# Experience differences between training women and men



## mellian (5 May 2009)

The other weekend during an after-party after a tournament, a coach mentioned how different it is to train women in comparison to men. He summarized that most men responds better to humiliation and confrontation, while most women responds better to communication and validation. Another coach agree, a long with some fellow derby players. 

There are of course exceptions, that it is probably mainly a result of how men and women are raised within our society, and there is of course differences between sport and military training. Hence posting the question to maybe start up a discussion on whether that assertion holds any truth in a military training context in terms of the experiences of the training, not differences in training base on gender.

I apologize ahead of time if this is the wrong forum to post this...


----------



## ltmaverick25 (5 May 2009)

I couldnt tell you if the same holds true for military training or not.  But either way it is irrelevent.  It would be unaceptable to treat men and women differently.  Aside from the express test, men and women have to acheive the exact same standards.  It could also be viewed as favortism and/or harrassment if the way women were treated/approached with reference to their deficiencies were different from how men were treated.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 May 2009)

I can tell you from my personal experience, when I went through basic in Cornwallis, the females were made do everything (PT excluded) better than the males, just so they'd have nothing to pick us up on.  In retrospect, it just made the women look better, which we were.


----------



## mellian (5 May 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I couldnt tell you if the same holds true for military training or not.  But either way it is irrelevent.  It would be unaceptable to treat men and women differently.  Aside from the express test, men and women have to acheive the exact same standards.  It could also be viewed as favortism and/or harrassment if the way women were treated/approached with reference to their deficiencies were different from how men were treated.



I agree, but the question is the differences on how the women and men are responding to the same training standard, not that training should be different. As in, the training goal is the same, but how one approaches it may be different. Is, from experience, 'buttons' different to encourage motivation, confidence, and such? For one person, best result is to poke at them in a way that they need to prove to themselves, others need some degree of validation for them to keep going, etc...


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 May 2009)

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but if your general idea of _"[poking at trainees] in a way that they need to prove to themselves"_ includes tactics of _"humiliation and confrontation"_, then you don't have any idea of how the military conducts training.  Your coach's Neanderthal tactics were retired by the CF some years ago.


----------



## mellian (5 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you're going with this, but if your general idea of _"[poking at trainees] in a way that they need to prove to themselves"_ includes tactics of _"humiliation and confrontation"_, then you don't have any idea of how the military conducts training.  Your coach's Neanderthal tactics were retired by the CF some years ago.



Not best of examples, they were summaries and not meant in literal black and white exaggerated manner I am sure, and of course I do not know until I go through training myself hence the attempt to start a discussion here.

The question is in regards to the resulting experiences from both women and men to the same training standard, whatever that may be in the CF. The training standard as a theory is one thing, and how it is applied is another, a long with the result. We are as human beings individuals, so the resulting experiences would vary person to person, especially if each have different backgrounds and social conditioning.  So some is bound to fall into the cracks if only one approach to the same training standard is used, or even the same approach to leadership is used in an unit. The approach is bound to be adapted to those individuals to get the best result possible out of them than leaving them behind, all according to the same standard still. May still not work for some, hence those who flunk out training, but the adaptations remain. 

From everything I have read on this forum and elsewhere, CF do use different approaches for different people in terms of training, like for example having a PT focus platoon at basic for those who have not quite made physical requirements until they do achieve it, or completely flunk it still. Approaches may change for the other way around to, if some have higher potential in certain skill and such than average that should be further encouraged.

Probably still end up not being clear enough in what I am asking due to lack of specific personal experiences to reference to apart from maybe a team sport and work related teams which I know are quite different contexts. This is more of intellectual curiousity than anything, and thinking more about the military again lately.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 May 2009)

You are imagining a far more complicated and expensive system (especially in terms of resources and instructional personnel) than the CF can afford to operate. RFT was an experiment to address a demographic fitness trend, not a personalized program for individuals.

Courses in the CF are staffed at a basic level to run the instruction in the time allocated.  Training is set at a level at which an average candidate should pass without undue effort and a marginal candidate should pass if they apply themselves.  There's little time for extra individual instruction or coaching, though some dedicated staff find that time for deserving candidates on top of the already full schedules. (That, however, is a personal contribution by the staff member, not a resource that can be expected or requested.)

There's no additional "streaming" during training at basic or trade schools for those who show special aptitudes.  If they are deserving (overall potential, not just single skill aptitudes), they'll get the rewards of that through advancement slightly ahead of their peers or additional training opportunities through being selected by their unit chain of command after they have demonstrated their suitability and skills within a unit.

No-one's going to say _"Oh look, Private Bloggins' push-up technique is excellent, let's send him down to the Push-Up Clinic for extra coaching, it won't matter if he misses a few lessons on the rifle."_


----------



## mellian (5 May 2009)

Okay, point taken about the training and how it is generally. The question remains about about the resulting trainee experiences to the training, whether the assertion I mentioned in the original post holds any truth. Is there a difference in how women and men each responds to the training, at least if it has been noticed at all. When I say women and men, I meant it in terms of gender that has been socially conditioned to the individuals by society since birth, not the sex between the legs or chromosomes or physical differences which can factor into the social conditioning. Not a question about the training itself, and not some kind of essentialist argument that the training standards should be different according to gender or/and sex lines.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 May 2009)

I've spent quite a bit of time as an instructor, and yes people respond differently to the trg.  But to cover the gazillion possible factors that result in the individuals experience would be next to impossible IMO.

I've put quite a few mbr's thru courses, on FTX, etc.  You'd be surprised at how a mother of 2, while on a field ex, can hold up mentally better than an 18 year old male who really hasn't expierenced "life stress" before.

I wouldn't say there is a definite difference in "men and women due to social conditioning"...rather it is an individual response based on individual personalities, histories, strengths and weaknesses.  Part of the initial trg is to form people from "individuals only (if that is the case)" to "individuals who are now part of a team serving their country in the profession of arms".

Some of that you will see if/when you do BMQ and further trg, etc.

*editted for PEI english*


----------



## ltmaverick25 (5 May 2009)

You are looking for an academic discussion centered on the recognition of individuality.  And while it is true that everyone is an individual and therefore will respond differently to different scenarios, the military isnt built to work that way.  Individuality is frowned upon especially in your BMQ or BOMQ courses.  When you go through military indoctrination they try to make you the same as everyone else.  It obviously does not eliminate individuality, but, it also does not cater to it either.  You dress the same, lay out your kit the same, fill your pockets the same ect...

You may very well be right about women and men responding differently but I am not qualified to talk about that.  I know how I respond, but ill be damned if I understand anything about women in any capacity!!!!  ;D

I personally have never responded well to the yelling/screaming method and I have been subjected to it more times then I can remember especially in the earlier part of my career.  I do however respond much better to the approach you outlined as working best for women, yet im not a girl, and all of my Xs can attest to the fact that I am not "in touch with my feminine side"....

I guess to answer simply, I dont think that you can generalize an approach based on sex.  It is very much individualized but the military does not accomodate such things.  Furthermore, I think if you want to find "truths" to the types of questions that I think your asking - "how do people respond to different training methods"?  I think you need to study society.  You will probably find more answers by studying the way society has evolved in Canada, and therefore, how people, not women and men per se, respond to different forms of "poking".


----------



## mellian (6 May 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> You are looking for an academic discussion centered on the recognition of individuality.




In part, but the question more about noticeble differences from how women and men, in general, responds to the training. 



> I guess to answer simply, I dont think that you can generalize an approach based on sex.  It is very much individualized but the military does not accomodate such things.  Furthermore, I think if you want to find "truths" to the types of questions that I think your asking - "how do people respond to different training methods"?  I think you need to study society.  You will probably find more answers by studying the way society has evolved in Canada, and therefore, how people, not women and men per se, respond to different forms of "poking".



Not questioning the training methods, wondering only about noticeble results. "Women" and "Men" are socially conditioned genders, which varies era to era, country to country, culture to culture. Already is noticeble differences on how women and men act, behave, and live differentely, as society is responsible for enforcing these differences for a very long time. Well that is gradually changing as 'gender equality' continues to be pushed for and in turn pursued, and these changes are resulting in interesting changes, and societal/cultural behaviours among women. 

More women joining sports, politics, military, and other areas originally tradionally belonged to men, and those institutions gradually evolving and changing to accommodate, even if it is taking decades and generations. At first women had to adapt to how men does things in these fields, then started to change how things are done in general, and now becoming more 'gender equal' and 'gender blind', with women going up and men down, meeting in the middle somewhere.  

Until these becoming society wide and the norm across the board, people are still placed into distinct set catagories of 'women' and 'men' according to what is between their legs, chromosomes, appearance, etc, each having set 'scripts' on how to behave, act, their roles, what sort of clothes to wear, behaviours, etc. 

Canadian Forces adapted to these changes, by being gender equal and gender blind as much as possible, trying to avoid dwelling to much into the whole 'women' and 'men' gender stuff, focusing instead in its mission and mandate, yet still have to deal with due to rest of society still maintaining these catagories and differences. 

Question is the noticeble differences of how women and men are responding to one set training standard, as there bound to be despite the exceptions. Then once notice, keeping track of the trend provides a sign on whether all this gender stuff starting to matter less and less as times goes on. 

Okay, I think I need to go to sleep now...


----------



## Harley Sailor (7 May 2009)

What an interesting topic

First off Mr. O'Leary Neanderthal Tactics have not been retired retired by the CF Yet.  Some of us still use them.  But then they are retiring me in tow months so that might be what you mean.

During the past five years I have been sent on a number of courses trying to improve my teaching skills (but unfortunately no people skills courses).  From these I have had my eyes opened to a number of different way to instruct.  I find that Mellian is quite correct. Men and women do respond to different Techniques.  Also different education levels also respond differently.  The greater the education the more we have had to handle then with kid gloves.


----------



## Antoine (8 May 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> The greater the education the more we have had to handle then with kid gloves.



Yes, they are found in the civilian work force too, and many of them sit in the board of directors....  :

Sorry, I am a bit off topic.

It must be difficult to normalize men and women in training but it makes sense for military life. However, as a teacher assistant at the university level, I can say it is not easy to apply.


----------



## Strike (8 May 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> ... The greater the education the more we have had to handle then with kid gloves.



Read: The higher the education of the student/candidate the less likely they will believe the BS.

It's a test of our own abilities as instructors/mentors to be able to adjust our teaching styles so we can get the best out of our people.


----------



## Harley Sailor (8 May 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> Read: The higher the education of the student/candidate the less likely they will believe the BS.
> 
> It's a test of our own abilities as instructors/mentors to be able to adjust our teaching styles so we can get the best out of our people.



I think less has to do with believing the BS and more to do with "why".  Like women, higher educated men are not happy with "this is how we do it", they want to know the "why, we do it that way".


----------



## Antoine (8 May 2009)

I have never been able to answer a "why" question without questioning my own knowledge to give an answer close enough to the reality of things. I found the 'how' question challenging to answer but generally easier depending, of course, on the topic.

During basic military training, is it more efficient to teach the 'how' first, and later on the 'why' can come ? Is it more efficient to give a mixture of both 'why' and 'how'?

I will probably be the first to ask myself: 'why'  

However, I'll keep in mind that "It's a test of our own abilities as instructors/mentors to be able to adjust our teaching styles so we can get the best out of our people." as Strike said, I 100% agree and I forget it too often.

edited for the english


----------



## c_canuk (13 May 2009)

speaking for myself

I learn better when the "Why" is included. I'm not good at memorization, but if I can construct a working model in my head, the "How" of something becomes common sense. 

I've at times encountered people who don't want to get into the "Why" because they learn better by memorization and have forgotten the "Why" or never learned it in the first place. 

I don't buy the learn "How" now and "Why" later because if you know why something is done, it allows you to adapt and fix the How when it doesn't work the way is should.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 May 2009)

Antoine said:
			
		

> I have never been able to answer a "why" question without questioning my own knowledge to give an answer close enough to the reality of things. I found the 'how' question challenging to answer but generally easier depending, of course, on the topic.
> 
> During basic military training, is it more efficient to teach the 'how' first, and later on the 'why' can come ? Is it more efficient to give a mixture of both 'why' and 'how'?
> 
> ...



IMO, it is first essential to teach trainee's that following a lawful command is part of their duty, whether they know why, or not.  They need to get the point loud and clear that an order is an order and WILL be followed, whether they know why or not.  Period.

In most of our trg, I believe we include the "why" without noticing it.  Every lesson plan I ever laid my hands on covered "what you will be learning, why it is important, where you can expect to apply it" type statements and it was part of the ICEPAC you were formally/informally assessed on as an instructor.

For other subjects, including the why is simple and can help with a trainees motivation to the task/subject.  Lets use kit and quarters as the example.  Some trainees/recruits wonder why making a bed 'to the standard' is important.  When it is explained to them that it teaches them to pay attention to detail, and that attention to detail is required from them before they start doing other things that attention to detail is IMPORTANT in (I always used weapons handling and drills on BMQs as my *link*), they can then start to see the method to the madness.

Good NCOs will also teach recruits when asking why is ok, and when it is not ok.


----------



## Harley Sailor (14 May 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO, it is first essential to teach trainee's that following a lawful command is part of their duty, whether they know why, or not.  They need to get the point loud and clear that an order is an order and WILL be followed, whether they know why or not.  Period.


I so do agree.  When I ask to have the rocks moved over behind the building, I expect it to be done with out all the "Whys".  Some times it is because I need them there.  Other times it is because I need to give them something to do.  But most important to me is that I done need trainees questioning my decisions.


----------



## Xiang (14 May 2009)

> The greater the education the more we have had to handle then with kid gloves.



This is because it is the new Army.  Most people don't understand the term "new Army".  Instructors get directives from standards not to do this, and not to do that to candidates, and the instructors (mostly the old ones) will mutter under their breath "well back in my day...yadda yadda"

That doesn't apply today.  Back in your day, the average Infantry grunt was lucky to have any high school education.  Today, a lot of the grunts have college/university educations.  

You can't stand there and smack around a guy who, if he left the Army, will make a 6 figure salary with his education.  You can't treat people bad, spit on them, smack them in the head, kick them in the back, or any of that good stuff instructors did "back in your day".

You aren't training uneducated, ignorant members of society.  You are training smart, educated individuals, so the training doctrine should be adjusted accordingly.

Besides, smacking people around doesn't make a good soldier.  I have instructed, and had instructors who put the fear of god in candidates using nothing more than a straight face and a sharp, direct talking to.


----------



## aesop081 (14 May 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> Today, a lot of the grunts have college/university educations.



This is true.



> You aren't training uneducated,



You would be surprised.



> ignorant members of society.



Generaly speaking this istrue, however, in my experience, there are many who fit this description and they consume the majority of staff time and effort.



> You are training smart, educated individuals,



"smart" and "educated" are not always found together. I instructed many educated people who couldnt figure out whcich end of the shovel to use.

The trouble with the "new army" , IMHO, is that it has not delivered on its promises.


----------



## Antoine (14 May 2009)

I am still a civilian, not yet in the military, so I'll be off topic if I comment on the why/how male/female during the military training, and I realized that my previous post about the 'why' was off topic, it was more related to training in academia.

However, if I get in CF, I am not expecting to be treated as a golden boy because I could do $$$$$ more in a civilian job with my education level. Neither, I am expecting a "Why" explanation each time an order is given. It is going to be challenging but hopefully I'll relay on my instructor experience to decide if a "Why" will follow or not an order and maybe a "how". And if I don't like it, they and me will come to the release agreement (hopefully, the honorable discharge one  ). However, it is not up to me to decide what kind of candidate the CF is looking for.

But, on the civilian street, as a Canadian, I WILL NEVER TOLORATE THAT SOMEONE IS BADLY TREATED ONLY BECAUSE HE/SHE IS POOR AND/OR HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN DOING A CRAPPY JOB. I STRONGLY STAND AGAINST THIS WAY OF THINKING. However, without sarcasm, I might have misunderstood one of the previous posts, I apologize in advance if it was not the message delivered by the post.

And, to finish, we have (I do for sure) so many examples (recent ones in the financial, economical field and daily examples in the academia and government world) of people highly educated, but particularly not smart, having no common sense and so on....How did they reach their position of power if not smart? I have a couple of unpolitical correct answers that I am sure I don't need to list here.

Cheers


----------



## Cleared Hot (15 May 2009)

I think the OPs question is an outstanding one for anyone seriously concerned with training / educating within the CF.  It doesn't speak to differing standards (as some have suggested) however, it does question how individual people are motivated to achieve those standards.  The first issue that is being overlooked here in subsequent responses is the difference between training and teaching.  Training is a much less intellectual endeavour than teaching and requires more drills and far less "why".  The further you go through the system the more you shift the focus to "why".  It only makes sense that a student on a small arms instructor course should be asking "why" much more than a student on BMQ.  Like it or not, at the basic level we are looking for obedience, not free thinkers.  The second piece that is being overlooked is a basic understanding of the concept of the "adult learner".  An adult learner is not defined by age but by experience, knowledge, maturity etc.  A 17 year old kid who lost a parent and had to raise his siblings because the other was a drunk may be more of an "adult learner" than the 30 year old who never left his parent's basement.  Being able to identify what motivates students and tailor instruction to that will maximize individual performance.  So if there are generalities between men and women please share.  For example, some countries specifically use female instructors because they feel men will push themselves harder so as to not look weak in front of a woman and also that there is a certain amount of "well if she can do it..." attitude.  This doesn't always work in every country because let's say you are a female Canadian officer tasked as part of the OMLT to mentor an Afghan Coy OC.  Well, let's just say that your opinion may not carry a lot of weight.

It is true that generally speaking resources for courses are maxed out and there is not always a lot of scope for instructors to cater to individuals too much, especially at the basic level, however, I have been fortunate to do most of my instructing at the officer and Sr NCM levels so there is a bit more opportunity to do so.  For example, in the field when students are not "in the breach" I like to pull them aside individually or in small groups and either review info that I know they may be struggling with, or if they are stronger students, introduce them to new concepts or methods that may not be in the TP but that I know they could benefit from.

In the end to answer the OPs question I haven't seen a lot of solid differences that are universally and solely gender based but get to know what motivates individuals in general.  i.e. are they hands on - do they learn by doing?  Are they visual - do they learn by watching?  Do they excel performing in front of a group or are they happy to quietly take it in in the background?  Are they leaders or followers?  Do they need demonstrations or do they do better when allowed to figure things out for themselves?  Obviously not all of these are acceptable for every course or task but where things can be adapted try and accommodate it and you will have much better results with your students male or female?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> This is because it is the new Army.  Most people don't understand the term "new Army".



What does the term 'new army' mean to you then, comparing the way training is conducted/delivered now from when you got in?  (not a sarcastic question, meant seriously.  I am curious to see what people think the differences really are now)



> Instructors get directives from standards not to do this, and not to do that to candidates, and the instructors (mostly the old ones) will mutter under their breath "well back in my day...yadda yadda"



Agreed to a point, however, in the defence of the 'old school' types, they probably have seen the benefits of some of the 'old ways' and see something missing from the current ways.  First example that comes to my mind comes from the Defensive ex we ran on a QL3 Crmn course in 2001, where the CO ordered all candidates would get 6 hours continous sleep a night, regardless.  We were also not allowed to run the course during morning PT (no joke).  I certainly muttered under my breath, as I did not see either of these as an improvement in trg.



> You can't stand there and smack around a guy who, if he left the Army, will make a 6 figure salary with his education.  You can't treat people bad, spit on them, smack them in the head, kick them in the back, or any of that good stuff instructors did "back in your day".



I did Basic at CFRS Cornwallis 20 years ago this summer....I don't remember ANYONE getting smacked around.  Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone get smacked around (excluding smokers, of course )


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (15 May 2009)

Just to throw in my own two cents... When it comes down to it, I also dont think there should be any training differences between _ men_ and _ women_. I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how _they_ will learn best, and will instruct according to that.


----------



## 40below (15 May 2009)

Apropos of nothing but it's my favourite anecdote from this area, I used to know one of the chief labour negotiators for the Ontario government, a chain-smoking piece of old-school brass who made a New York divorce lawyer look like a group-hugging Dr. Phil by comparison. One night we got to talking about how negotiations had changed over the years, and he argued that the biggest change was when women started taking lead roles at the bargaining table. 

He maintained, that after years of doing this for a living, that when dealing with men, you *dealt* – we gave you the dental top-up last time, if you want the additional personal day or another 1% this time, give that back and this other thing too, and things got done. He said with women, the model didn't work that way – once they were given something, it was theirs, and they weren't going to give it back or modify it in the next round, which slowed negotiations tremendously. 

Not saying if it was bad, but he said it was the single biggest change in contract talks he'd seen in his working life, and having heard women say the poker game was fun but now that it was over, could they have their money back, I can't entirely discount his take.


----------



## Harley Sailor (15 May 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Just to throw in my own two cents... When it comes down to it, I also dont think there should be any training differences between _ men_ and _ women_. I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how _they_ will learn best, and will instruct according to that.



Now this troubles me.  How can you train everyone the same and still instruct to their strengths and weaknesses? If you give them slack because of a weekness, is that not training different.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2009)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how _they_ will learn best, and will instruct according to that.



You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.


----------



## Strike (15 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.



Not always.  But in a class that requires some one on one, like range training or flying for example, you have to be able to read your student properly and adjust your style in order to get the best out of them.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> Not always.  But in a class that requires some one on one, like range training or flying for example, you have to be able to read your student properly and adjust your style in order to get the best out of them.



Agreed.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (16 May 2009)

> Now this troubles me.  How can you train everyone the same and still instruct to their strengths and weaknesses? If you give them slack because of a weekness, is that not training different.



Its not about giving people slack at all. You dont give them slack, you still expect the same out of them.



> You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.



Definitly not, but there are cases in which you instruct a smaller class, or have some one on one time with the candidates.


----------



## Xiang (18 May 2009)

> What does the term 'new army' mean to you then, comparing the way training is conducted/delivered now from when you got in?  (not a sarcastic question, meant seriously.  I am curious to see what people think the differences really are now)



Well when I got in we were just starting to introduce SHARP, and there was no physical abuse.  There was still a lot of yelling, swearing, kit tossing and collective punishment though, but it was at a time when the instructors had to get down and do the push ups with you.

What I mean by new army is the way the candidates are treated today.  I have spoken with old WO's and Sgts who did their recruit course back in the late 60's and recall being struck and verbally abused during training.  

Back then however, your average Infantry candidate was someone who was lucky to have a little bit of high school behind him, and the Army was his only choice for anything that would be considered a career.  

Today's army, your average Infantry candidate is a high school/college/university graduate who has a lot going for him, but wants to serve his country (there are exceptions however).  

I am going to be completely blunt here for a moment and say that candidates way back were not as sophisticated or mature (and I am using those terms lightly for lack of a better analogy) as the ones entering the system today, so more harsh disciplinary measures had to be taken to whip them into order (no pun intended).

Why would someone with a university degree want to get smacked around during their recruit course when they can work in the civilian sector and make more money, without the physical abuse?  

People entering the armed forces today have a general understanding that it is a tough venture, but they do not expect to be physically struck, and probably wouldn't stand for it.   There are the odd few grumpy old NCO's who would mutter "back in my day you would have done push ups until you puked while we stepped on your fingers" but the smart ones know that this sort of treatment is not needed to breed good soldiers.

Our soldiers training and professionalism is second to none.   We are hardly a ***** foot army.  Our current training doctrine shows this. 

You can be stern with candidates and still instill a sharp sense of discipline in them without hitting them or abusing them.

This is what I mean by the New Army.



> First example that comes to my mind comes from the Defensive ex we ran on a QL3 Crmn course in 2001, where the CO ordered all candidates would get 6 hours continous sleep a night, regardless.



This, I do not agree with.  If it's a driver course, I can see the need for sleep, but not on a defensive ex.  However, I can attest to the fact that it is not like this across the board, and it is at the discretion of the course CO.

I have instructed on SQ courses, and during the FTX the enemy force was constantly attacking the defensive position, day and night.  We had the candidates up all hours of the night on stand to's.  They were tired, they were wet, but they coped with it.  Simple as that.



> We were also not allowed to run the course during morning PT (no joke).  I certainly muttered under my breath, as I did not see either of these as an improvement in trg.



I agree, this is not a good practice, and I would certainly question the judgment of the course CO for making such a decision.  Another Reserve SQ course I instructed on saw a group of candidates head to Meaford fresh off their Reserve BMQ course.  During their BMQ they had PT every 2nd or 3rd day.  The candidates could not keep up with a simple 5km PT run.

The reason stated was time constraints.  PT was replaced with course material for certain days.  I don't buy that at all though.  I instructed on Reserve BMQ's where where we had PT every morning for 1 hour.  We were still able to teach everything in the course outline.



> I did Basic at CFRS Cornwallis 20 years ago this summer....I don't remember ANYONE getting smacked around.  Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone get smacked around (excluding smokers, of course )



That would be the nearly the 90's correct?   Don't quote me but from what I understand, physical abuse stopped during the late 70's, early 80's.   Again, don't quote me on this.  Perhaps someone who has been in longer than us can confirm.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 May 2009)

For whatever it is worth, I went through recruit training in 1958 and, while there was a lot of verbal abuse, physical contact between the instructors and the troops was strictly forbidden. I can recall several occasions when an NCO asked permission to touch a recruit to correct part of his dress or kit. 

While the average education was not what it is today, that was true for society in general. Certainly we were not very sophisticated, but that was also true of the larger civilian community. As for maturity, a fair number of the recruits had been working in the woods or on the boats to help support their family group and joined the army for what was about the same take home pay with better working and living conditions. It was a very different country back then and except for OAS and baby bonus, the social safety net was pretty sparses. I think there also was UI, but we all knew we would be unable to draw it, so it was more of an irritant that a social program.


----------

