I decided to use the treadmill to try and duplicate the beep test.  Each minute of your beep test has you running at a certain speed and of course after each minute passes you have to run slightly faster thus making it harder and harder.  Here is how the math breaks down.

0 to 1 min 5.0 miles per hour
1 to 2 min 5.3
2 to 3 min 5.6
3 to 4 min 5.9
4 to 5 min 6.2
5 to 6 min 6.5
6 to 7 min 6.8
7 to 8 min 7.1

I use miles per hour becasue most treadmiles seem to operate in that dimention.  As you can see, you start off pretty easy but you increase by 0.3 mph every min.

To prepare for the beep test I basically just used that table above on the manual settings on the treadmill.

So for my first min I ran at 5.0, when I got to 1 min mark I manually increased it to 5.3 and so on... until I got to 8 minutes.  By that point I wanted to barf my guts out and die... lol

I swiched the speed down to 2.7 and walked it off for the next two minutes...

When the timer got to ten minutes I started all over again, so hit the speed back to 5.0 and kept increasing it every minute until 8 minutes. then went back to 2.7 for another 2 min rest.

When the timer hit 20 min I did it again, never could make 8 min the 3rd time around.  Was usually lucky to get to 6.  I walked it off for another 5 min as a cool down and was done.   

I did this 5 days a week for about a month.  I went from not being able to climb a flight of stairs without being out of breath (mostly athesma related) to being able to pass the shuttle run.  Unfortunately I could only get to 6.5 so I will have to try for exempt another time.

My treadmill routine did work extremely well though.  The disadvantage of practicing on the treadmill is that you dont get the stop and go aspect which makes it much harder in the real test.  You also dont have the real run feel to it.  Thats why I did mine in a cycle of 3 times over, though as you can see, my actual results still paled in comparison to the treadmill ones.

What the treadmill does allow you to do though is change your speeds around in a controlled fashion.  The trick to passing the beep test is heart rate.  I spoke to a few trainers and PMC staff about this and what they said was the following:  When doing cardio training you have to make sure your heart rate is never the same, never let it fall into a routine, since during the real test it will go up and up...

You also need to do cardio activity for a 30 min period in order to gain improvement, again this is according to the staff I spoke to.

PUSHUPS:

The key to push ups is to develop upper body strength.  Obviously the more weight training you do for your chest, shoulders and arms the better you will be.  However it is still not enough.  Make sure to strengthen your abs, which you have to do for the other part of the test anyway and strengthen your upper and lower back muscles as well.

The reason is when doing pushups if you have week abs and back muscles your arms and shoulders share too much of the burden trying to keep you stable in the push up position without wabbling around ect...  If you strengthen the back and abs you are taking a huge load off the pushup centric muscles.  This is something I didnt realize myself until just recently.  I could always do about 20 push ups and that was it, no matter how hard I pushed myself.  After incorporating the back and abs into my routine (something I had not done until just recently) I was able to break my plateau and am getting close to 40 push ups now.

SITUPS:

Do lots of situps obviously but also do plank positions and hold in place for a few minutes or until failure.  This helps the abs and also will help your pushups too.  Aside from that I cant say much else, my knowledge in this area is limited.

HANDGRIP:

There are two ways to prepare for this that I know of.  The first is, when at the gym, grab a set of dumbells that are reasonably heavy, that you can hold in your hands.  Hold each one on each side and simply walk around the gym for about 5 minutes.  You need something heavy enough that holding them in your hands becomes a challenge.  Doing this will improve your grip strength quite a bit.

You can also buy things at the store. I am not sure what they are called but they are hand grip things that you squeeze over and over...

CHIN UPS/PULL UPS

Do them all, you never know what your course staff will throw at  you.  The best way to train for this is by using a gravitron machine at your gym.  For people like me who can only do a few unsupported, this helps you build your strength to get to where you need to be.

Just as an aside note.  I noticed that some of you are looking at officer trades.  The important thing to realize above and beyond meeting the criteria of passing is being able to lead by example.  As an officer who may have to he a course officer one day, you will likely be leading the morning runs or other PT sessions.  If you are a barely pass type person like myself, you will have a very hard time doing this.  In the reg force I would imagine that is even further compounded because you are doing it every day as a lifestyle.  You cant gain the respect of your troops, sailors or airmen if you cant keep up with them.

I was able to pass my test, but I know for a fact that if I had to lead troops through PT right now I could not do it, not even close, so im still pounding away at it.

Im paying for 3 personal training sessions per week.
2 arobics type sessions a week (Goodlife has amazing stuff in this area and its free for those who pay for memberships)
I now run 4 mornings a week, the results are still pretty poopy but working on it ect..

So in short, for those of us becoming officers, passing isnt good enough, you need to be able to lead PT so still a long ways to go, at least in my case anyway.

I hope this info is helpful to some.


----------



## aesop081

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I
> BEEP TEST:
> 
> My minimum pass mark is 6.0  I decided to use the treadmill to try and duplicate the beep test.  Each minute of your beep test has you running at a certain speed and of course after each minute passes you have to run slightly faster thus making it harder and harder.  Here is how the math breaks down.
> 
> 0 to 1 min 5.0 miles per hour
> 1 to 2 min 5.3
> 2 to 3 min 5.6
> 3 to 4 min 5.9
> 4 to 5 min 6.2
> 5 to 6 min 6.5
> 6 to 7 min 7.8
> 7 to 8 min 8.1
> 
> I use miles per hour becasue most treadmiles seem to operate in that dimention.  As you can see, you start off pretty easy but you increase by 0.3 mph every min.



For those who have to work in Km/h

the shuttle run (beep test) starts at 8.5 Km/h and increases 0.5 Km/h for each level.

0 to 1 = 8.5Km/h
1 to 2 = 9.0 Km/h

Etc, etc, etc...


----------



## Lil_T

A little inspiration too.  Found this through one of my numerous google searches.   The whole site is a good read, found this page helpful for those struggling with push ups.  http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=75


----------



## deej96

> 0 to 1 min 5.0 miles per hour
> 1 to 2 min 5.3
> 2 to 3 min 5.6
> 3 to 4 min 5.9
> 4 to 5 min 6.2
> 5 to 6 min 6.5
> 6 to 7 min 7.8
> 7 to 8 min 8.1



just a little edit for those wanting to try this :

0 to 1 min 5.0 miles per hour
1 to 2 min 5.3
2 to 3 min 5.6
3 to 4 min 5.9
4 to 5 min 6.2
5 to 6 min 6.5
6 to 7 min *6*.8 <-
7 to 8 min *7*.1 <-

I'm sure people doing this would figure out that the last two were actually increased by 1.3 mph instead of the .3 mph...but i'm just clarifying for those who may have missed it.


----------



## Greymatters

Sorry to intrude with a slight hijack, but this thread seems to have the right SME's for this question as it deals with female physiology:

While shopping for hiking gear the other day the saleperson mentioned that women need to buy different sleeping bags from men because they are 'cold sleepers' while men are 'warm sleepers'.

Is this a commonly known fact?  As a guy, its the first I had heard of it, or at least I never heard of the military supplying female members with a different type of sleeping bag.

We now return you to your scheduled topic...


----------



## aesop081

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Is this a commonly known fact?  As a guy, its the first I had heard of it,



You mean your wife / girlfriend has never decided to put her ice cold feet on you while in bed ?


----------



## Lil_T

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You mean your wife / girlfriend has never decided to put her ice cold feet on you while in bed ?



LOL!  
[me=Lil_T]is reminded of a funny story[/me]


----------



## ltmaverick25

Carbon said:
			
		

> just a little edit for those wanting to try this :
> 
> 0 to 1 min 5.0 miles per hour
> 1 to 2 min 5.3
> 2 to 3 min 5.6
> 3 to 4 min 5.9
> 4 to 5 min 6.2
> 5 to 6 min 6.5
> 6 to 7 min *6*.8 <-
> 7 to 8 min *7*.1 <-
> 
> I'm sure people doing this would figure out that the last two were actually increased by 1.3 mph instead of the .3 mph...but i'm just clarifying for those who may have missed it.



Thanks, my bad, I will edit my post too.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Sorry to intrude with a slight hijack, but this thread seems to have the right SME's for this question as it deals with female physiology:
> 
> While shopping for hiking gear the other day the saleperson mentioned that women need to buy different sleeping bags from men because they are 'cold sleepers' while men are 'warm sleepers'.
> 
> Is this a commonly known fact?  As a guy, its the first I had heard of it, or at least I never heard of the military supplying female members with a different type of sleeping bag.
> 
> We now return you to your scheduled topic...



I wonder if there is any truth to this.  Even in extreme cold weather, say Petawawa in the middle of January, I cannot sleep in a double sleeping bag, I will wake up soaked from sweat which is not a good thing in that weather.


----------



## Cat

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Sorry to intrude with a slight hijack, but this thread seems to have the right SME's for this question as it deals with female physiology:
> 
> While shopping for hiking gear the other day the saleperson mentioned that women need to buy different sleeping bags from men because they are 'cold sleepers' while men are 'warm sleepers'.
> 
> Is this a commonly known fact?  As a guy, its the first I had heard of it, or at least I never heard of the military supplying female members with a different type of sleeping bag.
> 
> We now return you to your scheduled topic...



We're all issued the same same sleeping bags for males and females. I'd never heard that they marketed stuff like that by gender...although I agree women are generally cold when they sleep( or at least I am) and men are like furnaces (which works out well for the women)


----------



## ltmaverick25

Cat said:
			
		

> although I agree women are generally cold when they sleep( or at least I am) and men are like furnaces (which works out well for the women)



Maybe this is nature's way of telling us something!


----------



## Cat

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Maybe this is nature's way of telling us something!



I was gunna say something to that, but decided not to press my luck


----------



## ltmaverick25

Cat said:
			
		

> I was gunna say something to that, but decided not to press my luck



Since I have zero luck to press, I had nothing to lose


----------



## Celticgirl

Lil_T said:
			
		

> LOL!
> [me=Lil_T]is reminded of a funny story[/me]



Waiting... ;D


----------



## Lil_T

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Waiting... ;D



hahaha  ok here goes.

one night, hubby and I were just after getting into bed and were talking about something he called me his "T bag" (why he thought that was a good idea is beyond me.)  So I (not missing a beat) stuck my ice cold size fives on his leg and responded "haha! Ice T mothafucka"    

;D


----------



## missmague

Thanks so much Guys and Gals for all the advice. I have been working my butt off over the past few weeks and I must say I am pretty impressed with my progress thus far. 

As you know I was at 20 mins for my 2.4 kms run and I have now got it down to 15 mins - so impressed wooohoooo. I noticed that adding music has helped me not dread what I am doing and helps me not think about the time. I have also increased my sit-ups from 12 to 20 and my push ups (from the knee) from 3 to 15 which I did today!! I still am unable to do a real push-up but I can go up once or down once just not together lol. I also went and  bought a chin-up bar and put it up at home. I can jump and hold myself up lol - although I can do about 30 "cool-runnings" style chin-ups heehee - my mother's bright idea.  

So for those girls out there that think maybe they can't do it. I am proof that a little dedication can push you pretty fast (my increases are over about two-three weeks). You just need the mind set that you will NOT give up until your body does 100%. 

So it is my hope that within a few months I will be at a point to meet the minimum standards required. I am putting in my application on Monday as I know there will be a issue with my medical and I am hoping for image tech (which I read has quite a waiting list),  so I should be in shape when the time comes for me.


----------



## breezie

Hey all, here's an update for you since I arrived at RMC in August. I went in being able to do about 15 pushups consistently, and probably about 35-40 situps in a row. I could also do 3-4 chinups. After our "recruit camp" training, and FYOP (first year orientation period) for 5 weeks, plus weekly athletics classes and intramural sports, I lost 12 pounds (down to size 4 now!), and I just did 34 pushups and 55 situps on our PPT (like the CF Expres test, but about twice as difficult, as there are only men's and women's standards, no allowances for age). I can out-pushup some of the skinnier guys in my flight, which is cool! Not bad for a 36 year old! Some "games" that we played during FYOP really helped me to improve in pushups especially. One is play the song "Flower" by Moby - the lyrics go "Bring Sally up, bring Sally down, lift and squat gonna tear the ground" over and over. On the "up", go into the up position of the pushup. When you hear "down", go down, but keep your elbows at 90 degrees, and don't let your body hit the floor. Then you have to hold that position until you hear "up" again. I can usually get through 2 choruses before I have to drop to my knees. One guy in my flight can do the song fully twice before he craps out - amazing! The other "game" was using a deck of cards. Deal out 5 or 6 cards, and do the face value of the first card in pushups, rest for the same number of seconds, then do the second card, etc. When you get to the end of the 5 or 6, take a 2 minute break, then deal out some more. One night, we went through more than 2 decks of cards, and we ended up doing 1170 pushups in less than 2 hours. Very hard work obviously, and us girls had to drop to our knees pretty early on, but that was one hell of a workout! Loud dance music is mandatory if you're going to do that many, it definitely helped keep you motivated!

As far as other training, we do everything. During FYOP we did so much running, from doing circuits to hill sprints to long runs, plus team sports after classes. We also did hallway PT - the stuff I mentioned above, wall sits, holding the plank position for 1 or 2 minutes, and even an abs battle with another flight from a different squadron. Just do as many different things as you can think of, because you will work different muscle groups, and work on your strength, endurance, etc all at the same time. I'll be heading off to basic in St. Jean in the summer, so by then I should be super fit! My squadron gym rep is going to set me up with a running program, as that is my weakest area, due to a minor heart problem. It will be 3 days a week, one of long distance running, one of intervals, and one of shorter (5km) but faster runs. Should be interesting to see how it goes! Good luck ladies!! Oh, I'm going air nav (or air combat systems officer), in case anyone's interested. From what I've heard from other students who've already done some of their phase training, it sounds like a sweet trade!


----------



## X2012

Hey everybody! I'm working on the fitness thing too. Yesterday I watched some videos more about basic training, so I'm having a bit of a panic attack about that, but hopefully it'll just motivate me to work harder! The stuff in this thread is really useful for the not-so-athletically-inclined! I'm applying for ROTP with my fingers crossed for pilot. A lot of people are asking about push-ups here, I was wondering if anyone else finds that their shoulders make cracking noises when you do them. Is this a bad thing?


----------



## HansonSherren

Hi all - I go to basic training on Sunday (I start Monday) and am nervous as hell!  I was in cadets so I have a teeny tiny bit of preparation for it but am still really nervous.  I expect to love every minute of it and hate every minute of it.  The hardest part for me I think will be being away from my husband and two kids - but I know it's worth it in the long run.  I'm also very nervous about the PT test - I can do the push ups and sit ups but I'm worried about the running test ..  it says I need to get at least a level 4 but I have no idea what a "level 4" is - can anyone give a good clarification on that?


----------



## Lil_T

First off - yay basic training Monday.  Level four isn't all that fast.  Do a search for beep (or bleep test)  and you should be able to find the audio file you're looking for.  Also, I believe there's a youtube video regarding the beep test (20 msr).   Remember doing the Canada Fitness Test in school?  (what ever happened to that btw?)  The shuttle run is just like that, only we're not hyper 8 year olds doing it anymore.


----------



## HansonSherren

Thanks Lil T - I'll do a search for the beep test.. glad to hear level 4 isn't too bad.. that's music to my ears :O) (I'll check out the Youtube video)


----------



## Lil_T

I just wouldn't recommend stopping at level 4.  LOL.... else you'll be in for a world of hurt on your runs.  Just keep going until you can't go anymore.


----------



## HansonSherren

LOL no no no - certainly not - I'll run until my lungs and legs give out!


----------



## Lil_T

LOL good plan, just don't die


----------



## breezie

You ladies are lucky that you only have to get to level 4 for the CF Expres. We have to do that too, but we have to do the PPT at RMC too, and the ladies standard is 7.5, plus an agility run and long jump. We also have to be able to do 16 pushups for the PPT. Be very thankful you're only doing the expres! I'm sure you'll all do fine though, when I did it last August I managed to exempt (don't have to do it next year, but the year after), and I almost met the men's standards for my age group. Yippee!


----------



## kawigirl

Hi Ladies and Guys ,
Ok first I want to thank everyone for still using this forum that I started. Since that I have finished my BMQ, soldier's qualification and am just now doing my 404's and still waiting for my med tech course to start on Feb 23, 2009. Yeah!! Let me tell you my fitness standards were not totally up tp par, but now for my age group. I am exempt. If I can do it you all can. Good luck with everyone's career choices. 

Never give up, never surrender!!
Kawigirl


----------



## ltmaverick25

HansonSherren said:
			
		

> Hi all - I go to basic training on Sunday (I start Monday) and am nervous as hell!  I was in cadets so I have a teeny tiny bit of preparation for it but am still really nervous.  I expect to love every minute of it and hate every minute of it.  The hardest part for me I think will be being away from my husband and two kids - but I know it's worth it in the long run.  I'm also very nervous about the PT test - I can do the push ups and sit ups but I'm worried about the running test ..  it says I need to get at least a level 4 but I have no idea what a "level 4" is - can anyone give a good clarification on that?



Level 4 basically means you have to run for 4 minutes on the shuttle run.  For a more detailed breakdown as to the speed intervals ect.. refer to my earlier post in this thread.  I laid it all out in miles per hour and someone else converted it to km per hour.  That should tell you everything you need to know.  Good luck.


----------



## f0x

Great topic! I have not applied to the CF yet because I am trying to get myself in a little bit better shape first but I am committed and working hard towards it.

2 weeks ago I was a bartender that smoked, drank and could run maybe 5 minutes, I was able to do 2 sit-ups and only a handful of girl push ups. My exercise regimen had been lifting and carrying 24s of beer.  I stopped working there and am now at a call center which gives me plenty of time to work out as well as keeping me away from the drinking every night because you are in a bar lifestyle. 

I am now running 30 minutes (alternating hard and easy days) can do  4 sets of 10 sit ups and 2 sets of 10 girl push-ups. While I am not in premium shape yet I am working on it and hopefully will be able to apply in a couple weeks feeling confident. My main problem is those darn push-ups I know the only way to improve is by doing them but I just can't keep the plank position when I try to do real ones. I always buckle at the hips.

Anyway, just wanted to say Hi, share in my pt experience and tell you how much I appreciate the thread.


----------



## ltmaverick25

f0x said:
			
		

> Great topic! I have not applied to the CF yet because I am trying to get myself in a little bit better shape first but I am committed and working hard towards it.
> 
> 2 weeks ago I was a bartender that smoked, drank and could run maybe 5 minutes, I was able to do 2 sit-ups and only a handful of girl push ups. My exercise regimen had been lifting and carrying 24s of beer.  I stopped working there and am now at a call center which gives me plenty of time to work out as well as keeping me away from the drinking every night because you are in a bar lifestyle.
> 
> I am now running 30 minutes (alternating hard and easy days) can do  4 sets of 10 sit ups and 2 sets of 10 girl push-ups. While I am not in premium shape yet I am working on it and hopefully will be able to apply in a couple weeks feeling confident. My main problem is those darn push-ups I know the only way to improve is by doing them but I just can't keep the plank position when I try to do real ones. I always buckle at the hips.
> 
> Anyway, just wanted to say Hi, share in my pt experience and tell you how much I appreciate the thread.



I recommend that you start the application process right away.  There is so much about it that can potentially go wrong or get held up that you will likely be in pristine physical shape long before they swear you into the CF anyway.  As long as you are in shape by the time you do your basic course you are fine.  Get the paperwork started asap!


----------



## namal24

wow everyone seems to be a lot older...well, I'm only 16 years old (female) :-[. i can do about 20 pushups now, and 30 situps 
last week i ran about 4.5km, i didn't time my self though, i was planning on doing that for 2.4km however, i seem to be having ankle problems now =/
i workout at the gym, and just yesterday I think I pulled a back muscle, so I'm really sore. My CFAT is on the 3rd =)  and I'm not sure when my fitness test will be...I'm just extremely nervous/excited, I'm not good at math, so i really hope i can pass the CFAT, and running 2.4 km in less than 14 minutes...? I'm stressing out about that. I really hope that i'll be able to go for BMQ by this summer... ???
 ;D


----------



## ltmaverick25

namal24 said:
			
		

> wow everyone seems to be a lot older...well, I'm only 16 years old (female) :-[. i can do about 20 pushups now, and 30 situps
> last week i ran about 4.5km, i didn't time my self though, i was planning on doing that for 2.4km however, i seem to be having ankle problems now =/
> i workout at the gym, and just yesterday I think I pulled a back muscle, so I'm really sore. My CFAT is on the 3rd =)  and I'm not sure when my fitness test will be...I'm just extremely nervous/excited, I'm not good at math, so i really hope i can pass the CFAT, and running 2.4 km in less than 14 minutes...? I'm stressing out about that. I really hope that i'll be able to go for BMQ by this summer... ???
> ;D



At your age I really would not stress about about the physical side too much.  Besides Im sure alot of us would love to rewind back to 16!  I would get that ankle looked at if it is causing you trouble.  Better to get it sorted out now then have it flare up on y ou later.  Otherwise you sound like you are further ahead of the curve physically then most are when the come into the recruiting center.  Just keep at it.


----------



## f0x

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I recommend that you start the application process right away.  There is so much about it that can potentially go wrong or get held up that you will likely be in pristine physical shape long before they swear you into the CF anyway.  As long as you are in shape by the time you do your basic course you are fine.  Get the paperwork started asap!



Thank you for your recommendation, I am seriously considering applying this week but am just slightly worried I would end up with my medical really soon and have the fact I am heavier than usual and out of shape reflect negatively on my application. In any case I have my transcripts and other documents in the mail on the way to me as of today so paper wise I should have everything set up... just need to contact a couple references.


----------



## ltmaverick25

f0x said:
			
		

> Thank you for your recommendation, I am seriously considering applying this week but am just slightly worried I would end up with my medical really soon and have the fact I am heavier than usual and out of shape reflect negatively on my application. In any case I have my transcripts and other documents in the mail on the way to me as of today so paper wise I should have everything set up... just need to contact a couple references.



To the best of my knowledge the recruiting center is not doing PT tests anymore, rather you have to pass the PT test on your basic course before you can move on and gain the qualification.  I may be wrong about this though, perhaps someone who knows for sure can weigh in.

As for weight, I suppose alot of that would simply depend on weather your weight affects your medical well being or not.  Also, the last few guys I have taken to the recruiting center did the medical as the last step.  You could always delay that part if you wanted while the rest of the paper and process took its course.  I would recomend booking a complete physical with your civilian doctor.  Ask him or her to do a complete run down on you, blood test, urine, eyes, the works.  Find out there if there is anything that may stop your entry.  If they pick something up, resolve the issue, then do your CF medical.  If the CF medical guys pick something up it is an administrative nightmare trying to get past it.


----------



## Lil_T

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge the recruiting center is not doing PT tests anymore, rather you have to pass the PT test on your basic course before you can move on and gain the qualification.  I may be wrong about this though, perhaps someone who knows for sure can weigh in.



Right you are!  Unless one is joining the reserves, the Expres test isn't administered until early in basic training.  Even then if you fail the expres test you'll be sent to RFT (remedial fitness training), which will slow down your progress but isn't necessarily a showstopper unless you continue to fail.


----------



## Tulach Ard

About the DEPO shot being able to stop periods, I find that is only with use of longer than a year. I was on the DEPO for six months, and had random and annoying bleeding, on no set schedule. It was more of a hinderance than a help. Not sure if the pills would work to delay it? Maybe there is some way I haven't heard of?


----------



## PMedMoe

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> About the DEPO shot being able to stop periods, I find that is only with use of longer than a year. I was on the DEPO for six months, and had random and annoying bleeding, on no set schedule. It was more of a hinderance than a help. Not sure if the pills would work to delay it? Maybe there is some way I haven't heard of?



Depo Provera usually takes at least two to three shots before you will stop having a period.  It is also not intended for long term use (over 2 years).   Another side effect is weight gain, although I suspect that on BMQ that might not be an issue.  Realistically, it would be great to start at least six months before a tour, however, to take it just not to have a period during BMQ seems a bit extreme.  The only time I would worry about having a period is during the field phase.  Can one just continue taking the pill (ignore the placebo ones at the end of the pack) to prevent having one at that time?  I must admit, in my time on the pill, I never tried that.  As a matter of fact, in BMQ, I don't even think I thought about it.

Depo Provera

Side note:  Tulard Ard, are you a Mackenzie?


----------



## Lil_T

Moe, you can get an Rx for seasonale, you only get 4 periods a year.  Or you can take your pills continuously *no placebos* to avoid a period.  Both are equally safe.  I'm considering getting back on BC pills for that very reason.  Not something I want to deal with while on BMQ.


----------



## f0x

I love the nuvaring, I highly advise ladies to check it out if they are looking for hormonal birth control not in pill form. It releases gradually so your system as opposed to a daily dose, you CAN use them back to back as well to skip periods.

When I get to go I am sure it will be a head scratcher if a male is doing the inspection.


----------



## PMedMoe

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Moe, you can get an Rx for seasonale, you only get 4 periods a year.  Or you can take your pills continuously *no placebos* to avoid a period.  Both are equally safe.  I'm considering getting back on BC pills for that very reason.  Not something I want to deal with while on BMQ.



Thanks for the info, Lil_T.  It was just a curiosity thing.  I am way beyond needing any birth/period control!


----------



## Lil_T

LOL  ;D  I am a fountain of semi-useless information


----------



## GreenGoblin

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Depo Provera usually takes at least two to three shots before you will stop having a period.  It is also not intended for long term use (over 2 years).   Another side effect is weight gain, although I suspect that on BMQ that might not be an issue.  Realistically, it would be great to start at least six months before a tour, however, to take it just not to have a period during BMQ seems a bit extreme.  The only time I would worry about having a period is during the field phase.  Can one just continue taking the pill (ignore the placebo ones at the end of the pack) to prevent having one at that time?  I must admit, in my time on the pill, I never tried that.  As a matter of fact, in BMQ, I don't even think I thought about it.
> 
> Depo Provera
> 
> Side note:  Tulard Ard, are you a Mackenzie?



The only ones I've seen that have gained weight from using Depo Provera were already overweight, or did no physical activity. So, if anyones worried about gaining weight, I wouldn't. Although, I don't think it works as well as my family doctor told me it would. The annoying random bleeding IS more of a hindrance, and its starting to tick me off. Hopefully, I can find some alternative, since I don't really see any point in continuing to take the shot if it's not doing what I hoped it would.  "There's a 10% chance the bleeding will continue." Argh! I already had my second shot, and I might be leaving for BMQ soon, so I'm scrambling for any sort of quick fix I can bring with me.

Any sort of BC pills that anyone would vouch for?

Cheers


----------



## PMedMoe

My experience with Depo was that it took three shots to stop my periods.  I never had any random bleeding.

On a side note, I have difficulty with your statement that people who gain weight while on Depo are either already overweight or not physically active.  I assure you in my case, that neither statement is accurate.  If anything, I was underweight and it's pretty hard to be physically inactive on tour.


----------



## the_girlfirend

I have tried to take birth control pills continuously before (with the approval of my doctor) and it turned out beeing worse than having a period. I was continuously bleeding, so if you get a chance, try it before you get to BMQ just to see how your body reacts to it...


----------



## GreenGoblin

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> My experience with Depo was that it took three shots to stop my periods.  I never had any random bleeding.
> 
> On a side note, I have difficulty with your statement that people who gain weight while on Depo are either already overweight or not physically active.  I assure you in my case, that neither statement is accurate.  If anything, I was underweight and it's pretty hard to be physically inactive on tour.



Agh, I don't think I'll make it to my third shot. Your periods stopped completely after it?

Sorry sorry! I must be mistaken then, I wasn't sure if you were speaking from experience or not. I just spoke from the fact that I'd had friends who weren't in the best of shape that complained about weight gain but they weren't doing much besides watching TV, eating junk, and using that as a crutch. I was kinda worried about the weight gain thing but my doctor assured me (he assured a lot of things) that I wouldn't, how much weight didja gain?

I'll try finding some birth control pills to give them a test run before BMQ. the_girlfriend, was it some kind of symptoms that made them worse than having your period?

Haha, damn, there should be some quick fix for this.

Cheers,


----------



## helpup

SFB said:
			
		

> If you bring any battery operated devices, ensure you bring a back up back batteries. And also ensure the noise from those devices arn't annoying to your room mates.



I just knew that was comming out ( no pun intended ) rechargables are the way to go for that for most batteries. that way your.......... flashlight will never stop working


----------



## helpup

Something to add that was not mentioned.  For the ladies out there either going to BMQ or on tour,  if you are living (and sleeping ) in close proximity of other women for a long period of time ( pun fully intended) expect to have your cycle change.  As a group you will start to have your periods closer together.  Something to due with the phermones is my understanding although for the life of me I cant figure out nature does that.  Maybe to give us men a hell week?


----------



## PMedMoe

helpup said:
			
		

> I just knew that was comming out ( no pun intended ) rechargables are the way to go for that for most batteries. that way your.......... flashlight will never stop working



And you had to go all the way back to 2005 to find that response??  :

Anyway, back on topic.  Yes, I never had a period while I was on Depo.  Not sure if that's the norm or if the random bleeding is.  How much weight did I gain?  Hard to tell as I think some of it was just the body "adjusting" again.  :-[ A few pounds, but as I said, I don't think you'd have to worry about it during BMQ.


----------



## Lil_T

helpup said:
			
		

> Something to add that was not mentioned.  For the ladies out there either going to BMQ or on tour,  if you are living (and sleeping ) in close proximity of other women for a long period of time ( pun fully intended) expect to have your cycle change.  As a group you will start to have your periods closer together.  Something to due with the phermones is my understanding although for the life of me I cant figure out nature does that.  Maybe to give us men a hell week?



that's a pretty normal occurence... but I LOL'd at hell week!


----------



## GreenGoblin

Keep the puns coming, Helpup.  

Thanks! Glad some of that's cleared up, gaining a few pounds not bad. Although I wish I stopped the random bleeding/"spotting" before I left to BMQ, I have a feeling I'll be bringing a case-full of tampons. I guess everyone's body reacts to it differently and mines having a riot against it. Might I add, BC's pretty scary with their million side effects, "may cause bloating, nausea, spotting, weight-gain and non-cancerous liver tumours (rarely)." Geez.


----------



## Tulach Ard

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Depo Provera usually takes at least two to three shots before you will stop having a period.  It is also not intended for long term use (over 2 years).   Another side effect is weight gain, although I suspect that on BMQ that might not be an issue.  Realistically, it would be great to start at least six months before a tour, however, to take it just not to have a period during BMQ seems a bit extreme.  The only time I would worry about having a period is during the field phase.  Can one just continue taking the pill (ignore the placebo ones at the end of the pack) to prevent having one at that time?  I must admit, in my time on the pill, I never tried that.  As a matter of fact, in BMQ, I don't even think I thought about it.
> 
> Depo Provera
> 
> Side note:  Tulard Ard, are you a Mackenzie?



Hey Moe, HELL YES I am!! lol and proud of it=) Why are you one as well?


----------



## Raylee

GreenGoblin said:
			
		

> The only ones I've seen that have gained weight from using Depo Provera were already overweight, or did no physical activity. So, if anyones worried about gaining weight, I wouldn't. Although, I don't think it works as well as my family doctor told me it would. The annoying random bleeding IS more of a hindrance, and its starting to tick me off. Hopefully, I can find some alternative, since I don't really see any point in continuing to take the shot if it's not doing what I hoped it would.  "There's a 10% chance the bleeding will continue." Argh! I already had my second shot, and I might be leaving for BMQ soon, so I'm scrambling for any sort of quick fix I can bring with me.
> 
> Any sort of BC pills that anyone would vouch for?
> 
> Cheers


With any weight gain with birth control pills/rings/shots/patches there is always a risk of slight weight gain, but this is only water retention and should not affect physical performance by any means. Be sure to stay hydrated and whatnot though. Throughout my basic I took Minestrin 1/20 (also called Loestrin 1.5/30) and it seriously made my periods light and they only lasted for maybe 3 days. I really have never had "lady problems" when on my period in the field. Just come prepared! 

About the braids, my course staff never let us wear our hair in braids as it was "camp regulations" to wear hair in a bun while in garrison. Although this is stupid, and it's in the Pam that females can wear their hair in one or two braids (or even cornrows in a bun for that matter) just be aware of this. I wasn't in the mood to argue with the Sargent Major on how I was "allowed" to wear my hair, and quite frankly a lot of men are completely clueless on how females are allowed to wear their hair and why we have different ways (since wearing a bun under a helmet causes the helmet to tip forward and limit your vision half the time ). It is much more comfortable with braids in, that's for sure.


----------



## GreenGoblin

I'll see if I can pick up Minestrin 1/20 or Loestrin 1.5/30 at the local shoppers (if its compatible with Depo Provera). Thanks, INFLAR!  

I wish I hadn't cut my hair because I might've got the chance to put it in a braid, or if I wasn't allowed to braid it, atleast put it in a small bun. Blah. Hopefully I can figure something out with letting it grow again. Since I have it in some kind of boy-cut, would that mean I have to keep it trimmed while I'm up at BMQ?


----------



## PMedMoe

GreenGoblin said:
			
		

> I wish I hadn't cut my hair because I might've got the chance to put it in a braid, or if I wasn't allowed to braid it, atleast put it in a small bun. Blah. Hopefully I can figure something out with letting it grow again. Since I have it in some kind of boy-cut, would that mean I have to keep it trimmed while I'm up at BMQ?



You might want to, just to make things easier.  You can get a "chit" to grow out your hair but I think in BMQ it might be more trouble than it's worth.  Keep in mind that females' hair is allowed to reach the bottom of the collar before it need to be put up (or before you need a chit).


----------



## GreenGoblin

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You might want to, just to make things easier.  You can get a "chit" to grow out your hair but I think in BMQ it might be more trouble than it's worth.  Keep in mind that females' hair is allowed to reach the bottom of the collar before it need to be put up (or before you need a chit).



Yeah, you've got a point. Hair is hair. I'll have to visit Mister. Barber (or whoever is supposed to cut hair around there) a few times through BMQ, then. Thanks! Hopefully I can get a chit at some point to let it grow enough to be put in a bun/and or braid.

I've got another question, too. I opened my package the other day and read over the list of things I have to bring, what did you guys wear for casual clothes? And bras, it wasn't as specific as I was told it was, it just said bras (cotton), but I heard we had to bring black sportsbras. Any insight on this stuff?


----------



## Celticgirl

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You might want to, just to make things easier.  You can get a "chit" to grow out your hair but I think in BMQ it might be more trouble than it's worth.



I don't believe this is permitted during BMQ, actually. For what it's worth, if it were not for the fact that I am getting married this spring, I'd have lopped mine off during BMOQ. The level of maintenance involved with long hair is really high and timings are short. I ended up getting a lot of grief for my locks.  :-\

Braids were allowed to be worn with helmets, by the way, although it could depend entirely on each platoon staff. I saw lots of ladies with braids...not with their berets, however, helmets only.


----------



## JABAC

OK, so, just a few clarifying points on female's hair in the military.  As long as it doesn't interfere with your headdresss and stays off your collar, it's good.  If you have short hair that's touching your collar, your platoon staff will likely tell you to get it cut, or you could request a chit to grow it out.  But if you WANT to grow it out, don't request a chit until you're told to cut it, so it gives you more time to get some length.

Otherwise, as long as your hair is out of the way (braid or bun) they don't really care how it is.  I found that my hair fell out of the braid though, cause it's layered.  Wearing the helmet requires a really low bun ( on the nape of your neck) because of the way it sits on your head.  And in the field, as long as your hair is back and out of the way, it's fine. 

Seriously girls, don't make too big a deal out of this, your staff will let you know what they expect and you'll figure out what works best for you.  Long or short, it will be fine and work out one way or another. And honestly, HAIR is the least of your worries.

As for bras, take whatever sports bras you want. Thay probably won't touch them or look at them other than to make sure they're folded the same in your closet.  For inspection I had 3 different types of bras. Whatever works for you.


----------



## Good2Go

WRT shrt hair... you'll want to keep those hairs on your neck (the ones the stylist normally clips or shaves) clean, meaning that you can get jacked for them just like the lads.  And, they grow in quick.

If you do the GI Jane thing, remember that the staff will expect you to maintain this well, and the growing out process for the oooops factor isn't going to go over well.
You get ZERO points for going GI Jane.  Unless you want to spend about $10 every week or two on maintaining the GI Jane cut, I highly suggest you don't do it.  At the very least, recruits are expected to maintain a high level of professionalism in their appearance.  Do not give DS reasons to target you as lazy in your dress etc.

The obvious solution to the above sits is to bring clippers with you.  This prolly isn't permitted -- the lads aren't allowed clippers (although what you put in your personal area prolly isn't going to be looked into unless there is a search).  Doing a quick shave with a razer (by one of your buddies) still leaves an undesireable stubble.  Remember: you don't want to get jacked by a FEMALE Mcpl or Sgt whilst marching through the Mega.  Not a good scene although they are generally nice about it... the FIRST time.

You will never get a grow-out chit whilst in the training phases, without some incredibly awesome reason (an impending wedding doesn't count -- and I truly can not think of a valid awesome reason.  Besides, the grow out chit duration is not long enough in the phase enviro; you're DS may (although unlikely) have some patience, but you are on display for dress to every bloody instructor at ELRFC.  You mustn't give them any ammo.  As a female you are already going to stick out, which is something that may not work out for you.  Play grey!!!!  

For long hair, use gel to get the whispies in a vertical direction.  However, they are prolly still going to fall down due to the intensity and the frequent donning/removal of beret.  Lots of nuisance and you will eventually get jacked over it.

Finally, if you have nice long hair and decide to go for a shorter look before BMQ, do it BEFORE you go to ELRFC as the barber shop there is notorious for being really bad and overpriced for female cuts.  A straight or slightly layered bob (NO BANGS) cut just below the ear (or wherever your natural hair growth ends) will save you a great deal of grief and maintenance.

Finally, while I belive hair dryers are allowed, it is unlikely that you will have the time for this kind of mtce.  Come up with a game plan now, and if it takes longer than 60 seconds (at the very very long end) to get your hair in gear and looking prof, then find another option.   Do what you have to.  It WILL grow back.

Just my 2 cents.  Take it or leave it.


----------



## PMedMoe

JABAC said:
			
		

> As long as it doesn't interfere with your headdresss and stays off your collar, it's good.  If you have short hair that's touching your collar, your platoon staff will likely tell you to get it cut





			
				Good2Go said:
			
		

> WRT shrt hair... you'll want to keep those hairs on your neck (the ones the stylist normally clips or shaves) clean, meaning that you can get jacked for them just like the lads.



Both of you realize that females are allowed to have their hair touching the collar, right?

FEMALE

9.   HAIR:
   
a.   Hair shall not extend below the *lower edge of the shirt collar*.

b.   Braids, if worn, shall be styled conservatively and tied tightly, secured at the end by a knot or a small unadorned fastener.   Single braid shall be worn in the center of the back and double braids behind the shoulder.

c.   Hair shall be a maximum length, when gathered behind the head or braided, which does not extend below the top of the armpit.

One thing I really hate is visible bobby pins or barrettes.  If you have hair that is not quite long enough to put up, or one of those styles where it always falls in your face, may I suggest a different style or length during BMQ.

Oh, and Good2Go, I think females have been in the military long enough that they no longer "stick out" any more than the guys.  Just don't be a screw-up or a problem child and things will be okay.


----------



## Celticgirl

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Oh, and Good2Go, I think females have been in the military long enough that they no longer "stick out" any more than the guys.  Just don't be a screw-up or a problem child and things will be okay.



I have to side with Good2Go on this one. In a platoon of 50-60, women can expect to number around 6-8, which makes it far easier and quicker for the DS to get to know who they are. In that way, they definitely 'stick out'. Men can play the 'grey man' game for quite a long time, but it's almost impossible for women to do so. 

I used lots of gel and lots of bobby pins, but still got jacked up a lot for my hair. As G2G suggested already, the frequent changes in head dress cause a major issue for women with their hair in buns. Winter was especially bad for this...switching from beret to toque and back to beret with no time to 'fix' before getting formed up again.  :blotto: One of my big regrets was not getting a short bob before basic...I highly recommend women consider doing this!


----------



## PMedMoe

Well, that's a big change from when I went through in '86.  Females made up about half the platoon.


----------



## Good2Go

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, that's a big change from when I went through in '86.  Females made up about half the platoon.



These days there are perhaps 5-6 on a plt. 

After 01 Apr there will prolly be even less, due to the new fitness stds and no more RFT.


----------



## JBoyd

Good2Go said:
			
		

> These days there are perhaps 5-6 on a plt.
> 
> After 01 Apr there will prolly be even less, due to the new fitness stds and no more RFT.



Are they removing RFT completely? or are you referring to change of RFt to WFT and a minimum standard to be placed on WFT?


----------



## PMedMoe

Good2Go said:
			
		

> These days there are perhaps 5-6 on a plt.
> 
> After 01 Apr there will prolly be even less, due to the new fitness stds and no more RFT.



So are you saying that the women tend to be less physically fit than the men?


----------



## JBoyd

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So are you saying that the women tend to be less physically fit than the men?



From my experience last year at BMQ I would say no, out of the approx. 10 females we had on platoon only 1 was sent to RFT. 7 males were also sent.


----------



## Strike

If you're worried about the "frizzies" when having to change headdress I'd suggest getting a travel-size bottle of hairspray that you can it in your pocket (maybe with a small plastic comb).  Prior to putting on the next headdress required give a couple of spray and smooth it out with your hand/comb.  Your head will likely feel like a helmet itself by the end of the day but you're less likely to get jacked up too.


----------



## Jen

Good2go, what are the new physical standards?

Are they being changed from what is currently up on the CF website? I only ask because I am focusing on getting in the best shape I can for Basic, and I am working towards the goals set out on the website.

Any help/advice would be appreciated.

This is a great thread, as it brought up some things I never even thought about  :nod:


----------



## trentonmilwife

Strike said:
			
		

> If you're worried about the "frizzies" when having to change headdress I'd suggest getting a travel-size bottle of hairspray that you can it in your pocket (maybe with a small plastic comb).  Prior to putting on the next headdress required give a couple of spray and smooth it out with your hand/comb.  Your head will likely feel like a helmet itself by the end of the day but you're less likely to get jacked up too.



So are we allowed to bring moisturizer, facewash, hairspray, hair gel, and conditioner bottles, in addition to the shaving creme, shampoo bottle and bar of soap that is on the list? My husband said they weren't allowed anything beyond shaving creme, bar soap, and shampoo (he went in 2003) and well I have long hair (but have no problem doing a bun in 30 secs or a french braid in almost the same amount of time) but I need the conditioner and would love to be able to bring moisturizer and hairspray would definitely help with the frizzies from humidity this summer.

Also anyone know how the staff feels about multivitamins (I know there are posts about this but they are all more performance related)...I ask because once I'm done basic we're planning on starting a family and I wish to get my body ready ahead of time (aka, need the calcium and folic acid for 6 months in advance).... anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## PMedMoe

trentonmilwife, you _should_ be allowed to have the other toiletries, they just won't be part of your locker layout.  When I did basic, many moons ago, we were given our hat box as a "personal" box and could keep items not on the layout list there.  My suggestion would be to get the travel-sized items so they take up less room.

Multi-vitamins, not sure about those, however, I don't think I'd be planning starting a family until after trades training.  Depending on the trade you have applied for and availability of the courses, that could be more than six months.


----------



## Celticgirl

trentonmilwife said:
			
		

> So are we allowed to bring moisturizer, facewash, hairspray, hair gel, and conditioner bottles, in addition to the shaving creme, shampoo bottle and bar of soap that is on the list? My husband said they weren't allowed anything beyond shaving creme, bar soap, and shampoo (he went in 2003) and well I have long hair (but have no problem doing a bun in 30 secs or a french braid in almost the same amount of time) but I need the conditioner and would love to be able to bring moisturizer and hairspray would definitely help with the frizzies from humidity this summer.



You will have a small personal space (about 1" X 1") where you can keep those items. Definitely take some moisturizer as the air in the Mega is very dry (one of my podmates had nosebleeds all the time from the dryness) and definitely take hair gel if you have long hair that needs to be kept in place. The items on the list you mentioned are for display and I don't recommend using any of those items that you have out for inspection. There has been some discussion on this site about shadow kits and having been there, I now am of the opinion that it is imperative that you have one set for use and one for display. Several of us on my first platoon were written up for our shaving cream 'leaking' a little bit of stuff prior to an inspection. This can end up being a serious charge for 'hygiene'...no kidding, no exaggerating. They can charge you. Hygiene is serious business in basic training. A shadow kit is an absolute must. Trust me on this.



> Also anyone know how the staff feels about multivitamins (I know there are posts about this but they are all more performance related)...I ask because once I'm done basic we're planning on starting a family and I wish to get my body ready ahead of time (aka, need the calcium and folic acid for 6 months in advance).... anyone have any thoughts?



We were told at first "no vitamins" but later the DS revoked that rule and allowed them. Having been very run down and very ill during my training, I will also recommend that you bring them. Put them in your private lock-up along with lots of ibuprofen and Tylenol. (The latter are allowed, just get a sticker from the pharmacists early on.) The DS never went into our personal lock-ups, even during inspection when everything else was open, so keep all necessary items there, just keep it to a minimum as the space is somewhat limited.


----------



## trentonmilwife

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> trentonmilwife, you _should_ be allowed to have the other toiletries, they just won't be part of your locker layout.  When I did basic, many moons ago, we were given our hat box as a "personal" box and could keep items not on the layout list there.  My suggestion would be to get the travel-sized items so they take up less room.
> 
> Multi-vitamins, not sure about those, however, I don't think I'd be planning starting a family until after trades training.  Depending on the trade you have applied for and availability of the courses, that could be more than six months.



That was the plan, but I'm coming in as a LOG O - Air, and trade training has a minimum 16-24 month backlog (after basic) and is only 10 weeks long forPhase 2 & 3, and then you wait another year and get phase 4. My boss, says there is a slim chance I'll get on the summer 2010 course, so odds are I'm waiting for the 2011 phase 2/3 couse. So she recommended I rethink my family plans (my plan was to wait until I was training and possibly even gone on tour) as I'll be in my mid 30's by that point and deployments aren't a plenty for HR types, so I might want to have the babies while I can.... that and my husband doesn't want to wait until he's 40 either, we've been married almost 5 years now and used to say oh we'll have kids in 4 years...well that's passed, he's fully trained now (he also was a DEO) and now I've gotten in and changed our timelines...But who knows, I've been told in Sept 09 I should know whether or not I'll be loaded on the 2010 summer course and that will decide whether or not its time for kids, but I might as well get my body ready anyways.

Good tip on smaller bottles! and I have pharmacy lables on my advil and stuff already (I'm already at a base, so I've been lucky to have access to that and I got all my shots already) And Celticgirl...you just went a few months ago right? were you guys in co-ed pods? My friend who went in Sept 08 was and I thought that was odd (well they got private rooms, but co-ed bathrooms).


----------



## Celticgirl

trentonmilwife said:
			
		

> And Celticgirl...you just went a few months ago right? were you guys in co-ed pods? My friend who went in Sept 08 was and I thought that was odd (well they got private rooms, but co-ed bathrooms).



Yes, I just returned last week, actually. I was in a few different pods and always with women only, never co-ed. I was not aware of any co-ed pods. On both platoons I was on, males and females lived separately, and you had to announce your presence in an opposite sex pod (i.e. "Man on the floor!" or "Woman on the floor!"). The opposite sex was not allowed in the pods beyond a certain time of night, and of course, 'frat' is forbidden...you were not even supposed to sit on a bed with a member of the opposite sex. 

These were leadership platoons, mind you. I don't know if it's different for recruits, but you mentioned you are going Log, so I would say you will not likely have to worry about a co-ed situation, and you will likely be in the blue sector and have your own room (a modicum of privacy!) as opposed to living in the much more open (so I've heard, but not witnessed) green sector.

My fiance is an Air Log, by the way. Good trade.


----------



## Good2Go

Jen said:
			
		

> Good2go, what are the new physical standards?
> 
> Are they being changed from what is currently up on the CF website? I only ask because I am focusing on getting in the best shape I can for Basic, and I am working towards the goals set out on the website.
> 
> Any help/advice would be appreciated.
> 
> This is a great thread, as it brought up some things I never even thought about  :nod:



01 Apr has come and gone and most info on the mods that I hear is still rumour / speculation.  When it is written and I hear what it is I will let you know.

How are your pushups coming along, and are you doing them to PSP stds?  IMO you should seriously consider hiring a personal trainer (you could share the sessions with a friend to cut down on costs) to increase and improve your upper body strength.  If you live near a mil base, you could visit and check with PSP to see if they can make a recommendation for a trainer -- some of the PSP staff moonlight as trainers.  Also, upon entering the gym there will prolly be a notice board and personal trainers often advertise on this.  Ensure that whatever trainer you get knows exactly what the stds are for the tricep pushups, else you may be wasting your dollars.

The regs (prior to 01 Apr so they may have changed) were that you women had to do a min of two pushups on the CF EXPRES in order to go to plt.  If you did not make this, you went to WFT (Warrior Fitness Trg) for a max of 90 trg days until you succeeded in the min.  Now (01 Apr onwards) if you do not make the min then you prolly are getting sent home, although the regs are still unclear.  HOWEVER do not have the goal of just making that min of two pushups, because you will be required to completely pass the test before you leave ELRFC.  Several of the grads (male and female) pass the BMQ crse but do not pass the CF EXPRES test at the end.  These mbrs have to go to WFT until they can pass the test.  You do NOT want to stay at ELRFC any longer than you have to.

Once you can do 2-3 perfect pushups, you should be able to add about 1-2 to your ability each week.  It is very frustrating at the beginning but you will be successful if you persevere.  If you are at 0-1 pushups right now it can take a month to get to that 2-3 level but you will be able to do it.  The mil pushups require you to use muscles that as a woman you normally do not use:  triceps, delts, pecs, lats.  These will need to be developed with an agressive weight trg prog.  Most women start at 0 for triceps pushups -- I certainly did!  I can do 20 now and I am in my 30s -- and so can you with patience and perseverance.

You should also be doing a great deal of core exercises, working the core from all directions.  I would highly recommend taking a core ex class at a civ fit club several times a week.  Merely being able to pass the situp test is not an indicator that your core ability is up to snuff.  You will be less apt to get an injury if you are strong.

You should be able to run 3-4K at a min pace of 6 mph.  If you struggle with shin splints, visit a Running Room branch and see if they have any seminars on proper running strides so that you do not aggravate the shin splints.  Get a good pair of sneakers while you are there and some coolmax socks.  Sneakers are an investment.  Pay the bucks and get some good ones!  I have high endurance for running, but I was not fast.  I started doing HIIT (high intensity interval trg) on the treadmill (30 secs 6mph, then 30 secs 7mph, then 30 secs 8mph, then 30 secs 7mph, then 30 secs 6mph) with an incline of 1.  Repeat, repeat, repeat for 30 mins or so.  This was an amazingly effective program.  If you are not a good runner now (meaning you can not jog for 30 mins non-stop), get on a walk-jog program ASAP.

Most people do not prepare for forced marches.  You can start now.  A hiking program with a backpack or weighted vest will help to prepare you.  Do not be a hero with the weight on your back especially at the first!  Walking poles are also a good investment so that you can continue with your upper body endurance.  Work on your walking form on a treadmill.  I do not recommend hiking with long strides; shorten your stride.  A walking speed between 3.8 and 4.2 mph (my speed estimate for FFO) will make you G2G for plt. 

By-the-bye, you will not be permitted to use the elevators whilst at ELRFC.  Start taking the stairs now and you will save yourself alot of aches and pains when you are on crse.  The Stair Master is a bit helpful in working these muscles, but it is not the same as acually walking on stairs.  If you have access to a bldg with many flts of stairs you could incorporate this into your cardio routine.  When I lived in a highrise apt bldg, I would start on 1 walk up to 3, do as many proper pushups as I could, climb up to 5, do pushups, etc, for about 30 min.  One of the best workouts you can do.

Wow, it looks like a lot of work!  Remember that you are in training now for training later.  Break it up into two separate workouts a day strength trg in one session and cardio/core in another session.  Mix up what you do.  Get lots of sleep and improve your nutrition.  Lose that extra weight if you have any.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Jen

Wow! Great advice, thank you very much!

I have been going to gym regularly for about two years now. I have managed to drop about 40lbs, but I would like to lose about 20 more. 

I can jog at a reasonable pace for 40+ minutes, right now I am working on my speed. I will incorporate your interval speed work into my routine and see how that goes.

My push ups need work, that's for sure. I can't do a proper one... yet. But I will. I hired a personal trainer and she is helping me build my strength with a focus on the muscles used to do a proper tricep push up. 

I am constantly working on my eating habits and focusing on my cardio and strength training, but I am nervous that I might get the call before I am ready.


----------



## Good2Go

Jen:  the triceps push up requires you to use muscles that most women are generally underdeveloped.  Try doing pushups in proper form (your whole body should look like a plank -- no butt in the air / no sinking knees) on an elevated bar until you can do them on the floor.  You need nine to pass the test (if F / under 35).  Do four sets of 10.  Also, isometric bench presses / bridges (planks) with weights on your back min 45 secs / bench presses varying the stance you hold the bar / triceps dips / triceps extensions / triceps push downs / reverse push ups / rows.  Discuss the above with your trainer and take a day off in between if you do the above for three days a week.  Your trainer needs to understand that if you are not doing the pushups in proper form they will NOT count.

A CF Expres manual...  Show this to your trg so he understands your objs.

http://lists.rmc.ca/athletics/pe/EXPRES/CF_EXPRES_Operations_Manual_e.pdf

Get rid of that extra 10 lbs of fat of the 20 lbs you est you need to lose; you may want to keep an extra 10 lbs in reserve as you will lose weight on BMQ.  Keep in mind that the SCALE may not budge since you are doing musculation.  That's prolly a good thing if that occurs.  Go by how your body looks not by what the scale says.

BTW the min pushup requirement is still two pushups for females.  If the CFRC gives you a start date and you can not fulfill this requirement, you should own up to it stating that you are on a prog to negate this pers fit short-coming.  I believe they will play ball with you and hold off in sending you to St-Jean -- I could be wrong though.

It sounds like you are doing great!  I hope you get the results you want soon!


----------



## newmet

trentonmilwife said:
			
		

> Good tip on smaller bottles! and I have pharmacy lables on my advil and stuff already (I'm already at a base, so I've been lucky to have access to that and I got all my shots already) And Celticgirl...you just went a few months ago right? were you guys in co-ed pods? My friend who went in Sept 08 was and I thought that was odd (well they got private rooms, but co-ed bathrooms).



I can answer the co-ed spaces, I finished basic a little under a year ago and depending on the space available, if you are in the blue sector, you could end up in a co-ed pod.  They prefer not to do this; however, it does occasionally happen.  Separate rooms; however, in the larger pods that mixing would happen there is a men's washroom and a women's washroom for use.  You do not share bathrooms, also you should be fully dressed at all times whether you are in a co-ed pod or not as you platoon mates will be in and out of the pod often as you clean, sew, do homework, etc.


----------



## Amy.Taylor

Well I am sorta wondering what do women do in the Armoured Corps when they are stuck in a tank or lav for hours? when they have the period i mean?  :tank:

Also the same with physical activity during BMQ?  swimming etc.. ? 

I looked on other posted and couldn't find any info on this one. haha  
thankx


----------



## the_girlfirend

Hey!

I don't know if you have seen the topic... tips for women 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24969.0/topicseen.html

They mostly talk about taking the pill continously or any other medication that can give you less periods a year.

As for in the LAV... I have no idea, but even the guys can understand... a menstrual emergency can be compared to an urgent number "2" ;D... I guess somehow in the army you get used to less privacy... and you do what you have to do... but how it is done... is still a mystery 

So anybody can explain how would you treat an urgent number "2" when you are stuck in a LAV? Are there any options?  ;D


----------



## mariomike

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> an urgent number "2" ;D



AKA "Code Brown".


----------



## armyvern

Just shout "yalla yalla yalla".


----------



## Amy.Taylor

so no one knows what women do? lol ok then


----------



## Lil_T

you make do.  take care of it when you do the bathroom thing.


----------



## armyvern

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> so no one knows what women do? lol ok then



I'd hope that you do already.

Nothing different than being stuck on the 40 ouest in Montreal during rush hour and having nature call (being either a guy OR a girl). Fuck.

This is NOT something limited to military scenarios. 

Most people would just say "hurry up and pull over at the next opportune time" - and that would settle the matter.

"Yalla, Yalla, Yalla" = "hurry, hurry, hurry."


----------



## Lil_T

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd hope that you do already.
> 
> Nothing different than being stuck on the 40 ouest in Montreal during rush hour and having nature call (being either a guy OR a girl). Fuck.
> 
> This is NOT something limited to military scenarios.
> 
> Most people would just say "hurry up and pull over at the next opportune time" - and that would settle the matter.
> 
> "Yalla, Yalla, Yalla" = "hurry, hurry, hurry."



^This!   Seriously.


----------



## mariomike

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nothing different than being stuck on the 40 ouest in Montreal during rush hour and having nature call (being either a guy OR a girl). Fuck.



I've heard of "motormen's helpers" AKA "truck bombs":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7912464/


----------



## Amy.Taylor

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd hope that you do already.



Yes i know how... 
i was just wondering what women in the Armour corps do when they are stuck in a tank for hours on end, but anyways i guess i will just have to wait and find out   LOL!!!!!! 2 funny


----------



## Amy.Taylor

mariomike said:
			
		

> I've heard of "motormen's helpers" AKA "truck bombs":
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7912464/



LOL!


----------



## mariomike

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> LOL!



There's a "female-friendly" version of the truck bomb called "Pitstop". The receiving end is designed to be mounted inside the vehicle with a five-foot "transfer hose" attached to a "quick-disconnect" mechanism. 
Advertised  as "big enough for a non-stop coast-to-coast haul."
All kidding aside, congratulations and good luck. I am sure you will do fine. I think a positive attitude is everything.


----------



## armyvern

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> Yes i know how...
> i was just wondering what women in the Armour corps do when they are stuck in a tank for hours on end, but anyways i guess i will just have to wait and find out   LOL!!!!!! 2 funny



Let me make this really easy for you ...


They do the same damn thing that a chick caught in rush-hour on the 40 ouest in Montreal does ...

SFA until the first opportunity presents itself.

Exactly the same thing a man has to do when the requirement to hit a pit stop (for whichever) reason ...

They live with it; life will go on. Confirmed that this evening with the "Tanker Guy" that I live with. He asked "why do you think tankers have it special in this case - we get to wait just like every other guy and gal and civilian in the same situation?"


----------



## Amy.Taylor

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Let me make this really easy for you ...



LOL!!! i got it already


----------



## mariomike

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> so no one knows what women do? lol ok then



It Depends.
I just know what I read in the papers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508417/


----------



## Amy.Taylor

yikes


----------



## Tulach Ard

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> yikes sorry i asked people, its ok i got the idea



Hey army, you going armoured? I am a woman going armoured too! Have my medical on the 27th, then after that I am just waiting for my call=) How far along are you?


----------



## Amy.Taylor

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Hey army, you going armoured? I am a woman going armoured too! Have my medical on the 27th, then after that I am just waiting for my call=) How far along are you?


 Hello, my recruiter called me and told me that all i have to do is wait for my job offer  then she said middle of may, or begging of June i will be going hopefully


----------



## Lil_T

looks like there are a few of us in that boat....  I am starting to dislike that boat.


----------



## jmbest

Going back to the topic of periods, the IUD Mirena stops periods in some women after 6 months or so. Some women it stops completely, others aren't so lucky. For me it has drastically lightened it every month and it's barely even noticeable anymore (except for the hellish cramps) - but I definitely think it's worth trying it out if you want to lighten your period. Just my  :2c:


----------



## Occam

jmbest said:
			
		

> Going back to the topic of periods, the IUD Mirena stops periods in some women after 6 months or so. Some women it stops completely, others aren't so lucky. For me it has drastically lightened it every month and it's barely even noticeable anymore (except for the hellish cramps) - but I definitely think it's worth trying it out if you want to lighten your period. Just my  :2c:



More like $300 and change for Mirena...and I'm not sure if one can get it through CF Health Services as I suspect it's not within the Spectrum of Care.  I do believe they only hand out the pill.  Most civvie drug plans won't pay for Mirena - including PSHCP.

For what it's worth - my wife was on Mirena for a while, no period, no cramps, no PMS.  Two thumbs up from me!


----------



## Tulach Ard

Lil_T said:
			
		

> looks like there are a few of us in that boat....  I am starting to dislike that boat.



Heheh, what do you mean you dont like the boat? LOL Yes its a waiting boat but we are all in it together=) At least we have a jump, imagine if we all go to the same basic, we will already be introduced ;D


----------



## Tulach Ard

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> Hello, my recruiter called me and told me that all i have to do is wait for my job offer  then she said middle of may, or begging of June i will be going hopefully



Me too! I have my medical in 3 days, and I am told just weeks until my call...maybe I will see you there!


----------



## Tulach Ard

Occam said:
			
		

> More like $300 and change for Mirena...and I'm not sure if one can get it through CF Health Services as I suspect it's not within the Spectrum of Care.  I do believe they only hand out the pill.  Most civvie drug plans won't pay for Mirena - including PSHCP.
> 
> For what it's worth - my wife was on Mirena for a while, no period, no cramps, no PMS.  Two thumbs up from me!



Hhmm I havent heard of this option. Perhaps I will look into it. Where abouts are you Occam? I know each province has different health care laws.


----------



## Occam

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Hhmm I havent heard of this option. Perhaps I will look into it. Where abouts are you Occam? I know each province has different health care laws.



At that price, I can pretty much guarantee that no provincial health care drug plan will pay for it, hence the need to try to put it under a private drug plan.  I know that PSHCP won't pay for it, as we inquired about it.  We were in NS when she got it, but you can certainly inquire about it in whichever province you're in.

It's worth checking into.  As I understand it, it's like an IUD but also has a slow-release medicinal component as well.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Great thanks Occam=) I am waaaay out in BC but its worth a check anyways.


----------



## Amy.Taylor

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Me too! I have my medical in 3 days, and I am told just weeks until my call...maybe I will see you there!




That would be pretty cool to know someone before basic lol


----------



## Lynney24

Ok. So obviously there has been alot of chatter about hair.. I am going to add to it. I want to cut my hair before I go off to BMQ, but in all honesty, I still want to look like a girl for when we get our weekends (silly I know). Does anyone know of any sites that have GOOD advice or pics? Any help would be great!


----------



## stealthylizard

Not for St. Jean, but for Wainwright DP1 (infantry) the barracks are coed, and you will most likely have a male fire team partner, unless you are lucky enough to have 2 females on the course.  You will get used to sleeping in the same area as 30 other guys, and you will be sleeping in the seem hooch as your fire team partner.  There are separate washrooms.

Mind you, they did ask us males if we had a problem with a female sharing the same sleeping quarters as us.  After awhile, we don't see gender, just another soldier.


----------



## PMedMoe

Lynney24 said:
			
		

> Ok. So obviously there has been alot of chatter about hair.. I am going to add to it. I want to cut my hair before I go off to BMQ, but in all honesty, I still want to look like a girl for when we get our weekends (silly I know). Does anyone know of any sites that have GOOD advice or pics? Any help would be great!



Not sure if you can access the CF Dress Regs, but here's the link:

CFP 265

Pictures of women's hair styles starts on page 2-2-15.


----------



## helpup

As a Guy I find most women can pull off short hair and still look like a woman.  But as was pointed out if your getting it cut make sure it is something low maintenance and wont grow too long befor you need to trim it again.  Basic is not the place to try and transition your hair.  This advice comes from someone who has 2ICed a few BMQ Crses
( with the disclaimer of not having done it in St Jean and took my own Basic in Cornwalis )


----------



## Tulach Ard

Lynney24 said:
			
		

> Ok. So obviously there has been alot of chatter about hair.. I am going to add to it. I want to cut my hair before I go off to BMQ, but in all honesty, I still want to look like a girl for when we get our weekends (silly I know). Does anyone know of any sites that have GOOD advice or pics? Any help would be great!



Hey Lynney, I was planning on cutting mine off too (its down to my bum) but was convinced by a friend of mine who happens to be a Sgt that you can get away with keeping it long if you want to. Yes its a pain in the ass but he taught a course where when of the pte's was a female, had hair down to her butt as well, kept it that long the entire course AND did better than most of the men. So I have decided just to trim mine to about waist length, LOL.
THIS video was AWESOME, I learned how to put it up within regulations from this vid and now I dont have to cut it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRcDhAKJp3w

Good luck with long hair, we will see if I have patience to keep mine=P


----------



## Strike

Just remember that, although for everyday activities you can have a braid hanging down, for ceremonial reasons (parades) you have to tie it up in a bun or a tucked french braid or other tied up style.

This addendum to the dress regs is not well know and was added in 2006 I believe.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Strike said:
			
		

> Just remember that, although for everyday activities you can have a braid hanging down, for ceremonial reasons (parades) you have to tie it up in a bun or a tucked french braid or other tied up style.
> 
> This addendum to the dress regs is not well know and was added in 2006 I believe.



Right but doesnt that braid have to be above or at your armpits? Thats not very long, so for people wanting to keep it longer, we would just have to bun it all the time, no?


----------



## PMedMoe

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Right but doesnt that braid have to be above or at your armpits? Thats not very long, so for people wanting to keep it longer, we would just have to bun it all the time, no?



I've seen girls with fairly long hair do a good braid, but they start french-braiding right from the top of their head.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Hahaha well lucky them! Alas I cannot braid my OWN hair to save my life, although on someone else...no problem. We will just have to have a braiding chain in the AM ;D


----------



## Strike

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Hahaha well lucky them! Alas I cannot braid my OWN hair to save my life, although on someone else...no problem. We will just have to have a braiding chain in the AM ;D



Like you'll have time!  I'd suggest investing in lots of hairspray and gel and do your hair the night before.  Then just take care of the fly-aways in the morning.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Strike, note sarcasm. Of course we wont have time! Yes I plan to do it the night before, although I am sure I will find out all the things that work once I get. Will say though that I am already practicing now.

What about if I braided it from just above the base of my neck and lopped the braid up and tucked the end under so it is above my armpits, would that be acceptable? Didnt see that in the options, so perhaps not, although I hear that braiding two and tying them to the top of your head is acceptable so maybe this is as well.


----------



## Strike

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Strike, note sarcasm. Of course we wont have time! Yes I plan to do it the night before, although I am sure I will find out all the things that work once I get. Will say though that I am already practicing now.
> 
> What about if I braided it from just above the base of my neck and lopped the braid up and tucked the end under so it is above my armpits, would that be acceptable? Didnt see that in the options, so perhaps not, although I hear that braiding two and tying them to the top of your head is acceptable so maybe this is as well.



Although I have seen it, so did a SM and he promptly corrected the error of the female in question.  I'd suggest braiding it and wrapping it in a bun.


----------



## Celticgirl

Strike said:
			
		

> Just remember that, although for everyday activities you can have a braid hanging down, for ceremonial reasons (parades) you have to tie it up in a bun or a tucked french braid or other tied up style.
> 
> This addendum to the dress regs is not well know and was added in 2006 I believe.



The only time I saw women allowed to wear their hair in a braid hanging down at St. Jean was when they had to wear FFO (buns don't work w/ helmets). Other than those times, women on all platoons as far as I could tell had to have their hair in a _very_ tight (pushed in with bobby pins) bun or a fairly short cut.

Don't go to the SJ barbers, by the way. They don't do nice things to female hair. Not personal experience, just personal observation.


----------



## Lil_T

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> The only time I saw women allowed to wear their hair in a braid hanging down at St. Jean was when they had to wear FFO (buns don't work w/ helmets). Other than those times, women on all platoons as far as I could tell had to have their hair in a _very_ tight (pushed in with bobby pins) bun or a fairly short cut.
> 
> Don't go to the SJ barbers, by the way. They don't do nice things to female hair. Not personal experience, just personal observation.



And this is why I chopped my hair off (and have been practising with hubby's beret)  all I need is a hairbrush and a clippy and I'm good to go.  though I hope to grow it out after my 3's.

Now, if I'd just get that darn call.


----------



## helpup

Lil_T said:
			
		

> And this is why I chopped my hair off (and have been practising with hubby's beret)  all I need is a hairbrush and a clippy and I'm good to go.  though I hope to grow it out after my 3's.
> 
> Now, if I'd just get that darn call.



That is a good tip LilT, getting a beret from a surplus store if you dont have a "significant other" in the military will allow practice in getting the hair up and away.  NCO's will look for any thing showing under the front , and loose strands not tucked away.  especially for inspections but bear in mind your job during the day it to keep it tucked if it pulls loose.  
Also berets will only accept a certain amount of thickness in hair before looking misshaped. One less thing to worry about for the ladies who are joining.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Lil_T said:
			
		

> And this is why I chopped my hair off (and have been practising with hubby's beret)  all I need is a hairbrush and a clippy and I'm good to go.  though I hope to grow it out after my 3's.
> 
> Now, if I'd just get that darn call.



 :crybaby: ARGH tell me about it. 

And I definitely wont be going to the SJ barbers, yikes. If It gets THAT frustrating I will simply shave it, Demi Moore style >


----------



## Tulach Ard

Lil_T said:
			
		

> (and have been practising with hubby's beret)




At the risk of sounding like a complete dolt here, (feel free to laugh) why practice with a beret? Practice what, putting it on correctly? Or finding the correct place for your bun? They sit fairly high on your head, I must be missing something here. :


----------



## Lil_T

Practising taking it off and putting it on AND keeping it neat.  I like to be prepared - so I don't look like a fool with wispies hanging out under the beret.  My hair is really short so no bun for me.  Will also make the helmet easier.


----------



## Celticgirl

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> At the risk of sounding like a complete dolt here, (feel free to laugh) why practice with a beret? Practice what, putting it on correctly? Or finding the correct place for your bun? They sit fairly high on your head, I must be missing something here. :



You'd be surprised. I practiced putting my long hair in a bun lots before going to SJ, and thought I was putting the bun quite low, but it still wasn't low enough. (If you can't tell from my posts here, I got jacked *a lot* for my hair, so I'm trying to help you ladies avoid that!  ) One thing I learned to do (eventually) was keep extra bobby pins and hairnets in my pocket. A tiny bottle of hair gel would be a fab thing to have handy, too. 

Winter was especially bad for female hair...the swapping of toques and berets all day long really wreaked havoc on our hair and when you have "one minute" to change your headdress and take off / put on your jacket and gloves, you don't have any time to fuss with the ol' mop.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Aahh okay makes more sense now. Well I have practiced my "bunning" lots, and still will just to make sure, as I really dont want to cut it.
So tell me, how high is "not low enough", I have been doing it just above the nape of my neck, so almost as low as my hair grows. Is this STILL too high? fine balance I guess between touching collar, and jamming helmet.


----------



## the_girlfirend

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I got jacked *a lot* for my hair,



Hey CelticGirl,

I will be leaving in less than 2 months... the hair thing is stressing me a little... I have never been good with my hair. Can you please elaborate on all the reasons why you got jacked for your hair... what exactly was wrong with your hair... what we should be careful with... does it really have to be perfect like it is glued together stuck to the head??? let me know

Also I don't like using Gel and hair spray when doing physical activities because if you sweat or if it rains... it leaks in your eyes and it burns like crazy... does this ever happen to you??? 

thanks


----------



## newmet

I am going to give my 2 cents worth on a couple of things.

1) bathroom use and emergency female bathroom use in the field:  a) let them know when you need to use the rest room, and to be prepared I would take a couple of baggies of wipes, both facial and nether regions, with you (they are a hit when you are anywhere getting dirty), b) take a couple of tampons for emergency female use and for when during those times during the march when someone gets a bloody nose that won't stop, c) you'd be amazed that when you have to pee in the field you will go anywhere and d) take a couple of empty baggies to put "garbage" into that you don't want just sitting in your pocket.  All of these items will fit nicely in your tack vest and will get you through your field time.
2) Hair...: I cut my hair before basic, just like one of the girls I got jacked for my hair too, too many clips holding the hair up, not enough clips holding it up, my whispies were too curly, do you get the idea?  They are going to rag on you about your hair at one time or another because they have to bug you about something.  In St Jean, long hair in garrison had to be in a bun, in the field or coming out from the field it could be braided, in a bun, tied in a knot, they didn't care as long as it was out of the way.  Once you are done basic your hair can be braided, one braid, two braids and hanging as long as the tip doesn't go past the seam just past your shoulder.  

That's it for now, hope it helped.


----------



## Celticgirl

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> Hey CelticGirl,
> 
> I will be leaving in less than 2 months... the hair thing is stressing me a little... I have never been good with my hair. Can you please elaborate on all the reasons why you got jacked for your hair... what exactly was wrong with your hair... what we should be careful with... does it really have to be perfect like it is glued together stuck to the head??? let me know
> 
> Also I don't like using Gel and hair spray when doing physical activities because if you sweat or if it rains... it leaks in your eyes and it burns like crazy... does this ever happen to you???
> 
> thanks



"Miss Celticgirl, your hair is freaking me out!", "Officer Cadet, is that hair band a colour that is found in nature?", "Where is your 'air net, Madame?"

Most of the time they weren't yelling, but they were not happy. One Sgt. (not one of my DS) spent several minutes giving me 'advice' through gritted teeth one day, all the while I was at attention in the hallway awaiting a swipe for something or other. Fun times. lol

I was jacked up because my hair net broke (hence why you need extras in your pocket so that when you do get a chance to run to the washroom you can fix it) and wispies were sticking out, because my hair bands weren't the right colour, my hair was out too far, up too high, down too low, or just generally not meeting the standards in some way. I have long, thick hair that was hard to tame, especially when time was so limited and headdress was changed quickly and often. 

You should really use some gel, though. The max hold stuff. You don't need to worry about the front, top, and side as much as the actual bun, so no worries about it melting into your eyes with sweat. The rest of your hair should be under your beret anyway (until you are in class, but I don't recall anyone getting jacked for flyaways in class). On your morning runs, you don't need to fuss with your hair...just toss in a ponytail and go.


----------



## Elorajen

Love this thread. 

I really wish that I could do the pill or shot thing, but my hormones are wacky enough. So I can't go sans period. And tampons don't work for me, two kids, tilted cervix = uncomfortable PITA. 

Already starting to cut my hair shorter, cannot be bothered with the whole long hair thing. The only thing that will kill me is the gray. Ugh. Oh well!


----------



## Kel_115124

Looking for other Recruits starting June 29th, course R0262E. I don't swear-in till June 24th so I won't meet anyone till then. This is my 2nd try at BMQ, I first joined May 2007 but quit due to personal shit. I don't fly to St-Jean till the day before my course starts and it's hard prepare 1st-timers with such little time. 

Basic tips: bring the minimum amount of civvy stuff you'll need, and preferrably pack it in duffel bags cuz it'll all have to be hauled up about 5 floors of stairs depending which floor you're on. Start practicing lots of stairs, 10 flights, 10x daily. Run Run Run. Push-ups, Sit-ups, Up-downs, and chin-ups if you have a bar. That's your workout. Anything else and you're wasting your time. You won't get yelled at till the morning of your course start. Learn to eat fast, I mean shoving all the food in your face that you can and then swallowing. The 1st week you'll have all of 45 seconds per meal before the Sgt. is behind you yelling to move your ass. Don't party too hard on your weekends off because your platoon mates will suffer during monday morning's inspection cuz your quarters look like shit. For girls, I suggest you get your head shaved with the guys cuz you'll be having up to 4 showers a day and only 3 minutes per shower, longer hair becomes a big pain in ass, the best part is hair grows back!!! I had 12 girls and myself on my 1st BMQ and we all had shaved our heads by the end of week 2. If it's not broken, don't fix it. If your foot hurts, but isn't broken, don't go to the MIR. All they do is drug you up and then in a lot of cases, you end up on PAT for 6 months before getting re-coursed.

Don't Bring: Muscle creams, advil, tylenol, polysporin, heat wraps, any of that kind of stuff cause they'll confiscate it till the end of your course or make you throw it out. Do bring vaseline (it has 100 uses including moistorizurer and it heals cuts and blisters, works good for shining boots too). 
For girls, they make you get rid of your birth control pills, you won't get to the MIR till mid-week 0 to get whatever they prescribe. Any meds you take must be prescribed by the MIR. 


Stuff to not buy until you get there: detergent, shoe shine kit, hangers, padlocks. Also, bring a pair of comfy sweats or something, you'll enjoy them on weekends after week 4.

Save money if you can. On your 1st weekend off, you'll spend a lot getting trash-faced and buying new clothes cause all the the clothes you brought when you 1st arrived are now wayyy too big. But remember, party the friday nite and be back on base by saturday evening or very early sunday morning cuz there'll be a lot of work to do for monday.

Well that's what I've got for now, please add some of your own as well. I'll add more as I think of them.

PS- Your 1st name will no longer exist once you step through the Green Door at the MEGA, if someone asks for your name, you say Recruit ____(last name)___  and the last 3 numbers of your service number.


_Edited to remove the counselling of others to violate CF rules._

First post and your one step away from the Warning System. I suggest you go read the Site Guidelines, very carefully, before you post again.


----------



## PMedMoe

Umm, yeah, okay.

There is a thread on BMQ tips here, here and one specifically for girls here.

Some of your info makes sense, some of it, not so much.

Edit to add:  Mods, might I suggest a merge?


----------



## janbear

Bah getting the hair cut short next week...i can't be bothered with putting it up every day and waiting for it to dry. I'll miss it, but meh it's only hair, it'll grow back, and it will certainly be cooler during the summer time. I've shaved my head before and i was mighty cute, but i'm not gonna go that extreme. Maybe a cute little bob with some layers or something. 

I know makeup is a no-go during training but what about chapstick? There is nothing worse than burnt lips in the summer!!!


----------



## Lil_T

Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> Don't Bring: For girls, they make you get rid of your birth control pills, you won't get to the MIR till mid-week 0 to get whatever they prescribe. Any meds you take must be prescribed by the MIR.



seriously?  oh that shit is not going to fly! 

re: screwing up my system for the sake of 4 days, not the having to take what they give me.


----------



## Occam

Lil_T said:
			
		

> seriously?  oh that shit is not going to fly!
> 
> re: screwing up my system for the sake of 4 days, not the having to take what they give me.



I'd take that with a grain of salt.  Whatever prescription(s) you're on, bring copies of the prescriptions with you along with the medication itself.  Nobody should be confiscating prescriptions for which you've got a duly authorized script from a civvie doctor.


----------



## PMedMoe

janbear said:
			
		

> I know makeup is a no-go during training but what about chapstick? There is nothing worse than burnt lips in the summer!!!



Definitely!  Chapstick and sun screen, use them!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Definitely!  Chapstick and sun screen, use them!



Usually these are given in a "goodies" bag when you arrive on course (not sure if CFLRS ST.JEAN does this, but here in Gagetown they do)


----------



## Celticgirl

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Usually these are given in a "goodies" bag when you arrive on course (not sure if CFLRS ST.JEAN does this, but here in Gagetown they do)



We were given chapstick and sunscreen before going to Farnham. Furthermore, we were encouraged to use them because, as we were told, if we got sunburns or blisters, they would consider them 'self-inflicted wounds' and charge us! LOL!

No females had any BCP prescriptions confiscated on our course that I know of. They also gave DP shots to those who required them. 

The comments above about mealtimes were funny, if somewhat exaggerated. I think it's fair to say that you'll have 7-10 minutes to eat most meals (it goes by quickly, though, and you do have to eat very quickly...I even learned to chug a hot coffee ). Yes, there were mornings we only had time to grab a glass of juice and swig it down on the way out, but it wasn't like that the entire time. Suppertime is usually the most relaxed meal, unless you have a class after dinner. (In our case, it happened, but not often.)

I'll be going back this fall, and hopefully will have a better idea of what to bring / what to expect. I won't be shaving my head, though!    I know it's only hair, but mine is very long and I like it that way. It would take many years to grow it back.


----------



## Lil_T

Occam said:
			
		

> I'd take that with a grain of salt.  Whatever prescription(s) you're on, bring copies of the prescriptions with you along with the medication itself.  Nobody should be confiscating prescriptions for which you've got a duly authorized script from a civvie doctor.



duly noted - random crap like that just kind of throws me for a loop. 

for the copy of the prescription - do I use just the refill sticker or do they need the actual rx?


----------



## Celticgirl

Lil_T said:
			
		

> duly noted - random crap like that just kind of throws me for a loop.
> 
> for the copy of the prescription - do I use just the refill sticker or do they need the actual rx?



I'm sure the refill sticker would do. Also, you *can* take Tylenol and ibuprofen with you...you just need to get them cleared by the pharmacists. There will be a class with them in the first couple of weeks and you just mark down what meds you have, including pain meds, show it to them, and get them stickered. I was approved for Tylenol and then was 'prescribed' ibuprofen after pulling a leg muscle, so I had both almost the entire time and it wasn't a problem. I'm not really sure how anyone could get by without them!


----------



## Lil_T

oh indeed.  ha! I'd hate to have to go to the MIR everytime I had an ache or pain from training...


----------



## Strike

Wow...where to start?  I'll try to keep it short.



			
				Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> Run Run Run. Push-ups, Sit-ups, Up-downs, and chin-ups if you have a bar. That's your workout. Anything else and you're wasting your time.



I would suggest complementing these exercises with others.  If you focus on just the ones listed above without varying you run the risk of injury, overuse and hitting a plateau.



			
				Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> For girls, I suggest you get your head shaved with the guys cuz you'll be having up to 4 showers a day and only 3 minutes per shower, longer hair becomes a big pain in ***, the best part is hair grows back!!!



There's no need to shave your head.  You don't have to wash your hair EVERY time you step in the shower!  As has been stated many times before, put your hair up at night, jel it back again in the morning and just don't wash it again until the end of the day.  It worked for me, and it still does when I'm in a situation where I need to shower throughout the day at work.



			
				Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> If it's not broken, don't fix it. If your foot hurts, but isn't broken, don't go to the MIR. All they do is drug you up and then in a lot of cases, you end up on PAT for 6 months before getting re-coursed.



How is this point bad?  Let me count the ways.  If you're hurting and DON'T get it checked out, you run the risk of screwing yourself in the future.  Imagine messing up your back, ignoring it to muscle through and then having chronic back problems in the future.  Had you gone in to get it checked during the initial flare-up you are more likely to qualify for a medical pension.  If you don't then you're SOL.  What if you fall off a step, mess up your ankle and carry on like it's a sprain?  What if you in fact have broken it?  You suck it up, finally go to the MIR after a week or so, and they either can't do anything and you're in pain for the rest of your life or they have to break it again to reset the bone.  Right, real smart.

I'm not saying go to the MIR for every bump and bruise.  Just be smart about it!  This is your future you're playing with.



			
				Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> Don't Bring: Muscle creams, advil, tylenol, polysporin, heat wraps, any of that kind of stuff cause they'll confiscate it till the end of your course or make you throw it out. Do bring vaseline (it has 100 uses including moistorizurer and it heals cuts and blisters, works good for shining boots too).
> For girls, they make you get rid of your birth control pills, you won't get to the MIR till mid-week 0 to get whatever they prescribe. Any meds you take must be prescribed by the MIR.



Never heard of using Vaseline to polish boots in my 15 years in the Regs and 5 years in cadets.  I'd also suggest bringing Runner's Balm.  It's similar to lip balm but in a container like pit stick.  It doesn't stain clothing like Vaseline and is great for reducing chaffing between the legs, around the underwear line, and under the arms.

As for the MIR taking away BCP, if you have the box with the refills, that should be enough.  You may be required to get a new refill through the military which might also require another internal exam though.

That's about it.


----------



## Celticgirl

Strike said:
			
		

> There's no need to shave your head.  You don't have to wash your hair EVERY time you step in the shower!  As has been stated many times before, put your hair up at night, jel it back again in the morning and just don't wash it again until the end of the day.  It worked for me, and it still does when I'm in a situation where I need to shower throughout the day at work.



Agreed! I could never understand the whole G.I. Jane thing myself, but it was popular at SJ Garrison! As Strike said, you can wash your hair in the evenings and then just do the 60-second dash in the morning with your hair up. Yes, putting it in a bun and practically gluing it to your head with gel and bobby pins is a minor pain in the backside, but you're going to get jacked up over *something* so it might as well be your hair.  


Then again, if you want to pay $$ like the guys do to have it buzzed every two weeks, have at 'er!  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I realize this is a thread for females, but couldn't help but make a few comments.



			
				Kel_115124 said:
			
		

> Learn to eat fast, I mean shoving all the food in your face that you can and then swallowing. The 1st week you'll have all of 45 seconds per meal before the Sgt. is behind you yelling to move your ***.



That is not a "school standard" and while it *may* have happened on your course, it didn't on any when I was at CFRLS as an instructor (just over 2 years ago since I left).  Suggesting that is "normal" is wrong.



> If it's not broken, don't fix it. If your foot hurts, but isn't broken, don't go to the MIR. All they do is drug you up and then in a lot of cases, you end up on PAT for 6 months before getting re-coursed.



I read the other comments from folks and agree with them.  However, I think what you are talking about is knowing the difference between when you are *hurt* and when you are *hurting*.

Hurt = injured.  If you are hurt, you should go to the MIR.

Hurting = sore from exercise, the Obstracle course, stairs, drill, etc because you are in poor physical shape, or because you are pushing yourself (as you SHOULD be).

*Expect to be *hurting*.*  If not, you are either in top physical condition, or you are a slacker and not pushing yourself.  

If you are HURT, you should be seen by the MIR staff.  For many reasons, including preventing an injury from becoming worse, receiving proper medical treatment, AND having the injury/condition/whatever, DOCUMENTED.  

Aside from anything else I have to say, my only suggestion is for people to read the CFLRS Joining Instructions for info on what is/is not authorized by CFLRS.  

My  :2c:


----------



## Tulach Ard

Oh thank god for eveyone's clarifications, that post had me a slight bit worried.
Especially on the BCP point, as I have heard nothing of that sort before. So My only question is, when you get your "hire package" if I may call it that, does it have instructions on med protocol? 
The only reason I ask is for my BCP I dont get a "refill" paper or anything. My pharmacy has it on file and I simply ask them to give me some ;D 

Celtic Girl, I am completely with you on the hair thing. I have very long hair and am loathe to cut it. So I am going to see (perhaps naively) how long I can stick it out.


----------



## fuzzy806

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Celtic Girl, I am completely with you on the hair thing. I have very long hair and am loathe to cut it. So I am going to see (perhaps naively) how long I can stick it out.



Now I am not an expert on this matter, for a number of reasons:
1- male
2- short hair
3- basic starts in a month and a half

However, what I have seen in the Basic Up series regarding long hair on females, is that as long as you can keep it tightly tied up so it does not come loose and flop in your face(as was the situation in the episode) they don't have a problem with the length. Now according to what I saw in the video if it does come loose (I believe it was a repeat offence) you won't like the hair cut you get.

So from my lack of knowledge, and purely observational stand point, I would asses that as long as you can do a nice thight bun, your good to go.


----------



## Celticgirl

fuzzy806 said:
			
		

> So from my lack of knowledge, and purely observational stand point, I would asses that as long as you can do a nice thight bun, your good to go.



Getting it that way is one thing, keeping it that way is another.  ;D

As for Basic Up, I found a lot of things on that show did not reflect the reality of life at the Megatron. For example, on the videos, I am quite certain I saw people walking on the 5 a.m. runs, with staff beside them giving them positive encouragement. It makes me chuckle just thinking about it.  I didn't see anyone walking, not even a slow jog. And the 'positive encouragement', well, let's say it was a little louder and more abrasive than what was shown on Basic Up. lol


----------



## Tulach Ard

fuzzy806 said:
			
		

> Now according to what I saw in the video if it does come loose (I believe it was a repeat offence) you won't like the hair cut you get.



HAHA, WHAT!? I have heard NOTHING of this! *cowers* 
Thankfully the fact that I have long hair in this case works to my advantage. There are no shorter pieces to come loose. I am good at tying a tight bun actually, but I REALLY hope that by "come loose" you arent talking the little whispies. Lordy everyone has those! I will gel em, but I really am not overly concerned about having it sheared off=P

Are you Reg or Res? I only ask because you mentioned video, I have seen no video...?


----------



## Celticgirl

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> HAHA, WHAT!? I have heard NOTHING of this! *cowers*
> Thankfully the fact that I have long hair in this case works to my advantage. There are no shorter pieces to come loose. I am good at tying a tight bun actually, but I REALLY hope that by "come loose" you arent talking the little whispies. Lordy everyone has those! I will gel em, but I really am not overly concerned about having it sheared off=P



Oh, they threatened to cut mine, but it never happened. Don't worry. You'll just get jacked up a lot for it, if anything. The other females on my platoon helped me fix mine many times in the beginning until I managed to get the 'heat' taken off me a bit.  Thank goodness for that.  



> Are you Reg or Res? I only ask because you mentioned video, I have seen no video...?



Search for "Basic Up" on this site. You'll see links to the videos, they are online. Take them with a grain of salt, though. I find them to be very much watered down for the cameras.  :nod:


----------



## chrisf

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> HAHA, WHAT!? I have heard NOTHING of this! *cowers*
> Thankfully the fact that I have long hair in this case works to my advantage. There are no shorter pieces to come loose. I am good at tying a tight bun actually, but I REALLY hope that by "come loose" you arent talking the little whispies. Lordy everyone has those! I will gel em, but I really am not overly concerned about having it sheared off=P



I feel extremely confident saying it'll be a cold day in harrasment hell when a female troop is ordered to shave her head.

That being said, I know several women who shaved their heads, or at least cut their hair rather short for basic training, some kept it after, some let it grow out again, either way, it's only hair, and it'll save you a ton of time.


----------



## Tulach Ard

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I feel extremely confident saying it'll be a cold day in harrasment hell when a female troop is ordered to shave her head.



Thankfully I know you are right :nod:


----------



## ASmith

Hi all,

I'm new here. Have been lurking around the site for a couple of weeks now, reading everything I can. I won't be ready to apply for a while (want to go Med Tech and need to get my Biology 12 and my driver's license to do that) but have found this thread especially helpful. Thank you to all those who have posted suggestions.

Hair for me won't be a problem as I keep it short anyways (not quite GI Jane, but close to it   ) 

Even though it's a ways off, I'm wondering about some personal items... forgive me if these have been asked about before in other threads as I don't remember reading about them. Wondering specifically about Ipods and laptops, are these items allowed to be brought to St Jean to be used during weekends?

Aideen


----------



## Otis

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Thankfully I know you are right :nod:



An alternate suggestion that I've seen females do is keep the long hair that stays up, but shave the 'whispy' little hairs much like a guy has to shave his neck ... I guess it just depends on how much heat you're willing to endure.


----------



## Trish

What if I can't do a bun because my hair is too short?  I can do a pony tail (really short one) and with Spray or gel and bobbypins it holds pretty well.
Cutting my hair really short again is not an option.  It's been a year and I just begging being able to tie it, but I do have 'little hair'' coming down on my neck


----------



## PMedMoe

Trish said:
			
		

> What if I can't do a bun because my hair is too short?  I can do a pony tail (really short one) and with Spray or gel and bobbypins it holds pretty well.
> Cutting my hair really short again is not an option.  It's been a year and I just begging being able to tie it, but I do have 'little hair'' coming down on my neck



Females are allowed to have hair touching the collar as long as it doesn't go below the bottom edge.  Chances are, they may be a little more strict at BMQ.  Personally, I wouldn't want to see a really short pony tail with a bunch of gel and bobby pins in it, but that's just me (and possibly some other Snr NCOs).  I also have short hair because it takes forever to grow and I know they will only issue a "growing out" chit for so long.  Is the CF a career or a fashion statement?  The hair will grow back.  If cutting it is not an option, be prepared for a lot of flak from the DS.


----------



## Trish

Actually it is not for a fashion reason ! :
The longest they are, the less time it takes in the morning because I just have to tie them.  I have wavy hair and it's hot during the summer, that's why I cut them really short last summer.  but the ''in between'', when they are long enough to bother you and not long enough to tie them last few months, almost a year.  Anyway, by the time I get in I'll probably be able to make a small bun !


----------



## makeadifference2

I did my basic course (officer) 2 summers ago...of the 11 females, only 1 felt the need to cut her hair. The rest of us managed fine putting it into a bun. A good tip already metioned was to practice putting your hair into a bun before leaving. Also, gel will be a good friend. Either way, we had no problems getting ready in the same amount of time as the guys in the morning, we were faster than than most of them too. so i really wouldnt worry about it.
As for electonics ipod, laptop possibly cellphone..you wont see them for a while.  not even the first few weekends. they get locked up with the rest of your civvy clothes untill your staff think you are worthy of such a treat as to let you get to your stuff. 
for personal items, you really dont need makeup all that much. everyones tired, you all dress the same, and really, after a few weeks of monotonousy, you'll look like a madonna to some guy there anyways. and, theres really no time. I would keep some bare essentials with your personal kit. even if you get to go into St. Jean on the weekend, the boys there dont care. 
other than that, bring essentially whats on the list, if you forget something, the canex there is pretty well stocked.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Otis said:
			
		

> An alternate suggestion that I've seen females do is keep the long hair that stays up, but shave the 'whispy' little hairs much like a guy has to shave his neck ... I guess it just depends on how much heat you're willing to endure.



Hey now theres an idea, I HAVE thought of that, but "shaving" requires razor and yes you could attack your frizzies with one...but, doesnt that just leave shorter frizzies? If I get too close to my head more than frizzies will come off!  Hhmm interesting concept....I wonder what it looks like after, ever seen a girl with that?


----------



## ASmith

Thanks for the reply   Good to know that we can have them. Fine with having them locked up until staff feel we're worthy, as I'm sure we'll be much too busy to miss them anyways.

Aideen



			
				makeadifference2 said:
			
		

> As for electonics ipod, laptop possibly cellphone..you wont see them for a while.  not even the first few weekends. they get locked up with the rest of your civvy clothes untill your staff think you are worthy of such a treat as to let you get to your stuff.


----------



## the_girlfirend

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> I HAVE thought of that, but "shaving" requires razor and yes you could attack your frizzies with one...but, doesnt that just leave shorter frizzies? If I get too close to my head more than frizzies will come off!  Hhmm interesting concept....I wonder what it looks like after, ever seen a girl with that?



I think that the portion that you shave is not even hair... it is more like  little body hair on the neck too small and and too thin to be fixed with bobby pins... and I bet you would have to keep it as clean as a man would... you might have to shave it once a week at least depending how it grows.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ASmith said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply   Good to know that we can have them. Fine with having them locked up until staff feel we're worthy, as I'm sure we'll be much too busy to miss them anyways.
> 
> Aideen



Alot of questions you have should be answered if you read thru the stuff at the link below.

http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/pd/index-eng.asp


----------



## ASmith

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely read through it all before asking any more questions  

Aideen



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Alot of questions you have should be answered if you read thru the stuff at the link below.
> 
> http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/menu/pd/index-eng.asp


----------



## makeadifference2

Some things to expect from St-Jean. (I was there 2 summers ago for IAP and last summer for BOTP)

Stress kills, it really does. Take everything they say seriously, but with a grain of salt. TAKE NOTHING PERSONALLY!!! They will try to break you down. Thats the point. Keep a positive attitude and find happiness in anything you can. Its the only way to stay sane. ex. the sun is out = a beautiful day. its raining= at least the suns not buring our heads...get the picture. Plus, its so much better being around a positive person than a negative, especially on course.

Eating meals fast was definately part of my IAP, we would be givin a 20 minute timing, not bad right? but that includes the 10 - 15 minute lineup. not that you have to 'practice' eating lightning fast, but be aware that you will have to eat fast, and possibly, as happened to me on multiple occasions, survive on grapes, maybe a carrot stick and one glass of some sort of liquid. I was a fan of the eat now taste later saying.

Hair, HONESTLY!!!! gel it. as I said before, 10 out of 11 females on my course got by just fine, and I have long, curly thick hair. It doesnt matter if your hair is perfect, you will get yelled at it at some point anyways. FYI, buy elastics and hairnets as close to your own hair colour as possible.

Inspections, you will never be perfect so dont stress about 'the dirt in your closet' or the fact that your bed is not completely tight, or ironing isnt to perfection. Fix it, do your best to get better next time and get over it.
PT, work out and run before going there, but keep in mind that morning PT is at 5 am before breakfast, so if your not a morning person...become one. 

Push ups: minimum standard for females is 9, however, if you dont get it the first time, you will have plenty of practice for the second time. When it comes to group pushups: though you might get yelled at, honestly, if you cant keep up with the group, dont do mini pushups to 'get by'. It does nothing for you. In my experience, it helped me much more if you focused on perfect form, and doing the pushup properly, than actaully keeping up with the group doing the 25 pushups. if you only did 12, ya, everyone else did more, but you will improve SO much more if you do them properly. ususally, if your doing them slow and the staff notice, they also see that your not slacking, you are doing them properly and usually will leave you alone. If they're in a bad mood, they will yell at you. Dont stop trying. Form will help more. 

If your tired in class, stand up at the back of the room RIGHT AWAY!!! you DONT want to be caught sleeping during the day....ever.

As for BCP and female times of the month, my courses had a mix of both. we all got by fine, it sucks in the feild, but its not impossible. you hardly think about it after a while. They wont take away prescriptions, but you may have to change them to the millitary supply if they have it. If you get cramps....unless your in the fetal position crying, they wont care and no one wants to hear them. If you decide not to get BCP, use tampons, and get the variety sizes, especially the heavy day ones...basic messes with some girls' systems and they can flow alot more that usual. Plus, there may be times when bathroom availabilty isnt easy.

Expect the staff to stress you out. expect every small thing that seems unimportant to suddenly be the reason your entire platoon is doing 25 pushups. The course is designed to stress you out in any way shape or form. Stress kills. so relax, take a deep breath try to be perfect, expect not to be. Meet your timings, as ridiculous as they seem, help everyone out as much as you can. TEAMWORK is essential, key and vital to get through the course smoothly. 
Good luck and remember, it is not impossible, and you can get through it.


----------



## Celticgirl

Excellent post, makeadifference2. I only made it to the beginning of week 9, but I agree with what you have said. Hopefully, I can remember all of this when I go back for round 2.


----------



## Tulach Ard

What was it that dropped you out at week 9 Celt?


----------



## Celticgirl

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> What was it that dropped you out at week 9 Celt?



Strep throat, sinusitus, chronic pain in my upper back and lower arms, and a custody issue, among other things. I decided to release, come home and recover, deal with the custody thing (now resolved, I think), and join the reserves (better fit for me and my family). Since I am joining the air reserve here, I have to do reg force training, hence my comments about returning to St. Jean at some point. Not sure when it will be, but probably this fall sometime. Hmmm, come to think of it, I'll probably just keep the exact date to myself...last time I had complete strangers walking up to me in the break area going "Are you Celticgirl?"   lol


----------



## Tulach Ard

HAHAHA Really?? Wow I cannot believe they would recognize you from a chat room! Sheesh. *Wonders how they would know*

Yikes doesnt sound fun, did you get all that pain from training??  although that wouldnt really surprise me, that sucks. 

Well I am glad to hear you are back at it, you will do GREAT the second time=P Platoon Queen, hehhe.


----------



## Celticgirl

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> HAHAHA Really?? Wow I cannot believe they would recognize you from a chat room! Sheesh. *Wonders how they would know*



Well, there aren't very many leadership platoons and there aren't very many females on each platoon and then anyone who has read my posts knows I have long blonde hair, so...it probably wouldn't be too hard to figure it out if you were paying attention. I found it kind of funny actually. About a month into the course, I found out that two of my platoon mates were people I had 'spoken to' on this site. It blew my mind. lol



> Yikes doesnt sound fun, did you get all that pain from training??  although that wouldnt really surprise me, that sucks.



Yep, I did. I had thought I was in pretty good shape when I went, but I was not prepared for a lot of the physical tasks. My arm pain was due primarily to a week of weapons handling, but I also had an 'incident' with the no. 9 on the confidence course. My back pain was due mainly to the ruck sack...way heavier than I imagined it would be with so much stuff packed in it, so rucking was hard and so was going up and down the stairs with a ruck sack and PT bag. Some of the guys helped me out whenever they could, but there was only so much they could do for me. On one of our marches, for example, I was having a rough time (had a bad chest cold and was having terrible pain in my back) and my fire team partner wanted to carry my rifle for me to help me out, but the DS wouldn't allow it. Anyway, I hope I can work on my upper body strength a bit more this time around, knowing what is ahead.



> Well I am glad to hear you are back at it, you will do GREAT the second time=P Platoon Queen, hehhe.



Well, I certainly hope so.  Perhaps I will see you there, TA. You never know.


----------



## Tulach Ard

Perhaps you will see me there, the one with the looooong red...er reddish hair. Yes that IS me in the profile pic=P


----------



## Amy.Taylor

I noticed on my list to bring to BMQ it doesn't say thread for putting my name on everything, so do we have to bring sewing tread?


----------



## Amy.Taylor

Hi i was wondering 
For push ups Do women get to do women push ups? or so women have to do men push ups? lol just wondering


----------



## aesop081

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> For push ups Do women get to do women push ups?



No.


----------



## JBoyd

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> I noticed on my list to bring to BMQ it doesn't say thread for putting my name on everything, so do we have to bring sewing tread?



It doesn't say thread specifically but I do believe it says 'Sewing Kit'.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

From the CFLRS ST. JEAN website:

Annex D part 1 - Civilian Clothing List

Personal Items Men And Women Quantity 
  
Plastic soap dish, same color as toothbrush case 1 
Plastic toothbrush case, same color as soap dish 1 
Toothpaste 1 
Mouth wash, max size 750ml 1 
Dental floss 1 
Non disposable razor with blades 1 
Shaving cream or gel, can 1 
Deodorant 1 
Shampoo, max size 750ml 1 
Laundry detergent, max size 2 Liters either liquid or powder 1 
Civilian sports clothing (shorts, bathing suit, T-shirts) 1 set 
Inexpensive watch 1 
Shower sandals 1 pair 
Lint brush 1 
Alarm clock 1 
Facecloth, hand towel and bath towel, dark color 1 
Iron 1 
Wide belt 1 
Photo in picture frame, 5"X 7" 1 
  
Optionnal Items Quantity 
  
Hair dryer 1 
Letter paper   
  
Note: The majority of these articles can be purchased at the Canex at your expense. 

Civilian Clothing Women  
  
Sufficient quantity for four days   
Seasonal jacket   
Dresses, skirts (under knee) or casual dress pants   
Casual blouses (minimum 2 cm collar - no "low-cut" or transparent blouses)   
Pantyhose, bras, sports bras, nylons   
Casual sweaters   
Casual dress shoes (high heels or platform shoes not permitted)   
Underwear (cotton)   
Bathing suit (1 piece) provided by QM   
Sports socks (cotton)   
Running shoes   
Sneakers (non marking soles)   
T-shirts for sport   
Sport short   
Hygienic products   
Towels (face cloth and bath towel)

The following is a list of material that will be purchased upon arrival of the candidate at the Canex in St-Jean Garrison.

Other Items (Available at the Canex Saint-Jean at your expense)  
  
Shoe shine kit: 
•Kiwi cloths (2) 
•Black Kiwi shoe polish (one large and one small tin) 
•Boot brushes (2) (soft and stiff) 
•Case or bag for shoe shine items 
   
Four combination padlocks   
Four combination padlocks   
Four combination padlocks   
Boot bands (2 pairs)   
18 to 20 plastic hangers (same style and colour)   
Hair net (for women, if required)


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You will get issued a sewing kit with the rest of your military gear.


----------



## Celticgirl

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> Hi i was wondering
> For push ups Do women get to do women push ups? or so women have to do men push ups? lol just wondering



There are no "women" push-ups in basic training. We all do the same kind of push-ups and the PSP staff is pretty particular about form. Check out the CFLRS website and look at the video regarding fitness testing. You will see the proper form there.


----------



## Amy.Taylor

HAHA okay thanks


----------



## Amy.Taylor

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> You will get issued a sewing kit with the rest of your military gear.



Thank you


----------



## Celticgirl

Amy.2006 said:
			
		

> I noticed on my list to bring to BMQ it doesn't say thread for putting my name on everything, so do we have to bring sewing tread?



Nfld Sapper is right...you will get a sewing kit with your military kit. However, I do recommend bringing some medical tape for labelling. We never seemed to have enough of the stuff. I plan to bring a few rolls with me next time!


----------



## jmbest

These are all such excellent tips everyone - thanks for sharing!  ;D


----------



## Celticgirl

Tulach Ard said:
			
		

> Perhaps you will see me there, the one with the looooong red...er reddish hair. Yes that IS me in the profile pic=P



Yeah, I'll be the one wearing the "just shoot me" sign.  :blotto:  lol


----------



## Good2Go

Sewing kit is provided, although there aren't any scissors in it.  Walmart sells a small fold up scissors that is very useful, esp since you aren't allowed to burn threads anymore.  An extra spool of white thread is handy to have.  Buy a waterproof Sharpie for marking your kit as the marking pens they provide fades very quickly.


----------



## PMedMoe

Good2Go said:
			
		

> Buy a waterproof Sharpie for marking your kit as the marking pens they provide fades very quickly.



Marking pens??  We had to use sew on name tapes!    Guess times have changed.


----------



## Good2Go

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Marking pens??  We had to use sew on name tapes!    Guess times have changed.



The name tapes still need to be sewn on, but using the Sharpie instead of the provided marking pens reduces the need to continuously rewrite your first four and last three due to fading.  BTW the tapes ares IRONED on at the basic at Esquimalt.


----------



## PMedMoe

Good2Go said:
			
		

> The name tapes still need to be sewn on, but using the Sharpie instead of the provided marking pens reduces the need to continuously rewrite your first four and last three due to fading.  BTW the tapes ares IRONED on at the basic at Esquimalt.



Seen.  Yes, every place is different.  Even within our platoon there was a huge difference in how neatly the tapes were sewn on (females vs. males).   :


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Good2Go said:
			
		

> The name tapes still need to be sewn on, but using the Sharpie instead of the provided marking pens reduces the need to continuously rewrite your first four and last three due to fading.  BTW the tapes ares IRONED on at the basic at Esquimalt.



Why would you put your first 4 and last 3. It should be your last name and last 3.


----------



## PMedMoe

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Why would you put your first 4 and last 3. It should be your last name and last 3.



Some names are probably just too long.


----------



## armyvern

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Why would you put your first 4 and last 3. It should be your last name and last 3.



First 4 of last name; last 3 of SN.  
It's been awhile eh?


----------



## armyvern

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Some names are probably just too long.



Not his. His first 4 of his last name are also the ONLY 4. He's just a dinosaur.  >


----------



## PMedMoe

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not his. His first 4 of his last name are also the ONLY 4. He's just a dinosaur.  >



We had to put the full last name with the exception of a few who had very long or hyphenated names.


----------



## George Wallace

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> We had to put the full last name with the exception of a few who had very long or hyphenated names.



Ah!  Yes.  That also explains how we had so many extra "Smiths" and "Jones" when we didn't on the nominal roll.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> We had to put the full last name with the exception of a few who had very long or hyphenated names.



..and they measured our stitches when I went thru Basic in Cornwallis...8 stitches per 1/4 inch or something like that.  And even got a chance to re-do the ones that weren't to standard!  Oh the fun!  Add to that we got full kit, with the old bus driver workdress, green and tan DEU...I think my fingers are starting to bleed again just thinking of it.


----------



## Doom

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> There are no "women" push-ups in basic training. We all do the same kind of push-ups and the PSP staff is pretty particular about form. Check out the CFLRS website and look at the video regarding fitness testing. You will see the proper form there.



Where is that at? I have to make sure I'm okay to go game day.


----------



## Gunner98

No video but lots of info at:

CFPSA: http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/fitness/general_e.asp

or

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bCnQTUrbHMwJ:www.pspesquimalt.ca/pdf/Remed_PushUp.pdf+psp+push-ups&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca


----------



## PMedMoe

Cluett said:
			
		

> Where is that at? I have to make sure I'm okay to go game day.



I think this is the third time I've posted this link.  Maybe it should be stickied?

ExPres Test Push Up Protocol

In the picture of the down position, the demonstrator is too low, but I'm sure you'll get the point.  There are also remedial tips on the same page.

On this link, you can click on Fitness and then Testing from the flyout menu for more pointers.


----------



## Lil_T

ok, so this wasn't really in the gym, but Monday - I loaded up DH's rucksack and went on a 'leisurely' 13 km rucksack march.  Finished in 2:25:00 including a brief stop at the Mac's for some more water and gatorade.   

I have to say, I was pretty pleased with myself for finishing on time, heck, for finishing period.  That 13K sounds to daunting when you hear about it, but I did it, and I don't have the longest pace in the world at 5'2".  Nice little confidence boost for me.   And I know I can do the BFT now because I routinely throw my 13 year old over my shoulder and carry him and he's bigger than me.


----------



## Doom

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think this is the third time I've posted this link.  Maybe it should be stickied?
> 
> ExPres Test Push Up Protocol
> 
> In the picture of the down position, the demonstrator is too low, but I'm sure you'll get the point.  There are also remedial tips on the same page.
> 
> On this link, you can click on Fitness and then Testing from the flyout menu for more pointers.



Well you said a video, so ya.

Also, lifting off like that everytime is bad for your elbows. Elbows are not tuned for lifting someones body, multiple times. I learned that in Kin. proper push up is assumed at 95 degrees. but i still go down to the floor like that lady does


----------



## PMedMoe

Cluett said:
			
		

> Well you said a video, so ya.
> 
> Also, lifting off like that everytime is bad for your elbows. Elbows are not tuned for lifting someones body, multiple times. I learned that in Kin. proper push up is assumed at 95 degrees. but i still go down to the floor like that lady does



I didn't say video, Frostnipped Elf did.  That is the only kind of push up that PSP will count for the ExPres test.  Some PSP staff are pretty forgiving, some are not.  Also, the push ups are continuous whereas the situps are not.


----------



## Doom

> I didn't say video, Frostnipped Elf did.  That is the only kind of push up that PSP will count for the ExPres test.  Some PSP staff are pretty forgiving, some are not.  Also, the push ups are continuous whereas the situps are not.



Situps don't have to be continuous but you have to floor 20 in one minute? That's not hard but I mean really? I remember when I was young, and in high school it had to be continuous. I guess I'll really find out when I get down there (I should say up ) Kind of wanting to go now.


----------



## PMedMoe

Cluett said:
			
		

> Situps don't have to be continuous but you have to floor 20 in one minute? That's not hard but I mean really?



IIRC, push ups are not timed, only the sit ups.  With the push ups you just go until you pause, stop or they tell you to stop because you aren't doing them correctly.


----------



## Doom

good to know, more to look forward to now that you have told me   Dang, I'm getting anxious, running 10km outside in this weather though is killing me, dehydration at its best.


----------



## Rosesm

To me I think it is a little ridiculous that they don,t do the physical part before you go. I know my daughter went to St. Jean with a bad cold so didn,t pass the pushups part but did good on the rest. So now she is stuck there doing nothing till she is sent home in 3 weeks. I think it is degrading to have to sit and have meals with the ones that did make it and are training.


----------



## Doom

Rosesm said:
			
		

> To me I think it is a little ridiculous that they don,t do the physical part before you go. I know my daughter went to St. Jean with a bad cold so didn,t pass the pushups part but did good on the rest. So now she is stuck there doing nothing till she is sent home in 3 weeks. I think it is degrading to have to sit and have meals with the ones that did make it and are training.



I don't mean to sound rude on any part. But I believe there is Reform isn't there? If you didn't get whats expected they hold you for an additional 3 months to pass the PT then they throw you back to BMQ. Thats my understanding anyways. For the most part a cold shouldn't trouble you from doing push ups either, I've done 100's of push ups while having a bad cough and a runny nose. 

What happend to your daughter she didn't go into the reform (warrior training as some call it) ???


----------



## traviss-g

Cluett said:
			
		

> But I believe there is Reform isn't there? If you didn't get whats expected they hold you for an additional 3 months to pass the PT then they throw you back to BMQ.



Yea I am also under the impression that it is not a one shot deal. You have more than one chance to pass the test. That is my understanding of it, which is limited as I have not even been merit listed yet  .

Just found this in another  thread not fully up to date but I am pretty sure that what is in place now is similar to this, again not based on experience as i have none: 
Week 0 PT test
FAIL PT TEST:
- If a candidate fails the V02 Max (shuttle run) he/she will be transferred to RFT PL for a maximum of 90 days the Monday morning of week 1.
- If a candidate fails one or more strength components other than the V02 max (shuttle run) he/she will have a retest in week 10.

Week 10 1st Retest
FAIL PT RETEST:
-The candidate will carry on with training and must pass the remaining POs. Candidates who don’t succeed all three test components will be retested in week 13.
- If a candidate fails the shuttle run or two strength components in the retest of week 10, they will be transfer to RFT PL for 90 days maximum.
- All candidates will do a second CF EXPRES test in Week 10, to determine best athlete, and progression of physical fitness of trainee's.

Week 13 2nd Retest
- If a candidate fails, he/she will be transferred to RFT PL for a max of 4 weeks.
- The candidate will not graduate with their course.
NOTE:
- Candidates from the detachments who fail will be transferred to CFLRS St-Jean RFT PL. ( this includes PT tests of week 1,10 and 13)

RFT PL
- Upon successful completion of the PT test, the candidate will get his/her qualification and carry on to their next phase of training.
- If the 2nd retest is failed after the 90 day period, the candidate will be released from the CF.


----------



## Rosesm

I Know there is about 17 of them that were removed from there normal housing into a trailer with bunkbeds. She has told me that they aren,t even allowed to do any sort of training other then watching videos all day on different army subjects that,s it. So how are they to get the exercise they need to even pass the next physical. My daughter went there this past Sat. and will be home in 3 weeks.


----------



## PMedMoe

There is a minimum standard (it's in a thread somewhere) required before you can even get into the Warrior Fitness program, so somehow I'm doubting that she "did good" on the rest of the test.  I also don't think a cold would affect your push ups.  I think it would bother you more on the run.

It would be nice if the fitness test could be done prior to BMQ but on the other hand, people should go to BMQ *prepared*.  Your daughter can always work on her fitness and apply again.


----------



## Doom

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Yea I am also under the impression that it is not a one shot deal. You have more than one chance to pass the test. That is my understanding of it, which is limited as I have not even been merit listed yet  .
> 
> Just found this in another  thread not fully up to date but I am pretty sure that what is in place now is similar to this, again not based on experience as i have none:
> Week 0 PT test
> FAIL PT TEST:
> - If a candidate fails the V02 Max (shuttle run) he/she will be transferred to RFT PL for a maximum of 90 days the Monday morning of week 1.
> - If a candidate fails one or more strength components other than the V02 max (shuttle run) he/she will have a retest in week 10.
> 
> Week 10 1st Retest
> FAIL PT RETEST:
> -The candidate will carry on with training and must pass the remaining POs. Candidates who don’t succeed all three test components will be retested in week 13.
> - If a candidate fails the shuttle run or two strength components in the retest of week 10, they will be transfer to RFT PL for 90 days maximum.
> - All candidates will do a second CF EXPRES test in Week 10, to determine best athlete, and progression of physical fitness of trainee's.
> 
> Week 13 2nd Retest
> - If a candidate fails, he/she will be transferred to RFT PL for a max of 4 weeks.
> - The candidate will not graduate with their course.
> NOTE:
> - Candidates from the detachments who fail will be transferred to CFLRS St-Jean RFT PL. ( this includes PT tests of week 1,10 and 13)
> 
> RFT PL
> - Upon successful completion of the PT test, the candidate will get his/her qualification and carry on to their next phase of training.
> - If the 2nd retest is failed after the 90 day period, the candidate will be released from the CF.



Very informative, I think this needs to be stickied. It's a good answer and should help some new people here, if and when they need this question answered.


----------



## Celticgirl

Rosesm said:
			
		

> I Know there is about 17 of them that were removed from there normal housing into a trailer with bunkbeds. She has told me that they aren,t even allowed to do any sort of training other then watching videos all day on different army subjects that,s it. So how are they to get the exercise they need to even pass the next physical. My daughter went there this past Sat. and will be home in 3 weeks.



It sounds to me like she is on PAR (Personnel Awaiting Release). That would explain the videos and the going home in 3 weeks. 

Only reg force members can be put on WFT (Warrior Fitness Training). If she is/was a reservist, she will be sent back to her unit tout de suite. That sounds like what has happened here. And yes, not meeting the absolute minimum push-up standards (2 for women, 4 for men), even if they passed everything else, will get a reservist shipped home.


----------



## PMedMoe

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like she is on PAR (Personnel Awaiting Release). That would explain the videos and the going home in 3 weeks.
> 
> Only reg force members can be put on WFT (Warrior Fitness Training). If she is/was a reservist, she will be sent back to her unit tout de suite. That sounds like what has happened here. And yes, not meeting the absolute minimum push-up standards (2 for women, 4 for men), even if they passed everything else, will get a reservist shipped home.



Don't reservists do the PT test *before* they go to BMQ?


----------



## George Wallace

Part of the Reserve Application process is the PT Test (CF Expres).  This will be done before the member is enrolled.  The member sometimes waits up to a year before being Crse Loaded on a BMQ Crse if the timing is wrong and no Crses are avail at the time they enrolled.  Timing.  Sometimes this, compounded with the fact that the PT Test may not accurately portray what physical standard is required for BMQ, makes it a possibility that unfit pers are getting onto BMQs.  

It is happening.

If they manage to get through BMQ (and some are), they face even more challenges (physically) when they start SQ.  Will the System weed them out?   :-\  Probably not.  It is easier for them to VR making less administration for some Crse staff.


----------



## Celticgirl

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Don't reservists do the PT test *before* they go to BMQ?



Yep, before they go *and* again when they are there. Oddly enough, there are lots of folks who pass the Expres test at home, yet fail it at St. Jean. Perhaps they let their 'skills' lapse during the time between the two, I'm not sure. 

Army reservists are the exception because they do weekend BMQ. Anyone doing "reg force" BMQ/BMOQ (that includes all air and naval reservists, I believe) should be forewarned that they will have to do an Expres test and pass it in admin week (week 0 of BMQ, week 1 of BMOQ). Reg force members that fail may have the option of WFT, but reserve members will be sent home.


----------



## helpup

Been hearing alot about the MEGA and all things being equal, I am glad I went to Cornwallis when I did.  Even with the Name tape stitch measuring going on.  Or the demo on how to properly sh#t Shower Shave


----------



## traviss-g

Why do ResF not have the opportunity to WFT like RegF? What is the logic behind this policy, I am sure there is one and I am just not seeing it.


----------



## aesop081

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Why do ResF not have the opportunity to WFT like RegF? What is the logic behind this policy, I am sure there is one and I am just not seeing it.



Well, reserves do BMQ at many different locations so you would have to set up WFT at as many locations. Considering the rough percentage of course candidates who would end up on WFT , it would be , IMHO, too resource intensive on a system already short staffed.

Furthermore, with reserves running weekend BMQ, what are you going to do ? Weekend WFT ? Even if you did that, what do you do with the member once done with WFT .....you cant recourse him to weekend BMQs that are no longer running because the unit has moved on to other things. The member ends up sitting and waiting for BMQs the following year.


----------



## George Wallace

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Why do ResF not have the opportunity to WFT like RegF? What is the logic behind this policy, I am sure there is one and I am just not seeing it.



To add to what CDN Aviator said, WTF is a continuous program run through out a 'training week' over a period of weeks.  Reservists, unless on a full time course during the summer, would not be able to do this unless they were fulltime, which they are not during the majority of the year.

Training Reservists during the summer, does not give you the luxury to take them off the only course being run to put them on a WTF program.  That would likely add a full year to qualify them.  That is expensive.  

Reservists do not get off easy due to these facts.  They still need to be in shape and pass their BFT and/or CF Expres (Depending on circumstances) and Medical to be promoted...........Although some that I know have been promoted who I am sure could not pass a the PT Test, nor the Medical....so somewhere people are still cheating.


----------



## traviss-g

Right well that all makes perfect sense. Like I said there must be some kind of logic behind it. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## the_girlfirend

helpup said:
			
		

> Or the demo on how to properly sh#t Shower Shave



 :rofl: there is a demo for that? :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> :rofl: there is a demo for that? :rofl:




Yes there is.  You will be surprised at how many people really need a demonstration on proper hygene.


----------



## Lil_T

I'm not surprised, I was in downtown Ottawa for Canada Day yesterday.  GROSS!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> :rofl: there is a demo for that? :rofl:



It's amazing the number of Dirty Billys that show up for course, many who have never used a razor in their lives.


----------



## PMedMoe

I'm so glad I did BMQ ages ago.  If I had to go through now, I'd be getting in trouble for laughing all the time or rolling my eyes.   :   ;D


----------



## Rosesm

yes she actually did good on her physical other then the pushups according to a warrant officer there. They had her go along with the others and stood in line at the Canex with her supplies she had purchased and then some officer came and took her stuff and got her money back and she was sent to PAR which she said made her feel like an idiot in front of the others. I have been told some of these officers are under investigation.Alot of things were not explained very good too her before she went.


----------



## tobin84

I'm about to sign up to join the military, more specifically the Army and I'm trying to narrow down what job choices I would like.

So far I've chosen:

Combat Engineer
Construction Technician
Artillery Soldier

While researching these jobs I found that in the US Army women are not allowed to do most of these jobs, and in Canada women are allowed but there are not very many because of the nature of the job and the strenuous activity it involves. Which I'm not contesting and can be understandable. 

My concern is that I'm over reaching my goals, I am by no means a superior athlete but I can keep up with most and currently training to try and make BMQ easier on myself. I just don't want to shoot for a goal most girls cannot succeed at, I want to be realistic in my choices.

Any insight on this would be great.

BTW am i no way doubting myself, or saying that women cannot do a "mans" job, i would just like to know what the statistics are. Thanks!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Rosesm said:
			
		

> I have been told some of these officers are under investigation.



Whoever told you that made it up.


----------



## George Wallace

OK.  Now that I have merged your post for the second time (two identical posts), I am beginning to wonder about you.  Looking at your posting history, I am rather confused.



			
				tobin84 said:
			
		

> I planning on joining the military shortly, and I have one concern I havent been able to find much information on. I have partner who I am extremely close with,  and barely go a day without talking/seeing. We know and are prepared that while I am away training that we will have very limited contact for months at a time, but my largest concern is how long this will continue for.
> 
> We are not yet married, and I know we will not be together for BMQ, but what about after that? When I relocate, is she able to come with me then or do I have to live in single barracks?
> 
> I just would like to know how long you normally have to wait before your family can relocate with you? Also because she is not yet my wife, is she still considered just as important?
> 
> Any info on this would be great, were not planning anything yet of course but to know what to expect to prepare ourselves would be helpful.
> 
> Thanks!



I wonder if you have looked around the site at all to seek answers to your questions?  Do you think that you are so unique that the question you have has never been asked?  Please read this topic from start to finish, and then have a look at other topics that cover Women in the CF.  There is a long topic running on BMQ, "What to bring to St. Jean: Female perspective....Any tips?".  Have a look at it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

:rofl:



Gee George, do ya suppose someone could actually have a lifestyle other than yours??

Naaaaaaah....... :argument:


----------



## Celticgirl

traviss-g said:
			
		

> Why do ResF not have the opportunity to WFT like RegF? What is the logic behind this policy, I am sure there is one and I am just not seeing it.



$$$$

Reserve units only have so much money to spend. Ergo, they can't afford to send their people to WFT and then BMQ, which I believe is the reason for the initial Expres test at home. It would stand to reason that if you pass it before you go to basic, you will pass it in your first week of training. Oddly enough, it doesn't always happen. I was talking to a reserve (naval) RMS clerk when I was on PAR, and she was being sent home for only doing one push-up. Somehow, she had managed to do 9 of them on her first test, but only did one in St. Jean. Go figure. 

I've already done one Expres test for the reserves, will have to do a second shortly after I enroll, and a third and fourth during BMQ.  ;D Such is life. I just keep working out and hope to keep my fitness level up.



			
				Rosesm said:
			
		

> Alot of things were not explained very good too her before she went.



In defence of the recruiting people (of which my fiance is one), candidates have to take the iniative to ask questions and gather information before going. No matter how well someone researches, though, and no matter how well things are explained to them prior to going on course, there are still going to be some surprises along the way. To quote Big Brother, "expect the unexpected".


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee George, do ya suppose someone could actually have a lifestyle other than yours??
> 
> Naaaaaaah....... :argument:



Are you insinuating that I actually have a lifestyle?


----------



## tobin84

Sorry about the double posts, it appeared to not have posted the first time if not I would not have done it the second time.

I posted my questions as well, as I found alot of information on subjects about concerns i have but nothing giving me a direct answer on my own personal situation, and didnt think it could hurt asking.

Just wondering why you have a part of my post highlighted, regarding my partner yet being my wife? And why that previous post would make you wonder about me?


----------



## Strike

Because George is old and it takes him awhile to pick up on things.  Just nod and smile.   ;D

(Just kidding George, you know I love you!)


----------



## Good2Go

tobin84 said:
			
		

> Sorry about the double posts, it appeared to not have posted the first time if not I would not have done it the second time.
> 
> I posted my questions as well, as I found alot of information on subjects about concerns i have but nothing giving me a direct answer on my own personal situation, and didnt think it could hurt asking.
> 
> Just wondering why you have a part of my post highlighted, regarding my partner yet being my wife? And why that previous post would make you wonder about me?




No one cares what you do in your personal life.  HOWEVER are you a female or male as that changes the scope of your questions and possible answers.

I am so confused...


----------



## tobin84

Thanks Strike, I think I'll do just that haha.

To clarify the situation, I was wondering about women in military jobs, because I am a woman.

Altho I take it I was assumed to be a male as I said in a previous post that I date a woman? Ill laugh at that and hope thats not the case, esp in regards to someone wondering about me because of it. Welcome to 2009!


----------



## Celticgirl

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm so glad I did BMQ ages ago.  If I had to go through now, I'd be getting in trouble for laughing all the time or rolling my eyes.   :   ;D



Haha! A friend of mine got a counselling for sighing too loudly when someone else on his platoon F****d up!  ;D


----------



## Otis

tobin84 said:
			
		

> Thanks Strike, I think I'll do just that haha.
> 
> To clarify the situation, I was wondering about women in military jobs, because I am a woman.
> 
> Altho I take it I was assumed to be a male as I said in a previous post that I date a woman? Ill laugh at that and hope thats not the case, esp in regards to someone wondering about me because of it. Welcome to 2009!



In defence of G2G, your being a woman who is dating a woman does NOT affect the general populace's attitude towards you on this forum.

What MORE affects Army.ca personnel's opinion is if they think you're a moron or not (and I mean no offence - Moron IS an official category of intelligence, much like genius is). If you confuse people, they will more assume the moron mantle and be less inclined to give you helpful answers and more inclined to mock and insult you.

THAT is why G2G tells you that it can change the answers (if I read G2G correctly)


----------



## gcclarke

Otis said:
			
		

> In defence of G2G, your being a woman who is dating a woman does NOT affect the general populace's attitude towards you on this forum.
> 
> What MORE affects Army.ca personnel's opinion is if they think you're a moron or not (and I mean no offence - Moron IS an official category of intelligence, much like genius is). If you confuse people, they will more assume the moron mantle and be less inclined to give you helpful answers and more inclined to mock and insult you.
> 
> THAT is why G2G tells you that it can change the answers (if I read G2G correctly)



Honestly, I think that's a bit harsh. Especially considering the fact that the messages that caused the confusion were in completely different threads. In this thread, she made it very clear that she's got girly bits, and in the other thread she made it clear that she was dating a woman. 

If that's all it takes to confuse people, then she's quite right that people need to pull their head out of the sand. It's hardly like she'd be the first lesbian in the Canadian Forces. It also did not seem to me that she was deliberately attempting to confuse people. 

That having been said, tobin84, you might want to fill out your profile information to help avoid such confusion in the future.


----------



## armyvern

tobin84 said:
			
		

> Thanks Strike, I think I'll do just that haha.
> 
> To clarify the situation, I was wondering about women in military jobs, because I am a woman.
> 
> Altho I take it I was assumed to be a male as I said in a previous post that I date a woman? Ill laugh at that and hope thats not the case, esp in regards to someone wondering about me because of it. Welcome to 2009!



Sigh ... we've learned long ago not to assume too much around here ...

As for George highlighting only that one "she is not yet my wife" portion of your post ...

That's got SFA to do with your preferences. Think of it this way:

Every week  some one comes along on this site and asks "How much contact etc can I have with my _spouse_ while on training" or "How much contact can I have with my girlfriend/boyfriend whie on course" or "Do I have to live in the shacks if I'm married" or "do I have to live in the shacks while I'm single" .... or "I'm not married yet, can I .... or can we (insert significant other of whatever sex here) ..."

I think the pointof his highlighting that bit was to highlight the fact that you are not "married" - whether to a guy or a gal is moot - and thus ... a  simple forum search of

"Do I have to .... if I'm single ..." would have garnered you the answers to all of the questions you've posed thus far. Answers to your questions are the exact same for you as they are for any other "single" person. Answers to your questions would also be the same were you married/common-law with your partner as they would be with a MF relationship ... They are already answered here- that's why he brought up the "have you searched the site" ... "SINGLE" being your operative word ... not your sexual preference.

Run a search on "females combat arms" ... there's plenty of posts here addressing females in the cbt arms for example. I know women in all three of the trades you've listed and to a girl - they love their jobs - just like for a man, I believe it's all in the attitude; put your mind to succeeding and you will. Good luck with your choices and in whatever trade option you choose.


----------



## aesop081

"Where are the women in the CF ?"

They are everywhere. Done.


----------



## Good2Go

Otis said:
			
		

> In defence of G2G, your being a woman who is dating a woman does NOT affect the general populace's attitude towards you on this forum.
> 
> What MORE affects Army.ca personnel's opinion is if they think you're a moron or not (and I mean no offence - Moron IS an official category of intelligence, much like genius is). If you confuse people, they will more assume the moron mantle and be less inclined to give you helpful answers and more inclined to mock and insult you.
> 
> THAT is why G2G tells you that it can change the answers (if I read G2G correctly)


Correct on all counts Otis.


----------



## George Wallace

Moving along, I am sure we have found the right forum to find the answers.


----------



## Larkvall

Army News Story

Military women discuss female leadership: Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVgTYisqqok


----------



## CEEBEE501

Here is part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K4B8G6IIpk


----------



## starseed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes there is.  You will be surprised at how many people really need a demonstration on proper hygene.


Oh god, what have I got myself into ><


----------



## George Wallace

starseed said:
			
		

> Oh god, what have I got myself into ><



Well.  For one, you've gotten yourself into a "Girls" topic.     ;D


----------



## starseed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  For one, you've gotten yourself into a "Girls" topic.     ;D


I am being 100% truthful when I say that I knew you would say that.

I clearly have a bright future in Intelligence.


----------



## armyvern

starseed said:
			
		

> I clearly have a bright future in Intelligence.



Yeah, you're right. 

Clearly - women have no requirement to shave. I recommend the women of the world here-to-forth burn our razors. Thanks for the suggestion boys - do enjoy!!  >


----------



## Yrys

I don't shave...

Except under the pits  >


----------



## armyvern

Yrys said:
			
		

> I don't shave...
> 
> Except under the pits  >



Well stop it right now!! Boycott this evil activity!


----------



## Loachman

We had a fellow of different ethnicity in my old Reserve unit who used to burn his armpit hair off with a Bic. Odd, and a better ventilated venue would have been appreciated by everybody else.

So, ladies, all that you need is a propane torch and you can dispense with razors, wax, and creams.

Don't forget to open the window first, and have a bucket of water and a phone handy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Folks, as much as this is veeeeery entertaining...............................





                                                     ff topic:


----------



## armyvern

Yes dear.  8)


----------



## IntelGirl

I'd like to share my two cents on the topic for females working out or training before BMQ.

I don't have a lot of money, nor places to go to where I can train, however if you have children, next time you go to the park, look at all the free equipment around you! Monkey bars are perfect for chin ups, some play sites also have chin up bars. If you have an infant, do pushups while blowing raspberries on their belly...or something.

If you're just starting out your training, do your pushups on the slide. I run around the structure while my girl is playing, and sometimes go into the field while she plays with a ball and run up and down the hills.

Just a thought


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have to ask...don't you get lots of looks from the other people/mom's there who aren't looking like they are play-acting Linda Hamilton in The Terminator?

http://dietrichthrall.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/linda-hamilton.jpg


----------



## IntelGirl

Hahaha. Well, I don't know, sometimes we're there so early no one is ever awake...however, I have gotten looks. My brain just tells me:

"Look at them, all wishing they had your physique and ripped body...yeah."
"Wish you could do raspberry pushups eh?" (I've said this one a couple times.)

I hope once I am done BMQ I look like Linda Hamilton in The Terminator...only blonde. Then when I go to the park I can really get some googly eyes.  :threat:


----------



## Celticgirl

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have to ask...don't you get lots of looks from the other people/mom's there who aren't looking like they are play-acting Linda Hamilton in The Terminator?
> 
> http://dietrichthrall.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/linda-hamilton.jpg



LOL! Well, like IntelGirl, I used to do the monkey bars at my daughter's playground for practice. I still struggled with the ones on the confidence course, though. (It was January, I blame the gloves!) And yeah, I'm sure some of the other parents wondered what the heck I was doing using the kids' play equipment, but oh well!

IntelGirl, check out a thread called GIRLS IN THE GYM in the physical training section. We have a great discussion happening over there with lots of good info. 

So, back to the topic of 'what to bring'. I have been thinking about what I will do differently this time around. Some of my thoughts:
- The hairnets at the Canex in SJ are crappy, flimsy ones...I saw ladies with thicker, sturdier hair nets at SJ, so I plan to hunt those down before I leave and take a pile of 'em. On a similar topic, the hairbands I bought at the Canex were not a "colour found in nature" so bring some from home that blend in perfectly with your hair colour. Bring extra.
- The only shampoos that were available in the Canex when I was there were Pert and Head & Shoulders, both of which made my hair like straw. Bad enough that I have to manage long thick hair into a bun in 60 seconds or less, but when it also has a straw-like texture, the fun is multiplied.   This time, I'll make sure I have good shampoo with me, at least enough to last me 5 weeks until I can go shopping outside the Mega.
- Keep feminine products in your small personal lock-up...this will require taking things out of boxes and putting them in ziploc bags or sandwich bags in order to maximize space. Take more than what you need for 5 wks, not just for you but for platoon mates if they come knocking. 
- Bring medical tape and scissors for labelling and pipe cleaners for your rifle (white ones if possible), and take Ziploc bags of all sizes, but especially the large ones.
- Bandaids, Tylenol (remember to get approval from pharmacy in the first week or two), ibuprofen, vitamins, A535 (or similar) for sore muscles, polysporin, etc. Even if you are not injured - hopefully not - you'll be sore and achy and have blisters at the very least. Take care of blisters...a podmate's blister got very infected and she ended up recoursing and eventually releasing because of it.
- Five weeks' worth of phone cards and an Internet stick for after indoc if you have a laptop
- Loonies and quarters for the vending machines. You might say no now, but trust me, you'll be saying yes later.  The computers in the green break area also take toonies, loonies, and quarters.
- No fancy underwear. You may be surprised to know that underwear (bras included) are part of your layout, albeit in a drawer under your bed, but they will check it now and then. No frilly or sexy stuff, ladies. We were issued long underwear for winter, but otherwise, were not issued undergarments (briefs), had to wear our own from home and had to display them (3 panties, 3 bras).

That's all that comes to mind at the moment, but I'm sure I'll be back.   lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> LOL! Well, like IntelGirl, I used to do the monkey bars at my daughter's playground for practice. I still struggled with the ones on the confidence course, though. (It was January, I blame the gloves!) And yeah, I'm sure some of the other parents wondered what the heck I was doing using the kids' play equipment, but oh well!



So the next question is where are the pictures of this pre-CFLRS trg at? 

Hmmm.  I should go over to the MFRC playground for PT..wonder how well the SCWO would take my explaination of "why I was doing PT in the playground"


----------



## the_girlfirend

CelticGirl,

I saw a girl at my unit with a very thick hair net... I asked her and she said she bought it at the pharmacy and she said it is a hair net sold for permanents or for holding any kind of rolls that you can put into your hair... I haven't checked yet but I certainly will soon...

thanks for the info


----------



## Celticgirl

the_girlfirend said:
			
		

> CelticGirl,
> 
> I saw a girl at my unit with a very thick hair net... I asked her and she said she bought it at the pharmacy and she said it is a hair net sold for permanents or for holding any kind of rolls that you can put into your hair... I haven't checked yet but I certainly will soon...
> 
> thanks for the info



Ah, ok, cool. I think I will ask at the local pharmacies and see what they have. Thanks back atcha.


----------



## Myriade

As a female in the CF, you're going to stand out on the various courses that you complete.
During the first few courses, BMQ, SQ, you're going to be dealing with the more immature of CF attitudes.

If you're not as strong as the male candidates, you'll be treated as a bag before any other male bag.
If you can physically outperform male candidates, you will threaten their manhood and be treated like shit.
If you're good at what you do, you friends will stay your friends, and the rest will see you as a threat.
Any rumor of fraternization will follow you you're entire career, so I recommend civilian guys. 
If you don't fuck around, you'll be called asexual or a transvestite.
As a female, just watch your back.

I volunteered to be C9 gunner on my SQ. Only a PRes SQ in Meaford, but still a huge accomplishment for me. When about to collapse, the only thing that kept me going was the shit-talking from the other candidates. The guys of my OWN section did everything to try and make me quit... trips, rifle hits from the back, not passing on information during patrols. I even had to deal with occasional violence, kicked in the helmet, rifle butt in the back of my head, almost got punched. To this day I don't understand that behavior. On subsequent courses (QL3, Drvs Wl) I noticed that when I do perform above what they expect you to perform, the insecure male candidates, take out their insecurities on me.

I'm posting this because women joining the CF NEED to know what to expect. It's high school all over again. You pose a threat to their ego (physically, intellectually, in skills), they WILL try to bring you down.

This is just my experience. I'd like to hear more positive experiences. Yet after all that, I'm joining the Regular Force and hoping the maturity level is different. What will I be doing differently? Laying low that's for sure. Keep to myself and not let the testosterone get to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

You go Reg with that attitude and chip on your shoulder, I doubt you'll be there long. You had the harassment lectures, we don't give them because it's too early to send you to coffee break.


----------



## Myriade

I didn't intend my post to be harassing in any way. 

If I hadn't learned or seen value in the experience, I wouldn't be joining the RegF. That specifically, (thankfully) was in complete contrast to my BMQ, where a team there definately was.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> I volunteered to be C9 gunner on my SQ. Only a PRes SQ in Meaford, but still a huge accomplishment for me. When about to collapse, the only thing that kept me going was the crap-talking from the other candidates. The guys of my OWN section did everything to try and make me quit... trips, rifle hits from the back, not passing on information during patrols. I even had to deal with occasional violence, kicked in the helmet, rifle butt in the back of my head, almost got punched. To this day I don't understand that behavior. On subsequent courses (QL3, Drvs Wl) I noticed that when I do perform above what they expect you to perform, the insecure male candidates, take out their insecurities on me.



So naturally you brought this harassment to the attention of the chain of command, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Myriade said:
			
		

> As a female in the CF, you're going to stand out on the various courses that you complete.



Disagree.  I've taught on more courses than you are likely going to take in the CF.  The people who stand out are the ones who perform, the ones who don't, and the ones who can't.  



> During the first few courses, BMQ, SQ, you're going to be dealing with the more immature of CF attitudes.



Care to elobarate or back that up somehow??



> If you're not as strong as the male candidates, you'll be treated as a bag before any other male bag.



Good grief.



> If you can physically outperform male candidates, you will threaten their manhood and be treated like shit.



My DCO can outrun me,  but I'd kill her in the weight room.  I don't see us as a threat to each other.  You're well out of your lane IMO.



> As a female, just watch your back.



Ok, GI Jane.



> I volunteered to be C9 gunner on my SQ. Only a PRes SQ in Meaford, but still a huge accomplishment for me. When about to collapse, the only thing that kept me going was the shit-talking from the other candidates. The guys of my OWN section did everything to try and make me quit... trips, rifle hits from the back, not passing on information during patrols. I even had to deal with occasional violence, kicked in the helmet, rifle butt in the back of my head, almost got punched. To this day I don't understand that behavior. On subsequent courses (QL3, Drvs Wl) I noticed that when I do perform above what they expect you to perform, the insecure male candidates, take out their insecurities on me.



MAYBE other candidates don't like you because you think so highly of yourself...and your seemingly above standard-ness...



> I'm posting this because women joining the CF NEED to know what to expect. It's high school all over again. You pose a threat to their ego (physically, intellectually, in skills), they WILL try to bring you down.



Again...good grief.

I am sure, with your attitude and outlook, you are just a PLEASURE to be on course with.  I've seen, and sorted out, your kind before...male AND female.


----------



## Myriade

I'm not looking to anger anyone. I'm not claiming to be a reference for the CF or even civilian side, especially not in terms of standards. (Definitely not above standard!)

In terms of personal experience, there is no right or wrong lane. All input is valuable input to me.

Glad to hear about your DCO. And your alarmed reaction to that post is good news. It simply means the behavior isn't mainsteam.


----------



## Strike

Holy cow, where do I start?

Reading your initial post I would think that all your issues came about more because of your attitude than because you have different equipment. Seriously, I've been 15 yrs and, although I may have had to deal with dipsticks, never to the extent you portray.  As a previous poster asked, did you ever actually report any of this?  Never pass a fault.  If you do you're no better than the person who started the problem.

To other women reading this thread, don't be put off by this one person who is so obviously outside the norm or our collective experiences.


----------



## George Wallace

Her experiences are an example, that although there are checks in place, and training to prevent Harassment and Prejudice, there are still many immature people at the early stages of their careers who have not matured enough to realize their errors.  Society is changing, but change does not come instantly overnight.  It takes time.  The onus is on all of you to create and maintain the correct work environment.  (If you want to read about what entails the "Work Environment", research the policy on Harassment.)


----------



## muskrat89

Myriade - Everyone's point is that there are mechanisms in place to keep harassment from happening. If it happened to the level you describe, it is because you allowed it to continue - not because that is the treatment all females should expect when joining the CF.


----------



## Myriade

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Myriade - Everyone's point is that there are mechanisms in place to keep harassment from happening. If it happened to the level you describe, it is because you allowed it to continue - not because that is the treatment all females should expect when joining the CF.


 
That's a good point. I also see that particular experience as the exception of all my OWN experiences so far. It's the only time where I ever had to deal with that either on course or working a contract. The only reason I posted it, is so any reader could see both extremes. The first question I asked friends with military experience (before I joined) was, tell me about the negative aspects of the job. It's not everyones approach but just in case it's someone else's, there's something to keep in mind.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:
			
		

> Myriade, you are applying as a Med Tech?
> If so, you will be receiving preceptorship.
> You will do fine!
> Children respond well to female medics. It's easier for a female medic to work on females. Especially rapes and OB/GYN cases. Women are better at diffusing "domestics". You will protect your male partner from liability when handling female patients.
> On the other hand, I have been told by female medics that they feel violent drunks are more threatening towards them. I also think they are more prone to burnout and tend to vent stress more than men. But, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
> I must admit that, because you are so often alone with each other, being accussed of sexual misconduct was a worry I sometimes had in the back of my mind, until I got to know her better.
> I was very impressed at how well female medics handle trauma.
> Partners must be able to work  independently without direct supervision. It's ALL about two partners having confidence in each other. Because, s/he is all you've got out there.
> Did I mention marriage partner jealousy of the work partner? Please don't shrug that one off.
> There's other thing like heavy lifting ( one gets the feet, and one gets the head, which is the much heavier end ) mechanincs, extrication and forcible entry, overpowering psychiatric patients, and crowd control ( that can be truly terrifying ). And being "street wise". It's dirty, no FILTHY, job.
> You must be a good driver too, and know your streets like the back of your hand at night.
> I hope this helps.



WTF? Are you against this stereotype and this type of harassment or are you just describing the the norm for the city you used to work for and providing a job descriptor for budding Moronto paramedics. Now that you've jerked another thread around to your civie EMT point of view, do you feel better? You are the classic example of an enabler. You have no military experience, but feel the need to come here, once again, and drag the thread completely off the track, and fulfil your own egotistical needs. How about leaving military shit to  military people that know what they're talking about, and confining your comments to those that want to drive a meat wagon in Moronto.


----------



## Kat Stevens

You need to work on not keeping things bottled up like this, RG.  Let it go and tell us what you REALLY think.


----------



## Strike

mariomike said:
			
		

> Did I mention marriage partner jealousy of the work partner? Please don't shrug that one off.



Now that one I will admit to having to deal with.  I recall meeting the wife of my flight instructor and her telling me she was initially worried about our going on a cross-country flight trip together...until she and I spent the night in the mess feeding each other shooters.   ;D

My response to the wives who are worried about the goings on during exercises and overnights where there are women in the mix: "I'm more shocked that you don't trust your husband to behave than what you think of me.  After all, you don't even know me, but you should know your own husband."

That usually quiets them down a bit.


----------



## mariomike

I just got home.  She will have to do a preceptorship eventually. I was only speaking to that aspect. Sorry if any offence was taken. I will remove the post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry.





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> I just got home.  She will have to do a preceptorship eventually. I was only speaking to that aspect. Sorry if any offence was taken. I will remove the post.



Sorry. Won't work this time. I quoted your post in my response thread, and it will stay there for everyone to read.


----------



## mariomike

I removed it out of - sincere - respect to you. 
Sometimes, it's difficult on a computer to know what some people will find offensive. 
I am against any type of harassment. 
Perhaps this study by a university is more accurate than my memory:
http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/gonsoulin.htm
As far as my military experience is concerned, I was <snip the word "just"> a reservist, and it was a long time ago. I subscribed to learn more about the military.


----------



## 1feral1

MM, never sell yourself short by saying 'I was just a reservist'. We all bleed red and WRT your profile, 9 yrs of service in the CF, and reaching the leadership role of MCPL is a milestone (EDITed only for the spelling mistake of this word) in anyone's career (PT or FT we all contribute somehow), whether it was 30 yrs ago, or 3 yrs ago.

Good on ya for doing your time, regardless of your current civvy occupation, which alone one must admit, one has to be special to do - I could not.


Respectfully,

Wes


----------



## mariomike

Thanks, Wes. As a Med Tech, Myriade must do her preceptorship with a civilian crew on the streets. It is mandatory. I can assure you she was not traumatized or offended by my honest reply.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I apologise for misstating your service time.


----------



## mariomike

I regret that I ever left. I envy the young men and women who are joining. I also worry about them. 
I apoligise for being such a knuklehead sometimes. I am determined to change my ways.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:
			
		

> I envy the young men and women who are joining. I also worry about them.
> I apoligise for being such a knuklehead sometimes. I am determined to change my ways.



Ditto


----------



## Miss.Meteo

Hello girls and boys. Glad there is a little post for us. 

I am so happy I saw comments about struggling with push-ups, I wanted to add that the medic during my medical said to me that ''us women aren't MADE to do push-ups'' like the shape of our body (Breasts, hips...etc) But anyways a month ago I could barely do one and now I can do 6! I am so happy.

About the Physical test they said that I will get it the first week I am on my BMQ. How can I work out on my grip?? I doubt I am that good of a ''gripper''  

Thanks again!

May


----------



## Gunner98

Give this topic thread a scan, it has been found helpful before for grip test info seekers.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25153.0.html


----------



## MrEels

Unfortunately, there is a lot of myth surrounding the proper way of building grip strength. Sitting in front of the television with one of those little 'gripper' machines will not build any sort of significant muscle mass. 

Like most muscle groups, you need to overload your muscle to gain mass. What you want to do is work the forearms, plain and simple. Well, maybe not simple, but plain.

The Flexor digitorum is one of the many muscles located in the forearm that helps flex the wrist and fingers. Therefore, increased forearm muscle mass will improve your grip.

How, you say? Well, with a tilted eyebrow let me suggest some old-school stuff.
- Deadlifts are an excellent way to help build forearm muscle, grip, and the back
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Do-The-Deadlift-with-Proper-Form-122696451

- Doing a chin up with a towel. I know it's harder for the ladies (I can only pump out a lame 11 or so), but with a towel your forearm muscles have to work harder to grip the bar as the towel is not naturally gripped against the bar. 

- Rolling. This is another oldie but a goody! If you go to a local gym they should be readily available. It's that piece of wood tied to a string that holds small weights on the end. 

Just be careful not to overdo the training on forearms. IF you are going to the gym and using weights, when you do conventional upper body exercises, the forearm is usually a secondary muscle that is being used in most cases, hence the deadlift, for example. The deadlift targets the lower back, primarily, but targets the biceps and forearms, secondarily. 

Given that your BMQ is in October, you should have a decent amount of time to be a better 'gripper'  :
Cheers


----------



## Miss.Meteo

Thanks a lot for the information!! It's really appreciated.


----------



## mellian

Apart from push-ups and sit-ups which I can find plenty info on, curious if is there is site or info for women on building arm and upper strength at home without needing to go to a gym or buying any equipment? Especially without any accessible way to do chin-ups, at least for those who are 6'0" and can hold more than 180 pounds. 

So far trying to do (as in sticking with a routine) to work on the arms apart from just push-ups, like using my roller skates or food cans as weights. I would try a gym and such, just not affordable right now. 

Beyond that, keeping up with some endurance and lower/core strength through derby practices, and this past month making a bigger effort of skating everywhere. Not sure how that will translate to running/jogging, but I know can skate average of 5 to 7 km in under 30 minutes. I may have to go skate at the F1 track at Jean-Drapeau to confirm. 

I am big fan of Sarah Connor/Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, especially with all the physical training she gone through.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes

If you dig around on www.crossfit.com and through their forums you will find a wealth of information on exercising with minimal equipment and on how to make your own equipment at minimal cost.


----------



## gunshy

> Apart from push-ups and sit-ups which I can find plenty info on, curious if is there is site or info for women on building arm and upper strength at home



Have you tried a kitchen chair or two, to do dips? You can do reverse dips with one (even on a stair case, ottoman etc) and if you can anchor 2 chairs, you can be successful at doing forward dips. Tough but effective!   Good Luck!


----------



## ltmaverick25

mellian said:
			
		

> Beyond that, keeping up with some endurance and lower/core strength through derby practices, and this past month making a bigger effort of skating everywhere. Not sure how that will translate to running/jogging, but I know can skate average of 5 to 7 km in under 30 minutes. I may have to go skate at the F1 track at Jean-Drapeau to confirm.



You will certainly find that running will be more challenging then rollerblading.  In addition to rollerblading everywhere, I would recommend making a point of trying to do a 5km run 3 times per week.  If you can do 5k in about 30min or so, I would say you are at a bare minimum ability.  I say this because I used to do 5k in about 30min, and I found myself way behind the rest of the pack.  I haven't timed myself recently so I cant really give a good estimate for an ideal time.

As for upper body stuff...

Obviously do lots of pushups.  Simple exercise but it works your chest, shoulders, and arms all in one.  Once you find yourself really proficient at these, you can start doing variations.  For example pushups on your finger tips instead of your palms.  These are extremely difficult, but if you can manage them, they will certainly develop forearm strength.  

If you are looking to practice chin ups or something to that effect, I would recommend going to a local park and using monkey bars as a substitute.  You likely wont have to worry about them not being able to support your weight.  If you cant do one unassisted, then just bring a friend along to help push you up by supporting, and pushing your knees.  This is a very effective method to building yourself up to being able to do them unassisted.

Hope that helps


----------



## Manning001

Hey girls,
I recently applied to the reg. force NCM as an infantry soldier, but it's closed until April.  Since I want to do a combat job i'm trying to get myself in the best shape possible.  I'm doing a half marathon next weekend and regarding the push-ups, I can do about 200 in a day.  Usually sets of 25-30.  I've realized that with push-ups, they are so easy to improve on.  Just start off doing five if that's all you can do and just keep building that number up every week.  You will improve.  Sometimes it just takes time.


----------



## armychick2009

Just spent about an hour going through this thread and found some amusing stuff   But, I am definitely glad to see it. Another thread I found interesting before I recently did a course was, "What women should bring to boot-camp". I have some things that I will add to that one. But, back to the gym one...

The PUSH-UPS... my nemesis.... and a lot of others apparantely too. Yes, women aren't 'made' for doing push-ups and that's okay. It just means we have to work harder! But, if it makes you feel any better, men aren't 'made' for doing sit-ups. It's where we can 'catch-up'. I can do sit-ups until the cows come home but some of the men on my course? Had a hard time doing the minimum. 

That's okay though -- you just work towards what you can't do and strive to better it.  

Anyways, to add to some of the other topics I've seen on here. 

*Push-ups.* I won't add anything here, pretty much everything has been covered. I still hate 'em. But I'll do 'em.  >

*Sit-ups. * Make sure you are doing proper CF sit-ups! This catches a lot of people off-guard. I'll leave it to you to go research that (I don't want to screw up by saying something incorrectly from memory)! Also be prepared to hold the feet of others doing the test. If you can possibly make it so, do your sit-ups BEFORE you have to hold someone's feet. The woman I had to hold the feet of was a 110-lb powerhouse who churned out about 80 sit-ups in 2 minutes. You can't use any part of your body except your hands to hold down their feet and by the time she did her 80 sit-ups, I was breaking out in a sweat more than she was by trying to keep her down. Then I had to do my own sit-ups and my core (being weak, obviously, you don't need to point it out thanks!) was spent. I managed to do the minimum but it was a far cry from my usual 40-50 sit-ups in 2 minutes. I'll keep this part in mind for basic when I go soon. Lesson learned! (...and I intend my core to be in damn-fine shape by then!!)

*Beep-test. * Really try to get in on one or do one with someone else to get the experience. Make sure it's really 20 metres and download the MP3 from somewhere and do what you can. If you're fortunate enough to be doing it with other experienced people (as I had), follow the pace of someone else WITH experience. The mistake is going too fast at the beginning and burning yourself out before you get to your level you need. Another lesson learned and will take this  knowledge to basic with me too! Also, learn how to 'pivot' correctly so you don't twist a knee and to ensure you maximize your time best. 


*Grip-test.* I was very worried about this as I'm a bit of a weakling. However, don't sweat it too much. I passed this easily and if *I* can do it, (almost) anyone can. The advice from the person who suggested the weight on a string with a stick and rolling it? Excellent. I'm going to do this now as part of my preparation training. Next time I hope... wait, nope! Next time *I WILL*  score higher 


Now a question! The 2.4K timed test -- do they do this in basic as part of the express test? or is the beep test its 'equivalent'? I've decided that while doing longer distances is good, my focus the next few weeks will be SPEED and short-term endurance. This will help with the beep test obviously. I will still do the 2.4k timed runs as part of my prep training but will be incorporating fartlek training (speed-play) over the next while. For those that don't know what this training consists of, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek

I also remember reading how someone said they can't run fast but can go 'long' meaning, they can cover long-distances (20k) at a walking pace without a problem. I've been practicing the 13k and asked a few (male) friends how women seem to fare on these BFT (battle fitness tests). They said that women are (typically) not as fast -- HOWEVER -- they can go longer (at a more consistent pace) than the men before becoming fatigued. So, the end result (typically, they said, keep in mind I am going based on 2nd hand info here!) is that in the end, it works out that while the men can go faster, the women can go longer -- and that they usually finish around the same time. I'm assuming if you're with a group, you all have to stick together anyways. So, it's a moot point.

Anyways - I hope this reply isn't a total 'joke' to the experts here. I'm a total NEWBIE on this and it's just some personal experiences I've encountered lately through some trial and error on my part!

Oh... and before I go? Ladies? Don't let ANYONE mess with your head and get you down. If they doubt you? Criticize you? Prove them wrong. If you have to work twice as hard? Do it. Use the criticism as FUEL to get you through the next workout with improvements! Use mind-games to get yourself past the 'obstacles and barriers'. Use it to create an advantage!  

armychick


----------



## Loachman

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> I've been practicing the 13k and asked a few (male) friends how women seem to fare on these BFT (battle fitness tests).



Variable Mileage Disclaimer: The average age in my reserve-heavy, fairly high-tempo, non-Combat Arms unit is higher than many other units, but we have quite a few younger people as well. I am fifty-three. We also have a fair number of women.



			
				armychick2009 said:
			
		

> They said that women are (typically) not as fast



To be expected. _*Typically*_, they tend to be smaller, and would have to walk _*relatively*_ (in terms of size) more quickly in order to maintain the same speed. _*Typically*_, they are also carrying _*relatively*_ more weight, and therefore have to work _*relatively*_ harder.



			
				armychick2009 said:
			
		

> they can go longer (at a more consistent pace) than the men before becoming fatigued.



"Consistent pace" is likely the key. One does not have to maintain a high speed to pass - 5.4 km/hr will do it. I have found it better to start off slowly (5.5-5.6 km/hr) and build speed after warming up for a km or two. Men, especially the younger ones, tend to be more competitive and will likely crack off at a higher speed (6.0+ km/hr). Some, especially if they have practised more, will be able to maintain that, but many will peak early and slow down. Tortoise and hare and all...

I averaged 5.9 km/hr, passed comfortably, suffered no blistering, and was only slightly stiff and a little slow for a few hours. Decent, well-fitting footwear certainly helped as well.



			
				armychick2009 said:
			
		

> I'm assuming if you're with a group, you all have to stick together anyways.



On basic courses, most likely. For us, no, which allows for some interesting observations.


----------



## PMedMoe

Loachman said:
			
		

> Decent, well-fitting footwear certainly helped as well.



Too bad you pretty much have to buy your own.   

I just did the BFT on Friday and I was in the "fast" group.  I managed to keep up with them until the halfway point and then, because our timing was really good, I slowed down a little bit.  I still managed to pass one of the other women who is 6 ft tall (I'm about 5'3") about 2 km before we finished.  She asked when we were done how I did it.  Even though I'm shorter, I've always had a fairly long stride.  But yes, consistency in your pace helps a lot.  That and turning off your brain.   :nod:


----------



## armychick2009

Thanks for your comments guys! I'm personally not worried about the 13K... I'm good with long-distances myself and am used to carrying a large amout of weight, which I've been increasing. I know my pace is pretty good. I've got short-strides (I'm 5'5) but I keep a quick pace. I probably take twice as many steps as the (taller) guys (well, I *know* I do for a fact actually) but as long as I keep the speed/pace and 'turn off the brain' as you say, I'm good. I do this about three times a week right now but in running shoes. Next step is to do it in the combat boots  I'm sure that'll make quite a difference. It'll be interesting to see the changes when I do the switch...


"Interesting observations", eh? I can picture it already!!! You probably have the pukers, the whiners, the show-offs and the drop-offs...and...?


----------



## TFLY

Hello everyone, 

First time posting to the boards, but reading a fair bit.  I have a few questions to ask and looking for some honest answers.  

I am a 37.5 year old woman and I want to join the services.  Actually my application is already it and I'm waiting to hear something.  I knew it would take some time, as I have applied for ROTP and that processes wasn't expected to start until about now-ish.  But, I have to ask... given my current life, what the likelyhood of getting through basic is.  I REALLY Want it, but that's never enough.  I have three kids (aged 5, 7 and 16 in the new year), and for the past 7 years I have been a stay at home mom not really staying in shape but never getting TOO far out of shape.  I have started working out (P90X, Running, Stretching, Push ups and situps) But feel my progress is SLOW!  Back in my younger year, getting in shape meant just cracking down for 3 weeks.  NOT NOW.  I can't yet run 2.5 km without stopping, but I Can do 11 push ups, 27 sit ups.  My body fat is above normal for my sex and height.  My core strength is weak and so is my endurance.  Do you think it's even possible for me to get into enough shape to START basic?  I know the folks at the recruitting centre say I can, I think they are paid to encourage us.   >  

Anyway, this is a dream I had since I was about 20 when I first started the process of joining (much younger and in much better shape) But found myself pregnant and that changed my approach to life.  Here I am 16 years later and I still want to do it.  Any advice you have would be greatly welcomed.


----------



## Kat Stevens

For your core, get a stability ball and use it, all the time, they even make a great computer chair.  If you can find a place that does TRX training, give it a try, it will kick your butt.  As for running, well, run more, that's the only way to get better at it, a mill won't make you a better runner,  running will.  And no, you're not too old if you want it.


----------



## vonGarvin

In short, no, you're not too old to start.  You'll find that the young 'uns will run farther, faster, etc with apparent greater ease; however, you have some advantages over them: experience and maturity.  You'll probably find that you will be more serious about getting into shape, etc.  Just keep working on it, and it will come.  

Running is simply a matter of mind over matter.  Just run for time and not distance.  Try starting to run for say 30 minutes or so, and don't worry about how fast.  Just start at home (or wherever) and head out for 15 minutes, and then turn around.  So long as you can "just talk" when you run and maintain that pace, you'll do fine.  Good luck, and keep us posted.


----------



## Loachman

People far older than you have joined and made it through. It is as much determination as anything. There is no reason why you cannot succeed as well.


----------



## xena

When I joined, the Compulsory Retirement Age was 55, and you had to be able to complete a six year Basic Engagement before they'd let you sign.  So, the oldest you could be was 49.

On my course in Cornwallis, we had someone who was exactly that.  A 49 year old grandmother.  She passed.  Even though I myself was in the "older than most" category at 22, we _*all*_ looked up to her and were inspired by her.  Even the young gazelles that could run for hours.

You can do it, if you've put your mind to it.  And it sounds like you have.

All the best.


----------



## PMW

I am 50 and will be starting my BMQ in January at CFB Borden.  I am reg force and my trade is cook.

Good luck in your application to the the ROTP program.


----------



## Scott

And you get a hats off from me. I have nothing but respect for anyone who cooks for others in a military type situation (camps, rigs, fire posts, etc, I've seen them all) because you feed people good food for mere pennies a day (in this age of everything done by the lowest bidder)

I just came off a two week hitch offshore and my new best mate was the cook, those guys work their shifts, every second of them.

Anyway, I speak up because I don't see many cooks coming on here and I have a lot of time for anyone doing the trade.

Good luck to you


----------



## ballz

TFLY,

As a mom with 3 kids you have probably faced a lot more difficult tasks than basic training has to offer. You are not "that" old either. 

Time, like all things, is a resource, and _you_ have the luxery of having lots of it. Since you'd just be applying, your BMOQ is *over* a year away (it wouldn't be until the summer of 2011). That is plenty of precious time to get into the shape you need to be in. 

At 11 pushups, you are already past many of the 18-20 year old girls that were on my course, some who needed until week 8 to get the 9 pushups that were required. 27 situps is sufficient. Obviously "sufficient" is never enough, so don't stop working on your core, but, what I'm saying is, you're already clear for 2 categories of the CF Express Test. With over a YEAR to get the other 2 (you may already be in the clear for those as well).

If you need anymore encouragement than that, know that a 46 year old mom was on my BMOQ this summer, and was not lagging behind. In fact, she was the first female to clear the 6 foot wall (an obstacle on the obstacle course), and left all those 20 yr old young guns behind.

Also, you'll probably breeze through inspections if you're anything like the more experienced women that were on my course. Some of them needed more encouragement on physical stuff (no more than some of the young people that showed up out of shape though...) but I was often running to them for help when it was time to get ready for inspections.


----------



## Celticgirl

I'm 38 and about to graduate from basic training this coming week. It has not come easily for me, though, I have to tell you. This is my second attempt at it this year, and I believe I'm in pretty good shape for my age. On my last Expres test, I got to level 7 on the shuttle run, 21 push-ups, 51 sit-ups, and 69 handgrip, but I still struggled with the physical aspects of the course considerably. Then again, some of the 'young' folks struggled, too...we had some recourses due to illness and injury these past 13 weeks. It's a demanding course. The 72 hours we spent in the FOB was probably the hardest part of this course for me physically (very little sleep and LOTS of activity), with the 13k ruck march coming in a close second. I have never been challenged like this before in my life, and I am glad I went through it - hard times and all. I am physically and mentally a stronger person for it.

So as for your own goals of joining, I would say just keep building your strength and endurance, and when YOU feel ready, then just go for it. If for some reason, you cannot finish the course, _don't give up_. Lots of people VR or are recoursed and end up being successful at a later time. For me, I will have completed a full 22 weeks of basic training when I graduate this week.    But being able to become a member of this awesome team has been worth every painful minute of it.

Good luck to you on your journey!  :yellow:


----------



## TFLY

WOW!!!  Thank you everyone!  This is so encouraging!  I will continue to work at being ready because I want to show myself and my children that anything can be accomplished if you put your mind to it.  

Celticgirl - Congratulations!  Enjoy every minute of your graduation and your new found strength!

Ballz - Great words of wisdom (you must have kids)  I sometimes forget that my "time" as a busy mom will probably help me in this task!  

Scott - I'm not hoping for Cook position, but I guess if I can't get my azz in gear to study more, that's where I will be.  Not that it's bad, I just do that now, want something new.   :blotto:

PMW- Good LUCK TO YOU  too!!!!

Xena - Thank you for your kinds words as well.  I also forget that as an older individual, I could actually set an example for some younger women out there.


----------



## armychick2009

TFLY, 
I'm 31 and back in May when I decided to give this a whirl, I was easily 100 pounds overweight. I could barely walk 2.4 kms let alone run it.  Push-ups? yea right!

Since June 1st, I've lost 40 pounds. Still another 60 to go but, I can run 2.4 kms now. I can do the 13k rucksack "march" in 2 hrs, 10 minutes (cut-off is something like, 2 hrs 20-ish minutes)

Can I do push-ups? Still not the greatest, I can eek out three or four now. But, two weeks ago I couldn't do any. I plan on being able to in the next two weeks, getting up to 9 (the bare minimum) and by the time basic *hopefully* starts in April/May for me, I plan on being able to do at least 25. I will not merely be happy with the minimum but I will strive to get the exemption stage if possible. The only thing that I see right now that could stop me is the beep test... but - we'll cross that bridge when it comes!

If you are determined, and really give it a go -- you'll be able to do this! Seriously, if I can do it anyone can!


----------



## the 48th regulator

This thread is no good without pictures.

We want to help you, but we need to see who we are working with!   :nod:

dileas

tess


----------



## TFLY




----------



## TFLY

What?  That picture of Jewel, depicting me, is not good enough???  

Just kidding.  Tell me how to do it and I will post one.


----------



## the 48th regulator

TFLY said:
			
		

> What?  That picture of Jewel, depicting me, is not good enough???
> 
> Just kidding.  Tell me how to do it and I will post one.




Well....

Maybe we should take this to PM's so that I can guide and coach you in the intricate ways of the net....

dileas


tess

btw, do you wear bracelets?  Oh never mind, just a thought.


----------



## GAP

.


----------



## Loachman

So long as he at least keeps his socks on.


----------



## TFLY

Call me blonde...but what does that mean??? 





> btw, do you wear bracelets?  Oh never mind, just a thought.


----------



## the 48th regulator

TFLY said:
			
		

> Call me blonde...but what does that mean???



A Blonde.....

M'dear, it gets even better.  Let's talk and we will discuss the "bracelet" so you may get fit.

dileas

tess


----------



## TFLY

Funny guy!   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

OK let's stay on track here. You've had your fun Tess.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## the 48th regulator

recceguy said:
			
		

> OK let's stay on track here. You've had your fun Tess.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Roger that,

I shall step away.  Sorry for taking this in a different direction.

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin

OK.............

Now, back on topic.

FWIW, I've seen plenty of people coming and going through the training system.  In the cases where people weren't successful, in most cases, it was due to attitute/maturity.  So, TFLY, just remember that you if you can put mind over matter, you should be ok.  You've seen the case on here from others who've gone through, some much older than you.  Take it for what it's worth, but if you have the right mindset, you'll be ok.


----------



## TFLY

Thank you TechnoViking!  I'm definately in the right mind-set!  

I have to say though, I have watched all the episode (both seasons) of Basic up and it scares the be-Jee-Ziz, out of me.  But I figure, for ever day I can stay in, I'm that much closer to my goal.  Anyone can do anything for one day right.....?  I'll just keep telling myself that.


----------



## CallOfDuty

lol...staff getting cock from staff....    
PS---My buddys wife is in week 7 right now and loving it.  8 Weeks ago you could not have waken her up any time before  nine o clock in the morning.  Now shes 5am-----11PM every day.  Shes succeeding and staying strong, and her favorite class is weapons.
  Good luck


----------



## ballz

TFLY said:
			
		

> Ballz - Great words of wisdom (you must have kids)  I sometimes forget that my "time" as a busy mom will probably help me in this task!



Let me first say I am flattered that you think I must have kids.

Next, I'll tell you I'm 20 yrs old and the mere thought of having kids terrifies me, much more than BMOQ ever did. I can only imagine, from my own hatred of all things involving housework and cleaning, and the cleaning and scrubbing I did in BMOQ, how hard it must be to be a housewife. I *almost* feel bad for all the mothering my mom had to do because of me, and I just know that if all kids are like me, 1 kid deserves a medal, 3 deserves a VC.


----------



## FastEddy

TFLY said:
			
		

> Funny guy!   :



Yeah !, but he's usually on the money.

Well you've received tons of good advice and encouragement.

But the most important thing to consider and do, is remember,

IT IS BETTER TO JOIN AND LOOSE THAN NEVER TO HAVE TRIED AT ALL.

Join, if you make it                   GREAT !
If you don't its still                    GREAT !
If you've gave it your best        GREAT !
If you've followed your Dream  GREAT !

So Good Luck, You'll make it.   

Cheers.


----------



## TFLY

Thanks again guys.  

I think I have found an amazing support system here and I haven't even started.  And people wonder why I want to join the Canadian Forces!  Please!!  You have your really mature young people with such great advice you would think he had much more world knowledge than one should expect from a 20 year old (really??? only 20 Ballz??)  You have your funny guys that help break up any tension there MIGHT be, you have the extremely motivating, story telling guys (oh, and GALS) that have the perfect story for the situation and then you have the the Canadian Forces.  Need I say more???


I'm not saying I'm sure I won't find faults at times, but I'm just going to ride this wave and enjoy every step of it!

PS, anyone watch "Basic Up"?  How close to reality is it?   ???


----------



## observor 69

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> So as for your own goals of joining, I would say just keep building your strength and endurance, and when YOU feel ready, then just go for it. If for some reason, you cannot finish the course, _don't give up_. Lots of people VR or are recoursed and end up being successful at a later time. For me, I will have completed a full 22 weeks of basic training when I graduate this week.    But being able to become a member of this awesome team has been worth every painful minute of it.
> 
> Good luck to you on your journey!  :yellow:



Congrats to you Celtic Girl.    I like many on this site have followed your journey to reach your goals.
It's been a long struggle but you have shown the "intestinal fortitude" to hang in there and do the hardest part, take a set back and keep keeping on. 

BZ


----------



## Celticgirl

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Congrats to you Celtic Girl.    I like many on this site have followed your journey to reach your goals.
> It's been a long struggle but you have shown the "intestinal fortitude" to hang in there and do the hardest part, take a set back and keep keeping on.
> 
> BZ



Thank you, BG. The reality has not sunk in yet. Maybe it will on Thursday. LOL Cheers!


----------



## Antoine

All of you, older recruits doing BM(O)Q or done with it, are a great inspiration for us, older applicants.

Best Wishes to all of you and have a great Holiday season.


----------



## zybot

Hey I just turned 39 and I`m going for this. My only question is whether I should go Reg or Res. (I`m handing in my Application in January.) And with my choices not being available until April, I probably won`t get to BMOQ until I`m 40.


----------



## Antoine

Sorry for  my :highjack: but If there is no civilian jobs that you are passionated about, or no civilian job in which your career is well engaged, why not switching for a full time career in the regular forces, specially if the trade of main interest is only offered by the regular forces.

However, take it with a grain of salt, I am not a career manager, just an ordinary citizen.

Keep us posted.

Cheers,


----------



## xena

Now Tess, you can't behave here like you can over at the British Army Rumour Service!  (BTW, M-D-N's back!)

And I want to second all the appreciation given to the cooks here!

Their's is undeniably the hardest training in the Armed Forces.







Because it certainly seems like no one's passed the course yet!

I joke!  Don't hate me!   ;D


----------



## 4Feathers

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> I'm 38 and about to graduate from basic training this coming week.


Congrats CG, that took a lot of determination.


----------



## OldSolduer

Congratulations to anyone who completes BMQ, but especially those who are considered "old" . Keep it up. No matter what your rank is, the younger ones tend to look up to you.


----------



## TFLY

Great stuff to remember here!  kind of like when I went to college I kind of looked up to a class mate that was about 15 years older then me.  She seemed to have so much life experience!  

You know, there is an old adage that says "you're only as old as you feel"  Well, hopefully soon I'll feel my age, then gratuate to feeling younger.  lol   ;D


----------



## Loachman

TFLY said:
			
		

> You know, there is an old adage that says "you're only as old as you feel"



I prefer the Groucho Marx version: A man is as old as the woman he feels.


----------



## Crusty Old Timer

Best of luck on your journey, TFLY.

I started the process in June of this year.  I have passed all the stages so far...reference check, interview, both medicals, CFAT, and the Fitness Test.  Now just waiting for the good word from Ottawa and I could be on BMQ as soon as January.

Like you, I had my doubts about getting in, and the uncertainty of being taken seriously at my age.  The recruiters, other members, and the good people on this board set me straight.  If you are willing to give it your best, it seems age is just another number.  Since I got serious about applying, I've been running, doing pushups and situps, and working the weights more in the last six months than I had in the last six years.

I feel like I am in the best shape I've been in,  in over a decade.  And I was in good shape before.  We'll see if the CF will take an old dog like me...I'm 43.


----------



## TFLY

Great to hear "Crusty"  I am still waiting to get a call to proceed.  So no tests or medicals or interviews yet.  But that's ok, it gives me  more time to get fit.  I need it.


----------



## Celticgirl

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Congrats CG, that took a lot of determination.



Determination, lots of hard work, and the support of my loved ones (my hubby especially) got me through it.


----------



## Celticgirl

zybot said:
			
		

> Hey I just turned 39 and I`m going for this. My only question is whether I should go Reg or Res. (I`m handing in my Application in January.) And with my choices not being available until April, I probably won`t get to BMOQ until I`m 40.



You have to consider what is best for you in your situation, Zybot. I started out reg force and was slapped with a custody bid from my ex in the early weeks of basic training, so I fairly quickly determined that I needed to rethink the whole reg vs. res thing. I am now a reservist in a completely different trade than what I started out as, but I will have physical custody of my daughter again at the end of this school year after my 3s are done, so I have no regrets about my change of heart. Family comes first for me. Also, my husband has said that he will support me if I want to switch back to reg F when our girls are older (and I probably will, at least for a while) and if I want to switch trades at some point (I guess I will see how much I like the one I am in and what options there are ).

There are positives and negatives to both components, so just take inventory and figure out which suits you best at this time. You can always CT later if your circumstances change. I know tons of people who have done both reg and res over the course of their careers. Ultimately, we are all on the same team doing the same jobs.  :yellow:


----------



## observor 69

Congrats on a year of accomplishment "Mrs.Celtic Girl."  :christmas happy:


----------



## zybot

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> You have to consider what is best for you in your situation, Zybot. I started out reg force and was slapped with a custody bid from my ex in the early weeks of basic training, so I fairly quickly determined that I needed to rethink the whole reg vs. res thing. I am now a reservist in a completely different trade than what I started out as, but I will have physical custody of my daughter again at the end of this school year after my 3s are done, so I have no regrets about my change of heart. Family comes first for me. Also, my husband has said that he will support me if I want to switch back to reg F when our girls are older (and I probably will, at least for a while) and if I want to switch trades at some point (I guess I will see how much I like the one I am in and what options there are ).
> 
> There are positives and negatives to both components, so just take inventory and figure out which suits you best at this time. You can always CT later if your circumstances change. I know tons of people who have done both reg and res over the course of their careers. Ultimately, we are all on the same team doing the same jobs.  :yellow:



Thanks for the info CG   

I have decided to go Res force due to my personal situation. When I discussed this with my better half, we both went over the information and decided that Res would be the best for the both of us.

Having a reserve Naval base within walking distance from where I live and an Army base about 30 minutes away by car, I figure that the reserves are the best choice for me. At least, for now. I plan to hand in my application in January and hope for something afterwards.


----------



## Celticgirl

Good luck, Zybot! I'm sure you will make the right choice for you and your family. Cheers!


----------



## gaspasser

:christmas happy: First off, my congratulations to all who have passed BM(O)Q this year.  IIRC, my basic in Cornwallis was no cake walk!   :warstory:
 :snowman: Secondly, IF you think it's going to be tough, it probably will be.  You are only as young as you feel or want to be!  Years ago, there was no online source of info about recruit school, you just went with all the fears to go with it.  Nowadays, you have this site to qualm or heighten your fears. If you take everything they throw at you with an ease of nature and say what's next, it'll be an easier walk...or run in some cases.
 :warstory: When I went thru POET at 42 (I already had 22 years in!) there a a 49 yr old guy just off his BMQ.  He and I were usually at the front of the runners on PT.  It's not how tough you think it will be, it how your head wraps around it.  Like in the old days of Petawawa, put you head down and just do it!  You'll be proud of yourself when you cross the finish line looking back and saying "HOLY F&*%, I DID IT!!!"
I've seen old 19 yr olds and young 45 yr olds. 
I wish you all good luck and a Merry Christmas


----------



## TFLY

Thanks BYT Driver, I agree totally.  Everytime I work out and find it too much and say "I'm never going to get through basic" I scold myself and say "whatever you think you're right" so then I quickly change it to "this is too easy and basic will be a breeze"  Maybe I'll find a happy medium in there and do just fine!  

Merry Christmas all! :christmas happy:


----------



## armygirlangie

Hello, first time to post. I understand as I am 46, and I am starting recruit school as an RMS Clerk in borden on Jan 11, 2010.


----------



## armychick2009

Back in June when I went to do my first timed run, to see where I was at? I thought to myself, "Am I insane?" I was 100 pounds overweight... but, had I quit that day, I wouldn't be where I am today. Almost 50 pounds lighter! I'm also stronger and determined.... don't let one day of working out, bring ya down. Just get out and take things one workout at a time. Talk positive to yourself... and, don't be your own worst enemy!


----------



## Jarnhamar

TFLY
Anytime you feel sorry for yourself because you're older than the other recruits, slower,more out of shape,Take longer to heal- look at your children and believe that all the pain and suffering you are going through means the world will be a better place for your kids.


----------



## TFLY

> Anytime you feel sorry for yourself because you're older than the other recruits



Well, I don't feel sorry for myself really (although I'm not fond of these new found crows feet) but I will keep this in mind..  





> look at your children and believe that all the pain and suffering you are going through means the world will be a better place for your kids.



Thanks Flawed Design   :nod:


----------



## TFLY

I thought I would give a little update since I first posted this thread.  I decided I was going to do this come hell or high water so since then I have started a running program (I suck at this, but Meh) A strength training program (will meet those requirements with no worries) and I have now implemented swimming as part of my regular routine.  It's taking some time, but I'm seeing results!  Very happy!

I have done my CFAT and qualified for all officer trades but one (maybe air navigation?) Smoked the interview and did pretty good in the medical.  Had to get a couple documents filled out by my Dr. and waiting to hear from Ottawa on that.  

Now I'm waiting to hear if I'm accepted for the ROTP program.  That won't be until April sometime.  In the mean time, I am currently being enrolled in a three week program in Borden for the month of April.  Pre Training of sorts.  I'm very excited!  I have also looked into doing some training at the Shearwater Sports Facility and hopefully get the aid of the FI on staff there.  

So, yes I am determined and doing everything I can to be ready.  Doesn't change the worry I have about some of the matters at hand....But, I'm a big girl and I'm sure I'll be able to handle it.

I would also like to thank, ArmyChick for all her help with this.  You have been Great!  

Thank you all for your encouragement!


----------



## ballz

Good stuff TFLY

In your original post you had this level of fitness:
"I can't yet run 2.5 km without stopping, but I Can do 11 push ups, 27 sit ups.  My body fat is above normal for my sex and height.  My core strength is weak and so is my endurance.  Do you think it's even possible for me to get into enough shape to START basic?"

Any measurable progress with those things now? Running, push ups, sit ups, body fat %, etc? 

For core strength/endurance, have you been doing planks? It's an easy way to measure your progress with your core. The longer you can hold a plank, the stronger your core.


----------



## TFLY

> Any measurable progress with those things now? Running, push ups, sit ups, body fat %, etc?



My husband is always after me to do my body fat test again, so I will tonight to see how I'm doing.  

14 Push ups
35 Sit ups
Running - Well, it is not much better because I have not been doing it regularly enough.  Weather is no excuse, but apparently it's the one I use for this.    We have had very icy/cold conditions.  And when we have a warm spell, it's like I totally forget about running.  However, I am working on Cardio by doing the P90X Kenpo and Plyometrix.  Hopefully the swimming will help with my Cardio as well.  ArmChick2009 just set me up with some swim stuff to work on.  She said it would help with the running too.  

The plank is one that I used to use a lot, I think I will start to implement that again and let you know.  


Thanks for asking Ballz, when I get it down on here, it's like a motivator!!  Makes me want to go workout right now.   ;D


----------



## Loachman

We've had numerous Pub Nights in Toronto and elsewhere and I've long been meaning to try the same thing in Borden. I'm pretty sure that Vern's still kicking around Borden in April, and I should be enjoying a rare period of relative peace and stability then, and there should be a few others around - of course, a few of those are going to be on course and probably not allowed out. If you're interested in a gathering, post a reminder when you have firm dates and I'll see what I can set up.


----------



## armychick2009

TFLY - You won't be allowed to mix with other people until about the time of your graduation, unfortunately! (it's for good reasons, I promise!) But I also promise you that on grad day? I'll come down and sit in the bench and cheer ya on!  Then afterwards, I think we're allowed to hang out. That's probably when you'll be able to get some of your family to come visit.


----------



## TFLY

Pub Night??? Me????  You've been reading my mail!  My most favorite thing to do (being from Halifax).  I'm totally in if they actually give you a night away from training.  I was told, not so much???  But anyway, I will post to confirm.  Do I just post it on this thread?  Now I'm even more excited than ever.   >  (talk about go off topic.)  lol   :


----------



## TFLY

Ooops, we overlapped posts.

you mean there is a graduation for this training ArmyChick?  No way!  Well that's exciting!  I'll CRAWL to the pub if I'm allowed after that.  

By the way, going tomorrow to swim, thanks for the STUFF    I'll keep you posted!

My family won't be there for that, but I'll be glad to see you and finally meet you!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TFLY said:
			
		

> My husband is always after me to do my body fat test again,



Brave man.


----------



## Otis

Loachman said:
			
		

> We've had numerous Pub Nights in Toronto and elsewhere and I've long been meaning to try the same thing in Borden.



Make sure you let us know when / where and maybe some of us cab make the trip up from Toronto to join the fun!


----------



## armyvern

Loachman said:
			
		

> We've had numerous Pub Nights in Toronto and elsewhere and I've long been meaning to try the same thing in Borden. I'm pretty sure that Vern's still kicking around Borden in April, and I should be enjoying a rare period of relative peace and stability then, and there should be a few others around - of course, a few of those are going to be on course and probably not allowed out. If you're interested in a gathering, post a reminder when you have firm dates and I'll see what I can set up.



I just _knew_ that I heard my name mentionned in a post containing a whiff of alcohol.  ;D

I will still be here in April ... will actually be here until May _at the minimum_. Can escape from this endroit at that time should I successfully obtain my Bs on my first round of ELS Testing then. Otherwise, I'm here until end-June.  :-X

But, as an update - today the 7 of us on the course underwent our PO 401 exams for "reading" and "grammar". Tomorrow is DDay for our Oral exams. I'm confident that I passed both those from today. And am also reasonably certain that I did very well on the "reading comprehension" ~ the grammar ... not so much, but I'm certain that I, at least, passed.

If not, tomorrow night's celebratory (and required-to-relax-after-stressing-out-for-two-weeks') beer ... may just turn into many shots of tequila.  :-\ 

Edited to add:

The lag on this site is absolutely killing me!! Arghhhh.


----------



## armychick2009

TFLY, 

Yeppers, a graduation and everything! You work hard for three weeks learning drill... you work hard at figuring out what you want to do... you work hard at maintaining your uniform! And you work hard at your discipline in all aspects! Why the heck wouldn't you be deserving of a parade  It's part of the job, baby!

It's also a proud day for the staff too, who (trust me!) deals with a lot to get you guys into shape.

The policy is no contact with outside peoples (like, you can call family almost every night... unless you have inspections to get ready for and you can only call after all the work is done)...  but, there's no fraternizing (males or females!) of other people from other courses. Keep in mind that most of the participants are around the ages of 17-21... so, this is more to protect them than to protect you  But, you still need to abide by the rules or... it's a one-way ticket home!

But, if you make arrangements ahead of time for the last night, you may be able to arrange to go out. But, they have a strict no drugs/no alcohol policy (and I believe that includes the last night... because of legal reasons, you are still their responsibility!)


----------



## TFLY

:crybaby: BUMMER! 

But I can understand, I guess.



> Keep in mind that most of the participants are around the ages of 17-21... so, this is more to protect them than to protect you



I can understand that too... *evil cougar grin*  LOL


----------



## Loachman

I'll start a "Borden Pub Night" thread in Radio Chatter when we get closer, and have a likely date.

Right now I'm too busy living The High Life, trying to make myself sick of smoked salmon every breakfast, to really think that far ahead.

And if you can't make it, TFLY, we'll just drink your share for you.


----------



## TFLY

> And if you can't make it, TFLY, we'll just drink your share for you



   :nod: OK   But you'll have to drink a lot!  I won't be happy not being able to go...and I can drink a lot, specially if I'm not happy.  

LOL -


----------



## Loachman

Vern might help with that a little, if we ask her nicely.


----------



## armyvern

Loachman said:
			
		

> Vern might help with that a little, if we ask her nicely.



Pas de problème monsieur.  Avec plaisir.  ;D


----------



## Drifter

woot now i dont feel so bad about being 35 .... I was worried it would be all young folk .. not that there is anything wrong with that but its nice to have conversations with folks my own age group too  I hope its like that as a NCM too


----------



## OldSolduer

Drifter said:
			
		

> woot now i dont feel so bad about being 35 .... I was worried it would be all young folk .. not that there is anything wrong with that but its nice to have conversations with folks my own age group too  I hope its like that as a NCM too



35?

Young un....


----------



## Drifter

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> 35?
> 
> Young un....



heheh ...


----------



## TFLY

Drifter, I would never have thought I would take the step and do this...but this board, people I have met and spoken to, and especially the recruiters have made me think otherwise.  If we have the drive to give our Country everything we have, and now we are old enough to really appreciate what that means, then our Country (AKA Canadian Forces) wants us.  I now know we have the potential to give more then we could have 15 years ago. (in my case anyway)

Welcome aboard!


----------



## Drifter

I hear you, 
 I would like to think that even though we are 15 yrs older, I am hoping we will bring some 
life experience to the table that might be useful. Also I relate with the notion you put 
forward of stepping up to serve  and what that means 

     

the pension is gravy


----------



## OldSolduer

Drifter said:
			
		

> I hear you,
> I would like to think that even though we are 15 yrs older, I am hoping we will bring some
> life experience to the table that might be useful. Also I relate with the notion you put
> forward of stepping up to serve  and what that means
> 
> 
> 
> the pension is gravy


Your life experience is invaluable. I rememeber as an 18 year old wet behind the ears recruit, the older recruits from the Maritimes were very helpful, like older wiser brothers. Those were the days when the age range was from 17-25. 

Have a good one! Good luck!


----------



## Drifter

I have been tossing the idea of the service back and forth in my head since I was 17
distracted from the idea with various life events over the years

then 
I think it hit home when I saw a bumper sticker 
"If you don't stand behind our soldiers, feel free to stand in front of them"

I thought to myself  SCREW THAT .. I am going to stand beside them and try to help out
keep in mind I am a starry eye recruit ....

of course I also looked at the fact am 35 and still working  a mcjob ... I figured its time to start a career


----------



## TFLY

I have had a few careers now, all of which I liked, but none that I loved.  I have been an Early Childhood Educator, a Network Administrator, A business Developement Manager, a Reiki Practitioner, A small business owner and even a School bus driver....just to name a few.  But I have wanted to join the service for so long, I guess I won't be happy until I finally do.  

I also think this is what will keep me motivated!  I love to learn new things (hence the many work opportunities I have had) and I think the wealth of learning opportunities in the CF is amazing!  

Drifter, have you begun the application process?  Are you getting yourself into shape?  How are you finding it?


----------



## Drifter

I start soon

i am semi in shape but am buckling down  ... lots of things are happening .. we just sold the house.. so there is lots of packing 
main reason that motivates me to get into better shape is less pain during basic  lol

so every day i waste now is more pain during basic

I am in pretty good shape as is 
i can hit the minimum marks  (20 push ups etc. ) except for the running bit and chin up .. dont have a chin up bar ..yet working on that 
but i can walk forever 
10 km walk is not that hard for me .. throw a 60kg ruck on my back i may be in trouble lol

by the time my date rolls by i should be ok 

the mental parts i should be good to go 
cept my brain needs to get back into learning stuff ...


----------



## OldSolduer

Drifter said:
			
		

> I start soon
> 
> i am semi in shape but am buckling down  ... lots of things are happening .. we just sold the house.. so there is lots of packing
> main reason that motivates me to get into better shape is less pain during basic  lol
> 
> so every day i waste now is more pain during basic
> 
> I am in pretty good shape as is
> i can hit the minimum marks  (20 push ups etc. ) except for the running bit and chin up .. dont have a chin up bar ..yet working on that
> but i can walk forever
> 10 km walk is not that hard for me .. throw a 60kg ruck on my back i may be in trouble lol
> 
> by the time my date rolls by i should be ok
> 
> the mental parts i should be good to go
> cept my brain needs to get back into learning stuff ...



Good start.

Don't go crazy on the running thing. You generally don't go into combat wearing running shoes and shorts. Running is good but it ain't the end all and be all.

Ruck marching is an art and a science, and you won't start out carrying 60 kg. 

Mental flexibility is as important (if not moreso) than physical flexibility.


----------



## armychick2009

McJobs, haha!

Actually, you reminded me of this woman who was 49 years old and working at McDonalds alongside my mom for years. She started getting in shape about two years ago and about six months ago, she enlisted and is now finished basic training and is in her studies for her new job as engineer!

Never too late to join! (well, I guess technically there COULD be a point of it being too late but you know what I mean!)

I'll be at least 32 by the time I get there, maybe older... use this time wisely to get fit! I'm almost there myself and it takes a lot of work but, it's been great!


----------



## Celticgirl

TFLY said:
			
		

> But I have wanted to join the service for so long, I guess I won't be happy until I finally do.



I felt exactly the way you do, and now, 20 years down the road, I am finally doing what has always been in my heart to do - serve my country in the Canadian Forces. Let me tell you, I could not be happier! It won't be easy doing this at an 'older' age, but at the same time, I am certain you won't regret finally pursuing your lifelong dream.


----------



## gcclarke

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> McJobs, haha!
> 
> Actually, you reminded me of this woman who was 49 years old and working at McDonalds alongside my mom for years. She started getting in shape about two years ago and about six months ago, she enlisted and is now finished basic training and is in her studies for her new job as engineer!
> 
> Never too late to join! (well, I guess technically there COULD be a point of it being too late but you know what I mean!)



For anyone who is curious, DAOD 5002-1, Enrolment - Regular Force outlines that "there is no maximum age, but an applicant must be able to complete the terms of service offered on enrolment prior to the release age prescribed in QR&O Chapter 15, Release. Terms of service take into account restricted release policy, any obligatory service that may be incurred, and military occupation training."

That release age mentioned is, for anyone entering the CF after 2004, 60. So the maximum age that someone could join at varies by trade and entry plan, as outlined in this chart. 

So, for example, someone could enrol as a Supply Tech, as long as they are under the age of 57 on the date they swear in. However, someone wanting to become a SIGS officer via ROTP would have to be under the age of 47, whereas if they already have a degree, they can join as a DEO as long as they are under the age of 51.


----------



## TFLY

Thanks Celtic Girl!  I'm very excited about the opportunity as well.  Actually, I'm so excited that I am half tempted to forget waiting to "hear" about the ROTP I have applied to and just pick another trade and get on with my career.  But alas, I think I'll wait it out.  It's only another month or two.  :  Then again, I would still have to "Wait" another 4 years while in school...But I'm sure it will be worth the wait.  I've "waited" this long.  (talk about flip flop huh)  lol


----------



## CFR FCS

ROTP selection is 10 March with offers out by end March so you won't have to wait too long. Best of Luck.

CFR FCS


----------



## TFLY

Thanks 

One more itsy, bitsy issue.  (ok, not so small) I received a letter from the MO in Ottawa returning a decision of "unfit" So, after a moment or two of complete meltdown, I was SAD...then I regained my composure and then I was MAD...then I once again regained my composure.  Now, I'm just determined.  In a matter of 5 hours since receiving that letter, I have been to see my Dr. who has given me a letter stating that I have not shown symptoms of back pain in two years and that my thyroid is controlled with medication.  I have made an appointment with the Physio clinic to have an abilities test for my back and a call into my Chiropractor to get a letter drawn up from him saying treatment is my choice for general well being NOT that I REQUIRE it as stated in my letter.  

I hope to have all supporting documents into the Recruitting centre by Thursday to have it faxed to the MO in Ottawa in time to still be considered for ROTP selection in March.  It's cutting it really close, but I think I can, I think I can...toot toot!!


----------



## TFLY

One more update...

By that Friday (found out Monday about the UNFIT decision) I had a letter from my Dr. saying I have not been in to see her about my back in 2 years and no longer have the symptoms and saying that I use a Chiropractor for spine maintenance and overall health and that my thyroid has been undercontrol for 14 years using the same medication, a letter from the Chiropractor saying the same, had a Functional abilities test done at the physio clinic with Awesome results testing to the maximum weights for push, pull, lift, carry, move that they will test for, AND a print out of all medications (my thyroid and head ache) with a personal letter from me pointing out that over 72 months (from when I was first perscribed meds for my headache) I filled 24 of those single dose pills, 18 of which I used in the first three years, 2 of which I used in the last 3 years of those 72 months and 4 of which I was still in possession of.  

When I brought it into the CMRC, the medical PO looked at it and was very optimistic that maybe a change of decision would be made, but that they wouldn't be able to get to it that day due to ROTP deadline on Monday.  I mentioned that I was supposed to be included in that deadline.  "so you are " he said...long story short,  he faxed the files to the MO in Ottawa that day...


I think someone must know by now, but for now...I wait.   :

The Saga continues


Physical update - down 8 lbs and 2% body fat.  Slow going...I'm looking into a personal trainer for more motivation.


----------



## TFLY

Medically Fit!!!!

Still not sure what's next...tba  But until then, I'm pumped!   ;D


----------



## wildman0101

gcclark----
you just made my day mate   
regards daod-5002-1 enrollment
dated 2/16/2010
garenteed i will be reapplying/
reenrolling..... i wont state my 
particulars but was med 3-b 86
and i know for a fact im still good 
to go.... imagine that... 
so im off to the recruiters office 
again ,,, when they make an 
appearance in my local..........
tfly congratulations 
best regards 
                scoty b


----------



## Loachman

TFLY said:
			
		

> Medically Fit!!!!
> [size=12pt]



Good for you. Hopefully, this means that I do not have to drink so much when you pitch up here.


----------



## Celticgirl

TFLY said:
			
		

> Medically Fit!!!!
> 
> Still not sure what's next...tba  But until then, I'm pumped!   ;D



Awesome! Good luck with the next step.


----------



## armychick2009

Next step is Borden baby!!!

I might still be around to go visit your graduation!


----------



## TFLY

;D Thank you Celticgirl and Scoty B (aka Wildman)
 :blotto: Loachman, I hope they will let me out to play then!
Armychick, can't wait to see you!!   

Wow, this is so exciting!  I can't tell you how much all you guys helped me through these past few agonizing months!  Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.  It helped ease the situation.  I will continue to comb the threads to learn as I go and help if I can.   :nod:


----------



## Soldiergirl

TFLY said:
			
		

> Medically Fit!!!!
> 
> Still not sure what's next...tba  But until then, I'm pumped!   ;D



That's fantastic news!!! Good luck..


----------



## armychick2009

Hey! I know YOU won't be allowed a drink but - in your honour, I will sacrifice myself that night for you and consume all of your alcohol so that it does not go to waste. Would that be acceptable???


----------



## TFLY

Soldiergirl - Many thanks  ;D

Armychick2009 - you're too kind to help me out like that.   : We'll make up for it when we can...We will share a bevy and perhaps we can "Nigamo" (sing)  our praise!  HA!


----------



## TFLY

A little update...

I went to Borden, ON for a three week Aboriginal Pre-Recruit Training (PRTC) in April.  I surprised myself and my instructors in what I did and was willing to do.  I pushed myself every day.  I passed my swimming test, Express test, the confidence course completed, repel tower X5 repels (even got to do the Helicopter launch type repel) My moral was great, I was in a great mood 98% of the time and was even picked by the instructors to call final drill at our GRAD parade.  

ArmyChick2009 was there to watch me, and she was able to join us for our Graduation feast.  Thanks for coming Anj!  

Here is the biggest surprise to me.  In that 3 week period, I lost 7% of my body fat!  SEVEN!!!!!!!!!!  

I still have to decide what my next step is (reserves, Reg force, Officer, NCM) so much to consider.  More updates to follow!!


----------



## Pokiey

Wow that's fantastic!!!  Congratulations!!!

Please keep up with the updates, I'm excited to see which path you will ultimately decide to follow.

 ;D


----------



## Alea

TFLY,

I read this entire thread. Word by word, line by line and I have to tell you how much of an inspiration you are to me. 

This is the type of experience, positive and full of superb comments that I want to read and keep in mind for those days when I wonder if I'll ever make it in 

Thank you! Keep it up! 

Alea


----------



## 2010newbie

TFLY,

This is a great thread. I congratulate you on your accomplishments so far and on the accomplishments you will continue to achieve. I'm a little older also (33) and starting ROTP this year. My first "Man I'm old" experience came after Aircrew selection in Trenton. I suggested going for a beer after passing the course and out of the 8 or so that passed, only two were legal to drink in Ontario. Every day is a new adventure...........


----------



## TFLY

Thank you guys!!   ;D

A little update, after some consideration over the past few days, here is what I have come up with:

There is one space left for Pilot in the CEOTP program.  I will attempt to fill that position, if unsuccessful, I will join the Air-Reserve as RMS clerk for 1 year and go for Pilot next year.   Air-Reserve training is the same as Reg force training, so I would not have to redo my BMQ when I make the change to Reg force.  I see this unfolding for me in the next few weeks.  I'm hoping to be in BMQ in late summer early fall.  

There is power in writing things down as you want them to happen.  So if I sound so sure of myself, it's because I am attempting to set myself up for success now.  

Well, off for my run now (still need to work on my endurance) Chat with you all soon!  And congratulations to those of you on this road and have been successful thus far!  And for those of you thinking about it, JUST GO FOR IT!!


----------



## Niteshade

Am I correct in saying BMOQ and BMQ are different programs? I do not believe they are interchangeable lik you say, and you would have to do it again.

Nites


----------



## TFLY

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Am I correct in saying BMOQ and BMQ are different programs? I do not believe they are interchangeable lik you say, and you would have to do it again.
> 
> Nites



No, they are not the same.  But what I am saying is, if I join the Air Reserves (as apposed to the Army Reserves) I would do the same BMQ as I would if I was joining regular forces.  BMOQ is basic for officers.  If I'm going RMS, I won't be an officer.   ;D

If I joined Army Reserves, I would do an 8 week basic training (or is is 6 weeks?) that is not equivalent to regular BMQ.  Therefore, if I switched to regular forces a year down the road, I would have to do basic training all over again.  

Make sense?  :-\


----------



## Niteshade

To clarify some things.

Firstly, there is no Air Reserve BMQ as opposed to Army Reserve BMQ. BMQ regardless if done on weekends (or summer time) as a reservist, or for 13 weeks as a Regular force member, is the same qualification.

Additionally, RMS clerk is a Purple trade, which means you need to take both BMQ and SQ, and your trade qualification courses.



> I will join the Air-Reserve as RMS clerk for 1 year and go for Pilot next year.


Which means BMQ this year (for RMS Clerk) and as *Pilot is an officer gig*, BMOQ the following year.

Nites
<edited to add info>


----------



## TFLY

Guess I'll be contacting the recruitting centre for some clarification.  But thanks for your incite!


----------



## Niteshade

Good idea! The recruiting centre is always the best bet for accurate, up to date information.

Nites


----------



## TFLY

That is where I did get my information.  But apparently I need clarification if you are correct on the BMQ stuff.  I did realize there was a difference in regular BMQ and Officer, and I did realize there would be SQ...but what was told to me by the recruiter was that all reserve training is not the same.  That air reserves does it differently, they send you on all the same training as regular forces.  That is what I was getting at.

Nevertheless, I'll look into it again.  It won't stop me from doing what I need to do to get where I want to be.  

Cheers!


----------



## armychick2009

I'm so glad you enjoyed the experience! And it was great that I could get down there for a (albeit way too short) quick visit. I have to say, it wasn't so much fun sitting on the sidelines as it was doing the parade!

Secretly I hope you don't get pilot so that you can come to basic with me  But... of course, I wish you well for whatever you wish and desire! I'm allowed to be a bit selfish!

7% body fat loss is great! I lost about 15 pounds in the three weeks (or, about two inches on my belt that they gave us!)... when we got to go back into our civies at the end, I had to immediately buy another pair of pants 'cause they wouldn't stay up without me holding them!

I hear you on the endurance -- you're doing well! Keep it up and you'll get where you need to be. (I'm in the same boat and finally seeing and FEELING the progression!)

P.S. Wasn't that feast divine????


----------



## PMedMoe

TFLY, if things haven't changed, you are right.  The Air Reserves sends their members on Reg F courses as opposed to Res F courses and that should be counted when CTing to the Reg F.

All of my courses as an ARAF were Reg F.


----------



## Loachman

You are correct.

Air Reserve pay funding has been cut, and this has resulted in a freeze in Class A applications being accepted across 1 Wing units for an indefinite period. There may yet be other fallout from that as well.

This may or may not affect other locations.


----------



## TFLY

Armychick, the food was great!  It was nice that they provided us with all that wild game to suit our palettes.   ;D  Personally, I tried everything, but my favorite part of the meal was the BERRIES!  I missed Berrie's.  Borden food was great, but there was no berries.  LOL

Thank you Loachman and PMedMoe for further clarification.  I'm looking forward to my next leg of this journey.  If by some fluke I'm in Borden for basic training Loachman, I'll be looking you up.  (when they let us have a phone)   And if not then, I'm sure I'll be in your neck of the woods for training at some point!

I have to say, I am going to LOVE the military for the social aspect of it!  As a very social person...I'm sure I'll be in my element!   :nod:


----------



## TFLY

Just a little update...

So here is my train of thought and some of the actions I have taken thus far:  I have decided I am going to reapply next year for Logistic Officer CEOTP and Pilot CEOTP.  And in the mean time, I have applied to the Air Reserves at Shearwater and have been accepted (from what I can tell) as a Class A RMS clerk to help me get my foot in the door (and to get my a$$ in shape with 14 weeks of BMQ)  No official date as of yet, but was told it looks like I will be going to BMQ August 9th.

Yesterday I broke my own record on the beep test.  The last time I was tested, I had a 3.5 (I think I need a 3 or 3.4 to pass at my age) and yesterday I reached a 4.  Pushups still good, body fat count still going down.  THANK you all for all the advice you have given me over the past several months.  This site has been invaluable to me and the choices and progress I have made! (not to mention a few good friends!!!!!!)

Kudo's to all!

TFLY


----------



## Celticgirl

Hey TFLY,

Sounds like you are following in my footsteps (Air Res RMS Clk).  It's a good trade, especially if you are a people person, and in spite of the hiring freeze, RMS clerks are still badly needed in the Air Reserve. In fact, we are probably losing more AR clerks now than before because with the recent budget cutbacks, a lot of Class B jobs have gone Class A so some clerks are CT-ing due to the lack of full-time employment.

Hey, if you end up in Shearwater, I may see you there sometime in the near future if things go the way my hubby hopes they will.  8)

By the way, I tried to respond to your PM, but was not able to...error msg tells me there is no member by the name TFLY so I could not send my response. But the answer to your question is "yes".  ;D

Ciao, bella...

CG


----------



## Celticgirl

Niteshade said:
			
		

> To clarify some things.
> 
> Firstly, there is no Air Reserve BMQ as opposed to Army Reserve BMQ. BMQ regardless if done on weekends (or summer time) as a reservist, or for 13 weeks as a Regular force member, is the same qualification.
> 
> Additionally, RMS clerk is a Purple trade, which means you need to take both BMQ and SQ, and your trade qualification courses.
> Which means BMQ this year (for RMS Clerk) and as *Pilot is an officer gig*, BMOQ the following year.
> 
> Nites
> <edited to add info>



Some clarification on your clarification. 

The Air Reserve does not do weekend BMQ. They do Reg F training, BMQ, QL3, and beyond...the works. This is because Air Reserve units usually have Reg and Res members working alongside one another and so we need to have the same training. It does make it easy to CT later.

Air Reserve RMS clerks do NOT take SQ.

Regarding BMOQ/BMQ, my WO told me if I want to switch to an Offr trade later (as some here remember, I started out AEC), then I would have to do the full BMOQ later. I've heard different rumours about that through the grapevine, but somehow I believe the Warrant as knowing these things is part of his job.  8)


----------



## yettiohead

Are girls given enough heads up to make sure they're "prepared" to be in a swim suit?  A better question is, I guess... How does it work with hair removal and swim suits at BMQ?


----------



## Brasidas

Every time I've taken the swimtest, I've either been in combats or in coveralls.


----------



## yettiohead

Sounds good to me!


----------



## CEEBEE501

This past summer at CFLRS we did take the combats off as soon as we where done tho so they would be a little less damp and then waited and had a pool pt


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Aww poop, looked at the title and was looking for pix...............


----------



## GAP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Aww poop, looked at the title and was looking for pix...............



When I saw you answered this thread, I thought you had found some...... ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Here you go.


----------



## GAP

Thank you


----------



## TimBit

That is what I could call a "minimalist" swim suit.


----------



## Wookilar

Now, Basic was a while ago....but somehow I don't recall the sands of Digby, or the girls in my Pl, looking like that.

Wook


----------



## PMedMoe

Hmmmm.....

Time for a split to Radio Chatter?   :


----------



## Thompson_JM

Time for more pics!  ;D


J/k (we have to keep this place family friendly after all....)


----------



## GAP

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Hmmmm.....
> 
> Time for a split to Radio Chatter?   :



It's under Training.....this is training.... 

;D


----------



## Dissident

Jim Seggie FTW!


----------



## PMedMoe

GAP said:
			
		

> It's under Training.....this is training....
> 
> ;D



So, what's good for the gander is good for the goose, eh?







 ;D

Note the title change for my post.


----------



## Privateer

Hey, I didn't give permission for the use of my image - but in this case I'll let it go.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And now to completely derail this thread....

































 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm more worried that the OPs biggest concern about Basic is wheather she'll have enough time to do a bikini wax.


----------



## George Wallace

Neet!   No.  I mean "Neet".  Someone needs to use some a lot of Neet.


----------



## yettiohead

> I'm more worried that the OPs biggest concern about Basic is wheather she'll have enough time to do a bikini wax.



Nevermind, guess it isn't important and us girls should just let ourselves go during basic. Got it. Can't wait.


----------



## HavokFour

What DO regulation swimming trunks look like anyway? And is the female counterpart a one piece or two?  ???


----------



## aesop081

yettiohead said:
			
		

> Nevermind, guess it isn't important and us girls should just let ourselves go during basic. Got it. Can't wait.



Take care of yourself as you normaly do. No matter how much notice you get, you're just going to have to deal with it. I'm sure you can imagine how well " i cant go to the pool now MCpl, i havent shaved my legs/ bikini waxed in 3 days" would go over.

Contrary to popular beleif, CFLRS is not a day spa. I know you are shocked.


----------



## chrisf

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And now to completely derail this thread....



Great success!


----------



## Final

GAP said:
			
		

> It's under Training.....this is training....
> 
> ;D


What kind of training did you sign up for? 

And where do I sign?


----------



## Rogo

I won't sleep tonight due to the Borat image burned in my retina.  But if those first few swim suit photos are new CF swim-wear for females, I look foward greatly to BMOQ next May.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

yettiohead said:
			
		

> Nevermind, guess it isn't important and us girls should just let ourselves go during basic. Got it. Can't wait.



Nope. It all has to taking personal responsibility and 'manning up' to the job. I don't care if you have a bit of fur showing or if you look like Wolverine. Can you pick me up and haul my ass from a hotspot or is your profile built on what I see in the Mess?


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nope. It all has to taking personal responsibility and* 'manning up' *to the job. I don't care if you have a bit of fur showing or if you look like Wolverine. Can you pick me up and haul my *** from a hotspot or is your profile built on what I see in the Mess?



The blatent sexisim! You're suggesting someone has to exhibit man-like qualities to get the job done!

Just kidding boss
 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> The blatent sexisim! You're suggesting someone has to exhibit man-like qualities to get the job done!
> 
> Just kidding boss
> ;D


----------



## Searyn

Priceless.


----------



## Final

Um..I'll just leave this..here.... :


----------



## Trish

Well you get to shower every night during basic (well, while at the Mega that is...), and if you feel like to don't have time for that at the end of your day, you can always work on that during week end I guess.  Really that is the last thing I would be worried about... For pool pt I would worry more about buying goggles (saw a lot of guys with pink eye, you don't want that !!!)


----------



## Final

Trish said:
			
		

> Well you get to shower every night during basic (well, while at the Mega that is...), and if you feel like to don't have time for that at the end of your day, you can always work on that during week end I guess.  Really that is the last thing I would be worried about... For pool pt I would worry more about buying goggles (saw a lot of guys with pink eye, you don't want that !!!)



Are we even allowed to bring/use swimming goggles during basic?


----------



## aesop081

Final said:
			
		

> Are we even allowed to bring/use swimming goggles during basic?



Good question. Back in the day we were not allowed but i'm sure that , yes or no, the end result will be the same.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

Final said:
			
		

> Are we even allowed to bring/use swimming goggles during basic?



Some of the recruits in the second season of Basic Up were using them.


----------



## GAP

Final said:
			
		

> What kind of training did you sign up for?
> 
> And where do I sign?




Well......we're not too proud, but I must say we do have good taste.......in bathing suits (or is it the contents...), if nothing else.... ;D


----------



## Final

GAP said:
			
		

> Well......we're not too proud, but I must say we do have good taste.......in bathing suits (or is it the contents...), if nothing else.... ;D



We're Canadians, Of course we have good taste!


----------



## GenePool

You can definitly wear goggles, and the instructors and PSP staff actually encourage it.  The water in the pool has a higher chlorine content than the average pool because of the amount of germs at CFLRS. 

The swin test is done in combats, but pool PT itself is done in swim suits.  If you have time to properly clean yourself up and that makes you feel better than go for it.  You should have time at night or on the weekends if you can excel at time management.

The thing I would actually be more concerned about there is how many times you hear "squat position change" or "pushup position change" while you are wearing your swim suit and the male PSP staff are enjoying the view, seen it happen....


----------



## Searyn

The male staff will enjoy the view sure... But the women get to see a whole platoon of in shape men doing it too.  Not a bad trade off IMO.


----------



## PMedMoe

GenePool said:
			
		

> You can definitly wear goggles, and the instructors and PSP staff actually encourage it.  The water in the pool has a higher chlorine content than the average pool because of the amount of germs at CFLRS.



Just FYI (or UFI  ), it's usually not the chlorine that bothers people's eyes but the pH level.  

http://www.pelicanpoolsvc.com/eyes.htm



			
				Searyn said:
			
		

> But the women get to see a whole platoon of in shape men doing it too.  Not a bad trade off IMO.



_*If*_ they're actually fit, that is.


----------



## Final

Searyn said:
			
		

> The male staff will enjoy the view sure... But the women get to see a whole platoon of in shape men doing it too.  Not a bad trade off IMO.



Not all recruits will be in perfect shape with bulging muscles..and with the world as it is now, It's happening more and more.  So, the girls don't exactly win all the time.


----------



## GAP

Final said:
			
		

> Not all recruits will be in perfect shape with bulging muscles..and with the world as it is now, It's happening more and more.  So, the girls don't exactly win all the time.



Oh....we're getting picky now you two......isn't that what variety is all about..... ;D


----------



## ballz

GenePool said:
			
		

> The thing I would actually be more concerned about there is how many times you hear "squat position change" or "pushup position change" while you are wearing your swim suit and the male PSP staff are enjoying the view, seen it happen....



Whoop de doo... They'll have the same seat in hell as the rest of us


----------



## tfly

Wow...it's been a long time since I started this thread and a lot has happend to me since then.  Thought I would pipe in and give a little update...

Currently, I am working as an Air Reservist as an RMS clerk.  I was sworn in in September and have been working (Class A) ever since.  I work in a very busy orderly room at an air maintenance squadron.  I just love my work!  Love love love it!  I am not even trained yet (neither BMQ OR QL3)  But I am so motivated to do well at both of these up coming trainings opportunities.  I don't want to lose my job because I can't get my A$$ through basic!  So I will take all the encouragement I can get and keep bust'n a move towards my goal!  

By the way, I start BMQ in St. Jean 17 Jan. 2011 until 22 April 2011.   iper:  I have successfully passed my express test already (You have to do that BEFORE you go to BMQ if you are a reservist) and I even went and did the shuttle run again at a test that was taking place last week and beat my run by a whole level since September.  Running is still my weakness, but hopefully my strength will help me!

So on that note, I thank you all for all your words in the past and I hope to meet you ALL sometime during my military career!!

TFLY....

 :-*


----------



## PMedMoe

Good for you, TFLY!  Keep it up!


----------



## GAP

Sweet!!


----------



## Lil_T

Finally - after 16 1/2 months  :nod:  I graduated BMQ 9 Dec 10.  What an experience!  It was fun at times, but all in all I'm glad it's over.  On leave for the holidays and go back to Borden after the new year.  Start my 3s 17 Jan.  Can't wait!!  

Any tips for surviving Boredom ... erm... Borden?


----------



## mariomike

Congratulations, Lil-T! That's great news. Have a good Christmas. You earned it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nice to see you stuck with it.   I might use this story as required reading for those who whine at the drop of a hurdle.............


----------



## armychick2009

Can't wait to see you in St. Jean! I don't' think I'll be platoon-ready by the 17th of January but - I am pushing for February or early March. The sooner, the better! Can't wait to be allowed to do drill again and "fit in"... 

I'm not giving up, not in my vocabulary! It'll be great to have 'some family' down that way!!! Might be a bit of encouragement/incentive to get fixed STAT!


----------



## darkskye

Congratulations!

What platoon? Did you have the Hurricane as an instructor? lol


----------



## Loachman

And congratulations from me as well. No small accomplishment, that.


----------



## tango22a

Way to go Tanya!!!

Good to see you back up on this meansm


Season's Greetings to you and yours.


tango22a


----------



## Ridgeline

Way to go iper:


----------



## tfly

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see you in St. Jean! I don't' think I'll be platoon-ready by the 17th of January but - I am pushing for February or early March. The sooner, the better! Can't wait to be allowed to do drill again and "fit in"...
> 
> I'm not giving up, not in my vocabulary! It'll be great to have 'some family' down that way!!! Might be a bit of encouragement/incentive to get fixed STAT!


 
It will be really nice seeing you again too!!  It would have been nice to have you on my platoon!  But maybe something will happen and we will be on the same one.  But if not, we'll at least get to see each other.

So instead of running tonight, I'm going Christmas shopping.  :-o  I better get out of this slacker mode quickly!


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

There's a 43 year old woman nicknamed "Mom" on our platoon, as well as a bunch of 43-45 year old guys on our platoon and they do just fine. I wouldn't worry so much as age as I would just getting mentally prepared for BMQ


----------



## tfly

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> There's a 43 year old woman nicknamed "Mom" on our platoon, as well as a bunch of 43-45 year old guys on our platoon and they do just fine. I wouldn't worry so much as age as I would just getting mentally prepared for BMQ


 
Thanks, I'll do just that.    Are you there now?  What week?  If so, see you in a few weeks, perhaps.   :-\


----------



## Lil_T

rezz said:
			
		

> Congratulations!
> 
> What platoon? Did you have the Hurricane as an instructor? lol



R41 - R0364E

I'm sure at least one of my instructors is on here... as for the Hurricane - not sure who that would be.  


trust me, I did my share of whining.. but I did it. There were parts I really enjoyed and parts I hated with a passion. 

Thanks for all your kind words though, it's much appreciated.

Bruce, I couldn't not stick with it.  I'd never have been able to live with myself if I gave up.  Plus I have a long list of friends and loved ones who would have gladly kicked my ass if I did.  So instead, I have a long list of friends and loved ones who are very proud of me.  It's a good feeling - that sense of accomplishment. 

It's nice to be a real person now.


----------



## MaDB0Y_021

Congrats, Lil_T!

Keep it up!


----------



## Lil_T

no worries there man.  Now, only 27 days til my QL3 starts.  Pumped.  Looking forward to be the best damn clerk I can be.  Yay, pub searches, ccps, fmas and hrms!!!

That is until they completely reconfigure the system and I have to relearn a whole bunch of new stuff.


----------



## vonGarvin

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Any tips for surviving Boredom ... erm... Borden?



Here's my 1000 word essay on how to survive Borden:


----------



## Lil_T

oh man.... I'm gonna replace the crown with my buddy Jose... whiskey and I don't mesh


----------



## PuckChaser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here's my 1000 word essay on how to survive Borden:



You're a man of few words, there's still 998 left.  ;D


----------



## military_mom

I'm a mother of two boys. I've been wanting to join the army for a few years now, and I'm hell bent on doing it this year. My only issue is that I have kids. When I told my mom that I wanted to join, she said "you can't join! you have your kids to take care of!" I'm planning on becoming a Dental Technician.  Basically, I want to talk to other moms (single or married/in a relationship) who have been in or are currently serving in the military. How is it for you? How is it for your kids and spouse? I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum for this question...if anybody knows where I could ask these questions, it would be greatly appreciated if you could tell me where to turn.


----------



## vonGarvin

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're a man of few words, there's still 998 left.  ;D


I subscribe to the principles of Military Writing:

Accuracy.

Brevity.

Clarity.

I think I met all three ;D


----------



## Elorajen

I'm concerned about this as well. Is your husband military? Mine is, and is very good with the kids, so I have no worries when I go away to train. Well, I'll always worry, thats what moms do LOL! From the information that I've gleaned from other moms in the military, most tell me that its the best thing they've ever done. They tell me its hard, like a constant fire drill, but they wouldn't change it. A friend of mine is a major, her husband is a captain and their kids are the same age as mine, so I was very interested in what she had to say. 

I'm just waiting for some additional paperwork to send in once its complete, in the new year and my application should be on its way to Ottawa to be processed.

Looking foward to some of the answers from people here!


----------



## Celticgirl

Hi there,

There are lots of moms (and dads) in the military.  I'm the mom of a now 11 y/o girl and I joined initially two years ago this month. It's been a long process.  I'll give you a brief synopsis of my journey: I left basic training halfway through on my first attempt due to illness and personal issues (one of which was my ex trying to get custody of my daughter).  I then made the decision to go reserve at that point so that I could have some control over where I would be posted and not have to deploy until 'we' were ready for it.  It took a while to get re-enrolled since I had not completed basic.  Then I had to basically give up custody for a full year so that I could go to Borden for BMQ and my QL3, as I chose to be in the Air Reserve which does all Reg force training.  I wanted this because I knew I would eventually want to do a Component Transfer to Reg again, and I always wanted to be in the Air Force.  However, it was not easy to give up full custody of my daughter in order to make that happen.  

All of that time away from my child was really hard on her and on me and some days, I didn't know if I could spend another day without seeing her beautiful face. I missed her birthday last year for the first time ever and it killed me, but many a military parent has experienced it and you will too, if you join...birthdays, Christmases and other holidays, major milestones in your child's life...you just have to accept that you're going to miss some of those things.  Fortunately, I have my daughter with me again full-time now.  My next course is in two months time (5 weeks away from home) so I am getting ready to once again leave my child behind, this time in the care of her step-father.  My CL husband is in the military, so he knows the drill so to speak.  Having a supportive spouse or supportive family members (parents) if you are single can make all the difference.  My next step will be that CT to the Reg force.  I am hopeful that things are going to work out and that I won't be risking losing my daughter this time around.  

My father was like your mother, military_mom...he believed mothers should be with their kids, not leave them to go away on military training. We had many an argument about it before I left. Unfortunately, he passed away before I left for my second basic training and he never got to see me graduate and move forward with my career. I can only hope that if he were still here, he would have come around and been proud of me for seeing it through.

Anyway, if you use the search function on army.ca, you will find other threads on this topic that you may find to be interesting reading. Good luck with your decision!


----------



## FDO

I'm not a military mom but I have had to be when my wife has sailed. same as she had to be the dad when I sailed. It's not how much time you spend with your kids it's what you do in that time. I have a son (currently a MCpl AVS in Greenwood) and a daughter (with a son) Neither one of them holds a grudge or feels they missed out on anything because one or both of us have been away. 

Make you kids part of your life as well. We would sit down and map out where I would be and what I would be doing. I sent my sone a telegram from the ship on one of his birthdays. That was in the days of letter writing. These days you have MSN, Skype and all sorts of live chat sites. Stay in touch and keep them part of what's going on.

Good luck!


----------



## armyvern

Retired FDO said:
			
		

> I'm not a military mom but I have had to be when my wife has sailed. same as she had to be the dad when I sailed. It's not how much time you spend with your kids it's what you do in that time. I have a son (currently a MCpl AVS in Greenwood) and a daughter (with a son) Neither one of them holds a grudge or feels they missed out on anything because one or both of us have been away.
> 
> Make you kids part of your life as well. We would sit down and map out where I would be and what I would be doing. I sent my sone a telegram from the ship on one of his birthdays. That was in the days of letter writing. These days you have MSN, Skype and all sorts of live chat sites. Stay in touch and keep them part of what's going on.
> 
> Good luck!



LOL. I think we can call ourselves "ambisexual" in that we can be both the dad & the mom when required. 

Here`s a couple of threads for the ladies below ... one is on single-parenting in the CF, but hell when one is deployed or away on trainging --- the other parent essentially IS a single parent:

Single Parenting in the CF

The Homefront

Old"er" woman just starting out... 

I did it!!


----------



## Searyn

Picture's are automatically worth 1000 words so he's actually over his word limit.


----------



## Loachman

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Looking forward to be the best damn clerk I can be.



Look after people's pay and process their claims immediately, so that they do not have to turn to prostitution in Ottawa hotels, and you'll achieve that easily.


----------



## Mike Baker

Great job!


-Newf


----------



## military_mom

Thanks for everybody's input. You have made me feel a little more confident in my choice to join the CF. Right now I'm not married, but do have a boyfriend of almost a year. I haven't told him yet about my decision, but have sort of talked about the army in general...he says he wouldn't be able to handle taking care of my two boys (6yrs old and almost 3yrs old) by himself, but I think he'd be fine. He'll have lots of help from my family and friends, as well as his family. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Lil_T

Loachman said:
			
		

> Look after people's pay and process their claims immediately, so that they do not have to turn to prostitution in Ottawa hotels, and you'll achieve that easily.


  ;D  well let's hope I can cut down on people having to prostitute themselves....


----------



## GAP

Loachman said:
			
		

> Look after people's pay and process their claims immediately, so that they do not have to turn to prostitution in Ottawa hotels, and you'll achieve that easily.



you do know that some doo-doo will probably be coming your way.  ;D.................ah, and so young to leave us this early.....


----------



## Sigs Pig

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Finally - after 16 1/2 months  :nod:  I graduated BMQ 9 Dec 10.



Does BMQ take 16 months to do now?? Or did they give you numerous tries?   

2012 will be brighter for you now!

ME


----------



## Loachman

GAP said:
			
		

> you do know that some doo-doo will probably be coming your way.  ;D.................ah, and so young to leave us this early.....



She's not so scary as all of you make her out to be, but I think that it's cute that you do.


----------



## GAP

Famous last words.....should it be your epitaph?  ;D


----------



## Loachman

Not worried at all.

[/inside joke]


----------



## Lil_T

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Does BMQ take 16 months to do now?? Or did they give you numerous tries?
> 
> 2012 will be brighter for you now!
> 
> ME



no, but breaking your leg in three places kinda tends to put things on hold for a little while.


----------



## Celticgirl

Congrats to you Lil_T!  I had complete faith in you and knew you would be successful!  Best of luck on your QL3!  (It will be much more relaxed than BMQ, but staying professional is key. )


----------



## Lil_T

thanks so much    I can't wait to get my 3s started.  I'm so glad I only have to spend 12 whole days on PRETC


----------



## CDN_LoneWolf_CDN

Congrats mate! So I guess patience and tenacity pay then.


----------



## Lil_T

For sure!  Thanks


----------



## armychick2009

We had a "mom" too, but she was 52! She had to head home for a bit (her hubby was sick) but, she'll be back! Strength and determination, she refused ALL help when it came to something physical... she was out to prove to others and not just herself, that she could do it.

I miss her tons 

What week are you in EpicBeardedMan??? Obviously the beard doesn't exist still???


----------



## armychick2009

Mine has been extended a bit too, but... you can really tell the difference between those who sort of want to finish basic and those who REALLY WANT TO FINISH BASIC.... they tend to heal a lot faster and the determination oozes through their pores 

The sooner, the better for me!


----------



## Lil_T

Yup. I really hope all of my friends who are on AWT now get their fit chits and on platoon ASAP so they can GTFO of the Mega.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

tfly said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'll do just that.    Are you there now?  What week?  If so, see you in a few weeks, perhaps.   :-\



week 3 when I left, I would of rather stayed and knocked out the 3 weeks, we could of been on week 6 by now and halfway done!  :snowman:


----------



## tfly

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> week 3 when I left,


 
Why did you leave?


----------



## Loachman

My guess would be Christmas block leave.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

tfly said:
			
		

> Why did you leave?



christmas leave lol.


----------



## Loachman

Elementary, my dear Tfly. 'Tis that time of the year, so the deduction was a simple matter indeed. Now, where is my pipe?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

Honestly I didnt know what to do with myself when I got back, all this time on my hands to just sleep and play video games, pretty sure i've gained weight too. Wanted to go back last week


----------



## armychick2009

EpicBeardedMan, I'm ready to get back too!!

More psyched than anything! May have gained a bit of weight too but I'm convincing myself it's all muscle! Been to the gym lots since I got back home, running lots... and, maybe a *little* bit of it is Christmas goodies but... not too much


----------



## megany

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> week 3 when I left, I would of rather stayed and knocked out the 3 weeks, we could of been on week 6 by now and halfway done!  :snowman:



I would have liked to have been back earlier too - but basic did a serious number on my immune system.  I've never been so sick in my life!  I've definitely needed the time to sleep...


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

megsy said:
			
		

> I would have liked to have been back earlier too - but basic did a serious number on my immune system.  I've never been so sick in my life!  I've definitely needed the time to sleep...



Came back with a chest infection..and since no cards were issued to us before we left I dropped 30$ on 6 pills...never knew how good drug plans were until I needed them lol.


----------



## tfly

Loachman said:
			
		

> Elementary, my dear Tfly. 'Tis that time of the year, so the deduction was a simple matter indeed. Now, where is my pipe?


 
Ah yes...I should know that.  As a reservist right now at an air maintenance squadron, I, along with the civilian workers, where the only ones there of 300+ people.  All others on LEAVE.


----------



## armychick2009

megsy said:
			
		

> I would have liked to have been back earlier too - but basic did a serious number on my immune system.  I've never been so sick in my life!  I've definitely needed the time to sleep...



I hear you on that one! I am now well-stocked on the anti-cold crap... I swear I've had about 10 colds since I got there in August ... and I was a teacher in a previous life! We're supposed to be immune to this kind of thing!


----------



## PuckChaser

No one is immune to shack hack. Every course, without fail, will get a majority of people sick.


----------



## aviatrixx

Congrats on following through and pursuing a goal!

I'm just finishing up my BMOQ at St Jean and there are few "older" women on the course between 31 and 42, (they would kill me if I called them older, but anyway) the biggest thing I think they have said they needed to work on was cardio. You're running around quite a lot and the last thing you want is to fall off the back of the platoon during runs. There's a fair amount of running about and swimming in other portions of the course as well, so having a good solid cardio base is a very, VERY good idea. Set yourself up on a good interval training plan for cardio and you'll be surprised how quickly you can build up endurance.

As for the strength training, core and upper body is important but so long as you can meet the standards you will be fine. That being said, for every extra push up, sit up, chin up, burpee ect that you can do the easier the course is. 

You may want someone at your local gym to "spot" your push ups so you can be assured you're doing them correctly. I can't stress this enough...SOME of the PSP staff are notorious for being extremely picky with their push ups. As an example, my week 8 PT test. My platoon staff counted 42 perfect  pushups (I counted 47) but the PSP staff counted 19!! As a former competitive athlete who knows how to do a freakin' push up or two I was not impressed.  Anyway, download the CF fitness guide and take a look at that for technique.

Strength training does take time and commitment and lots of repetition. When you have a spare moment, pump out as many push ups or situps as you can, rest for a few minutes and try it again. Do this a few times through out the day. Keep track of what you're doing in a log so you can actually measure your improvement.  

Your ability to gain muscle mass in your thirties is more difficult, but if you watch you diet, hydrate and get yourself on a good routine, you will succeed. We had a young woman on our course who couldn't do more than 2 push ups and thanks to our staff and  her dedication is well past 25. In fact there's  very few women on our platoon whom are not able to reach the men's standards thanks largely to their effort before they came on course.

Being fit is also important for you to avoid injuries as well.  I can't tell you how many people I've seen taken off platoon for injuries. Some were unavoidable but many were just due to a drastic change in someone's required output in a given day that they were simply not ready for.

Keep at it and DO NOT slack off on your pre BMOQ fitness schedule. Go fit and be as prepared as you can and you'll be laughing...and crying...but mostly laughing!

All the best to you and welcome to the family!


----------



## tfly

aviatrixx said:
			
		

> Congrats on following through and pursuing a goal!
> All the best to you and welcome to the family!


 
Thank you for all your great advice.  I leave next week, so I hope what I have done to date will be enough.  I doubt it though, I suffer with cardio myself.  But all I can do is the best I can do, so that's what I will do. )))

Perhaps I'll see you around the Mega.


----------



## Lil_T

...... and I'm 3s qualified.  YAY! ;D

Best part, posted back to the same unit/section I was working in for the attached posting.


----------



## tango22a

L'IL_T:

Congrats & Cheers !!!


tango22a


----------



## mariomike

Congratulations, Lil-T!


----------



## Alea

LiL_T,

I always look for people I can take as role models through my own enrolment process. 
You are now one of them.

Congratulations on your achievements  :nod:

Alea


----------



## Lil_T

Thanks a lot Alea, that really means a lot to me.  It's been a really emotional week for me, looking back on everything I've been through and achieved.  No matter how much I wanted to quit sometimes, I just didn't have it in me to give up.  I'm finally really proud of myself.

Proud to finally, really be a member of the CF.


----------



## Alea

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot Alea, that really means a lot to me.  It's been a really emotional week for me, looking back on everything I've been through and achieved.  No matter how much I wanted to quit sometimes, I just didn't have it in me to give up.  I'm finally really proud of myself.
> 
> Proud to finally, really be a member of the CF.



And you obviously did well at using your mental capabilities to not quit when you had enough. Again, congratulations to you and... maybe, one day, I'll have the honor to work with you as an RMS and make sure no errors are made on pays 

Take good care and enjoy your victory,
Alea


----------



## Lil_T

Hey thanks.  Good luck to you in your endeavours.


----------



## -ORaNGe-

"The rucksack march was pretty good, would have been better if Hill wasn't bitching  and crying the whole time though"

"You're such an ******* ***name***!"

Hey Lil_T, guess who lol

Yeah, yeah, necropost I know, but she was on my platoon, I had to.


----------



## Lil_T

I totally whined through that whole damn thing... LOL

Don't care though... it's done.  And I'll do it again when I have to.

screw you S*****  LOL...

are you still in Borden?


----------



## Trick

Well considering this thread is back alive, I actually have a question. I was wondering what happens to you if you're injured in training to the point of basically being out of commission for an extended period of time?

Regardless, congrats on all the success!


----------



## AFK

Apologies if this has been discussed thousands of times before.

One of the most interest facts about the Canadian Forces I confess, as a foreigner, is the fact they permit women to join whichever role they like in the military - including infantry and armour, and I'm sure most of you know it's uncommon, even in the West for women to be allowed to be in those combat arms. In the US military and here in the UK women can't join infantry-type roles at all (Royal Marines, etc), and in the US women can't be in armour or field artillery and here in the UK women can join any part of the artillery and be tank crewmen and tank officers in the Territorial Army (reserves..), but that's it. As far as I've seen, many of the US and UK populations, both military & civilian, are extremely averse to the idea. I'm a female and I'm going to be trying out for the Army (Royal Artillery) in a couple of months, so this topic interests me a great deal. 

So I'm just wondering what the Canadians opinion honestly is? Mainly those serving in the Canadian Forces, whose opinions I'm interested in, but anyone else is free to answer obviously. Do Canadians support it in general, or is it seen as a "dick move for the sake of being PC" by your government? 

*P.S.* Thanks for reading and I hope I get some interesting answers here! If this is in the wrong catagory, any mod is free to move it, lol.


----------



## brihard

If she can carry the same kit, do the same job, show the same professionalism, and bring the same devotion to duty, I don't give a shit if she's got ovaries or wears a bra.

Gender is not, in my mind, something that *inherently* limits you. Very few people cannot, with sufficient motivation and effort, get themselves in shape to serve in the combat arms. YOU will have to make the decision to fight that uphill battle - and it will be one; you will face a certain degree of prejudice from your peers. Decide for yourself if you're willing to put everything you have into being good enough to serve your country. If your answer is 'yes', then don't let anyone tell you different.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## ModlrMike

I don't think it's a case of PC run amok. Most troops would likely say something along the lines of "same pay, same risks". Equality is just that. We've had our share of females KIA, and have grieved for them no more nor less than their male counterparts. Of course there have been loudmouths in the public media that have made some very chauvinistic commentary, but I don't think those ideas hold much water with the average troop. Besides, women are far too integrated into the CF as a whole to turn the clock back, and I'm not sure that the troops would want it so.


----------



## FlyingDutchman

If she does her job well, then why not?


----------



## ballz

I've met a lot of feminist-types that talk an awful lot of talk about equality and this and that. Of course, my psychology prof's (a raging feminist) idea of equality was bringing women along for the ride so they could "shoot the guns and stuff" but not have to hump the kit, dig the hole, etc. :facepalm:

So far the only woman I've met that wants to be a Reg Force Infantry O doesn't do much of the talking stuff, but she walks the walk, and with a lot of kit on her back, too. Her only shortcoming is she's a lightweight when it comes to alcohol, but we usually don't give her too hard of a time about that considering ;D

I guess my point is, there's a lot of advocates for women that do a poor job of representing most of the women I've met in my life. Don't be the talker, be the walker, and you will have no problems being accepted by your peers and you will most likely pave a lot more roads for women without ever trying than those that are always trying but seem to get nowhere.


----------



## Blackadder1916

AFK said:
			
		

> So I'm just wondering what the Canadians opinion honestly is? Mainly those serving in the Canadian Forces, whose opinions I'm interested in, but anyone else is free to answer obviously. Do Canadians support it in general, or is it seen as a "dick move for the sake of being PC" by your government?



A common Canadian (those without an agenda) reaction would probably take the following course:

Quizzical - There are women in the combat arms? (What are the combat arms?)
Reflective - That's interesting?
Conclusion - So what? Yawn.

For military the quizzical stage would be bypassed.


----------



## VladimirK

I'd be lying if I said I don't have any prejudices against women in combat roles, and I think most men have those same prejudices.
In my BMOQ, our platoon was actually split about half-half between men and women, but out of the 6 going into combat arms, only
1 was a woman.

That being said, the only female on the platoon happened to be the only future infantry officer. And the thing is, although she's got a ways
to go before she can be an effective combat leader, the same can be said for all of us coming off that course and she has definitely shown
the raw skills necessary for combat roles.

It's easy to let prejudices get the best of us. Warfare used to be all about who can swing that sword harder and faster and so it was reserved
almost exclusively for men. However, muscle strength, although necessary, is no longer critical. What is needed for modern combat 
are skills like fast reflexes, situational awareness, on the fly adaptation ,good aim, mental stamina, etc. These are skills that can be taught to both 
men and women.

My experience is limited, but I can tell you that there are some that view it as a BS PC move and some that view it as being only fair. Personally, I know
that after awhile in the field, I really stopped caring about the small details concerning the people around me that would drive me nuts in civvie life.
As long as the person next to me did their job well and didn't cause me extra grief, i liked them, and I tried to do the same for them.


----------



## Sythen

My platoon commander for my tour is female. I will 100% admit that when she was first posted in, everyone talked shit about her (myself included) and basically made all the crude jokes behind her back. Then we did IDCC and all that went out the door. She proved she could do everything and would do everything that we did. She was an extreme fitness nut, so she killed us in PT (not a bad thing). Her leadership was first rate and I have no serious complaints about her. None of those complaints would have anything to do with being a woman either.


----------



## cavalryman

I was one of the so-called dinosaurs who lived the transition in the early 90s.  When I left the reg force having served in infantry  battalions operating under the concept that women in the combat arms was absurd, I was faced, in my first exercise with the reserve in a milcon no less,  with a troop where a number of the troopers (this being an armd recce unit) were women.  Including my lynx driver  (yes we got to get folks qualified on, and play with, reg force equipment back then).  I really was taken aback and like a good officer sought counsel from my troop WO.  His advice - they're troopers like the rest of 'em, and treat 'em as such and let the crews and patrols do their thing.  And smart young captain that I was, I did as my troop WO recommended.  Never looked back.  We're all green, we all bleed red and we all have a job to do.  Thus endeth the lesson.

Edited to add: when I was OC Recce Sqn one of my troop leaders was a woman.  Her day job was as a municipal cop.  She did her job well, hauled her weight and no one ever was inclined to discuss gender.


----------



## Robert0288

Standards exist for a reason, If an individual is able to meet/exceed those standards in leadership/fitness/capability etc... I don't care who they are and I would be happy they're on my team.  Gender plays no part in that.


----------



## aesop081

:boring:

It is 2011..........


----------



## Infanteer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> It is 2011..........



+1.  We've been in two campaigns in the last 5 years involving hostilities (Afghanistan and Libya) and, contrary to the doomsayers down south, we haven't fallen apart.  Can we just give them the right to vote and get on with things....


----------



## Delaney1986

As a woman not in the CF (and no hardcore feminist) I think there are standards for a reason. If you can pass the standards and perform well, why shouldn't you be afforded the chance to serve your country in a way that interests you? Everyone I know feels the same, civilian and military. The only problem is that being the exception and not the rule makes you a bigger target; one poor female soldier can turn into a generalization of _all_ female soldiers.

I mean haven't you ever seen GI Jane? Don't they say something about _men_being the problem, not being able to get over their own predjudices?  

My husband is Armoured and was in Kentucky last year and I guess the women they have in their unit were getting bombarded by questions from the US troops. They just couldn't grasp that there were female tankers. I thought it was funny, just straight out strange that in 2011 it's even a consideration??

I know the American reasoning behind not wanting women in the Forces, but can I ask you what the UK policy is in not allowing it? Just curious, don't think I have ever seen a British perspective on that.

Have a good day!


----------



## Old Sweat

I am a retired gunner officer, and a bit of a military historian. As such I have been asked to write the gunner history of the War in Afghanistan. In my research I have seen it demonstrated time and time again that gender is not an indicator of ability. As you probably know, the first Canadian gunner killed in the theatre was a female. I know of several others who have done very well, including one who was mentioned in despatches for her actions as a forward observation officer during a fire fight. (She is now a battery commander.)

There is an old line attributed to the late Charlotte Whitton, who was the first female mayor of a large Canadian city, "To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."


----------



## Silverfire

I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"

Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt.


----------



## ModlrMike

Silverfire said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"
> 
> Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt.



This has been done to death, however the answer is because of body composition and physical strength. The standards were validated over a large population sample (250K) so they're very accurate. Let's not turn this thread into a PT standards cluster()#& for once.


----------



## PMedMoe

AFK said:
			
		

> One of the most interest facts about the Canadian Forces I confess, as a foreigner, is the fact they permit women to join whichever role they like qualify for in the military



Fixed that for you.   



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am a retired gunner officer, and a bit of a military historian.



Just a "bit" of a military historian?   




			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> "To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."



Too true.  In all trades.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Standards exist for a reason, If an individual is able to meet/exceed those standards in leadership/fitness/capability etc... I don't care who they are and I would be happy they're on my team.  Gender plays no part in that.




Standards do in fact exist, but generally speaking, for Police, Military and a few other things the standards are different...yet we do the same job.


----------



## ballz

Silverfire said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"
> 
> Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt.





			
				Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Standards do in fact exist, but generally speaking, for Police, Military and a few other things the standards are different...yet we do the same job.



Those are the EXPRES test standards, which are just general fitness standards required to be in and remain in the Canadian Forces.

They are not indicative of the standards one has to meet during the training that actually qualifies them for their trade, which is the same for both male and female.


----------



## Pusser

Here's my best story on this subject:

Years ago,  my department in one of HMC Ships was about 50/50 male/female.  One of the females was a single mother who received zero support from her child's father who was nowhere on the scene (not sure anyone even knew who the father was).  Nevertheless, she was the consummate professional, exceptionally competent (one of the top sailors on board) and had her act together.  Never once did she miss a trip or deployment or try to whine out of them because of her family situation.  i was sorry to see her go when her posting was up.

Because of the nature of how we "manned" ships at the time, each position was tagged as male or female because of bunking issues.  When my model sailor was posted, I received another female.  She lasted a week before the Doc reported to me that the new sailor had a "female" condition, the name of which now escapes me (but essentially permanent menstruation), which although treatable, rendered her "Unfit Sea."  I received another female sailor onboard.  She lasted about ten days before the Doc (who was now rather nervous about approaching me) came to me and told me that the latest sailor was pregnant, which again meant she was Unfit Sea.  I was fit to be tied at this point!

By this stage, we had run out of female sailors of this trade in the area.  We had to re-jig the bunking arrangements in order to bring a male sailor on board.  He lasted longer than his two predecessors (about a year), but in the long run turned out to be quite the scumbag.  He had an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend and outstanding child support orders from both of them.  My attempts to get him to deal with his legal issues proved fruitless and he was eventually removed from the ship in handcuffs by the local constabulary.  Oh, as a tradesman he was slug to boot.

I was a bit jaded at this point and thought to myself what I needed as the ideal sailor.  I had had a wonderful female sailor replaced by two women, one of whom had to leave through no fault of her own and the other who should have used a condom (yes, it was an accident).  In addition to being a slug, the third replacement caused me much grief due to his propensity to father children with different women.  My conclusion?  The ideal sailor from whom one can expect no huge problems?  A eunuch!  Unfortunately, the CF is somewhat loath to make castration a job requirement.  But think about it.  How many leaders out there can think of situations where sex was the root of all evil?  If all your personnel had no interest in sex (and hence no wives, no children, no love triangles, etc), wouldn't life be so much simpler?

Now, to bring this back on topic:  There is no reason women can't fill any job in the CF (well, except Catholic priest, but that's not our fault).  What I've hopefully shown is that leadership grief comes from all areas and that in my case, the man was far worse than any of the women.  I really don't hold the women in this story responsible for the medical issues.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Old Sweat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an old line attributed to the late Charlotte Whitton, who was the first female mayor of a large Canadian city, "To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too true.  *In all trades*.
Click to expand...

In AND out of the military, sadly.

Short and sweet:  in my time training recruits in a Reserve environment (women weren't allowed in the infantry until just after I got out), some of my best and some of my worst soldiers were both men _and_ women - if they met the standard, happy to have them aboard, and if they didn't, it sucked, no matter the genitalia involved.


----------



## Container

In my experience good female whatevers are as good as good male whatevers. The bad females whatevers are as bad as any other bad whatever.

But I think the idea that women have to be twice as good is bunk. In my experience with anything to do with the federal government they, in all organizations Ive come in to contact with, are just itching to to stick a female on a post and hang her out in front of everybody no matter how pedestrian her accomplishments. The same for minorities. It drives me nuts when I hear "he's a good native cop" or something similar. He's either a good cop or not. Never "good" for being what race he is. I've seen some real crap pumps recognized for nothing other than a good PR story.

The argument I received the last time I was drunk with marines was that they dont care how good women are- they will never be of a high enough ratio in the combat arms to not be a distraction for the 99 % male marines. I dont agree but I have been on courses where having one female was a distraction- it was the fault of the men. Sure. But it was still a distraction- and when "the men" make up 99% I think maybe sometimes decisions are to be made to keep them in line not just so everyone can live their dream of whatever. I see the point of telling guys to suck it up but I also understood this particular view.

Quite frankly Im glad I dont have to care about things like that. My world is pretty cut and dry- youre good or you're not. And its never because of whats between your legs.

My wife put me in an arm bar the other night that I haven't had a man do so well. I was impressed. It was a good arm bar. Not a good arm bar for a woman.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Container said:
			
		

> .... youre good or you're not. And its never because of whats between your legs.


There's a t-shirt slogan there - good one.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> The argument I received the last time I was drunk with marines was that they dont care how good women are- they will never be of a high enough ratio in the combat arms to not be a distraction for the 99 % male marines. I dont agree but I have been on courses where having one female was a distraction- it was the fault of the men. Sure. But it was still a distraction- and when "the men" make up 99% I think maybe sometimes decisions are to be made to keep them in line not just so everyone can live their dream of whatever. I see the point of telling guys to suck it up but I also understood this particular view.


I'm more optimistic - if you can train someone to run towards gunfire, I think you can train them to treat everyone the same fairly.


----------



## blacktriangle

I agree that good is good, and bad is bad. Regardless of gender...

But honestly I can think of lots of guys that are guilty of basically harassing females because there are only a few around to look at. Moreover, let's not pretend that many females in the CF don't totally play into it - a good number just love all the new found attention, and use it to whatever end they desire. 

Among true professionals, I don't think gender is an issue at all. The problem is, not everyone is a true professional. Many (men and women!) just dress like it...


----------



## Ralph

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As you probably know, the first Canadian gunner killed in the theatre was a female.



Not to be hyper-picky, but "gunner with an artillery tasking" would be more exact - for the history book... ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

Ralph said:
			
		

> Not to be hyper-picky, but "gunner with an artillery tasking" would be more exact - for the history book... ;D



Explain, please. Did I miss the date of MBdr Mansell's death?


----------



## aesop081

MBdr Mansell : April 22, 2006

Capt Goddard : May 17, 2006


----------



## vonGarvin

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no reason women can't fill any job in the CF (well, except Catholic priest, but that's not our fault).


"Catholic Priest" isn't a trade in the CF, nor it is a position; however, if you mean to say "Female Catholic Chaplain", you're wrong.  3 RCR's former chaplain was a RC.  And Female.


----------



## AFK

Wow, well I certainly got a big response here! I'm rather pleased to see that many Canadians honestly aren't as averse to the idea as the UK/US population.. anytime I've seen an American or British teenage girl or young woman in a public forum express a desire to join the infantry or the likes, she tends to either get ripped to shreads or patronised like hell. Like this Yahoo question I stumbled upon today, well its Yahoo Answers but still. 

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtxWl7leAFs4nHzAFqe8EOYST31G;_ylv=3?qid=20110910121456AA8qiZv



			
				Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> I know the American reasoning behind not wanting women in the Forces, but can I ask you what the UK policy is in not allowing it? Just curious, don't think I have ever seen a British perspective on that.



The UK is more liberal on what women can do than the US, but the Ministry of Defence currently has a rather vague policy which basically says women "should not be in military jobs where the >primary duty< is to get up close with the enemy and kill him" - which covers infantry, cavalry/armour, special forces (SAS/SBS), the Royal Marines and the RAF Regiment (the latter two are light infantry). But that's as far as the policy goes - women can do the Commando or Pegasus Company (P-Coy) courses, which are supposed to be very ardous (only one woman has done it so far), and earn the right to work alongside the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment but in a support role - so as engineers, combat medics, artillery, etc. Out of random curiousity I've looked up military jobs which are available to women even here in the UK and I've been a bit surprised at what women are banned from doing in the US, like this: http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/multiple-launch-rocket-system-crewmember.html

Anyways, I don't know what the official reasoning is for, but I've heard it's the usual. "Women aren't strong enough", "women aren't aggressive enough", "women are a threat to combat unit cohesion", "men will die trying to save women", etc.


----------



## RCDtpr

I have no issues whatsoever with women in the combat arms trades.  I have (and still do) work with women who are just as good, if not better soldiers, than a lot of the men.  What I do have issues with is the special treatment they seem to inevitably receive.  I've seen PLQ spots go to females (who aren't ready for the course) simply because the regiment wants to have mod 6 qualified females.

It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, "having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?

Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.


----------



## Michael OLeary

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?
> 
> Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.



So, do you think she asked for it? Or was it a fault of the chain of command to hold up her performance of expected duties as special?


----------



## RCDtpr

Agreed, I'm sure she didn't ask for any recognition. I'd be willing to bet that the CoC forwarded her name without her knowledge.  But that was the point I was trying to make...by not treating her/them as equals, it potentially builds resentment, which is bad for a unit as a whole.

Equality needs to start at the top.

Sorry for my other post...should have worded it better.


----------



## Pusser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Catholic Priest" isn't a trade in the CF, nor it is a position; however, if you mean to say "Female Catholic Chaplain", you're wrong.  3 RCR's former chaplain was a RC.  And Female.



I am fully aware that there are female RC Chaplains, but they are pastoral associates, not priests.  Even though the CF now considers "Chaplain" to be one encompassing MOSID (they were separate MOCs at one point according to the Chaplain Branch Manual), the fact remains that the RC Church does not see it precisely the same way and there are certain sacraments that remain the exclusive domain of priests.  This means that if an RC CF member wishes to receive certain sacraments, a pastoral associate, regardless of the fact that they are a Chaplain, simply won't do.  Therefore, not all RC Chaplains are interchangeable and so part of succession planning for the Chaplain Branch requires that some of the intake must include actual priests - who can't be female.


----------



## vonGarvin

Yeah, Yeah, I get it.  Whatever.



(I'm fullly aware of the Latin Church, it's little quirks, etc)


----------



## cupper

AFK said:
			
		

> Anyways, I don't know what the official reasoning is for, but I've heard it's the usual. "Women aren't strong enough", "women aren't aggressive enough", "women are a threat to combat unit cohesion", "men will die trying to save women", etc.



There was some discussion south of the 49th around the start of the Iraq invasion that one reason for not allowing women in direct combat positions was that the American Public was not ready to see large numbers of female soldiers coming home in body bags.

Unfortunately for the chikenS$%T politicos who were more worried about the optics that being progressive, the definition of "direct combat role" became so blurred that their supposed well intentioned attempt to keep women out of harms way fell flat on it's face.


----------



## Wookilar

AFK said:
			
		

> "women aren't aggressive enough"



....ummmm... these people have actually MET some women right? Maybe even pissed one off a time or two?

Now, I admit my experience with the fairer sex is somewhat more limited than Charlie Sheen's, however, I feel pretty comfortable staying that women can be more than aggresive enough when they want to be.

Wook


----------



## cupper

AFK said:
			
		

> "women aren't aggressive enough"



Two words, Lorena Bobbit.


----------



## ModlrMike

> "women aren't aggressive enough",



They should work a night shift with me. That will change their opinion!


----------



## tfly

Hello everyone,

I thought I would just drop by as the originator of this post to give a small update.  

I completed basic training this summer in CFB Borden.  A great place, in my mind, for BMQ.  (you see the light of day OFTEN).  I did find some aspects of it VERY challenging, but was pleased with the goals I set for myself and achieved.  

When I arrived at BMQ, I had three goals:

     1. Exempt my PT test
     2. Complete my 13 KM Ruck
     3. And PASS my course

I left basic having achieved all three goals.  

Currently, I am happily doing my QL3.  Just say'n!


----------



## vonGarvin

tfly said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> 
> I thought I would just drop by as the originator of this post to give a small update.
> 
> I completed basic training this summer in CFB Borden.  A great place, in my mind, for BMQ.  (you see the light of day OFTEN).  I did find some aspects of it VERY challenging, but was pleased with the goals I set for myself and achieved.
> 
> When I arrived at BMQ, I had three goals:
> 
> 1. Exempt my PT test
> 2. Complete my 13 KM Ruck
> 3. And PASS my course
> 
> I left basic having achieved all three goals.
> 
> Currently, I am happily doing my QL3.  Just say'n!


Congratulations!  And VERY well done for exempting your PT Test!  Have fun on QL 3!


----------



## Loachman

Congratulations from me as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

Congrats, TFLY!  It's quite something to see how you continuously improved, set your goals and achieved them.  Good luck on the rest of your courses. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

tfly said:
			
		

> Hello everyone,
> 
> I thought I would just drop by as the originator of this post to give a small update.
> 
> I completed basic training this summer in CFB Borden.  A great place, in my mind, for BMQ.  (you see the light of day OFTEN).  I did find some aspects of it VERY challenging, but was pleased with the goals I set for myself and achieved.
> 
> When I arrived at BMQ, I had three goals:
> 
> 1. Exempt my PT test
> 2. Complete my 13 KM Ruck
> 3. And PASS my course
> 
> I left basic having achieved all three goals.
> 
> Currently, I am happily doing my QL3.  Just say'n!


Congrats!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Way to go tfly!


----------



## GAP

Congrats!


----------



## Celticgirl

Another congrats, TFly!  It's a great feeling, isn't it?    Enjoy your 3's!


----------



## tfly

You guys all rock!  Thank you so much!  The help and advice I received from you all is what helped me through. You know who you are! Thank you!

Oh, and I think I'm going to love my course!  Hope to meet you all sometime! Maybe even during my stay in Borden??


----------



## AFK

cupper said:
			
		

> There was some discussion south of the 49th around the start of the Iraq invasion that one reason for not allowing women in direct combat positions was that the American Public was not ready to see large numbers of female soldiers coming home in body bags.
> 
> Unfortunately for the chikenS$%T politicos who were more worried about the optics that being progressive, the definition of "direct combat role" became so blurred that their supposed well intentioned attempt to keep women out of harms way fell flat on it's face.



I think that sounds like more of the main/real reason, tbh. Probably applies here in the UK. About six women died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began and they got a bit more press than the men who died out there, but really, I think that's inevitable when females are a strict minority in combat casualties, it's no reason IMO not to offer them the same opportunities. I do hope the British armed forces progress more, even if it's done gradually, but that doesn't look like it'll happen for another 10-20 years. There's still people who think they're allowed to do _too much_!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I have no issues whatsoever with women in the combat arms trades.  I have (and still do) work with women who are just as good, if not better soldiers, than a lot of the men.  What I do have issues with is the special treatment they seem to inevitably receive.  I've seen PLQ spots go to females (who aren't ready for the course) simply because the regiment wants to have mod 6 qualified females.
> 
> It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, "having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?
> 
> Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.



I know what you are talking about and I think the said cpl you are talking about is a fine example for many other soldiers at her battalion to follow.  For one she doesn't have a piss poor attitude like a lot of people do, is highly professional, and I have heard nothing but good things said about her from people at 1 RCR.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Commendation for carrying a C6 the WHOLE ex? Incredible.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I have no issues whatsoever with women in the combat arms trades.  I have (and still do) work with women who are just as good, if not better soldiers, than a lot of the men.  What I do have issues with is the special treatment they seem to inevitably receive.  I've seen PLQ spots go to females (who aren't ready for the course) simply because the regiment wants to have mod 6 qualified females.
> 
> It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, *"having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  * I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?
> 
> Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.




Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!  Some things can not be unread. Lord, take me now.


----------



## Weatherwitch

Howdy all I have been in the CAF both Reg and Reserves, in the Combat arms and support trades for over 33 years now Back in the Regs again.  I have  seen the implementation of Human rites into the CF and in most cases it has been a good thing.  Women in  combat arms is one of the good things, there are male members of the CF that are useless as soldiers, Crewmen, Gunners  and there are female members that are the same way percentage wise the males have them beat probably cause there are more of them.   It dosn't matter if your male of female when you are called to duty and you answer the call you put your life on the line for Queen and country where ever you are asked to go. I have lost many a friend over the last 11 years in the fields of Afghanistan and every year I morn them all.  In my humble opinion there is no difference. the nostalgic statement of COMBAT ARMS  is the ones who fight is very much pas-say as now the support trades also get put in harms way not maybe in direct combat  but as members of convoys, Aircrew, clerks photographers cooks that are attached  to a Combat unit and share some of the same risks that the Grunts and tankers and even the Guns share.  Yes I am Air Force I served In Afghanistan, Croatia, Cypress on board  Several HMC Ships  both as A soldier carrying a Rifle or a Airman sending up Balloons in support of those service personell carring rifles and dropping Shells on the enemies of my Country and some where female doing their Job with pride and dedication knowing the risks they take to get the job done may lead to their demise the same as the male soldier beside them. Female in combat arms if they do the job with dedication and pride I am all for it.


----------



## vonGarvin

Weatherwitch said:
			
		

> Howdy all I have been in the CAF both Reg and Reserves, in the Combat arms and support trades for over 33 years now Back in the Regs again.  I have  seen the implementation of Human rites into the CF and in most cases it has been a good thing.  Women in  combat arms is one of the good things, there are male members of the CF that are useless as soldiers, Crewmen, Gunners  and there are female members that are the same way percentage wise the males have them beat probably cause there are more of them.   It dosn't matter if your male of female when you are called to duty and you answer the call you put your life on the line for Queen and country where ever you are asked to go. I have lost many a friend over the last 11 years in the fields of Afghanistan and every year I morn them all.  In my humble opinion there is no difference. the nostalgic statement of COMBAT ARMS  is the ones who fight is very much pas-say as now the support trades also get put in harms way not maybe in direct combat  but as members of convoys, Aircrew, clerks photographers cooks that are attached  to a Combat unit and share some of the same risks that the Grunts and tankers and even the Guns share.  Yes I am Air Force I served In Afghanistan, Croatia, Cypress on board  Several HMC Ships  both as A soldier carrying a Rifle or a Airman sending up Balloons in support of those service personell carring rifles and dropping Shells on the enemies of my Country and some where female doing their Job with pride and dedication knowing the risks they take to get the job done may lead to their demise the same as the male soldier beside them. Female in combat arms if they do the job with dedication and pride I am all for it.



???  

Is English your second language?  If so, please feel free to post in French.  Seriously


----------



## Rifleman62

Obviously, women do not have to be Combat Arms to become casualties of direct enemy action. OEF/OIF has more than enough examples, both ground and air. You cannot be an infantryman, but you can fly them into battle. 

At the Warrior Family Support Center at Fort Sam Houston, there are, unfortunately, several females wearing the 101st combat patch, missing limbs.


----------



## Rifleman62

*2006:* An eighteen year-old Army medic has become the first woman ever to win the Military Cross, one of Britain's highest awards for gallantry in combat.

Private Michelle Norris braved heavy sniper and machine-gun fire from 200 insurgents during a fierce battle in southern Iraq earlier this year, clambering on top of an armoured vehicle to give life-saving treatment to a severely wounded comrade, ignoring the bullets smashing into the turret around her.

It was the first time she had ever been confronted with a casualty on the battlefield.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-422754/Teenage-army-medic-woman-win-Military-Cross.html#ixzz1eLXcVNkM


*2009:* Kate Nesbitt was awarded the Military Cross for bravery in the field. The Royal Navy Medical Assistant had braved Taliban fire to assist a comrade who was wounded in the neck during a firefight in Afghanistan last March. Kate remained with the wounded soldier, dressed the wound and prevented further haemorrhaging whilst the fight continued around her.

Medical Assistant Kate Louise Nesbitt from Plymouth deployed to Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade and worked in close support with “Charlie” Company of 1st Battalion The RIFLES when she found herself under fire from the Taliban.

Lance Corporal Jon List, 21, was treated for 45 minutes by Able Seaman Kate Nesbitt — under heavy gunfire. He was choking to death on his own blood after a Taliban bullet shattered his jaw. 

( Note: I think she is five foot nothing. The pack she carried was as big as her!! )

http://www.1664.org.uk/rnmbr/html/body_kate_nesbitt.html
*
2010:* Acting Corporal Sarah Bushbye, Royal Army Medical Corps, is only the third woman to receive the Military Cross, after running 500 yards under heavy fire to try to save four wounded men.
*
2011:* A 23 year old British army medic who put herself in “mortal danger” to treat a wounded Afghan soldier under heavy Taliban fire has been awarded the Military Cross.

L/Cpl Kylie Watson, from Ballymena, Co Antrim, gave medical care in exposed open ground for 20 minutes.

Her citation spoke of her “immense courage” and “inspiration” to her platoon in Helmand province last year. L/Cpl Watson is believed to be only the fourth woman to receive the MC, the third highest award for gallantry.

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2011/03/british-army-medic-awarded-military.html


----------



## Good2Golf

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Obviously, women do not have to be Combat Arms to become casualties of direct enemy action. OEF/OIF has more than enough examples, both ground and air. You cannot be an infantryman, but you can fly them into battle and support them with aerial direct fires...



There, fixed that for you. In the US Army, aviation IS a combat arm.  There are numerous examples of female Attack and Armed Scout aviators in the US Army.


Regards
G2G


----------



## vonGarvin

Rifleman:
That those women aren't extremely brave isn't being disputed by me; however, *not a single one of them was even a combatant*, let alone in the combat arms.  They were on missions of mercy (God bless them), but it still doesn't argue for, or against, why women should be in a profession where their job is to kill people.


----------



## Rifleman62

T, I agree. I was not arguing the point. Rather indicating, as everyone knows (I guess an initial stupid post!), women are in the thick of it already.


----------



## Pusser

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, "having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?
> 
> Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.



Is this the only thing the commendation was for?  Or was that just the thing that everyone focused on?  Without being able to read the citation, we can't know for sure.  Sometimes folks who are predisposed to a conclusion only pick out the parts of the evidence that support their argument, ignoring everything else.  Furthermore, citations are limited in length and unfortunately, sometimes don't do justice to the actual feat of accomplishment.  Your complaint may be better directed at the writer of the citation than at the individual or the chain of command that awarded the commendation.  A look at the actual case file, which is available to committee that makes the recommendation to the commander, may paint a more detailed picture and clearly show that the commendation was justified.


----------



## vonGarvin

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> T, I agree. I was not arguing the point. Rather indicating, as everyone knows (I guess an initial stupid post!), women are in the thick of it already.


Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, it still says nothing about going to close with and destroy the enemy.  That's what those on the "nay" side would argue: being in danger is on thing, being in the infantry or the armoured corps is another.

(Engineers and Arty aren't combat arms, they are combat support arms.  Our aviation, in Canada anyway, isn't a combat arm either.  Doesn't mean that the danger disappears if you're not in the combat arms.  The examples you posted above make that quite clear.  But this isn't about being in danger.  This is about killing.  Close up.  Jamming a bayonet into someone's face if necessary, or pivot turning over their trench - with them in it.  That's what it's about.)


----------



## mariomike

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, <snip>.



There may have been extremely isolated cases of Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) along as unauthorized passengers on bombing operations. I have read of only one in Bomber Command, and none in the USAAF ( that is not to say it never happened ). 
In early 1942, German propaganda claimed to have found a dead WAAF in a shot down Sterling. There was a story and photo in the German press. It was seen by a German speaking aircrew POW. But, the WAAF ( assuming the story was true ) was not identified.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Only thoughts....
1.  I'll leave the assessment of capablity to those who've served with them.  I think any armchair generals on the outside looking in, should do the same.  If you haven't served with them, up close and personal, you don't know.
2.  Special Treatment Issues (such as the medal for carrying the G6) - You hope that's only a phase as integration occurs.  
3.  Deployability Issues- Tough call on that one.  On one hand you don't want to hold biases against an individual because of their gender.  On the other hand, you need to look at it like an insurance table....if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%.  On that note, it would be interesting to do a statistical analysis and find out how many additional soldiers (and how many $) are required to maintain the same level of deployability because of lower rates for females soldiers as I think any time any one has a discussion, hard costs need to be part of the conversation (Bottom Line Question:  If all male, for same $, could Canada deploy an extra Battalion?   Extra two Battallions?  Until you do that math, and you find out....you don't know). 

I should add as a civilian, I don't believe the military is just a job, and should have to follow the HR rules that generally apply to civilian employment.   In the civilian world, there's a reality that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure women have the ability to have and raise children, and NOT be punished for it.  But the military is not the civilian world....it's a special service, where the role is to defend the nation and its interests, here and abroard and I'm not sure where child rearding fits into that equation.

I guess where I come down is I think we should look at the math, determine what are the surcharges we pay for the current configuration, and then as adults have the conversation if it's worth the ROI.  If we decide it is, drive on.  If we decide it's not and wan't to reallocate those dollars to other items (either within the military budget, or healthcare, education, environment, lower taxes, expanded CPP, etc.), then you start the conversation about how you start making changes.

For the record, I doubt the above ever happens as the powers that be likely have ZERO interest in having that conversation....


----------



## vonGarvin

mariomike said:
			
		

> There may have been extremely isolated cases of Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) along as unauthorized passengers on bombing operations. I have read of only one in Bomber Command, and none in the USAAF ( that is not to say it never happened ).
> In early 1942, German propaganda claimed to have found a dead WAAF in a shot down Sterling. There was a story and photo in the German press. It was seen by a German speaking aircrew POW. But, the WAAF ( assuming the story was true ) was not identified.


I'm talking about the women on the receiving end of those bombing offensives, staying in the targetted area, bravely, to help the victims.


----------



## mariomike

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the women on the receiving end of those bombing offensives, staying in the targetted area, bravely, to help the victims.



Sorry, I misunderstood your original post! I thought you meant female aircrews!  :facepalm:
Of course, as you say, there was great bravery among the rescuers, many of whom were women, on both sides.


----------



## RebeccaWalden

Hi there! I'm looking to join the Canadian Forces as a member of the full-time infantry. I'm a woman and I was wondering what inspired other women to join the CF? Was it the challenge? Teamwork? Travel opportunities? Family member? None of my friends want to join so I'm just looking to hear from some like minded individuals.


----------



## AKa

Rebecca,

I've been in the military for 26 years and I admit that I joined for the free education and the job security.  A family history of service did make it more appealing.  

However, I stayed for the comradeship, pride, and the sheer fun that my career brings.  I can't think of another career that would have given me the variety of opportunities, at home and abroad, that I have enjoyed.  And I can't say that I have felt that my gender has impacted my career. (At least not since 1991.)  My limitations are purely my own.  

I will say that I believe entering into male-dominated trades/classifications is a generally a challenge for a woman.  But the women of my acquaintance who entered the combat arms seem to think that it was worth it.  Listen closely to and apply the advice of those women who did the really tough work of clearing the path.  They can save you a lot of frustration.    

Me, I wanted to be a combat engineer, but calculus and iffy knees made that impractical.  But I can’t really complain as I would not trade my experiences with anyone.

Cheers,

AK


----------



## daftandbarmy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, it still says nothing about going to close with and destroy the enemy.  That's what those on the "nay" side would argue: being in danger is on thing, being in the infantry or the armoured corps is another.
> 
> (Engineers and Arty aren't combat arms, they are combat support arms.  Our aviation, in Canada anyway, isn't a combat arm either.  Doesn't mean that the danger disappears if you're not in the combat arms.  The examples you posted above make that quite clear.  But this isn't about being in danger.  This is about killing.  Close up.  Jamming a  into someone's face if necessary, or pivot turning over their trench - with them in it.  That's what it's about.)



Now we're talkin' combat arms. I feel all warm and fuzzy all of a sudden, but maybe it's just an arterial bleed...


----------



## armyvern

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Only thoughts....
> 1.  I'll leave the assessment of capablity to those who've served with them.  I think any armchair generals on the outside looking in, should do the same.  If you haven't served with them, up close and personal, you don't know.
> 2.  Special Treatment Issues (such as the medal for carrying the G6) - You hope that's only a phase as integration occurs.
> 3.  Deployability Issues- Tough call on that one.  On one hand you don't want to hold biases against an individual because of their gender.  On the other hand, you need to look at it like an insurance table....if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%.  On that note, it would be interesting to do a statistical analysis and find out how many additional soldiers (and how many $) are required to maintain the same level of deployability because of lower rates for females soldiers as I think any time any one has a discussion, hard costs need to be part of the conversation (Bottom Line Question:  If all male, for same $, could Canada deploy an extra Battalion?   Extra two Battallions?  Until you do that math, and you find out....you don't know).
> 
> I should add as a civilian, I don't believe the military is just a job, and should have to follow the HR rules that generally apply to civilian employment.   In the civilian world, there's a reality that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure women have the ability to have and raise children, and NOT be punished for it.  But the military is not the civilian world....it's a special service, where the role is to defend the nation and its interests, here and abroard and I'm not sure where child rearding fits into that equation.
> 
> I guess where I come down is I think we should look at the math, determine what are the surcharges we pay for the current configuration, and then as adults have the conversation if it's worth the ROI.  If we decide it is, drive on.  If we decide it's not and wan't to reallocate those dollars to other items (either within the military budget, or healthcare, education, environment, lower taxes, expanded CPP, etc.), then you start the conversation about how you start making changes.
> 
> For the record, I doubt the above ever happens as the powers that be likely have ZERO interest in having that conversation....



Really?? Do you have a link to these statistics that you are tossing about above?? I'd love to see statistics on that too, but I believe you've pulled this speculation out of your ass. You honestly think you'd see a ~45% difference in deployability rates!!??

Really?? Women at "if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%."

I can guarantee that female CF members are not knocked-up at a ~45% level (that is the difference you've tossed out there into cyberspace) which is about the only reason a female would be considered non-deployable where there is no male equivelant to the reason (unless one considered PATA) regardless of their age. 

I'd be more likely to wager that for every non-deployable chickie out there at _whatever_ age due to pregnancy, that per capita, there'd be 5 or 6 males out there at that same age on PATA (parental leave ... men get that in the CF when their wives have kids) who are thus non-deployable too. Any other reason a chick would be non-deployable would also be applicable to males. So, statistically, I'd wager the percentages would actually turn out pretty much even IF that study were ever to be conducted.

We have sooooooooooo moved beyond this.


**** Caveat: I am currently deployed (Just one more sleepie here to go!!  ;D) and 47 of my 117 pers are women. That's a little higher than the ratio for women/men in my trade total. How's that for deployed statistics?  Oh ... and we sent two males out as early as we could to hopefully get them home in time for the births of their new chicklets, but no girls. Apparently, we should NEVER have allowed those 2 men to go home on March Break leave before we deployed!!  > Nothing wrong with that. After the CF === one's family still exists no matter what trade they are.


----------



## wildman0101

thank-you Canadian Aviator.
Woman in the Combat Arm's.
No brob. My MoM was a CWAC.
Served 60 to 66
She could teach you the ranger 
stuff having been born on the prarie.
She could set your rifle to snipe cause 
she was doin it way way back in the
day on the farm. Think pheasent's 
are easy to pop outa the air. Those 
greasy machine's ,,,maint,,, using La D Dah
She could field strip not only your rifle,,pistol
and or including your tank and put it back 
together blindfolded.. As for the woman 
serving today MOM would  say "right-on"
"rock on".So if she is a boot on the ground
anywhere MOM and I are right behind ya 
100 %. Cheer's Scoty B


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd be more likely to wager that for every non-deployable chickie out there at _whatever_ age due to pregnancy, that per capita, there'd be 5 or 6 males out there at that same age on PATA (parental leave ... men get that in the CF when their wives have kids) who are thus non-deployable too.


PATA can be denied for operational reasons.   But I don't see how MATA/PATA gets into the argument anyway.  And for me, the "argument" isn't about deployability, for if it were, then the thread would be about "women in the Canadian Forces" not "women in the Combat Arms", not even "Women in Combat".

I don't have an opinion either way on this.


----------



## Haligonian

It pretty fascinating the differences in oppinion between people on this forum and some our our American colleagues.  Read the link below.

http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=4690

I suggest reading the comments as well as it reinforces the notion that this is not a popular idea.  What I find interesting about the US debate is that the case studies from around the world (ourselves, Israel, Australia) of women and homosexuals being integrated into combat units never seems to be mentionned.


----------



## aesop081

Not much more than a rant, a short-sighted one at that. I think our own experience with women in the CF has proven most of what is said to be wrong.

Only one part caught my eye in a less negative light:



> the diversity of our service members is the unique strength of our military.” Not training, not equipment, not technology, not small unit leadership. No sir, diversity



This line is too often used here in Canada too. We even follow it up with the "CF champion for women/persons with disabilities/aboriginals/whatever". If we concentrated on the combat capabilities the country needs, the rest would take care of itself.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We should make the queens champion. Get the biggest strongest scariest troop out there give him the best weapons, some sexy armor and send him off to challenge enemy commanders in single combat.

Just like video games


----------



## armyvern

Haligonian said:
			
		

> It pretty fascinating the differences in oppinion between people on this forum and some our our American colleagues.  Read the link below.
> 
> http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=4690
> 
> I suggest reading the comments as well as it reinforces the notion that this is not a popular idea.  What I find interesting about the US debate is that the case studies from around the world (ourselves, Israel, Australia) of women and homosexuals being integrated into combat units never seems to be mentionned.



It is an interesting divergence of opinion, but, us Canadian girls are doing quite OK me thinks.

I am not worried about us; we kick ass.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It is an interesting divergence of opinion, but, us Canadian girls are doing quite OK me thinks.
> 
> I am not worried about us; we kick ass.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really?? Do you have a link to these statistics that you are tossing about above?? I'd love to see statistics on that too, but I believe you've pulled this speculation out of your ***. You honestly think you'd see a ~45% difference in deployability rates!!??
> 
> Really?? Women at "if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%."
> 
> I can guarantee that female CF members are not knocked-up at a ~45% level (that is the difference you've tossed out there into cyberspace) which is about the only reason a female would be considered non-deployable where there is no male equivelant to the reason (unless one considered PATA) regardless of their age.
> 
> I'd be more likely to wager that for every non-deployable chickie out there at _whatever_ age due to pregnancy, that per capita, there'd be 5 or 6 males out there at that same age on PATA (parental leave ... men get that in the CF when their wives have kids) who are thus non-deployable too. Any other reason a chick would be non-deployable would also be applicable to males. So, statistically, I'd wager the percentages would actually turn out pretty much even IF that study were ever to be conducted.
> 
> We have sooooooooooo moved beyond this.
> 
> 
> **** Caveat: I am currently deployed (Just one more sleepie here to go!!  ;D) and 47 of my 117 pers are women. That's a little higher than the ratio for women/men in my trade total. How's that for deployed statistics?  Oh ... and we sent two males out as early as we could to hopefully get them home in time for the births of their new chicklets, but no girls. Apparently, we should NEVER have allowed those 2 men to go home on March Break leave before we deployed!!  > Nothing wrong with that. After the CF === one's family still exists no matter what trade they are.



Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss?  

How about you talking out of your *ss?

Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.

In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.


Matthew.

P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?


----------



## brihard

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss?
> 
> How about you talking out of your *ss?
> 
> Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.
> 
> In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.
> 
> 
> Matthew.
> 
> P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?



I read it, and you're right out of 'er. I'm not saying your math is wrong- I'm saying you're wrong for taking that approach.

To quote Heinlein, men (or women) are not potatoes. You cannot apply a purely economic analysis to this question as a prime determinator. If we faced a situation where a *radically* disparate degree of deployability existed, that would be one matter. While the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', you'll find most of us quite comfortable in saying that the 'non deployable' rate of women is not dramatically different from men.

So, dispensing with the actuarial science in a field where it's simply not appropriate, we're left with what it is the job of the C.F. to do, and what the Canadian public expects of us. Part of that expectation is that all Canadians who can hack it in the sense necessary are able to volunteer to serve their country in damned near any capacity and, if found able, to be employed in the trade they are selected for and trained in. Another part is the fact that our constitution guarantees equality of opportunity without regards for gender. I would venture to guess you've never actually read the defense white paper (ca. 1984 if I can recall) that followed the Charter and analyzed the contemporary situation in other nations with regards to gender integration in combat arms, and postulated likely courses of action for the CF? These are not issues that are new, nor have they been somehow immune to more studied analysis than the hallowed halls of army.ca or the JR's mess.

I will take any soldier in my section who is willing to show up and soldier. If they have a vagina, so be it; I'm not fussed. I'll take the chances of a woman getting knocked up with the chances of a dude getting a DUI or hitting a new high score on a piss test. Women don't tend to suffer from that critical condition that DAGs so many men red- testosterone poisoning. I would venture that the rate of men in the combat arms undeployable due to... I'll be judicious and call it 'misadventure' is probably not incomparable to women who get in a family way (which another man might chalk up as misadventure itself?).


----------



## armyvern

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss?
> 
> How about you talking out of your *ss?
> 
> Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.
> 
> In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.
> 
> 
> Matthew.
> 
> P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?



YOU have inferred a belief that you think women DAG red at a higher proportion then men, and thus put out the chauvenistic thought of "are we therefore worth it" under the guise of 'no one will want to address this/only enlightened intellectuals will understand where I'm going with this' ...  : 


You, my friend, are right out of 'er. We do nothing of the sort. You want to toss bogusness like that crap up here on the forums, then back it up with with some facts (note: I actually quoted some factual your numbers for you ... ). Until then, I, and every other woman in this outfit is well worth it. I do my job, and my deployments, quite fine thank you.


----------



## DexOlesa

I can see where a person can get the wrong idea from Blackshirts post. As I read it however, he was not making any observations or giving his opinion. He simply stated that it would be interesting to look at it from an insurance point of view to see IF there was any difference in deployability. Then he tossed out hypothetical pulled out of his ass numbers for analogy sake. Saying that the only thing against women in the forces WOULD BE IF we found some sort of disparity or correlation say that a PARTICULAR female (due to medical reasons of a feminine nature) was seen to be less than 40% deployable would it not then be prudent to instead of offering her a position in the name of equality instead offer the position to the healthy 26 yo male that was virtually guaranteed deployable. I do not believe he meant any slight  on women, or any offence. Instead wondering if an all male force, simply as a numbers exercise, is cheaper or easier to field, not that they necessarily were but that he was curious if it were the case.


----------



## mariomike

For what it is worth, a 36 page super-thread on the subject here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27742.0.html


----------



## armyvern

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Only thoughts....
> 1.  I'll leave the assessment of capablity to those who've served with them.  I think any armchair generals on the outside looking in, should do the same.  If you haven't served with them, up close and personal, you don't know.
> 2.  Special Treatment Issues (such as the medal for carrying the G6) - You hope that's only a phase as integration occurs.
> 3.  Deployability Issues- Tough call on that one.  On one hand you don't want to hold biases against an individual because of their gender.  On the other hand, you need to look at it like an insurance table....if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%.  On that note, it would be interesting to do a statistical analysis and find out how many additional soldiers (and how many $) are required to maintain the same level of deployability because of lower rates for females soldiers as I think any time any one has a discussion, hard costs need to be part of the conversation (Bottom Line Question:  If all male, for same $, could Canada deploy an extra Battalion?   Extra two Battallions?  Until you do that math, and you find out....you don't know).
> 
> I should add as a civilian, I don't believe the military is just a job, and should have to follow the HR rules that generally apply to civilian employment.   In the civilian world, there's a reality that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure women have the ability to have and raise children, and NOT be punished for it.  But the military is not the civilian world....it's a special service, where the role is to defend the nation and its interests, here and abroard and I'm not sure where child rearding fits into that equation.
> 
> I guess where I come down is I think we should look at the math, determine what are the surcharges we pay for the current configuration, and then as adults have the conversation if it's worth the ROI.  If we decide it is, drive on.  If we decide it's not and wan't to reallocate those dollars to other items (either within the military budget, or healthcare, education, environment, lower taxes, expanded CPP, etc.), then you start the conversation about how you start making changes.
> 
> For the record, I doubt the above ever happens as the powers that be likely have ZERO interest in having that conversation....



For the record, it's his last line that does it for me and shows where his belief lay. I also have zero interest in continuing this further. Our rates aren't lower (certainly not based on my personal operational experience). We are worth it and I am sooooooo glad 99.99999% of my "powers that be" have also moved on into this era right along with us.

I'm done here. I can find the Flinstones on TV.


----------



## Journeyman

Brihard said:
			
		

> While the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'....


  :rofl:  I love that line; awesome.


For _statistical purposes_, I too took the post by Cdn Blackshirt as being "much ado about nothing" (at best) or RTFO (at worst). 

I _suspect_ that his views are informed more by having an axe to grind than operational experience...but that's just how it comes across. I have no desire to compare MPRRs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

To borrow the wise words from another similar thread already in play....


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> yes it goes on and on my friends.
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever,
> just because....


Merge coming shortly.....


----------



## officious

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Maybe it‘s just me, but I think it would be really, really wrong to chase tail within your reg‘t... It unbalances things... distracts the soldier.. not a good thing, I assume.



Lol my Dad met my Mom when they were both reservists; they did alright I think.      My Dad was also a Master Corporal maybe a Sergent and she was a corporal at the time. Mind you this was "back in the day" when they could still drive the duce and a half to get burgers.


----------



## shuban

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.


----------



## Strike

shuban said:
			
		

> The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.



You're really on a roll with your posting streak aren't you...


----------



## GAP

shuban said:
			
		

> The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.



  RTFO :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy

shuban said:
			
		

> The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.



Wrong:

"Life was difficult and precarious for both sexes in nomadic Indian tribes, and other commentators felt that the women did not question their role which was essential for survival. However, it did not accord with European notions of femininity for women for women to be strong. The Hudson's Bay Company men found the unladylike strength of Chipewayan women particularly astonishing. On one occasion David Thompson sent one of his strongest men to help a Chipewyan woman who was hauling a heavy sled; to the man's surprise, it took all his strength to budge the load. The Chipewayan themselves took the superior strength of women for granted. As a famous chief Matonabbee declared, "Women... were made for labour; one of them can carry, or haul, as much as two men can do." Samuel Hearne perceived that the Chipewayan  evaluated women by different criteria than did the European. Physical prowess and economic skill took precedence over delicate features:

Ask a Northern Indian, what is beauty? he will answer, a broad flat face, small eyes, high cheek-bones.. a low forehead, a large broad chin, a clumsy hook-nose, a tawny hide, and breasts hanging down to the belt. Those beauties were greatly heightened, or at least rendered more valuable, when the possessor is capable of dressing all kinds of skins, converting them into the different parts of their clothing, and all to carry eight or ten stone in Summer, or haul a much greater weight in Winter."

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~goudied/a_la_facon_du_pays.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

shuban said:
			
		

> The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.


----------



## vonGarvin

I'm going to go against the grain here, so please bear with me.


When the olympics hold competitions that are not qualified by gender, and men and women do equally well in all competitions, then I'll believe it that men and women are physically the same.  (Obscure native North American tribes notwithstanding).

Having said that, a few hundred years ago the great equalizer was invented: the firearm.  No longer do infantryman have to be club-wielding brutes, whose effectiveness is guaged by how well they can wield those clubs.  (And swords, etc).  Although infantrymen need to be physically fit, they don't have to be physically strong in the sense that is often portrayed.  So long as they can carry their own kit to survive, plus carry some extra stuff, and then hold, aim and fire a rifle effectively, that person is going to do pretty well.  Yes, the physical fitness standards for infantry are higher than the rest (or at least, they ought to be),  but they are not so high that they would preclude women from attaining those heights.

The real "resistance" by many out there is to the psychological integration of men and women in such situations, where sometimes instinct can cause men to revert to "protectors" of women.  But as far as physical fitness levels (troll notwithstanding), aren't such that only a select few can make it.


----------



## armyvern

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm going to go against the grain here, so please bear with me.
> ...



Well put, but that's not going against the grain. 

99.99% of us are well aware that males and females are not physically the same. 99.99% of us are also aware that the physical differences do not mean that *no* females can do "a historically traditional males" job, but just that fewer *are *able to do so. 

Those who are willing and able to do so, should be allowed to do so. That goes for either sex.

Those .01% who have "psychological" issues with females who *are* able to do the job actually doing so, have their own issues to deal with because it's *their* own personal problem to deal with  ... not the females.

You'll never catch me arguing that ALL females COULD be employed as infanteers for example, but you won't catch me saying that about all men either. But, if they are willing, then they should be allowed to try. And, if in trying, are found to be physically capable and able, then they along with the men found capable and able should carry on as per normal. If not, then I hope the door doesn't slam either their female or male ass on their way out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I wish there was some way to put the last two comments, Technoviking's and Vern's, in a separate "sticky" to which everyone would be referred every time this silly question is asked.

Great posts, folks!


----------



## Springroll

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You'll never catch me arguing that ALL females COULD be employed as infanteers for example, but you won't catch me saying that about all men either. But, if they are willing, then they should be allowed to try. And, if in trying, are found to be physically capable and able, then they along with the men found capable and able should carry on as per normal. If not, then I hope the door doesn't slam either their female or male *** on their way out.



Amen!! This is a fantastic post and echo's my thoughts and feelings as well. 
I don't care if you are a man or a woman. If you can do the job, then do it to the best of your ability!


----------



## cupper

Here is a shining example of a woman who can perform her duties in combat just as well as a man. Unfortunately she cannot hold a combat position in the US Army.

The powers that be still do not believe that women should be placed in combat roles. Even though they have been in combat roles by circumstances since 2003, if not earlier.

http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/mar/10/dale-city-woman-honored-saving-lives-iraq-ar-1755837/


*Dale City woman honored for saving lives in Iraq*

Sgt. Monica Beltran doesn’t re­ally like to be reminded about all she has accomplished in her Na­tional Guard career. She’d much prefer that others be recognized for what they’ve done.

But facts can be pesky things. And the facts are these: Beltran, 26, of Dale City, is the second most decorated female soldier in the entire National Guard and is the first women to ever receive a Purple Heart and Bronze Star with Valor.

She received the honors for ac­tions during a firefight in Iraq on Oct. 26, 2005, when she is credit­ed with saving more than 50 lives by laying down suppressive fire.


----------



## jrst

So I have been lapping up information from these boards while waiting to hear back from the Reserve unit I applied to, and I've seen a couple of mentions that implied women aren't held up to the same standard as men during PT.  I know the requirements for the Expres test are different, but does that hold true through training?  For example, I saw one post that mentioned if your squad were told to do 100 push ups it's not ok to drop out- unless you were a woman.  Is that true?  What is the expectation?


----------



## 211RadOp

As a Tp WO, I expect the female members of my Tp to do the same PT as the male members.


----------



## F3m5h3p

211RadOp said:
			
		

> As a Tp WO, I expect the female members of my Tp to do the same PT as the male members.



Good to know!
:nod:


----------



## 2010newbie

In my BMOQ there was one girl that was 5' tall and 90 lbs soaking wet. If anything she had to be in better shape because she still had to clear the obstacle course in her FFO and perform all the same PT tasks that we did.


----------



## jrst

Good to know, thanks


----------



## OneMissionataTime

There was a young lady on another platoon a few years back that I knew, who weighed about 120 pounds but could ****ing ruck like there was no other. The more weight we piled on her, ( Ammo, water, a sandpack) the harder she went. Most of the guys had dropped out after 15km with about FFO (Flak included) and maybe 80 pounds. Moral of the story is you only go as hard as your heart can take you and when your young and healthy.. sky is the limit   ;D.


----------



## vonGarvin

There once was this girl and she, like, carried a machine gun and got a commendation for it.


derp


If you are in the Army, you will have to complete the BFT (google it), which is the same standard for men as it is for women, irrespective of age.

If you have to do the CF ExPres Test (google it), then there are varying standards based on age and gender.


----------



## PMedMoe

erp said:
			
		

> I think the only difference in the CF Expres test should be the grip test standard, everything else should be the same.



So you achieved the same scores on the ExPres as males in your age group?  Just curious.......


----------



## Eye In The Sky

erp said:
			
		

> I think the only difference in the CF Expres test should be the grip test standard, everything else should be the same.



I can't decide which one to use so....

 :trainwreck:

 :deadhorse:


----------



## HopefulA.B.

Does the army have a glass ceiling for women?

Website so you know what a glass ceiling is. It's a Socialogical term: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-glass-ceiling.htm


----------



## Maxadia

I would think only if you let it....


----------



## jeffb

HopefulA.B. said:
			
		

> Does the army have a glass ceiling for women?
> 
> Website so you know what a glass ceiling is. It's a Socialogical term: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-glass-ceiling.htm



No, it does not. While it is true that there are few female flag officers, I suspect this has more to do with the low percentage of women in the occupations that tend to produce the most flag officers, namely, the combat arms. At 2 RCHA there soon 3 of the 5 Bty's will be commanded by women. 

A quick search provided the bio's of the four female flag officers: 

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=297
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=116
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=782
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=605


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Flag Officer usually denotes Navy, General Officer Army & AF.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Major-General Whitecross is at the highest position that one can achieve in her engineering branch.  Rear-Admiral Bennet is in the highest position a reservist can achieve in the whole military, and knowing her, I would not bet against her finding a way to go one better somehow. So much for glass ceiling.

Also, of late, we have had two of our "Commander-in-chief" that were women. They are called Governor-General.

And our actual head of all armed forces is a woman: Her Majesty QE-II. Canada has already stated that it would support the current attempts, in England, at modernizing the rules of succession so that women descendants would take their place in the line of succession on par with their male brethren.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Major-General Whitecross is at the highest position that one can achieve in her engineering branch.  Rear-Admiral Bennet is in the highest position a reservist can achieve in the whole military, and knowing her, I would not bet against her finding a way to go one better somehow. So much for glass ceiling.



And BGen Jaeger is in the highest position of leadership in the CF Health Services.


----------



## Cansky

BGen Jagar has moved on from Surgeon General about 2years ago to a position in Kabul.  Current Surgeon General is Commador Jung who retires this summer.


----------



## Scott

HopefulA.B. said:
			
		

> Does the army have a glass ceiling for women?
> 
> Website so you know what a glass ceiling is. It's a Socialogical term: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-glass-ceiling.htm



Is this a subtle troll? Because it smells like it.


----------



## dogger1936

Women NCM's in my Armd unit have had very mixed results. None have made it past the rank of Cpl that I am aware of. Many completed a BE and were either married and out, medically released, or OT'd shortly after. 

We have had a few females who really stood out above their male peer's who have gone on to serve in SF roles out of the Armd trade.However those who were outstanding soldiers regardless of gender all moved onto other trades.

Women within the NCM ranks of combat arms I would have to say are the lowest in my unit. Based on only personal observations women don't stick around in my trade as NCM's.


----------



## jeffb

That is not the case in the artillery. I know of at least 3 women Warrant Officers and soon 3 of the 5 Maj's at 2 RCHA will be women.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Scott said:
			
		

> Is this a subtle troll? Because it smells like it.



This comment in conjunction with the 'I'm a cutter' one has me thinking the same.


----------



## dogger1936

jeffb said:
			
		

> That is not the case in the artillery. I know of at least 3 women Warrant Officers and soon 3 of the 5 Maj's at 2 RCHA will be women.



Seems to be quite a few in the infantry in comparison as well.


----------



## Rifleman62

Info on changes in the US Army.

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-opens-jobs-in-combat-battalions-to-women.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

*(US) Army Opens Jobs in Combat Battalions to Women*

May 16, 2012 - Associated Press - Kristin M. Hall

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. -- Female soldiers this week are moving into new jobs in once all-male units as the Army breaks down formal barriers in recognition of what has already happened in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The policy change announced earlier this year is being tested at nine brigades, including one at Fort Campbell, before going Army-wide. It opens thousands of jobs to female soldiers by loosening restrictions meant to keep them away from the battlefield. Experience on the ground in the past decade showed women were fighting and dying alongside male soldiers anyway.

Col. Val Keaveny Jr., commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team that is among units piloting the change, told The Associated Press that for the last decade it has been common to have women temporarily attached to the combat units and serve alongside them.

"Women have served in our Army since the Revolutionary War and they have done phenomenal work and continue to do so today," he said. "There is great talent and now we can have it in the headquarters of infantry, armor and cavalry."

Under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women.

The new jobs within combat battalions are in personnel, intelligence, logistics, signal corps, medical and chaplaincy. The Army is also opening jobs that were once entirely closed to women, such as mechanics for tanks and artillery and rocket launcher crew members.

The 4th Brigade draws its lineage from the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, whose World War II heroics led to books and a TV miniseries called the "Band of Brothers." But these days, Keaveny said there are more than 350 women already serving in the brigade and they will be opening 36 new jobs to women in the battalions.

"For the last 10 years, we have been fighting alongside women. In my experience I have seen that the Band of Brothers quickly integrate their sisters and they are a family," he said.

Capt. Elizabeth Evans, a 44-year-old mother of five, is one of the first women assigned to the combat battalions. She will be serving as a battalion S1, whose job is to oversee personnel issues within the battalion, including awards, casualties, human resources and other administrative responsibilities. She said there is a lot of pride associated with serving in an infantry unit.

"I think there's a rich history in the 101st and especially the 4th Brigade Combat Team," she said. "To me that means something. It means something to be a part of not necessarily history, but to be a part of a once all-male battalion."

Evans, who has deployed to Afghanistan, noted that women have been serving in dangerous jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years.

"With the fluidity of the battlefield and how there are no front lines, it just makes more sense to me to allow women to come into those roles, those non-combat staff roles," she said.

Keaveny said these changes will have minimum impact on where women will be located while deployed. Battalion headquarters are generally located at bases where women were already stationed and the Army has been using female engagement teams to reach out to civilians in remote areas.

"Quite honestly, we don't see there's going to be any friction," he said.

Kayla Williams, author of "Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the US Army," served with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team under the 101st Airborne Division during the initial invasion into Iraq as an enlisted soldier in military intelligence.

Early in the war, she wasn't even issued plates for her ballistic vest "because females can't serve in combat," she said. She said once she was temporarily attached to an infantry battalion at Fort Campbell that had no female latrines.

As an Arabic translator, she was attached to infantry units rather than assigned, but doing the same things as her male infantry counterparts, including going on foot patrols and living in remote combat outposts.

"Women have been serving in very forward deployed roles, and women have been serving side-by-side with combat arms personnel, just not in a formalized assigned method," said Williams, who is a fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

She said these incremental changes could improve the professional development of both men and women in the military, but acknowledged that the military still has a long way to go to leveling the field for women.

"It is my personal opinion that the institutionalization of women as not being able to serve in combat arms has a way of subtly allowing sexism within the military," she said.

Evans said she hopes the expanded roles will encourage more women to consider a career in the Army.

"I think for females in general, it's bringing us new avenues for accomplishments, for professional growth. In my personal belief, we are a part of supporting our infantryman," she said.


----------



## Rifleman62

Fits into subject, although US Army.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/army-reviews-women-ranger-school-16360414#.T7QyN8U8W08

*Army Reviews Whether Women Can Go to Ranger School*

LOLITA C. BALDOR - Associated Press - WASHINGTON May 16, 2012 (AP)

U.S. Army leaders have begun to study the prospect of sending female soldiers to the service's prestigious Ranger school — another step in the effort to broaden opportunities for women in the military.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, said Monday that he's asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer. And while he stressed that no decisions have been made, he suggested that Ranger school may be a logical next step for women as they move into more jobs closer to the combat lines.

"If we determine that we're going to allow women to go in the infantry and be successful, they are probably at some time going to have to go through Ranger school," Odierno told reporters. "If we decide to do this, we want the women to be successful."

According to Odierno, about 90 percent of senior Army infantry officers have gone to the school and are qualified as Rangers. Allowing women to go to Ranger school, he said, would allow them to be competitive with their male counterparts as they move through the ranks.

Going to Ranger school, however, does not automatically mean women would be allowed to serve in one of the Army's three elite Ranger battalions, which are Army special operations forces. In fact, many male soldiers who wear the coveted Ranger tab on their uniforms never actually serve in one of the three battalions.

Currently, women are not allowed to serve as special operations, infantry or armor forces, which are considered the most dangerous combat jobs. They are, however, allowed to serve in a number of support jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers that are sometimes attached to combat brigade units.

Odierno said his commanders are looking at whether the Army should open up infantry and armor jobs to women, and how that should be done.

As of this week, 200 women reported to nine different battalions around the country, as the Army implements plans to formally allow women to serve in smaller units that are closer to the front lines. New Pentagon rules allowing women to serve at the battalion level — rather than just the larger brigade — were unveiled earlier this year, opening up about 14,000 more jobs for women across all the military services. There are currently more than 250,000 positions that are closed to women.

A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often include top command and support staff, while battalions are usually in closer contact with the enemy.

Women make up about 16 percent of the Army.


----------



## armyvern

Well, good on the US ... finally. About 2.5 decades too late and still no combat trades; I figure it'll be at least another 2.5 decades for them to catch up to us on that front.

Really?? They need to trial this "experiment" despite the fact their chicks have, in effect, been doing this in a war zone for the past decade? Interesting ... wow.


----------



## dimsum

I can't remember if this was mentioned here already, but the Australian Army is also considering opening combat positions to women.  In fact, a delegation of female CF personnel are currently in Australia as advisors for a few weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-08/canadian-women-share-combat-experiences/3997306


----------



## Jarnhamar

> She said once she was temporarily attached to an infantry battalion at Fort Campbell that had no female latrines.


Well that's just disgusting!



> Going to Ranger school, however, does not automatically mean women would be allowed to serve in one of the Army's three elite Ranger battalions, which are Army special operations forces. In fact, many male soldiers who wear the coveted Ranger tab on their uniforms never actually serve in one of the three battalions.


Unless placed in a ranger battalion taking the course and getting the tab can be largely a prestige thing for SNCOs and officers-that from a tabbed officer down in California. (who wasn't in a ranger battalion)


----------



## cupper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really?? They need to trial this "experiment" despite the fact their chicks have, in effect, been doing this in a war zone for the past decade? Interesting ... wow.



Now Vern! It's attitudes like calling them chicks that has kept the US from being more progressive. >


----------



## M_M

PT - isn't so "hollywood" crazy. Most PSP staff are considerate enough to offer alternate, scaled exercises for people that are hurt or just not as strong at some exercises (break up pushups into sets of 10, do them on knees, etc.). Group PT with your unit may also get split into two groups: fast group/slow group so that its more fair for everyone. And the odd time the person leading PT insists that everyone MUST stay together, you generally don't leave people behind or try to work the most broken/unfit person to death. That's not the point of PT! 



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So you achieved the same scores on the ExPres as males in your age group?  Just curious.......



If you think about it... I think it's actually quite achievable, even the exemption standards are not unattainable (minus the hand grip part - most women I know can only do about 60kg). 

So much debate over fitness standards! Can't count the number of times I've heard "if you have to do the same job, you should be able to run as far and do just as many push ups!" thrown around.


----------



## AshleyK

I've been recently enrolled as a reserve RMS clerk in the 1NSH, and been to a night of training in that trade at my local armory. I've been given July 3rd as my start date for BMQ/SQ. As far as I know, I will be completing this at Camp Aldershot, just outside Kentville, NS. I don't know if anyone on here has trained here or not, but I have a couple of questions.

1. I'm female, and I've already been told that I'll be bunking with other women. Does anyone know if they separate the women in training from men or do they work together in drill and other exercises? This question arises because during the enrollment fitness test, the passing qualifications for women were lower than men. Men do 15 pushups, women 9, that sort of thing. So I wasn't sure if due to the different expectations for each gender, if they would be grouped together or apart during BMQ/SQ.

2. What can one expect as far as the food goes? I've heard different things, and I guess it may be largely opinion-based, but is it relatable to say, cafeteria food, diner food, gourmet food (I know the last option is probably a no).

3. Weekend leave/family visitation: I know that they do have the option to take weekend leaves away. If I do happen to get weekend leave, would it be plausible to have my family visit me and for me to meet them off-base for say, dinner or something? Or friends, for that matter.

4. The kit I was assigned: It is a LOT of stuff. Am I expected to bring it all with me to BMQ? I know some of the things are for winter (heavy jackets, white boot coverings, etc), and this is a summer course, could I leave them home?

5. Technology: I know you are allowed to bring a cellphone with you, as long as you have it turned off during class time. Is it common for some to bring a laptop? Not that I would want to, I doubt you would have much time for such a thing. 

6. Makeup: I've been told that there is NO makeup allowed in BMQ. I don't know how many girls are here, but would you be able to get away with say a little mascara or something? Not to sound like I can't live without makeup, I definitely can. I'm just curious.

7. Female underwear: I know I was issued unisex green boxer-like underwear. But I don't know what to do about bras or if there are any specifications. I'm guessing sports ones would do? Any girls out there have advice? 

Thanks!


----------



## MikeL

Search.. asked and answered.

Yes, you will be in a Platoon with men and women all mixed together.  There is no male platoons and female platoons.

Food.. all depends on what base you goto, it will be mess hall/cafeteria food. In the field you will be eating rations, and maybe hayboxes.

Weekend leave.. if you get it yes you can meet friends/family off base and go to dinner.

Most likely the course kitlist will ask you to bring all issued equipment, uniforms, etc  Don't pick and choose what to bring, follow the kitlist.  

cellphones may be allowed when you are finished for the day,  but 100% not allowed while training.

Makeup...  why bother with it?  As for if it is allowed or not,  I can't say.  But if it is,  it would have to be a natural appearance.



Your joining instructions will cover a lot of info,  as well as your course staff once you arrive.  I'm sure your unit will also give you info, and answer questions.  Also,  you would be doing BMQ and BMQ-Land,  SQ is the older course/name for BMQ-Land.


----------



## M_M

AshleyK said:
			
		

> 6. Makeup: I've been told that there is NO makeup allowed in BMQ. I don't know how many girls are here, but would you be able to get away with say a little mascara or something? Not to sound like I can't live without makeup, I definitely can. I'm just curious.
> 
> 7. Female underwear: I know I was issued unisex green boxer-like underwear. But I don't know what to do about bras or if there are any specifications. I'm guessing sports ones would do? Any girls out there have advice?
> 
> Thanks!



Why wear mascara? Do you want to sweat it off and have it dripping all over? Save yourself the potential for getting jacked up and leave it in your purse.

Don't worry about undergarments. Just wear what you have. The boxers are actually preferable to prevent chaffing during long ruck marches (esp if you have voluptuous thighs). Don't wear bras with underwire, avoid the fancy lingere stuff. Doing basic in the summer = sweating your balls off. Get some nice comfy sport bras from Lululemon.


----------



## Strike

M_M said:
			
		

> Why wear mascara? Do you want to sweat it off and have it dripping all over? Save yourself the potential for getting jacked up and leave it in your purse.
> 
> Don't worry about undergarments. Just wear what you have. The boxers are actually preferable to prevent chaffing during long ruck marches (esp if you have voluptuous thighs). Don't wear bras with underwire, avoid the fancy lingere stuff. Doing basic in the summer = sweating your balls off. Get some nice comfy sport bras from Lululemon.



Re: the chaffing, go buy some running shorts.  You can wear them under your issued shorts (do they still issue shorts?) and are better than the issued gitch in my opinion.


----------



## PMedMoe

M_M said:
			
		

> Get some nice comfy sport bras from Lululemon.



Or some place where it won't cost half your paycheck.....   :

Any sports bra will do.  Unless you need, ummm, extra support.   

Concur on the running shorts or biking shorts (although I've never used them).  The issued gitch tend to ride up, possibly making chafing worse.


----------



## ttlbmg

A friend of mine just took off for basic in May, and she shopped EVERYWHERE for a good sports bra. (rather than just something you pull over your head) She found that the Under Armour sports bra was best choice. (she has a Lululemon one as well- she's an athletic wear junkie) She said the Under Armour one is great because it has a clasp in the back. She said it makes it faster changing out of her PT strip. They run about $78, which is pricey. Good luck though, I am sure once you get there, you'll find your own preferences as well!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AshleyK said:
			
		

> I've been recently enrolled as a reserve RMS clerk in the 1NSH, and been to a night of training in that trade at my local armory. I've been given July 3rd as my start date for BMQ/SQ. As far as I know, I will be completing this at Camp Aldershot, just outside Kentville, NS. I don't know if anyone on here has trained here or not, but I have a couple of questions.



FTFY. 

Congrats.  Aldershot, while not the hub of NATO, is not too bad all things considered and not a far drive from Pictou or Truro.  Its improved 1000% since I did a course there in '93.  



> 1. I'm female, and I've already been told that I'll be bunking with other women. Does anyone know if they separate the women in training from men or do they work together in drill and other exercises? This question arises because during the enrollment fitness test, the passing qualifications for women were lower than men. Men do 15 pushups, women 9, that sort of thing. So I wasn't sure if due to the different expectations for each gender, if they would be grouped together or apart during BMQ/SQ.



The requirements in the entrance PT test/EXPRES test are different but thats where it ends.  Every recruit will be expected to perform to their "100% effort" level.  If Johny can run faster than Suzie, but Johny is giving it 60% effort and Suzie is giving it 101%, I'd say "good job" to Suzie and jack Johny up.  Point?  There is no difference in performance expected.  On things like ruck marches, you will carry the same stuff the same distance in the same time as every regardless of the gender, favorite bedtime story or anything else (except if you are hurt and the Medic's give you light duties, or something like that of course).



> 2. What can one expect as far as the food goes? I've heard different things, and I guess it may be largely opinion-based, but is it relatable to say, cafeteria food, diner food, gourmet food (I know the last option is probably a no).



I haven't been to Aldershot in some time, but when I was there in '01 putting a course thru in the summer the food was actually pretty damn good.  I would call it "really good diner-style caferteria food".  The best part about the food in the "reservist on summer course" world is, of course, that you don't pay for it, Joe and Jane Taxpayer do.  



> 3. Weekend leave/family visitation: I know that they do have the option to take weekend leaves away. If I do happen to get weekend leave, would it be plausible to have my family visit me and for me to meet them off-base for say, dinner or something? Or friends, for that matter.



You course staff will explain all of this, but there are times you may be allowed to leave the confines of the camp for the weekend.  Normally, if you are leaving the immediate geographical area, you will fill out, sign and submit a CF-100 (Leave Request form/leave pass) that your Chain of Command will sign and you will have on your while off base and off duty.  If you aren't leaving the Kentville & surrounding areas, you may not require a leave pass.  There will likely be a sign-out book for this type of time off the camp when not on duty or CBd (Confined to Base).  Expect to be CBd more often than not, especially at first.  If you are CBd, well mentally you are ready for it.  If you are not CBd...gravy.



> 4. The kit I was assigned: It is a LOT of stuff. Am I expected to bring it all with me to BMQ? I know some of the things are for winter (heavy jackets, white boot coverings, etc), and this is a summer course, could I leave them home?
> 
> 5. Technology: I know you are allowed to bring a cellphone with you, as long as you have it turned off during class time. Is it common for some to bring a laptop? Not that I would want to, I doubt you would have much time for such a thing.



As said, follow the kitlist.  If you are unsure, remember the rule "its better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it".




> 7. Female underwear: I know I was issued unisex green boxer-like underwear. But I don't know what to do about bras or if there are any specifications. I'm guessing sports ones would do? Any girls out there have advice?
> 
> Thanks!



The new boxer like underwear are actually not too bad, but Aldershot is in a bit of a punchbowl and tends to get hot as frack with little wind blowing.  

While I am not a girl, my wife is and we go to the gym, hike, camp alot, etc, stuff alot like some of what you will be doing.  She is one of those "needs the extra support" types and she wears the sports bra's from Mark's Work Warehouse (the WindRiver ones), after trying different Nike/Addidas/etc ones.  She loves the ones from Marks.  I am also a fan of their Dri Wear brand for baselayer stuff, and while alittle pricey, I won't buy anything else now.  The Dri Wear ProMesh cycle shorts are my summer hiking gitch now, and less $$ than alot of other stuff.  Not sure about female Dri Wear gitch selection but worth a look if you aren't happy with the green boxer-briefs.

Electronic stuff;  only bring what you won't mind other people bugging you to lend them, or getting used in the room you share, or getting dirty, or that might get stolen or broken.  If its something near and dear to you, I'd leave it home and get a cheap DVD player or something.  There is no wi-fi AFAIK in the shacks or the Jnr Ranks mess.


----------



## PrettyMaggie63

I've been recently enrolled as a reserve RMS clerk in the 1NSH, and been to a night of training in that trade at my local armory. I've been given July 3rd as my start date for BMQ/SQ. As far as I know, I will be completing this at Camp Aldershot, just outside Kentville, NS. I don't know if anyone on here has trained here or not, but I have a couple of questions.

6. Makeup: I've been told that there is NO makeup allowed in BMQ. I don't know how many girls are here, but would you be able to get away with say a little mascara or something? Not to sound like I can't live without makeup, I definitely can. I'm just curious.


Really, one night of training and you are already thinking about breaking the rules. If you were told "NO makeup allowed in BMQ" why would you even ask that question. IMHO they probably mean "no makeup allowed in BMQ".


----------



## Loachman

You will be issued all of the make-up that you need during working hours.


















In lovely earthy tones of green and brown.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PrettyMaggie63 said:
			
		

> Really, one night of training and you are already thinking about breaking the rules. If you were told "NO makeup allowed in BMQ" why would you even ask that question. IMHO they probably mean "no makeup allowed in BMQ".



Why don't you let the OP's course staff/CofC dish out the berating if/when the OP is actually on course and then breaks the rules.  No one else who replied, including Officers, WOs, Snr & Jnr NCOs, etc thought it was worth getting their knickers in a knot about.   

:2c:


----------



## bridges

My basic was some time ago, but I remember being in too much of a rush and too preoccupied with ironing, boots, PT, etc. to worry about things like putting on mascara.   You can always save it for when you go out during your time off.    

Eye in the Sky's advice is good.  Congrats, & good luck on the course.


----------



## AshleyK

Thanks everyone for the replies! You've answered my questions. And take it easy on the makeup question, eh? They say "there's no such thing as a stupid question", figured I'd better ask it on a forum as opposed to my CO. It hardly matters, anyway. From what I've read on here and heard from my friends, Aldershot is no walk in the park. 
 Tonight at the armory I recieved my kitlist, only got a chance to look at it at home. It lists all the items I'm to bring. Relating to my question earlier about the kitlist, it lists all the winter items I received in a list of their own entitled: "Winter Kit Requirements: November to April". I'll be there July-August. I'm guessing I can leave all those winter things behind? I'll clarify for sure with my Mcpl when I go back to recieve my military ID, but what would you guys say? Leave them home?


----------



## Scott

If you're not familiar with it already, get a map and study the cross country routes to Windsor as they save loads of time for travel, yours to home on leave, or your family's to the Camp to meet you. From Truro hit the exit in Brookfield and go over the Gosse bridge at South Maitland. Then turn right for about 250 yards and hang a left on the Rockpile Road. At the end of that turn left and bomb towards Kennetcook and onward past Stanley. You'll eventually hit Brooklyn and then Windsor. Nice drive. 

Alternately you can hit the Rawdon Hills from Milford but that road can be busy and fecking dangerous. I know we used to be outlawed from taking military vehicles through there, not sure if it's the same any longer (same for the old Coles Island route in NB after we hit a moose on the way to Gagetown). Watch out for the duck pond by the St Croix river - some idiot is always stopped there and half on the road.

As far as the rest of the questions/advice - stick with what you're being told. Don't sweat the small stuff and concentrate on learning.


----------



## megany

Lots of people laid out $40-50 on Under Armor running shorts when I was in St Jean and it was frequently a stolen item in the laundry facilities. I picked up some tight athletic boxers at Walmart - less than $10 each. They came in a variety of lengths and I went for the shortest ones. They were perfect!  

Also, Monistat makes an anti chafing gel that is good. I would use the tight shorts on your legs but the Monistat was good for other areas. Also good if you're just wearing a skirt and hanging out on the weekends.


----------



## OV1984

Loachman said:
			
		

> You will be issued all of the make-up that you need during working hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In lovely earthy tones of green and brown.


----------



## theWONDER8

Anyone have any advice for working on chinups. As of now I can't do any. When I did my PT test I made it my goal to pass the male requirements and almost did (about 5kg short on hand grip). So I'm a bit frustrated with the fact that chinups are the only thing that I can't even hit the female number on. 

The fitness guidlines say that chinups are an important part of basic so I want to be ready!


----------



## CBH99

Hey WONDER8,

Re:  Chin-ups, a lot of people try to do chin-ups focusing solely on using their shoulders and arms to help pull themselves up.

A lot of people don't engage their lats (V muscles that span most of your literal back) - that are crucial to adding a lot more strength in doing the chin-up/pull-up motion.

My suggestions are:

-  Keep good form, and actually keep your head tilted back a little bit.
-  Engage your lats - and pull yourself up using your lats and arms, rather than just your arms.  (Really focus on training your lats, as ideally you should eventually be able to do the motion using your lats dominantly.)


Cheers


----------



## The_Falcon

theWONDER8 said:
			
		

> Anyone have any advice for working on chinups. As of now I can't do any. When I did my PT test I made it my goal to pass the male requirements and almost did (about 5kg short on hand grip). So I'm a bit frustrated with the fact that chinups are the only thing that I can't even hit the female number on.
> 
> The fitness guidlines say that chinups are an important part of basic so I want to be ready!



Convict Conditioning...google it.


----------



## cfournier

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> A friend of mine just took off for basic in May, and she shopped EVERYWHERE for a good sports bra. (rather than just something you pull over your head) She found that the Under Armour sports bra was best choice. (she has a Lululemon one as well- she's an athletic wear junkie) She said the Under Armour one is great because it has a clasp in the back. She said it makes it faster changing out of her PT strip. They run about $78, which is pricey. Good luck though, I am sure once you get there, you'll find your own preferences as well!



For all you skeptics.. It's worth the money. Best. Sports. Bra. Ever.  :nod:


EDIT: ALSO - Ladies who have completed BMQ: How often did you have the time to shave your legs?


----------



## Messorius

Cosmo said:
			
		

> For all you skeptics.. It's worth the money. Best. Sports. Bra. Ever.  :nod:
> 
> 
> EDIT: ALSO - Ladies who have completed BMQ: How often did you have the time to shave your legs?



Old thread is old!  I had time on weekends during my FT course, but I didn't bother. There were other things I could be doing and nobody gave a crap.


----------



## cfournier

Messorius said:
			
		

> Old thread is old!  I had time on weekends during my FT course, but I didn't bother. There were other things I could be doing and nobody gave a crap.



Well that's fair enough. Thank you!


----------



## bcperson

Hopefully the title avoided total gross out BUT be warned. What to the girls do on course at BMQ etc during that time...? ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The same thing they do when not on course ........


----------



## PMedMoe

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The same thing they do when not on course ........



 :goodpost:

Thanks, Bruce.


----------



## armyvern

bcperson said:
			
		

> Hopefully the title avoided total gross out BUT be warned. What to the girls do on course at BMQ etc during that time...? ???



What do we girls do on course about what??  The above question from you makes no sense.  Why the words "total gross out BUT be warned??

What is your actual question?

The only things that I can relate to your jumble of words when combined with "females" are the following:

PERIOD:  (Not gross, just a fact of f'n life); bring some pads, panty liners, tampons --- whatever fills 'yer particular *ahem* boots.  They are also available for purchase at CANEX.  Most good RQs also stock these babies for those times when in the field; and

Fingers are free.  Batteries are also available for purchase at CANEX.  Always bring two; ensure each uses a different battery type ... you know, just in case CANEX is out of the size you require.

OR, as Bruce put it, you do "the same thing you do when you're not on course".


----------



## JorgSlice

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What do we girls do on course about what??  The above question from you makes no sense.  Why the words "total gross out BUT be warned??
> 
> What is your actual question?
> 
> The only things that I can relate to your jumble of words when combined with "females" are the following:
> 
> PERIOD:  (Not gross, just a fact of f'n life); bring some pads, panty liners, tampons --- whatever fills 'yer particular *ahem* boots.  They are also available for purchase at CANEX.  Most good RQs also stock these babies for those times when in the field; and
> 
> Fingers are free.  Batteries are also available for purchase at CANEX.  Always bring two; ensure each uses a different battery type ... you know, just in case CANEX is out of the size you require.
> 
> OR, as Bruce put it, you do "the same thing you do when you're not on course".



:rofl: well, I needed a new keyboard anyway. But now I'm out of beer.


----------



## Robert0288

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> :rofl: well, I needed a new keyboard anyway. But now I'm out of beer.



+1


----------



## armyvern

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> :rofl: well, I needed a new keyboard anyway. But now I'm out of beer.



I did my basic in Cornwallis, but now that it's in St-Jean QC, I am reasonably certain that beer may also be available for purchase at the CANEX.  It's probably right between the D cells and the double AAs.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Messorius

Now that I'm finished choking on my tea I figured I'd add some things, since this seems like a great topic.  It's stuff I found made me more comfortable, at any rate.

Replaced all my issued boxers with Fruit of the Loom briefs.   Found they chafed less(a lot, lot less, I looked like a baboon after night nav), were cooler, and when you're drenched in sweat and trying to get in and out of a rocket in 2 minutes, it's a lot less fabric to get stuck on  the way up.

Got ladies Body Glide from the Running Room. Used it where the underwear elastics went, the bra, toes and heels. I got a total of one blister in 4 weeks, only chafed uncomfortably 3 times(ETA: my boots are also completely broken in and fit).

Bought Buttocks Paste for chafing when it did happen(yes it's called this, I thought staff was yanking my chain till I went to the pharmacy). It got rid of irritation overnight.  Also worked nice for the heat rash that broke out all over my calves.

Brought baby powder along with the foot powder.  Do not use Gold Bond etc. on your ladybits.  From what I've been told, it does not go well.

Always carry a travel pack or two of kleenex, and a ziplock if you're on your period so you can keep things in your pocket until you reach a bin. I dunno how it works in St. Jean, but I've been in Gagetown and Aldershot where sometimes the rockets haven't been placed where you're training, or they have and there is zero toilet paper, or for some reason they've been taken entirely away.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

bcperson said:
			
		

> Hopefully the title avoided total gross out BUT be warned. What to the girls do on course at BMQ etc during that time...? ???



......and just some friendly advice. If the men you know are "grossed out" by the fact women get periods, then you need to change the men in your life.

You're welcome.


----------



## bcperson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ......and just some friendly advice. If the men you know are "grossed out" by the fact women get periods, then you need to change the men in your life.
> 
> You're welcome.



Actually the title was for any Men on here that would be freaked out...


----------



## armyvern

bcperson said:
			
		

> Actually the title was for any Men on here that would be freaked out...



That's his point:  men wouldn't freak out about _men_struation;  mere boys will.


----------



## Dissident

I shared a trench on basic with a female. Period were not a problem, neither were my IMP farts.


----------



## Scott

bcperson said:
			
		

> Actually the title was for any Men on here that would be freaked out...



Helping the stereotype keep life does nothing to help.


----------



## Cplanchnice

Hello, my daughter has been showing some interest in joining the military lately. She hasn't out right told me she wanted  to join but she is asking me questions about the forces and her Internet history is filled with miliatry sites and information. I am scared for her, especially being a woman and the things I have heard from friends. Judging by her Internet history she seems interested in combat and military police. These don't seem like safe roles for a young girl but how will she be treated by other soldiers? If she goes to Afghanistan will they respect her? What are the chances of her becoming a prisoner of war?  The last question bothers me the most. If she gets captured I ccan't imagine what would happen to her, I just can't handle the thought. I hope you answers calm my nerves but if not how can I accept her decision if she does end
up in the military.


----------



## Cplanchnice

I read through all of them (not every page) and they were very helpful. Would being a military police woman be "safer" for her? That thread about the young girl who died scared me a little, some comments mentioned knowing that being captured and tortured is a possibility. That one fear is the only thing really making it difficult for me to accept. I know she is capable of being a good soldier but she is my only child.


----------



## mariomike

Cplanchnice said:
			
		

> I read through all of them (not every page) and they were very helpful.  Would being a military police woman be "safer" for her?



Glad you found them helpful. This discussion is about a female MP serving in Afghanistan:

Cpl. Jennifer, Canadian female MP a first at Afghan National Police checkpoint?  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/68404.0/nowap.html


----------



## Jarnhamar

Cplanchnice said:
			
		

> The last question bothers me the most. If she gets captured I ccan't imagine what would happen to her, I just can't handle the thought. I hope you answers calm my nerves but if not how can I accept her decision if she does end
> up in the military.



I understand what you're worried about but personally I would be much more worried about what may happen to my daughter at college or university than I would be her deployed (in the context you're talking about).

If she joins some soldiers will respect her and treat her well.  Others will treat her like crap 'cause shes a chick'.


----------



## jeffb

I understand your concerns being a parent myself of two girls but I can honestly say that given my experience in the CAF, I would be very supporting of them following this career path. Yes, there is an inherent risk in service in the military but if you put these risks aside for a moment, there are a lot of benefits to military service. Firstly, as long as she is successfully in her training and stays out of trouble, she will most likely have a job until she retires with a very competitive pension. There are not that many places that can say that anymore. Secondly, she will have ample opportunities for education, both formal and informal. The CAF places a very high emphasis on personal development through formal training and encouragement and support for individual training if the individual so chooses to pursue it. Thirdly, she will spend her career surrounded by people that are, on the whole at least, very dedicated and professional that she will build lasting bonds with. 

I suspect many of your concerns about military life (beyond the getting captured/killed in combat) are rooted in some very misunderstandings about what it is like for women in the Canadian Army that are drawn from media and Hollywood depictions of the American military. If you read back in this thread, you'll probably see that those stereotypes do not necessarily track the reality in Canada. With respect to the getting killed/captured concerns, statistically speaking this is very unlikely but admittedly, statistics for something like this are not of much use as they don't predict what the CAF is going to be doing over the 30 years or so of her career.

Finally, I'd just say that if she really is interested in joining there is likely little that you will be able to do to talk her out of it. Some people join the CAF because they want a stable job or are looking for an adventure. Others, because it is a calling of some sort. If your daughter is the later, the best thing you can do is to be supportive and try and nudge her in a direction that you think might maximize her happiness within the organization vice trying to get in her way. 

Best of luck.


----------



## Dissident

My wife is ex Infantry and recently released after doing 9 years in the Military Police. Her 13 years were done while being a reservist and she did one tour in Afghanistan in 2010-2011. She never complained to me about being treated any differently because of her gender.

There will always be risks when serving in the forces. The risk of capture for troops at large is negligible, IMHO.


----------



## TCBF

- My mother, before she died, told me she thought that I should have become a teacher. In a sense I did - I taught a lot of courses and trained a lot of soldiers in thirty-eight years. I originally joined up for three years, but life has a way of taking off on you.

She lost her husband - my father - when I was four. This was before the great wave of social programs were created for such things. She had to go to night school then go to work. She re-married to a Second World War veteran. My uncles were Second World War and Korea Veterans. Our working class neighbourhood was made up of Second World War veterans from both sides. Her cousin was killed in action during the Second World War. Then her only son - me - joins the regular army, jumps out of airplanes, spends five years in Germany on two hours notice to move in a Cold War that she thought might go hot, and so on.

She was fading when I first deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and was spared worrying by the time of my second tour to what I like to call "The Sandbox of Sorrow."

What did my mother say when I joined? "It's your life" she said.

In the twenty-four years she lived after I joined, I tried to make it back as often as I could. Still, that would be only about twenty-four months worth. Basically, if you convert that to straight time, I joined at just under twenty two years old and she saw me for two years after that. 

 When people my age envy my pension, I tell them three things:
1. I payed for it. It was part of a pay and benefits package known to the entire country. There is no secret golden parachute for retiring soldiers.
2. Nothing stopped them from walking into the Recruiting Centre when I did.
3. They got to stay in their home town surrounded by relatives and attending family weddings and funerals. Their support network - and more importantly, their spouse's support network - was right there. I and my wife had no such luxury. This was before the age of the internet, as well, so family news was often slow in coming.

Will your child be killed in action, wounded in action or be captured? Maybe. Maybe not. There are no guarantees in life.

If this seems rather coarse, remember that I am a baby boomer who was raised listening to first-hand accounts of combat in the Great War and the Second World War. I grew up watching the Cuban Missile Crisis on TV, and back then we all thought that we might possibly die in a nuclear war. I am probably part of the last generation of Canadians who knows what an air raid siren test sounds like. I also know what it is like to be five years old and not know that it is a test.

At the moment, statistics are on our side. From 2002 - 2015, Canada has lost more people killed in avalanches than in combat in central Asia.
That might change.

It is a dangerous world, but there must still be hope. After all, families are still having babies.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

TCBF said:
			
		

> - My mother, before she died, told me she thought that I should have become a teacher. In a sense I did - I taught a lot of courses and trained a lot of soldiers in thirty-eight years. I originally joined up for three years, but life has a way of taking off on you.
> 
> She lost her husband - my father - when I was four. This was before the great wave of social programs were created for such things. She had to go to night school then go to work. She re-married to a Second World War veteran. My uncles were Second World War and Korea Veterans. Our working class neighbourhood was made up of Second World War veterans from both sides. Her cousin was killed in action during the Second World War. Then her only son - me - joins the regular army, jumps out of airplanes, spends five years in Germany on two hours notice to move in a Cold War that she thought might go hot, and so on.
> 
> She was fading when I first deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and was spared worrying by the time of my second tour to what I like to call "The Sandbox of Sorrow."
> 
> What did my mother say when I joined? "It's your life" she said.
> 
> In the twenty-four years she lived after I joined, I tried to make it back as often as I could. Still, that would be only about twenty-four months worth. Basically, if you convert that to straight time, I joined at just under twenty two years old and she saw me for two years after that.
> 
> When people my age envy my pension, I tell them three things:
> 1. I payed for it. It was part of a pay and benefits package known to the entire country. There is no secret golden parachute for retiring soldiers.
> 2. Nothing stopped them from walking into the Recruiting Centre when I did.
> 3. They got to stay in their home town surrounded by relatives and attending family weddings and funerals. Their support network - and more importantly, their spouse's support network - was right there. I and my wife had no such luxury. This was before the age of the internet, as well, so family news was often slow in coming.
> 
> Will your child be killed in action, wounded in action or be captured? Maybe. Maybe not. There are no guarantees in life.
> 
> If this seems rather coarse, remember that I am a baby boomer who was raised listening to first-hand accounts of combat in the Great War and the Second World War. I grew up watching the Cuban Missile Crisis on TV, and back then we all thought that we might possibly die in a nuclear war. I am probably part of the last generation of Canadians who knows what an air raid siren test sounds like. I also know what it is like to be five years old and not know that it is a test.
> 
> At the moment, statistics are on our side. From 2002 - 2015, Canada has lost more people killed in avalanches than in combat in central Asia.
> That might change.
> 
> It is a dangerous world, but there must still be hope. After all, families are still having babies.



 :goodpost: When my mother passed in the autumn I had the good fortune of being in Borden (an hour away) for courses, so spent more time at home in the 4 months leading to her passing than in the 13 years prior. It's something that the civilians forget when they talk about the pension- you lose out on family, having children go to the same school, have the same teams, friends, etc and so much more. Well said!


----------



## observor 69

A well written New York Times article on Lt. Courtney Wilson, who served in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, and her personal experience as a female soldier in the US army.

While at War, Female Soldiers Fight to Belong
[size=10pt]By BENEDICT CAREYMAY 24, 2015 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/health/while-at-war-female-soldiers-fight-to-belong.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Sempai Julia

I did a search, found a thread with my answer, but answer was from 2009. Times change and I hope the answer to my question has to.

Do they still take birth control pills away at BMQ?

I can survive without them, but I prefer to not have random unpredictable periods :-\

Thank you


----------



## Strike

Who the heck said they take away BCPs at BMQ?


----------



## Colta

When I was in basic Feb 2014 they didn't... I just brought the boxes with the prescription info and a copy of my prescription with me. When they checked through my bags they asked me about it but didn't say anything. I don't think it's an issue... pretty much every girl on my platoon was taking some form of BC... just makes life easier if you don't have to deal with all that crap 2-3 times during your basic training. 

Whenever I get back in I fully intend upon bringing it with me again. I can't see any reason they'd take it away. As long as you can show a prescription for it (you need it anyway to get it renewed later) then you should be fine. It was brought up during my medical and wasn't an issue either... they don't really seem to care one way or another.


----------



## Historybuff22

Hey there, so I am a 22 year old female who is looking to do basic training after I complete my bachelor's degree. In all honesty I am pretty ignorant about the whole process and basic training so any tips would be appreciated!!!


----------



## Scarlett

As a female going through the recruiting process right now, my tip to you is to use the search function on this forum. I have been able to find an answer on here to every question I've had.

Regards.


----------



## Historybuff22

My last random question is that I have had bunions on my feet since about the age of 5. They really are small and do not bother me unless my shoes are tight. I want to work as an intelligence officer or similar. Do you think this will stop me?  Thank you!


----------



## meepers

As a female currently enduring the wonders of BMQ, I can tell you that aside from being physically weaker than the boys, you will probably have the same struggles as a majority of the guys. 

Breaking down everything I have experienced as a female so far:

Physically: it's tough. Not everything is, and I definitely am one of the weaker people in my platoon, but it is quite tough. Push-ups, carrying around a 7.7lb rifle everywhere, having to stay awake even after 80 minutes of intensive drill... it's really demanding. Just remember that you have to give it your all. I can't do 25 push ups, so obviously I cannot do 25 diamond push ups during punishment pt. But as long as I'm clearly trying, the instructors half heartedly yell at me and then leave me alone. Trust me, you'll get in shape while you're there, but if you weren't able to do 25 push-ups before you got there, 12 weeks isn't going to fix that. They're aware of this, so do your best to get in shape before hand, but done sweat the small stuff if you aren't a super soldier when you arrive.

Mentally: You will be tired all of the time. And you're a girl so everyone will notice this. You get used to being tired. And by that I mean you start to just expect to be tired and you deal with it. My advice is to not waste your time in the morning putting on make up. The farther you go in your weeks, the more likely it is you'll sweat it all off anyway.

Periods: They suck. And they'll suck more while you're there. Carry whatever products you use in your combat pockets, along with your pain killers (but don't tell the guys you have those, they will pester you for them to no end). Your schedule will also probably get screwed up, but as long as you have your products in your pocket, you will be fine. You get 5 minute breaks to run to the washroom, so just try to be quick. 

The Platoon: Okay, so being surrounded by guys for 12 weeks where the first 5 you're one of the only girls they see, can go one of two ways. You can be their friend, or you can be the object of their fantasies. Just... try not to flirt too much. There may be 50+ males and 5+ females. Some of those guys may start having feelings for you and if you pay too much attention to one particular guy, rumors will spread. Sounds stupid, but I've seen it happen. Other than that, it's pretty awesome. You gain so many new brothers and sisters, and they're really what make the while experience worth while. The sexual jokes really escalate the longer you're their though... word of the wise: do not date people on your platoon. Just don't. 12 weeks is a very, very long time to deal with rumors and heartache and pettiness.

Men outside the platoon: You will get stared at as you walk away, people will probably hit on you at the mess, you will always be noticed and generally all of the boys will be nice to you. Just goes with the whole "Garrison Goggles" thing. If you don't know what that is, you will learn very quickly. Just enjoy it for what it is, but remember no fraternizing is allowed on base. 

Girls on your platoon: I think this really depends on who you're grouped with, but it can get really passive aggressive at times. If you're more popular with the guys (or less) jealousy can arise and make your time a living hell. Cliques form, people will whisper behind your back, and ultimately it will feel like high school all over again. But still, they will have your back when it gets rough, and it's not always like that. It's also really fun, like a group of sisters. It's just how things go.

That's pretty much all I've got for you. Just treat every minute of the day like a new minute of the day. Try not to hold grudges and your time there will go a lot faster.


----------



## sheilainthevalley

meepers said:
			
		

> Breaking down everything I have experienced as a female so far



Thank you for this! I've been reading all kinds of information (including all of the threads listed above) but this is a really helpful summary.


----------



## Jarnhamar

meepers said:
			
		

> The Platoon: Okay, so being surrounded by guys for 12 weeks where the first 5 you're one of the only girls they see, can go one of two ways. You can be their friend, or you can be the object of their fantasies. Just... try not to flirt too much. There may be 50+ males and 5+ females. Some of those guys may start having feelings for you and if you pay too much attention to one particular guy, rumors will spread. Sounds stupid, but I've seen it happen. Other than that, it's pretty awesome. You gain so many new brothers and sisters, and they're really what make the while experience worth while. The sexual jokes really escalate the longer you're their though... *word of the wise: do not date people on your platoon. Just don't. 12 weeks is a very, very long time to deal with rumors and heartache and pettiness.*


Incredibly important advice.


----------



## DAA

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/14/looking-for-a-few-good-women-canadas-military-goes-on-a-hiring-spree.html

Mods, feel free to move this as you see fit.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Why focus on the potential to do well in the organization when you can focus on your gender/race/color to fill some quota?


----------



## FSTO

Canada could hit all the targets quite easily.

Conscription! Even better, Profiled Conscription! 

Do you think all the advocates would support that idea? Especially if they were the ones conscripted? They shouldn't be too annoyed at walking the walk right?


All kidding aside, the door is wide open for everyone to join up, people just have to walk through the door and meet the (low) requirements to get to BMQ/BMOQ.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Canadian Values???



I have a hard time deciding whether it is sarcastic or not...  If not, I can't really see which Canadian value you are referring to.  I believe our values are more about giving equal opportunities to everyone, which we already go to great length to do so.   

Does the provincial governments also have similar quotas for male nurses? Are they trying to make it 75% male/25% females?  Could it be that some jobs attract males more than females (and vice versa)?  Should we attempt to force a change in demographic when we actually don't favor one gender over the other?


----------



## Nudibranch

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Could it be that some jobs attract males more than females (and vice versa)?



Well...yeah. That's pretty much the gist of the article.
So they will now try to aggressively market the military to women. The "quota" is more like aspirational goal - they first have to get enough interested potential recruits to even show up for selection, which is where the marketing comes in. There's nothing wrong in that kind of targeted marketing; many women simply don't consider the military because they don't really know anything about it, what kind of jobs it offers (except combat arms as per popular media), etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar

25%?  That's bull shit.   Is Canada made up of female population of only 25%?  We need to have at least 50% male/female ratio.

Those females better not be predominately white either.


We can get rid of TWO infantry rifle companies per battalion if need be.


----------



## Rifleman62

SupersonicMax, I was being facetious. I always hear about Canadian Values, the buzz words of the progressives. Get on a high horse and sprout "Cdn Values" and it will be sunshine and butterflies.


----------



## dangerboy

They have been trying to achieve that goal for as long as I have been in (and probably longer) so at least 25 years.  I don't think that they will ever achieve it, or if they do it will just be for a short period of time and then will go down.  Due to a variety of factors, which I think have been studied by people a lot smarter than me, it is mostly males interested in the CF.


----------



## dapaterson

Too hard, so don't try?

Easy to fail when you start with the assumption that you will.


----------



## Rifleman62

DAP, that's a bit hard. You know what he means.

I doubt if you stopped recruiting men entirely the CF would not get to 25% within ten years even after releases and force reductions of male oriented trades.


----------



## dapaterson

I know that institutions will argue that problems can't be solved when they don't want to solve them.  As long as we sit smugly and say it can't be done, we won't look at ways to make it happen.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pretty hard to attract women to serve in the profession of arms when there is constant references to the Dechamps report in which we're all rapists and misogynists. Look at some of the things families are telling their daughters that is posted here.

The US is running at about 15% across all services, and we're roughly the same. Some occupations just don't appeal to certain genders. Where's the push to have more male nurses?


----------



## Nudibranch

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Pretty hard to attract women to serve in the profession of arms when there is constant references to the Dechamps report in which we're all rapists and misogynists. Look at some of the things families are telling their daughters that is posted here.
> 
> The US is running at about 15% across all services, and we're roughly the same. Some occupations just don't appeal to certain genders. Where's the push to have more male nurses?



Right, because prior to the Dechamps report women were flocking to recruiting centres in droves  :

And males are actually being targeted for recruitment as nurses. There are targeted ad campaigns by nursing schools to reach out to minorities in their field (which definitely includes males, in the nursing field). There are even some scholarships for males entering the nursing field.


----------



## BrooklynnNoble

Hello, I am just looking for some advice and perhaps some lady knowledge. I've been applying to the CF for 3.5 years now and I'm finally in. My dates are May 08,2016-August 20, 2016. 
I am a 20 year old female. I am pretty fit and do not struggle with long distance running or lifting weight. 
My main concern is that I am doing all 3 courses for an Armoured Crewman this summer. I don't know what to bring, I have no received my kit yet and I just do not know anything. I am afraid to ask someone for a list but I'm unsure. The base is 4 hours away from where I live so it's not like I can just go home after BMQ and pick up what I need. 
It's just about a month away and I am worried as to what I need, and how I should prepare myself. What will I do with my vehicle when I bring it there? Etc. 
All the help I could get is appreciated. 
I'm worried about the showering thing every day. I don't shower every day because I get very dry skin. I also have to use non scented products which don't usually come in a bar, so any info on that would be awesome. 
Has anyone else done all 3 courses before? Will I have leave at all? 
I still have rent, hydro, wifi and car payments to make while I'm there. Will I be getting paid like normal? 
If I'm taking birth control, do I have to present that? Will I be able to bring a journal? All types of stuff like this haha. 
I'm probably getting over excited about this but I finish my last exam on the 29th for school and not even a week later I'm gone, so it's crunch time. Thanks for any reply that may come to this. All the help is appreciated.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Are you a Reservist?

Have you been fitted and ordered your kit through your unit/local supply unit?

Once you receive your kit, you'll take everything with you. Literally everything. If you don't get any kit before you leave, bring business casual wear, and a few sets of casual wear; the base will hopefully kit you out with everything you need. Bring toiletries.

As for non-scented products, not a problem. As long as you have it recorded in your personnel file (and inform your Course Staff); you are certainly welcome to use it. You may be required to simply have a bar of soap out for the purposes of inspections, or not.

You will not be forced to shower every day if it's not something you do regularly; however in my experience the amount of work involved especially for BMQ and BMQL, you may find yourself wanting to (caked in gun oil, dirt, carbon, mud, bugs after a week in the field... I showered 3 times on the Sunday we returned).

If they are permitting you to drive to your training location, you'll simply park your car on the base (likely at whatever accommodations you're staying in). 

As for leave, you may have weekends off and restricted to the base and eventually be granted leave passes on weekends which would allow you to leave the base. Depending on how much time is between each course, they may grant you leave for those days as well. The Course Staff will explain what you do and do not get, how long you're allowed to leave for, how far, and what time you need to return. Also the usual "Don't get arrested, don't drink and drive... Etc." speeches.

As for medications, it's been a while since I've been on a course longer than a week or two. You may have to declare any medications you're taking, it will be done in private and will be kept confidential. Really the only time it needs to be declared is if it is something that can have an affect on say... Driving, ability to do certain tasks. The only people that need to know is CF Medical Services, which would give you a note saying "Troop Y is on a medication for X days. Troop Y will not be able to do Z tasks for duration" which a copy be provided to your Course Staff.

You will get paid like normal. If you haven't received any pay from the CAF yet, just be warned that rather than your pay coming in after 2 weeks, it may be 3 the first time round and will then normalize. If you're not getting paid, inform your Section Commander.

You can bring a journal, keep it in your personal items area and write in it on your down time. I've kept a not-so-small book of everything I've done in the Army so far so that I can share it with my family etc.

*Bring shower shoes. You'll thank me later.*


----------



## SashaQ

Hello everyone,

This is my first post. I am a woman of 34 yrs. I am in the process of joining the Reserves. The Mil world is not new to me as I have worked in one as a civi for a few years. I have been going through these forums and getting info but I have not come across any ladies around my age group. (Or rather, I cannot tell by the usernames.)

I want to know if any women joined the CAF in their later years? How did you find the initial fitness test? What were some of the challenges you faced as women in that age group? Did you have kids? (I have 1 toddler.)

Thanks guys!


----------



## sarahsmom

I joined the Reg F when I was your age. My daughter was 6 at the time. 
I didn't really have any age-related issues. I missed my husband and daughter while I was away, but he was military also, so I was used to being separated from him for periods of time. My fitness tests went fine. They were available online prior to basic, so I was able to look them up and train for them somewhat. 
On platoon you may end up in the "den mother" role, herding your mates back to their bunks after a night at the mess, or just being the mature one/voice of reason.
Sorry I don't have more to add though.
Good luck with your recruitment process!


----------



## armyvern

Female - 48.

I joined just before I turned 21, but that *was* old to join for back then.

Had my kids after joining.  The FORCE test is what it is.  

I haven't really experienced any challenges throughout my career that were due to my gender, but neither have I ask for or sought any allowances because of my gender.  I've also been treated nothing but respectfully by the thousands of my male counterparts that I've worked with over the past 27 years.

Gender really is irrelevant as long as you work hard and put your utmost in accomplishing your task.  Works both ways for both males and females.


----------



## GRACE OMALLEY

Hey there,

There are lots of us female troops on here. Really, we have much the same issues as the guys, so don't limit yourself to reading fitness advice from the gals. The piece of info I have found to be most useful , is that practicing  burpees really helps. Perhaps it's the different curves, but for some reason I have noticed women can lose time in the tests going from a prone position to standing. Burpees were the most useful exercise for some of us to increase our success level. I have no problems with the fitness tests, and I am short, also.

Really, if you are a parent and a responsible person, being older can also help. When is the last time you had a solid 6 hours sleep? Some younger troops have to learn how to deal with permanent sleep deprivation and organization, many parents have mastered those skills to survive.

 Warning- female stuff ahead...  Proceed with caution...The only thing you may have to message us females about is how to cope with heavy periods while in the field . Double Ziplock bags, my friend.  Talk to your female buddies once you're in and swap solutions/ funny stories.


----------



## Ocean33

Hello Sasha 
I am a nurse with an application in progress 
Also mum to a 6 year old. 
Good luck with your application!


----------



## armyvern

GRACE OMALLEY said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's the different curves, but for some reason I have noticed women can lose time in the tests going from a prone position to standing. Burpees were the most useful exercise for some of us to increase our success level.



I've also observed this hesitancy: (standing to prone)  

Asking we women to toss ourselves chest down onto the ground, hands raised beside us sees many women losing time in this transition portion.  I'm pretty much flat and it hurts.   :-\

I can only tell the guys, think "spread your legs apart gents and drop yourself down onto the balance beam one leg on either side. No hands allowed.  How's that feel?"   >


----------



## BinRat55

Good LORD Vern - really? Ooooowww...

I can personally attest to Vern's tenacity and her ability to put up with ANYONE's poop. When she joined, I wouldn't say we never accepted women in the military, but they were fewer in numbers. I always said that if there were three guys I would go in the field with it would be Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris and Vern!

Seriously - Vern is the most respected PERSON (not just girl) on my list. BTW - it took me a few months to realize she was a girl... I was afraid of her then and i'm afraid of her now. We formed the "Itty bitty t**** committee"!! She let me be the secretary! (We were silly ptes then - she is a hell of a lot more professional now!!)

Girls or boys - you do what I need done without me having to ask twice, your in!


----------



## SashaQ

Thank you so much you guys! That helped a lot.

I am married, also single at the same time. (Hubby is working out of town for a few months. He's not Military.)


----------



## SashaQ

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've also observed this hesitancy: (standing to prone)
> 
> Asking we women to toss ourselves chest down onto the ground, hands raised beside us sees many women losing time in this transition portion.  I'm pretty much flat and it hurts.   :-\
> 
> I can only tell the guys, think "spread your legs apart gents and drop yourself down onto the balance beam one leg on either side. No hands allowed.  How's that feel?"   >



Which test does these shuttle runs? I checked the initial physical fitness test guide from the Forces.gc.ca site and it only has 4 things: push-ups, sit-ups, grip test, 2.4 KM run. 

I cannot imagine how 'exciting' it can be be to do prone for women. I can't even do it on a mattress. (When jumping around on it with the little guy!)


----------



## SashaQ

GRACE OMALLEY said:
			
		

> Hey there,
> 
> There are lots of us female troops on here. Really, we have much the same issues as the guys, so don't limit yourself to reading fitness advice from the gals. The piece of info I have found to be most useful , is that practicing  burpees really helps. Perhaps it's the different curves, but for some reason I have noticed women can lose time in the tests going from a prone position to standing. Burpees were the most useful exercise for some of us to increase our success level. I have no problems with the fitness tests, and I am short, also.
> 
> Really, if you are a parent and a responsible person, being older can also help. When is the last time you had a solid 6 hours sleep? Some younger troops have to learn how to deal with permanent sleep deprivation and organization, many parents have mastered those skills to survive.
> 
> Warning- female stuff ahead...  Proceed with caution...The only thing you may have to message us females about is how to cope with heavy periods while in the field . Double Ziplock bags, my friend.  Talk to your female buddies once you're in and swap solutions/ funny stories.



I am short too! Just at 5 feet.  ;D

I used to love sleep. The boy doesn't sleep more than 3 hours on a stretch. That too, is a wrestling match with himself the whole time.  :crybaby:


----------



## BinRat55

SashaQ said:
			
		

> Which test does these shuttle runs? I checked the initial physical fitness test guide from the Forces.gc.ca site and it only has 4 things: push-ups, sit-ups, grip test, 2.4 KM run.
> 
> I cannot imagine how 'exciting' it can be be to do prone for women. I can't even do it on a mattress. (When jumping around on it with the little guy!)



From http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Ottawa/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/CFexprestesting/Pages/NewCanadianArmedForcesminimumphysicalfitnessstandard.aspx


The FORCE Evaluation consists of four test components, each designed to measure different physical capabilities:
 •
Sandbag Lift: 30 consecutive lifts of a 20 kilogram sandbag above a height of 1 metre, alternating between left and right sandbags separated by 1.25 metres. Standard: 3 minutes 30 seconds.

 •
Intermittent Loaded Shuttles: Using the 20 metre lines, complete ten 20 metre shuttles alternating between a loaded shuttle with a 20 kilogram sand bag and unloaded shuttles, for a total of 400 metres. Standard: 5 minutes 21 seconds.

 •
20-Metre Rushes: Starting from prone, complete two 20 metre shuttle sprints dropping to a prone position every 10 metres, for a total of 80 metres. Standard: 51 seconds.

 •
Sandbag Drag: Carry one 20 kilogram sandbag and pull four on the floor over 20 metres without stopping. Standard: Complete without stopping. 


All CAF members will be tested annually and will be required to achieve one common minimum standard, regardless of age and gender.


----------



## nbnurse

I am 36 and starting bmoq in 2 weeks!


----------



## idontunderstandhipsters

I'm 26 and female starting bmq june 6th. I'm single and child free by choice. I've worked in male dominated industry for several years and the best thing you can do is just pull your own weight the best you can and never _ever_ pull the "girl" card haha


----------



## Ki22

idontunderstandhipsters said:
			
		

> I'm 26 and female starting bmq june 6th. I'm single and child free by choice. I've worked in male dominated industry for several years and the best thing you can do is just pull your own weight the best you can and never _ever_ pull the "girl" card haha



Congrats on bmq.  That is good advice.  I'm a single 23 year old female waiting for bmq date.  Just a question to you and any other ladies on here, long hair or short?  I know there is a separate hair forum, but I figured since this thread is all women it would be just as helpful.  I'm considering going quite short with my hair.  I'm going for infantry.


----------



## mariomike

Ki22 said:
			
		

> I'm a single 23 year old female female waiting for bmq date. Just a question to you and any other ladies on here, long hair or short?  I know there is a separate hair forum, but I figured since this thread is all women it would be just as helpful.  I'm considering going quite short with my hair.  I'm going for infantry.



Short hair (Females)
http://army.ca/forums/threads/117728.0
OP: "I leave for BMQ on February 14th. I am female and have very short hair."


----------



## nbnurse

Mine were quite long and I cut them just below my shoulders. I should have let them a little longer since it's hard to make a bun but still ok. 
I figured longer hair means more maintenance.


----------



## idontunderstandhipsters

Ki22 said:
			
		

> Congrats on bmq.  That is good advice.  I'm a single 23 year old female waiting for bmq date.  Just a question to you and any other ladies on here, long hair or short?  I know there is a separate hair forum, but I figured since this thread is all women it would be just as helpful.  I'm considering going quite short with my hair.  I'm going for infantry.



Mine is quite long (passed shoulders) and I was debating on just chopping it off however I decided against it because although short hair is easier to maintain at first, continually cutting my hair would be annoying to me. I have thin, straight hair so I don't have issues getting all of my hair in a bun on the fly (use a twist and turn method)


----------



## SashaQ

Ki22 said:
			
		

> Congrats on bmq.  That is good advice.  I'm a single 23 year old female waiting for bmq date.  Just a question to you and any other ladies on here, long hair or short?  I know there is a separate hair forum, but I figured since this thread is all women it would be just as helpful.  I'm considering going quite short with my hair.  I'm going for infantry.



I am of course not yet in the Army but I have found that throughout my many jobs, long hair has always been the easiest to manage. AKA, just tie it in a bun. I have worked those horrible shifts that start at 3:00 AM - 1:00 PM and other such nonsense on a repeated basis without a car or proper rides. It's hard to figure out a decent sleep schedule and as a result can't do hair/make up. (Too tired.) Also with baby, it was easier to just tie in a bun. I cut it short a few times but I end up looking more like Haggard from Harry Potter than Jennifer Aniston.  : The bun has been the easy route.


----------



## SashaQ

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> From http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Ottawa/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/CFexprestesting/Pages/NewCanadianArmedForcesminimumphysicalfitnessstandard.aspx
> 
> 
> The FORCE Evaluation consists of four test components, each designed to measure different physical capabilities:
> •
> Sandbag Lift: 30 consecutive lifts of a 20 kilogram sandbag above a height of 1 metre, alternating between left and right sandbags separated by 1.25 metres. Standard: 3 minutes 30 seconds.
> 
> •
> Intermittent Loaded Shuttles: Using the 20 metre lines, complete ten 20 metre shuttles alternating between a loaded shuttle with a 20 kilogram sand bag and unloaded shuttles, for a total of 400 metres. Standard: 5 minutes 21 seconds.
> 
> •
> 20-Metre Rushes: Starting from prone, complete two 20 metre shuttle sprints dropping to a prone position every 10 metres, for a total of 80 metres. Standard: 51 seconds.
> 
> •
> Sandbag Drag: Carry one 20 kilogram sandbag and pull four on the floor over 20 metres without stopping. Standard: Complete without stopping.
> 
> 
> All CAF members will be tested annually and will be required to achieve one common minimum standard, regardless of age and gender.




This is the test I was referring to: http://www.rhli.ca/recruiting/recruitingforms/fitnessresv_en.pdf

Is this what I will be tested on when I first send in my application?


----------



## LightFighter

The RHLIs need to update their information, the test they show was replaced by the FORCE test a while ago. You will do the FORCE test for enrolment into the Reserve.


----------



## sarahsmom

Ki22 said:
			
		

> Congrats on bmq.  That is good advice.  I'm a single 23 year old female waiting for bmq date.  Just a question to you and any other ladies on here, long hair or short?  I know there is a separate hair forum, but I figured since this thread is all women it would be just as helpful.  I'm considering going quite short with my hair.  I'm going for infantry.



I had long hair prior to basic and decided to go short short. I realize a bun is easy to do (my hair has since grown back and is as long if not longer than pre-basic, so I do a bun every day) but short hair is much easier! Especially after PT! I don't regret going short, and am considering it again if/when I get on PLQ. It's only hair. It grows back.
My hair is very hard to deal with when long and wet, and short hair can be washed during the 3 minute shower after PT.


----------



## Scarlett

idontunderstandhipsters said:
			
		

> I'm 26 and female starting bmq june 6th. I'm single and child free by choice. I've worked in male dominated industry for several years and the best thing you can do is just pull your own weight the best you can and never _ever_ pull the "girl" card haha



I am also a 26 year old female starting BMQ on June 6th, I look forward to meeting you!


----------



## SashaQ

While we're on this topic of periods... has anyone used cups like Diva Cup? I just only recently started to and can't be happier! 

Can I empty them in the field and put them back in? Or how do you switch tampons in the field?


----------



## sheilainthevalley

SashaQ said:
			
		

> While we're on this topic of periods... has anyone used cups like Diva Cup? I just only recently started to and can't be happier!
> 
> Can I empty them in the field and put them back in? Or how do you switch tampons in the field?



When you visit the MIR after you arrive at BMQ (you all go together to get your vaccinations), the medical staff will speak one-on-one with all of the females. My MO specifically asked what type of birth control I was on and whether I would end up having my period in the field, they will brief you with some tips and advice. I ended up continuing on my pills through my field work (skipping two periods) and the pharmacy accommodated by providing me with an extra refill of my prescription.

If you don't do that, in the field you will still have access to garbages and portopotties. I would bring some extra Ziploc baggies in case you get stuck and can't switch out in a timely manner (and always carry baby wipes in the field). It won't end up being a big deal, we had a lot of ladies go through it without anything more than minor discomfort.


----------



## Coffee_psych

As a woman in the military, have you felt respected, listened to, promoted and acknowledged for your work, same as the men...or at least as much as any other profession? I have deep concerns because of the militaries track record as to whether or not I am making a huge mistake by continuing the application process with the CAF.  Advice on this would be great.


----------



## Dija

Reaching about the midway point in your application, following your interview you are required to sign some paperwork promising to follow the expectations of conduct, so even from outside all members and potential members are expected to follow a very high standard. The paperwork specifics include things like disallowing any form of prejudice, being it based on sexuality, race, class, or creed. If, however, the paper guarantee does not offer you a significant peace of mind, I can personally vouch for two girls I ran into at the New West office during the application stage, both of whom where making the same steps towards joining I was. They all where very enthusiastic, and all the staff have interacted worth seem far more keen on judging you by your merit over anything else. 

In closing, I heavily recommend checking out "Basic UP" on youtube, it's a series following a handful of recruits through BMQ. Included in this handful is a young girl whose thoughts may prove very valuable to you. In fact, I recommend it to everyone thinking about applying, it's packed to the brim with helpful knowledge!  [

Best of luck!
Dija


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Like any workplace, there are going to be ding-dong's (both male and female) who colour outside the lines of our conduct and ethics standards and rules;  there are ways to correct those behaviours within our policies.  As a person, I believe you have to be both strong and smart enough to know how to deal with it but deal with it appropriately;  not all nails need the same size hammer to drive them home.

Females in the military successful?  Well, my Commanding Officer is a female.  There are female Senior NCOs and Officers on my crew as well.  We have female technicians and AERE Officer in charge of maintenance crews.  

Hope that helps some along with the other replies you've gotten and will get.  I'm curious what 'the military track record' is in your opinion though, and why.


----------



## George Wallace

RESPECT

Respect for others is necessary.  It is human nature to have bias, but 'respect for others' will overcome those biases.  Respect is a two way street.  It is not restricted to one sex, religion, race, etc.  Respect is also earned (or lost) through your own conduct.  

Preconceived views of the Canadian military by many in the 'Public' are often false due to the sources from which they are drawn.  The Canadian military is NOT the American military, the British military; or some military from a Third World dictatorship.  It is unique in its own ways.  Please do not get confused by these facts.


----------



## George Wallace

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is very condescending...I know how to search a website.



Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  

Condescending replies to someone who has given you information does not help your case.

PS:  It would also help if you check the dates that posts are made, and perhaps if the poster is still actively a member of this site.


----------



## Coffee_psych

George Wallace said:
			
		

> RESPECT
> 
> Preconceived views of the Canadian military by many in the 'Public' are often false due to the sources from which they are drawn.  The Canadian military is NOT the American military, the British military; or some military from a Third World dictatorship.  It is unique in its own ways.  Please do not get confused by these facts.



Okay again, this is very condescending.  The Canadian military is also facing inquiries into women in the Canadian military who have been raped and have been singled out to face humiliating tasks.  SO though I appreciate your defensiveness, I am on the side of wanting to see a change in attitude with-in the military and from the public, to see that Canadian military as a respectable and honourable society.  

I don't know why my comment was put in this thread, since I only want to speak to women....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is very condescending...I know how to search a website.



I actually think he was trying to be helpful and providing the something very relevant to your question.  



			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Okay again, this is very condescending.  The Canadian military is also facing inquiries into women in the Canadian military who have been raped and have been singled out to face humiliating tasks.  SO though I appreciate your defensiveness, I am on the side of wanting to see a change in attitude with-in the military and from the public, to see that Canadian military as a respectable and honourable society.



What inquiry are we, the CAF, facing?  Humiliating tasks?  Such as?

You're not in the military, so I/we get that all you can go from is what you see in the media, news stuff on social networking, etc.  The Canadian Military was, is and continues to be a professional military.  Expecting 'us' to have no problem people make it thru our doors is the same as expecting any university to not have 'problem children', or any other employer.   Something to consider (the larger problem, i.e. Canadian society as it is today, from which we recruit our people).

Maybe gear back the attitude a bit to people who are trying to answer your question.  



> I don't know why my comment was put in this thread, since I only want to speak to women....



Unfortunately, you don't get to decide things like that.  Frankly, so far in your few posts you come off as someone with a bit of a chip on your shoulder.  Despite what many people have been allowed to believe in society today, we all aren't special snowflakes.

People with years and years of experience in the Canadian military will offer you their views of 'women in the CAF today', my first post included.  You can skip over the posts of the men if you wish.


----------



## Coffee_psych

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm curious what 'the military track record' is in your opinion though, and why.



It is a little obvious...Since the military is currently facing a number of investigations into sexual miss-conduct.  Though my concerns have little to do with what the women in the military. It has more to do with the highly aggressive men.  I am sure that many men are highly honourable in the military, but even the most honourable of men go against their nature at times.  This is complicated, but is there a women only thread?  Cause I'm already getting backlash from my question...


----------



## Coffee_psych

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I actually think he was trying to be helpful and providing the something very relevant to your question.  Maybe gear back the attitude a bit to people who are trying to answer your question.



This is called Mansplaining.  It's exactly the thing I am worried about.  I am a highly educated woman, I will received direct entry into the military as an Officer.  However is this is how I am treated on a forum after a question that was meant for women, I doubt I'll be able to make a difference when I actually begin with the CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser

If you show up in the CAF automatically assuming you're going to be treated poorly, you're going to get exactly that, but not for the reasons you think. If you join and if an issue arises, assertively address it, you'll enjoy your time in the CAF. It seems to me that you have your mind made up that you're going to get poor treatment already, and that chip on your shoulder will only get bigger over time and hinder your career.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is called Mansplaining.  It's exactly the thing I am worried about.  I am a highly educated woman, I will received direct entry into the military as an Officer.  However is this is how I am treated on a forum after a question that was meant for women, I doubt I'll be able to make a difference when I actually begin with the CAF.



*le sigh*

Mansplaining?  Are you serious??   :facepalm:

DAA was trying to be helpful and posted a link.  You asked a question, and got replies.  Don't like the replies?  GREAT!  Stop posting questions.  Problem solved.

I wouldn't go thinking too highly of yourself for being 'highly educated' and maybe getting into the CAF as a DEO.  You're not unique or special for that accomplishment.  IF you get into the CAF, you'll find out that there are a great deal of educated, intelligent, smart and talented people serving Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> It is a little obvious...Since the military is currently facing a number of investigations into sexual miss-conduct.  Though my concerns have little to do with what the women in the military. It has more to do with the highly aggressive men.  I am sure that many men are highly honourable in the military, but even the most honourable of men go against their nature at times.  This is complicated, but is there a women only thread?  Cause I'm already getting backlash from my question...



Is the military facing a number of investigations into sexual misconduct?  Where have you read this?

Maybe because your reply to people honestly trying to give you some answers to your question are what has _actually_ been 'condescending' in this thread.   :2c:

I'll speak for myself;  I have no problems with women OR men in the military.  Unless they are unable to do there job.  Or think they are special.  Or think their job is only 8-4, Monday to Friday.  That kind of stuff.

If you get in to the CAF, you'll likely find that same attitude in 99% of the people you serve with.  Most of us don't have time for ding-dongs, regardless of what bathroom they use.

Hopefully some current / former serving females will be along to give you the info you're looking for.


----------



## Coffee_psych

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you show up in the CAF automatically assuming you're going to be treated poorly, you're going to get exactly that, but not for the reasons you think. If you join and if an issue arises, assertively address it, you'll enjoy your time in the CAF. It seems to me that you have your mind made up that you're going to get poor treatment already, and that chip on your shoulder will only get bigger over time and hinder your career.



I am not looking to see if I'm going to be treated poorly.  I already know that I will.  It's a fact of life for most women.  What I want to know is do the men who act in this way get called out for it, and more especially by other men.  Or is it expected that the woman must stand up for herself and become a "nagger".  Cause that is annoying as all hell.


----------



## Coffee_psych

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is the military facing a number of investigations into sexual misconduct?  Where have you read this?
> 
> Maybe because your reply to people honestly trying to give you some answers to your question are what has _actually_ been 'condescending' in this thread.   :2c:
> 
> I'll speak for myself;  I have no problems with women OR men in the military.  Unless they are unable to do there job.  Or think they are special.  Or think their job is only 8-4, Monday to Friday.  That kind of stuff.
> 
> If you get in to the CAF, you'll likely find that same attitude in 99% of the people you serve with.  Most of us don't have time for ding-dongs, regardless of what bathroom they use.
> 
> Hopefully some current / former serving females will be along to give you the info you're looking for.



There's a poster of it up in the CAF offices.  So stop being an ignorant ding-dong.


----------



## Coffee_psych

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *le sigh*
> 
> Mansplaining?  Are you serious??   :facepalm:
> 
> DAA was trying to be helpful and posted a link.  You asked a question, and got replies.  Don't like the replies?  GREAT!  Stop posting questions.  Problem solved.
> 
> I wouldn't go thinking too highly of yourself for being 'highly educated' and maybe getting into the CAF as a DEO.  You're not unique or special for that accomplishment.  IF you get into the CAF, you'll find out that there are a great deal of educated, intelligent, smart and talented people serving Canada.



This was literally my first question on this whole website, and it was for women.  My question got moved by the moderator. Now I have to deal with men who don't understand that women have legitimate concerns that can't be answered by a link that I have already looked into!  If you don't recognize the patronizing that women have to go through everyday, then you are part of the problem. 

Why do men feel the need to try and pat me on the back and say it's "going to be Okay", cause from what I see here, it won't be.


----------



## armchair_throwaway

Excuse me, a female ex-CF member coming through to give you her valuable opinion from a woman's point of view.



			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is called Mansplaining.  It's exactly the thing I am worried about.  I am a highly educated woman, I will received direct entry into the military as an Officer.  However is this is how I am treated on a forum after a question that was meant for women, I doubt I'll be able to make a difference when I actually begin with the CAF.



If a woman had made the same comment as Eye in the Sky, would you have called it Womansplaining? 

Do you have issue with people explaining things to you in general? If so you may want to reconsider your career in the CF since its your primary worry. What do you think will happen on Basic Training? It's months of men and women, higher in rank than you, explaining all sorts of things you (may) already know, including how to fold your underwear properly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> I am not looking to see if I'm going to be treated poorly.  I already know that I will.  It's a fact of life for most women.



If this is how you really, honestly feel, then you should voice this to your recruiter.  There may be some prejudice or misconceptions on your part that they need to discuss with you.



> What I want to know is do the men who act in this way get called out for it, and more especially by other men.  Or is it expected that the woman must stand up for herself and become a "nagger".  Cause that is annoying as all hell.



There is a whole section of regulations and policies on things like harassment, sexual misconduct, etc that we follow.  The CAF policies are not so much based on a person's gender, but their relationship in the chain of command;  are they a sub-ordinate, a peer, or a superior officer to the person acting contrary to CAF standards.

However, if a superior officer of yours was to witness someone acting in an unacceptable manner, the policy and orders we follow basically are written to say that superior officer would be duty bound to do something about it.  What the 'do something about it' would be would be determined by the severity of the actions.


----------



## cac1993

Speaking as a women who is entering a heavily dominated male trade im not sure I really understand your question.. It seems to me you've already made up your mind about how you think you will be treated in the military. "I'm not looking to see if I'm going to be treated poorly" "I already know I will be"... That is a very poor way of looking at any situation! Especially as a women!!  Will your time in the military be a walk in the park? No probably not.. the number of women in the military have only really picked up in recent years and is still dominated by men. But with that being said you shouldn't let a few negative stories and cases cloud your judgment on the military as a whole. You will run into assholes that are both male and female. I have lots of female friends currently serving on bases and ships and they love what they do and who they work with.. It's up to you to decide if it's something you want to do.. Regardless of if and's and could be's
Best of luck!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This was literally my first question on this whole website, and it was for women.  My question got moved by the moderator. Now I have to deal with men who don't understand that women have legitimate concerns that can't be answered by a link that I have already looked into!  If you don't recognize the patronizing that women have to go through everyday, then you are part of the problem.



Let me add some reality into the idea you might have of me, or other male serving members.

1.  I am also a husband.  My wife works in a mixed-gender workplace.
2.  I am also a father, to more than 1 daughter..
3.  I have a mother and a mother-in-law.
4.  I have sisters and a sister-in-law.

If you think I am unaware of the attitudes some men in our country have, you're wrong.  If you think I am not concerned about that, re-read #s 1 thru 4 above again.

I'm not going to sit here and say I know what it feels like to be a woman.  Obviously, I don't.  I am also, however, not stupid or blind.  I used to be a bouncer, I'm well aware of what men are capable of acting like.  I've served with males who were the type you are concerned about in years now long gone.  I know what the reality is.  



> Why do men feel the need to try and pat me on the back and say it's "going to be Okay", cause from what I see here, it won't be.



I'm not patting you on the back.  I don't feel the need to coddle anyone.  That makes them weak and more likely to be a victim IMO.

The CAF isn't as bad as I think you fear it is.  I really recommend you discuss this belief or worry or fear, whatever it is, with your recruiting staff.  Ask to talk to the female members of the recruiting staff.  What better first hand information could you get than that, face to face time with current serving females?

Something to consider.


----------



## George Wallace

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is called Mansplaining.  It's exactly the thing I am worried about.  I am a highly educated woman, I will received direct entry into the military as an Officer.



Shall we call out the Grammar Nazis on you or just accept your "typo"?

Let's see:  

You have insulted almost everyone that has replied to you, accusing then of being "condescending".

Now you are pulling out the "feminist card" and accusing everyone of "Mansplaining".

You have registered on this site less than twelve hours ago and have already taken offence with and reported a post that is over a decade old, and in the process of continually posting here offended nearly everyone who has replied to you.  Sorry, but if you can not handle this "stressful situation" perhaps you are attempting to get employed in the wrong type of job.  

Your attitude and obvious chip on your shoulders is not doing you any great service here.

(Sorry, I typed this and was called away.  Not that it matters.  Coffee_psych; you are NOTHING SPECIAL.  You are one of many who have decided to serve in the CAF.  Gender has NOTHING to do with it.  If you think you are special and need special treatment, see advice above and find another line of work.  That BS is not tolerated in the CAF.)


----------



## tree hugger

Assuming you will be treated poorly as a woman in the CF is just as wrong as assuming my male counterparts in the CF are Neanderthals... not cool.  Also, pulling the "I'm going to be an Officer Card" is not a good way to make friends...

I've been a female in the CF for 12+ years (well, I was female before I joined too... hehe) and haven't had any problems.  I'm not sure you have had much exposure to the CF and our members so I recommend doing a lot of reading on the forum - there are many here who have lots of knowledge and experience.  I wouldn't discount views coming from men either...as with the CF, this site tends to take input from all genders equally.  

 :2c:


----------



## bscriber

Sadly, this type of attitude is becoming more prevalent in universities across Canada--instead of bringing everyone together, everyone is being classified according to groups.  I had the privilege of teaching part time at a university in Ontario while working at my job, but couldn't handle the need for everyone to have a "safe space" when they did not like another's opinion in a seminar.  This is what the OP wanted and was automatically expecting to get, as universities are quick to provide these, lest they get accused of genderism, colonialism, racism etc.

University graduates today simply do not understand that the world outside the ivory tower doesn't work that way--whether in military or civilian life.  I was inspired to join the military by both my male and female friends that served in uniform.

To the OP:  Your attitude might not be the reason your application is slow.  The Federal bureaucracy works that way for everyone.  I know, because I used to work for it before I went into the private sector.  I hope you are able to succeed in getting in if this is truly what you want to do.  Just be careful of alienating men who are feminists as well--an open attitude to accepting people from all schools of thought, whether you agree or not will go along way to having people listen to your arguments.  Many men believe in equal opportunity of treatment for women.  I am one of them, and it would be a pleasure to serve along side you--as long as you can respect that I am a man trying to make my way in the world, as much as you are a woman doing the same.

Just my  :2c:.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

bscriber said:
			
		

> Sadly, this type of attitude is becoming more prevalent in universities across Canada--instead of bringing everyone together, everyone is being classified according to groups.  I had the privilege of teaching part time at a university in Ontario while working at my job, but couldn't handle the need for everyone to have a "safe space" when they did not like another's opinion in a seminar.  This is what the OP wanted and was automatically expecting to get, as universities are quick to provide these, lest they get accused of genderism, colonialism, racism etc.



Canada is a safe space.  People died to make it a safe space, people have died and sacrificed and are deployed today to keep it a safe space.  Those whiny types you talk about in your post above...they need to remember they are safe.  And not because of anything _they've_ done, they are simply reaping the benefits others have paid for.

I'll not entertain these soft, mushy types or be an 'enabler' of their behaviour or demands either.  I hope their bubble doesn't pop too loudly when they run into people like me in the real world.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Please, this question is meant for women and their experiences.  It is not for men. Thank you for your help on this topic.



Fortunately you don't get to decide who answers your questions.  You can ask for input from specific people but no one here is obligated to answer,  or not answer,  in accordance with your desires.


----------



## DAA

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is very condescending...I know how to search a website.



Come again?  You had asked a valid question and seeing as you were looking for a response from "women", I thought it prudent to direct you to the link on the website, so you could actually see and hear just what current serving female members had to say about what it was like to have a career in the CAF.   Some of the women profiled, I actually know, have worked with and or for and have great respect for all of them and many more.

Not entirely sure what you are looking for here in the way of responses, other than looking for replies from women ONLY but your not starting off very well as you can see from above.

The CAF is gender neutral and we don't care what your gender is.  Do your job, do it well and be a member of the "team", that's all we ask.


----------



## RCDtpr

Being that this individual immediately started claiming she was going to be harassed by the men of the CF and gets mad whenever someone points out they aren't correct, gets defensive, and makes sure we all know she's highly educated who is going to get direct entry as an officer (like that has never been done before) I'll have to assume she's nothing but a troll looking to elicit reactions.....which is what she's getting.


----------



## PuckChaser

DAA said:
			
		

> The CAF is gender neutral and we don't care what your gender is.  Do your job, do it well and be a member of the "team", that's all we ask.



Agreed. LBTGQ, black, yellow, red, purple, brown, orange: We don't care what you are or what your skin colour is. Do your job, do it well, and you'll have so much respect and admiration, you might deliberately screw something up so people stop tasking you with things.


----------



## cld617

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> I am sure that many men are highly honourable in the military, but even the most honourable of men go against their nature at times



With a sexist attitude like this, you're actually working against the efforts being made to combat the problems you're ill-experienced to claim rampant. 

"modes of thinking that devalue members on the basis of their sex"

Straight from the Op Order itself. Your line of thinking is in direct contradiction to the Orders given to stamp out inappropriate behavior. You would only add to the problem, so please, stay out of this organization.


----------



## Coffee_psych

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Shall we call out the Grammar Nazis on you or just accept your "typo"?
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> You have insulted almost everyone that has replied to you, accusing then of being "condescending".
> 
> Now you are pulling out the "feminist card" and accusing everyone of "Mansplaining".
> 
> You have registered on this site less than twelve hours ago and have already taken offence with and reported a post that is over a decade old, and in the process of continually posting here offended nearly everyone who has replied to you.  Sorry, but if you can not handle this "stressful situation" perhaps you are attempting to get employed in the wrong type of job.
> 
> Your attitude and obvious chip on your shoulders is not doing you any great service here.
> 
> (Sorry, I typed this and was called away.  Not that it matters.  Coffee_psych; you are NOTHING SPECIAL.  You are one of many who have decided to serve in the CAF.  Gender has NOTHING to do with it.  If you think you are special and need special treatment, see advice above and find another line of work.  That BS is not tolerated in the CAF.)



Calling people out on being condescending isn't an insult.  I did call someone a ding dong...but they did imply I was a ding dong first.  So that was simply being fair-handed. 

When has mansplaining become a feminist term? I'm not a feminist! I will therefore stop using this term, forth-with, sir!


----------



## Coffee_psych

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Being that this individual immediately started claiming she was going to be harassed by the men of the CF and gets mad whenever someone points out they aren't correct, gets defensive, and makes sure we all know she's highly educated who is going to get direct entry as an officer (like that has never been done before) I'll have to assume she's nothing but a troll looking to elicit reactions.....which is what she's getting.



I'm really not, I actually had a legitimate question, but it got lost in this calamity.  I think it got started when my thread got blended with a bunch of others, and now it seems like many of us should be in a reality TV show together.


----------



## Lightguns

Madam, viewing your 24 posts and as a retired officer, father of two female military NCMs and ex husband of another, I doubt you will make a difference as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> I think it got started when my thread got blended with a bunch of others, and now it seems like many of us should be in a reality TV show together.



It was started when you presumed one of the most polite and helpful members here was being condescending then started acting like a petulant child with everyone else. 

You say you "need"  to hear from a woman's point of view,  so you're asking the question on an open forum where you can't confirm the gender or even service of people your asking?   Don't make life choices based off anonymous input. 

Own up to the shitty attitude you instantly took with people here and maybe you'll dig yourself out of the hole you dug.


----------



## Andraste

Coffee_Psych,

Hello,

As a woman in the CAF with 35 years of service (which I believe went well) I think I can respond to your query from an objective point of view.  To be clear when I say woman I mean transgender woman.

So to respond to your question . . . _Can you succeed as a woman in the CAF?_  Certainly, I have done quite well for myself even after transitioning in one of the most Alpha male dominated environments.  Some of my best female friends are senior officers, commanding officers, senior NCMs doing jobs which were at one time considered stereotypically male.  Did they face harassment at times?  Some did and some did not but, if you take a sample of women in the workplace outside of the CAF, the statistics will mimic what we find within the CAF.  To be clear this does not make it right nor do I do condone this behavior and will be the first to call someone on it (male or female . . . yes it does happen).  Every person (woman or man) in the CAF has the right to be assessed as a person based on their merit not their grouping.  For the most part this is what occurs. The CAF takes sexual harassment/misconduct very seriously and processes are being put into place to ensure it is dealt with appropriately.  

You took quite the beating in this thread and to be honest, it was warranted.  As a woman, I understand your defensiveness and reticence however, you came out swinging to a member who only wanted to help and it went downhill from there.  You accused almost everyone of being condescending when you were doing the very same thing.  In addition, you basically accused every male in the CAF of being a potential harasser . . . which is not true.  Yes there are as “Eye in the Sky” so aptly put “_Ding Dongs_” out there but these folks are being dealt with when they crop up.  Is the system perfect?  By no means but we (the CAF) are trying to move forward and I would say a majority of the serving members get it.

Yes some of the comments were blunt but that is the CAF.  Should you join, you will find a lot of blunt comments from the various leaders (male and female) who you are subordinate to.  I suspect at some point, you will become just as blunt in your dealings . . . it is the nature of the beast.  There is nothing wrong with standing your ground but there is an old saying . . . “_you have to pick the hill you want to die on_” and this was one you should not have died on.  The advice was sound in the beginning but you got immediately defensive and others returned in kind.  That is human nature.  Look, I made a similar blunder when I first came here but realized that what I was accusing others of doing, I was doing myself . . . try being a bit introspective before you launch.  

I don’t think you are a bad person, I don’t know much about you.  I do get the sense you are passionate about things and that can be a help or hindrance.  You noted you are an educated woman and coming in as DEO.  The mere fact you mentioned your education well . . . it does not impress people.  There are plenty of highly educated people (men and women) in the CAF at all rank levels.  Education is only half the battle when it comes to being a leader; it is declarative knowledge at best.  How you use that knowledge interacting with others will determine the leader you become.  I have had counselling sessions with junior officers who were struggling with leading their sections/teams. The number one defense from them was that their subordinates do not respect them or their education which they worked hard to achieve.  I explained that people have to respect the rank . . . not the person . . . that is earned.  Education is a body of knowledge but if a leader is hanging her/his hat on that hook only . . . well just saying that will be their undoing.  Respect comes from demonstrating leadership not throwing down your academic credentials.  The smartest person I have ever known went no further than Grade 10 academically but the body of knowledge they amassed during their career was beyond approach.  The dumbest person I ever knew was a PhD professor of mine who had no understanding of people and how to deal with them.  

As I said, you took quite the beating.  If you want to be in the CAF then it will occur again and not because you are a woman but because you cannot take a moment to reflect on how to deal with people.  That will be your undoing as a potential leader.  This is not to say you can’t call BS when someone is doing something they should not be doing . . . every CAF member (woman or man) should do so.  It just means that temper that passion with introspective review to determine if there fire where there is smoke or is it just smoke.  

This is a good group of folks but, we are not the gatekeepers to the CAF . . . you are.   If you truly want a career in the CAF as a woman, I say go for it.  Will achieve great things, become the CDS one day?  Perhaps.  Will you run up against intolerance because you are woman?  Perhaps.  How you choose to deal with that intolerance will make all the difference though.  The question back to you is . . . _Are you prepared to fight for your ideas as an officer in the CAF to make the system better_?

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A very good post, Andraste. Thank-you.


----------



## Remius

Andrast's post should be stickied or pinned somewhere.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> I did call someone a ding dong...but they did imply I was a ding dong first.  So that was simply being fair-handed.



That would have been me that you called an ignorant ding dong;  you'd of noticed I chose to bypass that post.   :nod:

If you take a moment to go thru my previous posts you'll see, yes I used to term ding-dong a few times, but never directed it to you personally.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Like any workplace, there are going to be ding-dong's (both male and female) who colour outside the lines of our conduct and ethics standards and rules...





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll speak for myself;  I have no problems with women OR men in the military.  Unless they are unable to do there job.  Or think they are special.  Or think their job is only 8-4, Monday to Friday.  That kind of stuff.
> 
> If you get in to the CAF, you'll likely find that same attitude in 99% of the people you serve with.  Most of us don't have time for ding-dongs, regardless of what bathroom they use.
> 
> Hopefully some current / former serving females will be along to give you the info you're looking for.



Maybe you inferred as opposed to I implied.  Not a big deal but might help you see people were really just trying to help in what little way they can.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Females in the military successful?  Well, my Commanding Officer is a female.  There are female Senior NCOs and Officers on my crew as well.  We have female technicians and AERE Officer in charge of maintenance crews.



That's a snapshot perspective on the 'promotions, career, etc' aspect of your original question from me, currently working at an operational RCAF Squadron.  I also served with females in various trades from Clerks to Crewmen in the army before switching to the Air Force years ago, but I can't comment on the '2016' reality of working with females in the army so...I left it to my current environment.

Hopefully you're able to see that those who answered were really just trying to help you see things in line with reality.   :2c:


----------



## Occam

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> (Also where is my typo?  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[)



Which one?



			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> As a woman in the military, have you felt respected, listened to, promoted and acknowledged for your work, same as the men...or at least as much as any other profession? I have deep concerns because of the militaries military's track record as to whether or not I am making a huge mistake by continuing the application process with the CAF.  Advice on this would be great.





			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Okay again, this is very condescending.  The Canadian military is also facing inquiries into women in the Canadian military who have been raped and have been singled out to face humiliating tasks.  SO though I appreciate your defensiveness, I am on the side of wanting to see a change in attitude with-in within the military and from the public, to see that Canadian military as a respectable and honourable society.
> 
> I don't know why my comment was put in this thread, since I only want to speak to women....





			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> It is a little obvious...Since the military is currently facing a number of investigations into sexual miss-conduct misconduct.  Though my concerns have little to do with what the women in the military. It has more to do with the highly aggressive men.  I am sure that many men are highly honourable in the military, but even the most honourable of men go against their nature at times.  This is complicated, but is there a women only thread?  Cause I'm already getting backlash from my question...





			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This is called Mansplaining.  It's exactly the thing I am worried about.  I am a highly educated woman, I will received direct entry into the military as an Officer.  However is if this is how I am treated on a forum after a question that was meant for women, I doubt I'll be able to make a difference when I actually begin with the CAF.





			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Calling people out on being condescending isn't an insult.  I did call someone a ding dong...but they did imply I was a ding dong first.  So that was simply being fair-handed.
> 
> When has mansplaining become a feminist term? I'm not a feminist! I will therefore stop using this term, forth-with forthwith, sir!



I let a few slide as they were simply internet jargon, and because I didn't want to make it look like I was bashing you.  If you think I'm being picky here, wait until you get to basic training and they pick you up for things that aren't even there...simply to test your mettle.

Respectfully submitted by a high school dropout.


----------



## Coffee_psych

Andraste said:
			
		

> Coffee_Psych,
> 
> 
> As a woman in the CAF with 35 years of service (which I believe went well) I think I can respond to your query from an objective point of view.  To be clear when I say woman I mean transgender woman.



Thank you, though the last 3 paragraphs were unbearingly personal, your first paragraph does answer my question and acknowledge my point.  Acknowledging that women do face harassment in all careers is what I was trying to get across in my comments, except people responded thinking that I expected abuse in the army.  It isn't what I said or meant. 

It is impressive to hear from a trans-woman in the army, to be honest I thought you were a myth, like a unicorn, neat.


----------



## Coffee_psych

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No, she displayed confirmation bias, and only wanted to hear opinions that validated her ideas. Kinda like the Deschamps report.



Excuse me, but you don't have the right to speak for me.


----------



## tracie_anderson

Gee u youngsters make an old gal like me feel old lol. 

I am 42 years old (soon to be 43), and I just put my application in to the reserves for a med assistant. 

I am a very active person (I farm so always carrying bales or pails; as well as a winch driver/operator in the oil field so always throwing straps, dragging chains through mud, etc, as well as a search and rescue volunteer so always out walking doing searches/training). As for a regular exercise program, I dont have one.....always figured I get enough exercise doing what I do lol. 

I dont know if I will get accepted because of my age, and my past (criminal record from about 18 years ago), but I am going to think possitive (by thinking positive, I mean harassing them every chance I get lol). 

With all that being said, any input on how to start a regular exercise routine? Keep in mind that I live in the middle of no where, and dont have access to a gym or anything like that.....

Thanks for the help in advance! 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman

Your age will not, itself, be a factor. Criminal histories and pardons have been discussed somewhere on this Site. You should be able to find that/those thread(s).


----------



## DivaGal

Hello! Long time lurker, first time poster. Have done a search and did not find anything addressing my specific question. 

Looking to ask a question of the females of the forum who have been through BMQ/BMOQ. Have any of you had experience using a Diva cup or one of it's equivalent products during basic? I am especially interested in hearing about the feasibility of using this product during the field exercises.

Any first hand experiences are most welcome! I would also welcome thoughts from anyone who has knowledge of the product and has been through basic, even if they didn't use the product during that time. 

If you don't know what I'm talking about then you are probably not the target audience of my question. Google at your own risk!  

Cheers!


----------



## mariomike

DivaGal said:
			
		

> Looking to ask a question of the females of the forum who have been through BMQ/BMOQ. Have any of you had experience using a Diva cup or one of it's equivalent products during basic? I am especially interested in hearing about the feasibility of using this product during the field exercises.





			
				SashaQ said:
			
		

> While we're on this topic of periods... has anyone used cups like Diva Cup? I just only recently started to and can't be happier!
> 
> Can I empty them in the field and put them back in? Or how do you switch tampons in the field?


----------



## DivaGal

Thanks mariomike! 
I searched that exact phrase (plus others) and got zero hits.  ??? :-[ 
Even now when I search, the only post that shows up is my own! I must be doing something wrong. 
Anyhow, sorry to put you through extra trouble. Back to lurking I go....  ;D


----------



## PandemicStrange

DivaGal said:
			
		

> Thanks mariomike!
> I searched that exact phrase (plus others) and got zero hits.  ??? :-[
> Even now when I search, the only post that shows up is my own! I must be doing something wrong.
> Anyhow, sorry to put you through extra trouble. Back to lurking I go....  ;D



Pretty positive it wouldn't be an issue, however carrying the stuff to clean it and such may be an issue. Just saying.


----------



## AKa

If you can tolerate BCPs, one solution is to take certain of the low-dose varieties continuously and suppress your cycle until it is convenient.  Your doctor is the best person to advise you.

The minor inconvenience of carrying around a small package of blister-sealed drugs is much less than dealing with a period and all it entails.  But you do have to take those pills diligently.  

Cheers,

AK


----------



## noahjsc

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but you don't have the right to speak for me.


If you can't allow people to talk to you. Your going to have a bad time in the military. You claim that your becoming an officer. That high strung attitude of "you don't have the *right* to speak to me" will not get you far. Communication is key to a successful team and to the success of the military. Canada even has laws regarding freedom of speech. So when you get mad at people for even having the audacity of voicing their opinions and tell them they did not have the right to do so, is ridiculous. The military has a strong sense of sucking it up and moving onward and getting the job done. I don't even know how you would get past bmoq if you can't accept that people have the right to voice their own thoughts that contradict yours.


----------



## Loachman

In her partial defence, she did not say "speak _*to*_ me", but "you don't have the right to speak _*for*_ me" in response to PuckChaser's "No, she displayed confirmation bias, and only wanted to hear opinions that validated her ideas. Kinda like the Deschamps report".

PuckChaser, of course, was not speaking _*for*_ her, but making an observation - and a perfectly valid one as well.

But you are completely correct regarding attitude and communication.


----------



## Kat Stevens

noahjsc said:
			
		

> If you can't allow people to talk to you. Your going to have a bad time in the military. You claim that your becoming an officer. That high strung attitude of "you don't have the *right* to speak to me" will not get you far. Communication is key to a successful team and to the success of the military,like reading "to" when someone said "for". Canada even has laws regarding freedom of speech. So when you get mad at people for even having the audacity of voicing their opinions and tell them they did not have the right to do so, is ridiculous. The military has a strong sense of sucking it up and moving onward and getting the job done. I don't even know how you would get past bmoq if you can't accept that people have the right to voice their own thoughts that contradict yours.



There, that's better, isn't it?


----------



## geekygirl

Just wanted to say that this is a very useful thread; it definitely has made me more comfortable with the upcoming process. Thank you!


----------



## armyvern

geekygirl said:
			
		

> Just wanted to say that this is a very useful thread; it definitely has made me more comfortable with the upcoming process. Thank you!



From one gal to another, good luck --- I love serving in this outfit.   :cheers:


----------



## militarymermaid

Hi there! I just accepted an offer with the CAF on Monday & I couldnt be happier.
I am looking for an honest answer about women at BMQ. I got the impression that I will likely be one of maybe four to five. True?
In addition, looking for advice on how to prepare for BMQ.
I currently work out every day. Lift a fairly heavy amount of weight (for my size), run 3-4km per day. Anything else I can work on?
Push ups? Hiking? More "body weight" things?
Thanks for your help!


----------



## mariomike

militarymermaid said:
			
		

> In addition, looking for advice on how to prepare for BMQ.



Bettering Fitness Standards while Waiting for BMQ  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/17044.75.html


----------



## BeyondTheNow

militarymermaid said:
			
		

> Hi there! I just accepted an offer with the CAF on Monday & I couldnt be happier.
> I am looking for an honest answer about women at BMQ. I got the impression that I will likely be one of maybe four to five. True?
> In addition, looking for advice on how to prepare for BMQ.
> I currently work out every day. Lift a fairly heavy amount of weight (for my size), run 3-4km per day. Anything else I can work on?
> Push ups? Hiking? More "body weight" things?
> Thanks for your help!



On your specific platoon you’re probably looking at between 4-9 females (this is only an average, sometimes more, sometimes less) TO START. Guaranteed you’ll lose at least one or two females, due to injury, illness and quitting. (‘Same goes for loss of males as well, and again, those numbers vary.) You’ll meet many females though as course progresses.

For the most part I enjoyed course. Obviously there were a few things I could do without, but many aspects were fun. Stressful at times, yes, but fun. You’ll meet people you connect with very easily and you’ll meet people you clash with from the start. You just have to find a way to work together and get it all done. The ease of creating platoon cohesion depends on the people within it—some platoons come together much quicker than others. 

Ref “preparing.” I encourage you to please read through some of the threads about what to expect and specific targets. There’s a lot of good information floating around in the recruiting threads. It sounds like you’re on the right track, but upper-body strength, especially for females, is extremely helpful. The better it is, the easier you’ll find basic. Be able to pump out at least 25 push-ups (hands positioned below shoulders, so more tricep strength), deadlifts are very helpful, be able to run 8-10km without feeling like you’re doing to die. The better your cardio, also the easier you’ll find basic. 

You’ll encounter people who are in bad shape or just mediocre. Don’t be one of them. Your risk of injury is greater not being fully physically prepared. You’re over-tired, hungry and stressed in a way you’ve probably not experienced before, so your body wont be as resilient. 

Overall, try to enjoy the experience. While you’re in it, it sucks sometimes. But it flies by when looking back and a lot of good memories are created. Best of luck.


----------



## daftandbarmy

militarymermaid said:
			
		

> Hi there! I just accepted an offer with the CAF on Monday & I couldnt be happier.
> I am looking for an honest answer about women at BMQ. I got the impression that I will likely be one of maybe four to five. True?
> In addition, looking for advice on how to prepare for BMQ.
> I currently work out every day. Lift a fairly heavy amount of weight (for my size), run 3-4km per day. Anything else I can work on?
> Push ups? Hiking? More "body weight" things?
> Thanks for your help!



Work on your 'imposter syndrome' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

Everyone on Basic Training has it. It's just that women can suffer more from it because it's a traditionally male environment. My experience is that women can make excellent soldiers, just like anyone else, but many don't believe they can do it, which is complete BS.... and the biggest problem.

My advice is to give it 150% all the time, every day, and don't listen to the interior critic. Except the one that says 'You can do better'


----------



## Brucewillis

This might sound silly, but as a woman that typically doesn’t wear my hair back is there any advice on the military hair bun requirements? I think I need to practice my bun skills. Also, have any women that are on oral contraceptives considered skipping their periods while on basic? I am contemplating it.


----------



## mariomike

Brucewillis said:
			
		

> This might sound silly, but as a woman that typically doesn’t wear my hair back is there any advice on the military hair bun requirements? I think I need to practice my bun skills.



This may help,

Hair Regulations - Female Members of CF  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/35327.0
6 pages.



			
				Brucewillis said:
			
		

> Also, have any women that are on oral contraceptives considered skipping their periods while on basic?



Highlighted is discussed in this thread,
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&ei=_iwDW52XCYjPjwSNkq-YCQ&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+periods+%22Advice+for+women+on+BMQ+and+other+courses%22&oq=site%3Aarmy.ca+periods+%22Advice+for+women+on+BMQ+and+other+courses%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...164366.172676.0.173082.6.6.0.0.0.0.137.509.5j1.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.LCV8HU30i9Q


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Brucewillis said:
			
		

> This might sound silly, but as a woman that typically doesn’t wear my hair back is there any advice on the military hair bun requirements? I think I need to practice my bun skills. Also, have any women that are on oral contraceptives considered skipping their periods while on basic? I am contemplating it.



Use gel/product in damp hair and those bun-makers, available at any drugstore or even some dollar stores. ‘Super quick and easy. A good hair net and a couple of bobby pins and your hair won’t move. (The product is a must, as it helps control fly-aways, which staff will look for.) I find my hair to be much less sturdy when I’ve made my own bun, even using a hair net and bobby-pins. The aid keeps the bun in place and tighter much longer. (Caveat: If your hair is exceedingly long and/or thick, some people find the bun can be too large and it interferes with the beret, so you might need to cut your hair.) There are many how-to videos on YouTube and/or Instagram to get you started if you’ve never tried one before. The mesh type will slip less throughout the day and is generally less expensive, the other provides a more sleek and natural look. 

Ref skipping your cycle: Yes, some females purposely take their pills right through course in order to avoid the hassle. Whether or not that’s a route you specifically want to take is up to you. You know how your body will handle the adjustment.


----------



## Molly1680

I have a few friends in the military, I’m applying in February. I’ve had a few say not to go army but air due to SQ would be rough on 5 foot woman. Does anyone have any views in this?


----------



## garb811

Hi Molly, welcome to the forums.

I would absolutely NOT use that as a criteria as to whether or not you join as army or air.  People your height have been successful, folks 6'5" have probably failed. It's all about preparation and attitude.

A big part of joining the CAF should be to challenge yourself to get outside of your comfort zones, mentally and physically; to do things that you never thought were possible.

So, if you have your heart set on a trade that is army, then go for it. You will have lots of PT on basic to help you on the way to being successful.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Molly1680 said:
			
		

> I have a few friends in the military, I’m applying in February. I’ve had a few say not to go army but air due to SQ would be rough on 5 foot woman. Does anyone have any views in this?



In addition to the comments by garb811, there are RCAF trades which still require SQ (Met-tech for one.) Do your research before you select a trade (which you should do thoroughly anyway, regardless of element), so you know exactly what you’re getting into and you have the chance to minimize any surprises. 

Ultimately, go with something you believe you’ll enjoy the most, not choose based on which part of training you do or don’t want to do. Training can suck for almost every trade at different times. But once your training is done, you need to be doing something that you feel you can sustain and tolerate for a long period, otherwise your long-term career could be much more of a struggle.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Molly1680 said:
			
		

> I have a few friends in the military, I’m applying in February. I’ve had a few say not to go army but air due to SQ would be rough on 5 foot woman. Does anyone have any views in this?



I knew a guy who was 6ft 8in and joined the armoured corps. He wished he was 5 ft tall  

Pick the trade/ job that you think is best for you, and then go for it. Don't let your height run your life decisions for you!


----------

