# DIRECTED AT SERVING-MEMBER HUSBANDS.



## warpig (25 Jul 2008)

DIRECTED AT SERVING-MEMBER HUSBANDS.

Please, if your wife is fully briefed as to the CURRENT BMQ standards and you have done both your homework and due diligence to insure your wife will have the best chances of passing her course, this is NOT directed at you. Thanks to roughly 25% who used your head and had a wife successfully pass their BMQ course on the first try.

To the other 75% of husbands too lazy or to malicious to actually get off your butt and research what your wife is getting into, or too arrogant to think you could ever be mistaken as to what goes on at CFLRS St Jean, congratulations in your divorce proceedings.

Because anyone sending a wife as ill-prepared as you lot seem to must be looking to ditch your dearly beloved. I simply have no other explanation as to why current serving members would subject their wives to such failure and pain.

My Name is Sgt Lorne Warawa and I have worked as a recruit instructor at CFLRS now for just over 3 years. It’s been my experience that if a recruit is an English female who is a service-member’s spouse, she has only a 1 in 4 chance of passing her first BMQ course. The reason is fitness, pure and simple. I have no official stats to back me up in this assessment, but be thankful that the CF isn’t officially keeping these stats as it would probably paint you husbands as more a group of fools than I do. I am using my own experience in training over 17 courses to date. I am using my assessment of the other 17 sister platoon’s Admin PRB rates. That represents over 2000 recruits that I have had direct contact with, and if you add the corporate news regarding courses staffed by colleagues and friends then I do indeed feel qualified to give a general assessment of the passing rate of Service Member’s wives. 

The impetus for speaking on this forum now is the fact that out of the 6 Service member’s wives that started the current course I am working on, we only have two left, and one is recently divorced. We have just finished week 2. Yes, week 2 has just passed and only two out of six have not been sent to RFT or VR’d. Fitness has been the crucial factor. This is a typical of course results overall. And it is extremely frustrating to the Staff.

Things have changed since you husbands went through Cornwallis. We do 3 full weeks in the field now, in full fighting order, at a relentless pace that taxes 19-year-old former football players. Recruits do at least two full periods of physical training a day, and that doesn’t include drill or moving in a formed body, every day for the 10 other weeks the course is in Garrison. If her course is above the 7th floor of the Mega, she’s lifting all her kit up and down over 60 flights of stairs a day, minimum. More if she smokes. Every recruit will attempt a 13 kilometre ruck march with weapon on the course. Every recruit will have marched on average 18 kilometres each day of the final exercise in full fighting order, no matter the weather, regardless of blisters. No matter if her trade is RMS clerk or cook. No matter if her element is Air or Sea. _Am I getting your attention yet_?

I have to ask, why is it so hard for you to use the CF intranet and find a current Staff member at the School who could tell you what criteria your wife needs to fulfill before she shows up? What is stopping you from researching the current course standards and finding out from recent graduates just how hard the School has become physically? Is it a lack of common sense, or is it something else entirely? The fact there are ample resources to access is painting you husbands as a group as less than stellar, and this crosses nearly all ranks from Corporal to MWO to Captain. Wake up.

I am placing the blame for this waste of time, effort and money squarely on the shoulders of those Service Members who’s wives have failed our courses. Thank you for blind-siding your wife and reducing her moral and self-worth to near zero. I am sure she would love to thank you for the pain and suffering your ignorance or indifference has caused. Way to go. 

I point out that because you work at a CF base you have easy access to the PSP staff running the CF Express tests on a regular basis. For those of you who have a wife thinking of joining or in the process of joining, it is not too late. Get her on a test as soon as possible, and if she fails any portion, or just limps in at the bare minimums, curtail any further enrolment until she can make at least 20 % above the minimum. There is ample aid within this site and on any base to find the pre-course physical training program and expertise needed to last the 14 weeks. If she comes here below the minimums I have described, chances are the pounding and the relentless pace will find her unable to keep up. She will get injured, or she will waste months on RFT, or both, and likely quit. Or be prepared in the event your wife has the mental toughness we admire to stick it out, to be alone with the kids for an additional three to 7 months beyond what you thought she would be gone. I hope the experience chastises you, robs you of future deployments and leaves you a quivering shadow of a man. You deserve it, though its got to be hell on your family.

I place myself at the disposal of all considering wives and their considerate husbands who would like guidance in this matter. I can be reached at Warawa.LG@forces.gc.ca If your wife has already been re-coursed, or VR’d or is in the process of leaving you, don’t embarrass yourself further by commenting.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Feel better now  ?

Your little rants applies to every single demographic that sends it family members to CFLRS so point the finger in multiple directions or go whine at the mess.

BTW, my spouse ( ex-wife now) passed her BMQ and i had f-all to do with it.

Edited because i lost my temper for a minute


----------



## kincanucks (25 Jul 2008)

Well stated Sgt.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jul 2008)

I have to ask why is it so hard for these "wives" who want careers to get off their own duffs and:

Get in shape.

And why would the husband need to research this stuff on the intranet or DWAN to enable his wife to pass?

A civvy husband can't do that. Is his wife passing at a higher rate? I'd guess so by your post.

A single civvy female can't do that. Is she passing at a higher rate? I'd guess so by your post.

Hmmmm. With no DIN access too.

Seems to me, that some chicks need to pick up their own socks and get a grip on themselves ... and need to be start being held accountable for "their own" actions.

And, if they're whining that "hubby didn't tell me this ..." then I suggest the best COA is to tell them to STFU, they joined the CF as an adult and to start acting like them. They are indeed responsible for themselves.

I can just imagine what my response would be if one of the service-husbands came into my shop to exchange all his wife's kit for her. It simply is not going to fly.

Should their service-husbands be required to sit at their wive's desks and do their jobs for them too once they're QL qualified?

My advice -- stop making excuses for the wives going through who "happen to be married to CF members" -- their husband isn't at fault. They are. I'd call that personal accountability. 

That's just my opinion, of course, having never been an instructor at CFLRS.

Your advice is much better directed towards ANY and ALL people who would proceed to BMQ/BOTP and hope to pass. Find out what they are in for. Research it ... and get ready for it. It's not limited to servicemen's wives by any stretch.


----------



## Run away gun (25 Jul 2008)

What a load of poo... people have nobody but themselves to blame for their inability to pass BMQ.


----------



## warpig (25 Jul 2008)

Directed at CDN Aviator.

No, SIR, you DID loose your temper. Without being qualified to speak to the facts, by the way. I was going to reply that it isn't my female genitalia that needed to be checked for sand, but you clarified that for us. Congratulations for being one of the 25% who helped insure his wife was ready, or did you meet your wife while at CFLRS, when you were both 21 years old?

To be honest, we do get lots of Service Member kids here, and they usually pass. As they are generally between the ages of 18 and 21, no-body's surprised. It's my opinion that most Svc Mbr's wives are between the age of 28 to 40. Would that be a factor negating your commentary on which family member is at risk for failing the courses? I am ready to debate any factual evidence you may offer that I am off-base on this assessment. If you care to offer any.

BTW, if we ask your ex her opinion of your assessment, would it be the same as yours? Just asking.


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jul 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Edited because i lost my temper for a minute



Have you found mine yet?  I'm pretty sure it went the same direction as yours.



			
				Just a girl ... said:
			
		

> My advice -- stop making excuses for the wives going through who "happen to be married to CF members" -- their husband isn't at fault. They are. I'd call that personal accountability.



What about an instructor cadre that's willing to provide fair and equal treatment for _all_ recruits and hold them all _equally_ responsible for their _individual_ failings regardless of sex, marital status, or partner's profession?


----------



## armyvern (25 Jul 2008)

warpig said:
			
		

> Directed at CDN Aviator.
> 
> No, SIR, you DID loose your temper. Without being qualified to speak to the facts, by the way. I was going to reply that it isn't my female genitalia that needed to be checked for sand, but you clarified that for us. Congratulations for being one of the 25% who helped insure his wife was ready, or did you meet your wife while at CFLRS, when you were both 21 years old?
> 
> ...



Congratulate his ex-wife.

*SHE's * the one who did the course and passed it. *SHE* deserves the credit for that. Just as those who fail, can credit themselves for their own lack of inititiative, insight, and preparation.

There are medical exceptions to this, of course.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

warpig said:
			
		

> Directed at CDN Aviator.
> 
> No, SIR, you DID loose your temper.



I'm a SGT so you can quit calling me sir, thanks





> Without being qualified to speak to the facts, by the way.



Having spent my time as an instructor at CFSME with QL3s, of which a few were female spouses of serving members, i think i'm more than qualified.



> or did you meet your wife while at CFLRS, when you were both 21 years old?



Far from it, we had been married for 8 years, had 2 kids and i was 27, she was 29 when she went to your fine institution.



> If you care to offer any.



Tell me what it is you want.........i'm game !



> BTW, if we ask your ex her opinion of your assessment, would it be the same as yours? Just asking.



I dont know what she thinks and to be frank, i dont care either. She has her opinions, i have mine....thats why shes my ex.


----------



## armyvern (25 Jul 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> What about an instructor cadre that's willing to provide fair and equal treatment for _all_ recruits and hold them all _equally_ responsible for their _individual_ failings regardless of sex, marital status, or partner's profession?



I was actually thinking that when I read the inititial post ...

Wouldn't I love to be a wife of a serving member going through basic and overhearing any talk/comments about "their husbands should have taught them this" coming from instructors or "didn't your husband explain to you that ..."; I'd take it as a clear signal that I could perhaps get away with being a 'lil lazier myself, perhaps even putting in an 80% effort when 110 was required, while he took the blame for it from the instructors. That 80% sure ain't going to help me pass that fitness testing though ...


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2008)

I have no idea what triggered this thread or where it's going.  But there's not much on TV tonight and there's beer in the fridge next to the computer, so I think I'll hang out online for a while.

 :brickwall:


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2008)

Sgt Warpig

So you are just as equally responsible for all of your spouse's/Life partner's successes and failures, no matter what endeavour she/he may have embarked upon?


(Please don't be insulted, as I know nothing of you; but I do know that this is now acceptable in the CF.)


----------



## armyvern (25 Jul 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I have no idea what triggered this thread or where it's going.  But there's not much on TV tonight and there's beer in the fridge next to the computer, so I think I'll hang out online for a while.
> 
> :brickwall:



Tequila works so much better; the sipping type.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> What about an instructor cadre that's willing to provide fair and equal treatment for _all_ recruits and hold them all _equally_ responsible for their _individual_ failings regardless of sex, marital status, or partner's profession?



Well, I can't speak about A and C Div, but in B Div and more specifically, 18 Platoon, that is the treatment I saw the recruits get when I was at CFLRS.  Having worked with and watched Warpig with recruits, he treated the troops the same, fairly and firmly.  Maybe we should be careful with wide brushes.

Not all the folks in the Div Instr bullpen are bad apples.  Sure I saw a few I thought needed a kick in the nuts, but you could say that about any place.


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2008)

Just a girl ... said:
			
		

> Tequila works so much better; the sipping type.



Thanks Vern.  You can SIP tequila??? Since when???


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not all the folks in the Div Instr bullpen are bad apples.



I never insinuated anything like that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I never insinuated anything like that.



I know, my comment was directed, in general and just "as a point to note" to Shamrock....


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2008)

Just a point if I may:

Happy Hour in the Mess, copious quantities of booze and the Internet don't mix well.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Vodka & Red Bull here.......

I dont go to the mess here..........it sucks. I'm one of the resons why we get lectured by the WCWO every chance he gets.


----------



## Haggis (25 Jul 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a point if I may:
> 
> Happy Hour in the Mess, copious quantities of booze and the Internet don't mix well.



If you're referring to me, George, I'm on leave.  And, so far, I'm content to sip beer (sorry Vern, no tequila in the house) and watch this train wreck of a thread develop until my DVR finishes recording "Flashpoint".


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jul 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If you're referring to me, George, I'm on leave.  And, so far, I'm content to sip beer (sorry Vern, no tequila in the house) and watch this train wreck of a thread develop until my DVR finishes recording "Flashpoint".



Actually, I was thinking of the "original rant/post".


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know, my comment was directed, in general and just "as a point to note" to Shamrock....





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak about A and C Div, but in B Div and more specifically, 18 Platoon, that is the treatment I saw the recruits get when I was at CFLRS.  Having worked with and watched Warpig with recruits, he treated the troops the same, fairly and firmly.  Maybe we should be careful with wide brushes.



Since this was directed at me, I'll directly address it.  His diatribe and blatant sabot-fingered chest-thumping trumps any anecdotal experiences you may seek to express in his favour.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Since this was directed at me, I'll directly address it.  His diatribe and blatant sabot-fingered chest-thumping trumps any anecdotal experiences you may seek to express in his favour.



I can't tell people what to hold as their own opinion.  What I can say is that I worked with him before, have watched him with recruits, and that he is not one of the 'problem' Instructors some people may encounter on BMQ, IAP or BOTP.  Thats all.  I am sure if you spoke to the recruits he has put thru up there, you'd hear good things.  I know I did after I left CFLRS from a few of them that I've bumped into.

FWIW, it was directed to you and in general, to all, but not harshly, just a point to note.   8)


----------



## RCR Grunt (25 Jul 2008)

I think the point of the Sgt's post is that a service member's spouse should show up better prepared and in better shape to take on BMQ than any other recruit, and it simply isn't happening.  The serving spouse should be doing everything in their power to prepare their other half for BMQ, from tips and tricks on inspection to physical fitness to instilling mental toughness.  Thats the least the serving spouse should be doing.  Sending a fat, lazy, mentally frail person off to BMQ with a slap on the ass and a "good frickin' luck, see you in 13 weeks ... maybe!" is NOT ON!  Recruits off the street don't do that, they are told what the standard is and its up to them to achieve it, a supportive spouse or family will help them to do that.  If they don't, if they show up unfit, unprepared, and unmotivated, they will fail as well, and their family can be just as much to blame as the service spouse's.  A service spouse on course can be a HUGE advantage to the other recruits, they know the tricks that might be pulled, they know that the instructors ranting and raving isn't personal.  They know its a game.  They know that on the course calendar, there is "scheduled c*ck."  They know that parade gloss will not destroy combat boots.  If they pass on this knowledge it can help the rest of their course mates.  

On the other side of the coin ... have you ever tried "training" your wife?  Give it a try, get your wife to run till it hurts then keep going.  Get your wife to do push-ups till her arms are jelly.  She'll tell you to beat it, and stop being so mean.  She knows you mean well, but you can't jack your wife like she's a troop.  They don't like that.  She knows the standard she has to meet, but until she actually gets trained to soldier, you can't train her like a soldier.  So, when it hurts, full stop.  When her arms are tired, full stop.  When her muscles ache, full stop.  Thats a far cry from the "do it till it hurts, then do 5 more" attitude most of us carry when it comes to PT.  It takes a long time to train someone to the standard required like that.

Once you have your spouse sent off as prepared as they can be, your job still isn't done.  You have to support them as best you can, its still a severe culture shock.  Encouragement and reassurance are required right through your spouse's QL3 training.


----------



## Franko (25 Jul 2008)

So here we have yet another instructor from St Jean bitching about service members not helping out their spouses. 

They are adults and _*most of us are gone on tour or preparing our own soldiers for battle*_ and don't have the time to hold hands never mind train their wives.

I have a few complaints as well about your world:

- not weeding problem children out before they graduate.
- allowing troops to come out of there with shaving chits in hand.
- pushing troops through because of quotas.

If you think coming here and giving anyone who is serving in a combat unit a blast of shyte and walking away scott free, you're sorely mistaken.

You may want to get rid of both your name and email address for the minions while someone here may actively sort you out through official channels. 


*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## S.Stewart (25 Jul 2008)

This may be a little crown royal induced, but I have to ask where do you get off? If I as a female wish to join the CF, wither my sig. other, spouse what have you in a serving member or not how the hell is it that persons responsibility to make sure I meet my requirements as a soldier. 

That frankly is f-ing insulting as a female, that you apparently expect that my sig. other should hold my hand and spoon feed me. I am a civvy for the time being by way, and I suspect that will stay that way for awhile. But if I so chose to join the Canadian Forces, I would be doing so on my own will, and merit. Therefore it would be my responsibility to educate myself, and get myself up to standards, not my sig. other. His career would be his responsibility and mine would be my own. 

I sure as well wouldn't want my sig other meddling with my civvy career, if I ever caught him on a site telling me how I should and shouldn't approach a problem, or how I should prep for something differently I would more than likely tear him and new one, he would leave bleeding.

You have some chip on your shoulders, and I don't know where in Hades it came from, but this is no place for it, and insulting service members who are male, who frankly may or may not have their female counterpart in the Canadian Forces as well is disgusting, way to be professional. 

If it's because someone didn't help with you with your training and you think they should have then get over it, you evidently got through it anyway, what do you want from the rest of us a gold star? 

Thus is my two cents, now back to my Crown, and my geotech report.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2008)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> If you think coming here and giving *anyone who is serving in a combat unit * a blast of shyte and walking away scott free, you're sorely mistaken.



....Or ANY unit for that matter.


----------



## warpig (25 Jul 2008)

I agree with everyone who, using their own brand of flare, stated that once a recruit arrives at CFLRS, they are fully responsible to pass the course on their own. Of course that's the case, and nobody would argue otherwise, though some here seem to think that was the focus.

The facts here are simple: English Service Member's wives fail their first BMQ by a large percentage of total entering. Again, there are no definitive stats kept but it is my professional opinion that they fail as a group far more often than most other demographic groups. 

What I think people here failed to appreciate is that member's wives are in the unique position of having every advantage to be prepared. That would include PSP testing and access to excellent facilities and personalized training programs at a fraction of the cost civilians would face. That would also include access to newly graduated CF members for honest opinions, tips and advice, as well as professional advice from Cadres and past Instructors. My point is that despite all this, most Svc mbr's wives fail.

Agreed, the women should have been better prepared.

However, most of you ignored the role a husband so advantageously positioned should be obligated to fill. You ignored my point that this costs the CF far too much money and we loose people we need who would otherwise have passed. Or did I miss your detailed critique of these points? No, I didn't think I did. 

To the Aviation Sgt with lots of game but no apparent effort to actually put up the facts to back himself up, think about the money lost that would have kept you productive by flying in a forces aircraft and away from wasting your time at a computer terminal during this debate! If at this time you would actually care to place a factual argument on the forum, do so. If your sole expertise and experience is that one wife you know of who passed the course, it can hardly be considered more than opinion based on a single example. While I am talking about hundreds of examples at the source of the problem.

To Mr Wallace, baring hyperbole, don't you think that a Svc Mbr would in fact have some responsibility to insure his wife arrived at her course prepared? Would you describe as excellent Forces material any CF member who would simply shrug off his wife's chance to get into the forces as just another Tupperware gimmick? Do you honestly think that represents the kind of professionalism we would like to work with? Would you consider a coworker so disinterested to be the kind of guy you would populate the Forces with if given a chance? Just asking, as perhaps you mistook my point to be a blanket attack on married life in the Forces, which it is not. This is a specific point about certain recruits and not a general point on the difficulties of marriage. 

Look, this is a problem that shouldn't be there. Svc Mbr's wives should fail at the same rate the average person fails. Not in numbers vastly greater. I certainly don't disagree with everyone when the bottom line is individual accountability, but time and money IS being waisted. One solution is for Service Member husbands to be more proactive in aiding their wives. Hey, it's not MY wife who's sitting on Pat Platoon while the hubby is managing two kids and a career by himself for 18 months, now is it? Do you like paying his wife to sit on Pat that long? I've heard your opinions and over a beer we would probably agree more than disagree. But if you've no solutions other than "suck it up buttercup",  I think the future husbands facing this problem have heard all you got to offer.


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Jul 2008)

Are there really that many "service couples" out there? How many divorce once the more junior of the two is in the training system? I bet lots  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jul 2008)

warpig said:
			
		

> think about the money lost that would have kept you productive by flying in a forces aircraft and away from wasting your time at a computer terminal during this debate!



What i do on my time off is a matter of concern to you now ?

My flying schedule is full so what i do in my home on my own time is none of your damned buisness.

My experience with this goes beyond a single wife buddy, i've instructed those who "pass" CFLRS. Anyone who goes to BMQ is responsible for their own state of fitness not the other spouse / parent / pet.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jul 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Are there really that many "service couples" out there? How many divorce once the more junior of the two is in the training system? I bet lots  ;D



Well, of my current 43 subordinates ... I have 14 who are a half of a "married service couple." ALL of my Sgts and MCpls are. <--- that's 6. The other 8 ... 3 are female Pte's between the ages of 28-35. No hooks at that. So they've gone through in the past couple years ... apparently 'intact'.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2008)

Warpig

Well!  I'm calling BS.

The CF does keep very strict records of its Training systems, and I am positive that your stats are totally out to lunch.  They are your opinion, and your opinion only.

Try looking up the stats for Female Failure Rates that are kept and then argue your point.  Until then, it is only opinion.  

As for Civilian Females arriving more prepared than Military Wives who have all the assets at their finger tips, then it still boils down to the individual and the tools they have chosen to use to prepare for BMQ.  Do Civilian husbands do such a better job than military husbands in preparing their wives for BMQ?  I highly doubt it.  It is the Woman who is preparing.  

You and RCR Grunt have said so in your own posts, and then flip flopped to blame the Service Members for dropping the ball.  Sorry.  I have to call BS to your insinuations and blanket statements.


----------



## rcrgruntsgirl (26 Jul 2008)

I agree with what warpig has to say, having my husband in the military before me I feel gave me an advantage when I left for bmq. I definitely feel I was more prepared than the average person. Not to say that I didn't have my ups and downs, that is to be expected, but having someone at home who knows what you are going thru was a huge advantage. I saw wives who's husbands didn't prepare them and weren't supportive of their decision to join, and that had a tremendous effect on their performance during bmq and the stresses that they went thru. It's never going to be easy, but at least being prepared will make it go a little better and make you be a better soldier. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## S.Stewart (26 Jul 2008)

Money apparently lost is a poor excuse, there can't be that many service couple in ratio to the other recruits that come through the system. Single people fall all the time, and I would imagine cost the CF money as well, because they are not prepared properly. 

I'm a baby engineer and like numbers, so let's crunch some, you equate failure with costing the CF money, okay I can understand that. But who really cares, you end up with a course where you have lets say 3 females who are whose sig. others are CF members, and they all get prepared properly, but you still have 6 single recruits who didn't prep properly and fail out, they are gonna cost the CF just as much if not more, thus CF funds down the drain, failure is just that, who they are married to is insignificant.


----------



## armyvern (26 Jul 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Thanks Vern.  You can SIP tequila??? Since when???



Perhaps you misunderstood me. I certainly DO NOT sip tequila, but, so they say, sipping tequila doesn't cause hangovers ... so I just figured I'd recommend it for you tonight as *you * sit watching the dust settle down.  >


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (26 Jul 2008)

OK all - back to corners please.

Locked  for a cooling-off period, will be unlocked tomorrow.

I have no dog in this fight and I see no good coming of continuing this thread at its present course and speed.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (27 Jul 2008)

Unlocked in case there is any more relevant discussion on this item.


----------



## dirtnco (27 Jul 2008)

By all thats alive and holy Lorne, I thought I knew how to properly poke the tiger in the eye but you my friend, well this is impressive. I bow to your courage. 
Having worked a stint at CFLRS all I can say is I'll stick to the Meaford School for Misguided Youth , as you know we go through many of the same problems as you in the RS . Take care say Hi to the wive and kids and remember its not how well you play the game but that you don't get caught cheating.

Stew


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (27 Jul 2008)

Why does personal responsibility suddenly go out the window when the person involved is a woman? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it has nothing to do with their husbands but their own attitudes? I would be pretty insulted if you told me I failed because my dad (or anyone else for that matter) failed to hold my hand. I'm a woman, not a child. 

I may not have a dick, but I assure you I have balls. I know how to be responsible for myself. I may not know exactly what to expect, but I know how to read. You see, at the recruitment office, they hand out this booklet that gives you a guideline on how to prepare yourself. There are many resources on the internet. You should know this. 

If I fail, its my fault, not my dad's, not my boyfriend's, not anyones. It's mine.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jul 2008)

warpig said:
			
		

> *English Service Member's wives* fail their first BMQ by a large percentage of total entering.



Wow, triple discrimination!



			
				warpig said:
			
		

> What I think people here failed to appreciate is that member's wives are in the unique position of having every advantage to be prepared. That would include PSP testing and access to excellent facilities and personalized training programs at a fraction of the cost civilians would face.



You're telling me that PSP will do PT testing for civilians?  First I've ever heard of that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2008)

Hands up every married soldier who ever said to his/her wife/husband/ life partner " Maybe you should give Dr Phil a miss today and go for a run instead."  Okay, now hands up all the ones that got a hot supper and a warm bed for the next few nights.


----------



## newmet (28 Jul 2008)

Wow, and here I was hoping for something to help with the garlic indigestion and help put me to sleep.  Didn't find it, so here I go wading into the mire of...whatever people want to call this...

Warpig...I can sort of see your point.  My husband is in the military and has been for 18 years now, we have been married for over 11 years, have two children.  In December of 2006, I decided to sign up for the military.  I started running, taking care of myself and then got a full time job while I was waiting, after being freshly posted, it is always hard to find a new job.  So, of course, the running and joining the military took a back seat to life, husband away on training, kids to run around with and a full time job.  So, when I finally got my call, almost a year after signing up I was somewhat in shape, I thought, and well prepared for the mental part of course.  I expected the yelling, the c^ck and the rest of the crappy stuff that comes from the  beginning of BMQ.  I got to St. Jean and boy did I fail my express test, OK, I didn't fail too horribly but then you consider that the minimum standard really isn't that high, it was a hard pill to swallow.  You don't know what you're getting into physically until you try it and if my husband had warned me I wouldn't have understood or believed the shape I should have been in.  I really thought I would be alright on BMQ, hard lesson that I had to learn myself.  Yes, I am one of the ones you spoke about, I ended up on RFT.  There was no darn way I was quitting though.  I climbed the 203 steps, 6 - 8 times a day with all of my kit, as on RFT you do not have lockers on the bottom floor.  I finally got all of my push ups, exempted my express test, with stress fractures on my left foot no less.  Then, I went on to platoon and graduated BMQ almost 6 months after I originally got there.   I left home last November and graduated in May of this year.  At no point did I think, "my husband should have looked into this, done that for me or anything else", I was just happy he still picked up the phone to listen to me whimper at night.    At night, on the phone with my husband, was the only time I allowed myself to really whine and wonder if I could get through it.  He always knew what to say to get me through, anything from "Suck it up, Private" (boy did he enjoy that), to encouraging me the old fashioned way.  I also never thought "poor me, I came ill prepared and it's my husband's fault".     

To add to some of your numbers, there were two of us on my original platoon, out of 7 women, who were married to army, I failed the pt test and ended up on RFT, she passed and completed course, now happily divorced, maybe that had a part to play, there were also 50 some men, over 20 of them left the course through, RFT, VR, injury or stupidity.  On my second and final platoon I was the only one married to the military, out of 8 women.  On my RFT course, there were 2 of us married to military, out of 8 women and 30 some men, we ended up on sister platoons and she graduated as well.  The majority of my RFT course were males, 18-25 yrs old we lost 2 women to injury, 1 VRed and we lost approximatly 15 men due to medical, VR, or failing the express test.  I don't know what that shows you in relation to your stats.  On the RFT course after mine, 2 were married to military, and they have both passed.

As for the testing by PSP staff, here in Greenwood, you can not utilize PSP until you have signed the dotted line and civilians are not authorized to use the gym to run the shuttle test.  They are afraid you may get injured, I guess.  As for my pushups, I had 15 push ups but not the the standard of St. Jean.  There is normally very little time between signing your papers and heading to St. Jean.

Here is my point though, I listened my my husband, I listened to my Dad (army for 20 years), I listened to my grandfather (who took a real sh&Ty trip into Germany), my neighbours (more military) and I made the conscious decision that I would be alright on BMQ physically.  Did my hubby know I wouldn't make it through my pt test, I don't know and I won't ask him.  Did he encourage me anyway, absolutely!  If, on one of our runs, he had told me to speed up or run further, I probably would have told him where to go, because at that point I thought I was doing my best.  At that point I probably was.   I was in a pretty good place though to help give advice on how to iron, polish boots, etc.  So, here's my story...I chose to believe that I would be OK, physically, for BMQ.  I was wrong.  I ended up on RFT for 3 months and do not consider a moment of that time a waste, if I could do it over again though, I would definitely go in better shape and bypass RFT, it was a HARD program and that extra time away from the kids almost did me in.  I got injured on RFT, chose not to tell my staff how bad my injury was and suffer through, so to not end up on PAT platoon.  I exempted my pt test and ended up on platoon.  I graduated platoon and came home 50 lbs lighter and a whole lot more confident in myself and very proud of myself.  

Do you see the common element?  I, I, I.  I chose, I failed, I worked my @$$ off and I passed.  My husband did everything that I asked of him: to encourage me; to believe in me, that I would finish; to put his career on hold so I could do what I really wanted; to take care of our kids and leave me with the peace of mind that everything was OK at home; and, to let me cry to him on the phone when I just wanted to be home and cuddling with my kids and him.   

Do some military members let their wives go and really don't care of their success?  I am sure there are, are there others who are married to stubborn women who won't listen?  I know there is.  Are there others who send their wives off well prepared and they still do not complete BMQ?  Yes.  My success or failures really have nothing to do with my husband and everything to do with me.  Are my successes sweeter because I have someone standing behind me, absolutely.  Can I push myself further because I know he's there and he loves me, yes.  It is the same for other women, married to military or not?  I am sure it is.  Different women have different support, married to military or not.  The success or failure rates of women, married to military or not, really has no bearing on the man or shouldn't.  We are grown women and able to investigate things for ourselves.  I  am sure you know this one... Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance (we heard that a lot from our staff), I now really know what it means.  

So, thank you for your concern for the spouses of military members.  I don't want to get confrontational in my post, I am just stating my opinions as I see them, now that I am out of the Mega I am allowed to have an opinion again    I hope your next bunch of recruits, all of them, come fully prepared for what they are embarking; however, we all know that they won't.  Some won't like the structure, the yelling, the demoralizing, the pt, etc.  Keep doing a good job there though and try to instill in them what we all need to know.  Never give up, try your best, never pass the buck, never say never and don't let someone else get blamed for what you did (even though you all suffer for it there).  All the other things too, don't point your rifle at anyone, don't take your C7 home for show and tell, etc.  I now ramble, I apologize.  Take care.

Editted to actually perform a spell check and add a couple sentences to hopefully make more sense.  This will teach me to write at 1:30 in the morning.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Jul 2008)

Excellent post, newmet


----------



## medaid (28 Jul 2008)

This has been most amusing.


----------



## Celticgirl (28 Jul 2008)

I am engaged to a "service member" and hoping to get on one of the next basic officer courses. I started working out in January to reach my fitness goals, but didn't actually apply until late February. (Incidentally, I researched online "all by myself" and found out what standards I had to meet and exceed to be successful.) In the beginning, my fiance would encourage me to "step up" my workouts and remind me to keep doing push-ups, sit-ups, etc. When he saw that I was getting results, he backed off and let me do my thing - which he could have done in the beginning because I am just as determined as any soldier wannabe out there. These days, he won't even run with me because he's afraid of being eaten by the bear. 

Our partners are NOT responsible for our actions. They are NOT responsible for us passing or failing BMQ/BMOQ. The onus is on US to know the standards and to be prepared. The information is out there for _anyone _ who looks for it. The potential to get in shape exists for all Canadians. There are no excuses! Blaming our partners/spouses is an excuse and a lame one at that. To tell you the truth, I've found that I could get information more quickly by doing a search on army.ca than by asking my fiance for the information (and this _is _ his job). Personal responsibility has to be taken by any recruit or officer candidate.

The extent of the advice my fiance has given me with regards to basic training is this little tidbit: "The instructors are going to push you and see what you are made of. Just take what they dish out and get through it." That's it. He knows, and I know, that ultimately, it is all up to me.

I certainly hope that the majority of instructors do not feel the way the OP does, but if they do, I guess I'll have to be just one more person to prove them wrong.


----------



## exgunnertdo (28 Jul 2008)

I wanted to point out a statistical concept - correlation vice causation.

What the original poster has noted is correlation.  That does not necessarily imply causation.

He has noticed that (in his opinion) a large number of wives of service members are unfit upon arrival at CFLRS (correlation).  Other female recruits are not as unfit.  That doesn't automatically mean that being married to a service member is the cause of the lack of fitness (causation).

Let's look at some other random observations re females joining the military.

1)  Females are more visible - the leadership and casual observers notice the females, the males just all blend in.  It's a fact of life when dealing with a minority.  The guy fails, he's just another failure, the girl fails, everyone notes that the girl failed.

2)  In my experience, women who join the military later in life tend to be spouses of service members.  Possible reasons - they've seen their husbands' careers and become interested, finding a civi job on every posting has become stressful.  I would think that if a woman in a similar point in life (after the kids are in school, for example), but not married to a service member, wanted to join the RegF, that would be  a harder sell, hence you will see fewer "later in life" female recruits who are married to civilians.  But for reasons deeply embedded in our construct of family and society, a man who wants to pursue a career in the military later in life will have less of a struggle selling that to his family (not saying it's right, but society is what it is!)

3)  Follow-on from #2 - therefore, the "single" female recruits are likely younger, as a group, and the "married to a civilian" female recruits are few and far between.  The "single" group, being younger and likely no kids, will have an easier time with the fitness.  The "married to a civilian" group doesn't catch the attention of the staff as much as the "married to a service member" group, so they either pass or fail and no one notices, plus they are fewer in numbers, so the numbers don't accumulate the same way.

Just some other generalizations - and I realize they are generalizations!!!  But the original topic was a huge generalization too!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jul 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> The extent of the advice my fiance has given me with regards to basic training is this little tidbit: "The instructors are going to push you and see what you are made of. Just take what they dish out and get through it." That's it. He knows, and I know, that ultimately, it is all up to me.



If I may, I will add this advice, that applies, IMHO, to any and all situation in training, after training in your first unit, and up to your last posting before you retire.

1.  Do what you're told, when you are told, how you are told.  
2.  Lead when you are supposed to lead, follow when you are supposed to follow.    
3.  When leading, remember the 3Ms.  The Mission, the Men, then Myself.
4.  Do all of those 101%, 100% of the time you are able to.

And, this is a little speech I used to give at the beginning of all BMQ and QL3 courses I had the privilege to instruct on between 1993-2007.

"One of the things that you will get the concept of during this course is that of teamwork.  Teamwork and selflessness go hand in hand in the army.  Now, there are 2 ways you can go thru this course.  The first way, you could look after your a** and your a** only.  This is not teamwork, and you WILL see how this will lead to failure...in the field, during PT, on inspections etc and so on.  The second way, you could look after everyone's a** EXCEPT your own.  That means you would have "X" sets of eyes covering your a**.  Each and every one of you, "X" people looking out for you.  You will learn to trust the person next to you, that they WILL cover your ass.  Those are your 2 options;  you decide which one you think is better. (pause) And if you don't think the second way is the better way, well, that's why I am here."


----------



## Celticgirl (30 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I may, I will add this advice, that applies, IMHO, to any and all situation in training, after training in your first unit, and up to your last posting before you retire.
> 
> 1.  Do what you're told, when you are told, how you are told.
> 2.  Lead when you are supposed to lead, follow when you are supposed to follow.
> ...



Excellent. I shall remember these nuggets of wisdom when the time comes.


----------

