# Fighting is for men



## Gunner (9 Nov 2005)

PUBLICATION:  National Post 
DATE:  2005.11.09 
EDITION:  National 
SECTION:  Issues & Ideas 
PAGE:  A22 
COLUMN:  Barbara Kay 
BYLINE:  Barbara Kay 
SOURCE:  National Post 
NOTE: bkay@videotron.ca 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fighting is for men

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As soon as Remembrance Day lapel poppies make their annual appearance, wars, old and new, occupy my thoughts. I am especially keen to see the film Jarhead, which tells the story of a U.S. Marine who fought in the first Gulf War. By all accounts, Jarhead follows on other classics of the war-movie genre by answering the timeless question of why young males are willing to face torturous training, brutal hazing, long-term celibacy, excruciating tedium, dust, mud and the risk of death (or worse) in war. 

Jarhead will no doubt be seen as hate propaganda in peace-loving Canada, where pacifism is in vogue, and traditional military values are viewed with suspicion. Not coincidentally, our Canadian Forces (CF) are deeply demoralized; military historian Jack Granatstein predicts a mass exodus of 20% over the next few years. 

Reviving a military with cruelly degraded mechanical resources -- with virtually no significant new funds available for use until 2009-10 -- will be a difficult job for recently appointed Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. His most pressing task is to stem rampant attrition -- in 1993, enlistment stood at 80,000; in 2005, at 58,000. Re-masculating the Forces would be a good place to start. 

Nothing better illustrates Hillier's uphill battle than political termagant Carolyn Parrish's reaction to his perfectly reasonable assertion, in July, that terrorists are "scumbags ... who detest our freedoms" and that it is the Forces' job "to be able to kill people." She declared Hillier "dangerous" and "testosterone-fuelled." 

Parish's reflexive hostility to Hillier's personal manliness is, unfortunately, emblematic of the anti-male attitude behind the transformation of our combat forces into the integrated, "sensitive" New Military. Women have served in the CF since 1951, and today represent up to 14% of the CF. They were deployed in support roles until a Human Rights tribunal in 1989 struck down barriers to all service options, including combat. 

This meant integrated training with men. Since then, it's goodbye testosterone, hello estrogen, PMS, pregnancy -- and lower, gentler criteria. The single-standard Old Military shaped <recruits> to meet fixed benchmarks. The double-standard New Military fixes benchmarks to meet enlistees' shapes. 

To maintain the fiction of gender neutrality insisted upon by the social engineers who pressed for integration, and produce the appearance of equality of outcomes, co-ed physical training has been dumbed down to accommodate women's lesser strength and ability, an insulting disservice to male <recruits>. But women also have female reproductive issues that can't be similarly obscured, and that receive special treatment. Pregnancy, for example, allows women to withdraw from combat duty with honour, while men have no such combat escape hatch. Some "equity." 

Feminists perceive the military as simply one more government or social institution in need of accelerated PC behaviour modification to ensure functional and numerical parity for women. Manliness as a virtue has already been eradicated from scholarship, early education, child psychology, family law, and social work. Now it is the military's turn. 

But combat troops aren't like teachers or postal workers or bus drivers. The military is -- was -- a unique, genetics-dependent culture, as specific to males as midwifery is to females. Men don't fight for the feminist ideal of androgyny, but to protect the women they love -- wives, daughters, mothers, sisters -- and the values they represent -- normalcy, freedom and peace. Former U.S. infantry officer Brian Mitchell, author of Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, points out that rather than shortfalls being a reason to <recruit> women, <recruiting> women causes shortfalls: "The more attractive you make the military look to women, the less attractive you make it look to men." 

In spite of the military's ardent courtship, women leave the CF for domestic obligations or greener career pastures at double to triple the rate for men. Add extra expense for female-specific injury and medical needs, double those of men's, not to mention costly flights of PC-induced idiocy (our Forces once commissioned a pregnancy combat uniform), and you have an institution in denial. Sadly, according to Granatstein, "It will take a large number of dead female soldiers before we snap back to reality". 

Rick Hillier's comments have been labelled "controversial." Nonsense. He's a breath of fresh air, a role model for young men seeking purpose and self-realization through the ultimate male bonding experience. 

Apart from rear-service, medical and administrative functions, where they shine, women don't belong in the CF. Hillier would do well to take a leaf from the Jarheads' copybook. Unlike the other Services, the U.S. Marines enlisted women, but successfully resisted integrated training. Consequently, they are the only U.S. Service to have easily met their <recruitment> goals, ensuring their continuing capability to field the world's most motivated, cohesive and effective combat units. More power to them.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Nov 2005)

Take cover!!! :warstory:


----------



## medicineman (9 Nov 2005)

There's an interesting take.

MM


----------



## midgetcop (9 Nov 2005)

Wow. Truly inspiring for those women wanting to serve their country. 

 :


----------



## Baloo (9 Nov 2005)

I've thought about this before, and got a couple points.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with having women serve in the combat arms. 

Provided, they are set to the same standards. I dislike the male and female entrance physical examination being different in the combat arms. Whom does this serve? No-one. I don't care if you're male or female. If you can't handle the same load across the board for the infantry (or anyone else, for that matter), then sorry, but this isn't the career for you. I've seen plenty of tough women in the military, enough to know that they are an asset, not a detriment. Its the ones that scrape by in the examinations and can't carry a C6 on ex that give the bad impression. Then again, I know plenty of guys that can't do it. Overall, standards have slipped immensely over the past while. Maybe I'm wrong.

The police have ONE standard for physical entrance to their forces. Why can't we?


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2005)

Interesting article I suppose and written by a woman no less.


----------



## midgetcop (9 Nov 2005)

Baloo said:
			
		

> If you can't handle the same load across the board for the infantry (or anyone else, for that matter), then sorry, but this isn't the career for you.



I totally agree. And I'm sure there are plenty of men who struggle with the physical aspects as well. 



> The police have ONE standard for physical entrance to their forces. Why can't we?



Well...depends on the police force. But the point remains.


----------



## KevinB (9 Nov 2005)

There are both mem and women that should nto be in our current combat arms.

 If the addition of women was simply that it would not have be so crippling -- but it was included with a whole legion of additional problems -- so now you have a generation of weak, and improperly cultivated soldiers.


----------



## steve-o (9 Nov 2005)

Damn straight! Thank god it was said by a woman! Did we really commission a pregnancy combat uniform? Please say its not true!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Nov 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> darn straight! Thank god it was said by a woman! Did we really commission a pregnancy combat uniform? Please say its not true!



If CADPAT is dress of the day and you're pregnant...I guess you can call in sick for 3 months and stretch out your Mat leave, or the Army can give you suitable clothes to work in.  What's the problem?

It is an interesting article.  I don't expect there will be much debate on the subject among the powers that be; the decisions seem to have been made long ago.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

Although I agree with the dumbed down standards and that both men and women are getting in when they shouldn't have, Ms Kay should have looked at the Combat Arms percentages and she would have seen how low the numbers actually are.  It isn't really an issue; the nature of the job still makes it a man's world - just like logging or pipelining.

Next.


----------



## midgetcop (9 Nov 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> darn straight! Thank god it was said by a woman! Did we really commission a pregnancy combat uniform? Please say its not true!



God forbid women get pregnant. I guess women *shouldn't* serve because the idea of a pregnant woman in a uniform is too ridiculous for you?

Other employers provide mat leave, why is this even an issue in the CF?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Nov 2005)

people arent mad or concerned because women are in the military and they want them out, theyre angry because the military had to accomodate its training and mentality to better suit women, and lowered the standards pretty much across the board, everywhere.

The standards should be higher than they are now, and they should be that.A standard. A troop is a troop, male or female. If they cannot meet the requirements, then they do not belong in the military. End of story.

Making physical examinations easier for women is ridiculous. Especially when you don't do it for the men either... what kind of message does that send? "Well youre a female, so its expected you wont be as strong or fit."

If you arent strong or fit enough, then become so, or get out.
I know this might seem "unfair" to all the women and aspiring ones going into the CF, but when you consider war requires a high standard of training in order to survive and be successful in combat, tough ****.

If you want to go complain to the war gods that war is too hard and it should be made easier and have the standards lowered so women can play to, you go right ahead.

Making any kind of regression in training was a huge mistake. Women want in? Fine. But we arent changing a single standard anywhere, and if they make it, good for them, but most of them wont. - What should have been done, but wasnt.


----------



## SHF (9 Nov 2005)

Ms Kay's quote from Jack Granatstein's prediction that we will lose 20% of the CF in the next 5 years isn't really a prediction.  Thousands of us joined in the late 70s and we rode the wave of FRP and stuck it out.  Our retirement time at the decent pension of 30+ years is just around the corner.  This huge exodus will become a reality.  Issues such as parental leave for men and women will have to be examined.  We suffer significant work loss from parents sitting at home for several months because they can.  Ms Kay's article hits home, it's a shame it won't change anything in our socially engineered military.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Nov 2005)

SHF said:
			
		

> We suffer significant work loss from parents sitting at home for several months because they can.



What is the alternative?  You're talking about parents of newborns, right?


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2005)

> Other employers provide mat leave, why is this even an issue in the CF



Other employers don't require their employees to charge machine gun nests, "yomp" 30 kliks with 100 lbs of kit on their backs, or disembowel "opponents" with a bayonet...

Regardless of my own, personal points of view regarding women in combat, I will always maintain that it is ludicrous to compare the CF to "other employers".... no matter what the topic at hand is about


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

Isn't paternity leave provided to CF members?  I believe it is, but somebody can clear this one up.  So if we allow women to take time off for parenting needs and we allow men to take time off for parenting needs, then what is the use of comparing it to the issue of rucking and charging an MG nest?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> There are both mem and women that should nto be in our current combat arms.
> 
> If the addition of women was simply that it would not have be so crippling -- but it was included with a whole legion of additional problems -- so now you have a generation of weak, and improperly cultivated soldiers.



I agree; I watched and, to my regret, participated in lowering standards - all sorts of standards - to _accommodate_.  Some of us, me too I guess, confused _adjusting_ and _adapting_ with what happened: lowering; shame on us.

We managed when we should have been leading.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Other employers don't require their employees to charge machine gun nests, "yomp" 30 kliks with 100 lbs of kit on their backs, or disembowel "opponents" with a bayonet...
> 
> Regardless of my own, personal points of view regarding women in combat, I will always maintain that it is ludicrous to compare the CF to "other employers".... no matter what the topic at hand is about



To add a quote from the CDS "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces"


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2005)

Infanteer - maybe you missed my point. In my mind - I hate comparing the CF to "other jobs", no matter what we are talking about. We ask things of soldiers that other employees don't ask of their employees - whether they are accounts, carpenters, store clerks, or crab fishermen..

Specifically regarding women in combat, or even maternity leave in the CF.. sure, make the arguments pro and con - I just don't see much value in comparing the CF to other employers


----------



## MJP (9 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Isn't paternity leave provided to CF members?   I believe it is, but somebody can clear this one up.   So if we allow women to take time off for parenting needs and we allow men to take time off for parenting needs, then what is the use of comparing it to the issue of rucking and charging an MG nest?



Yes regardless of gender a CF memebr can take Parental leave.   
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/5001/2_e.asp


----------



## midgetcop (9 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Other employers don't require their employees to charge machine gun nests, "yomp" 30 kliks with 100 lbs of kit on their backs, or disembowel "opponents" with a bayonet...



Which is exactly why women who are pregnant (*and* are in combat arms) require mat leave. Other than that, I don't see the problem. Do you?


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2005)

> Other than that, I don't see the problem. Do you?



I guess you don't see a problem; nor do you see MY point. I see you have less than 10 posts.. by a dozen, maybe you will discover that we have lots of different opinions here - on thousands of different subjects. I doubt every opinion will be the same as your own.

As I've said twice now, my "problem" is not that you feel women in the CF should have maternity leave; my "problem" is comparing the CF with other employers, in these types of arguments. Even the CDS and Hatchet Man agree with my point - and believe me, that probably doesn't happen so often


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

While I agree with her column and your posts, I do disagree on one of her fundemental agruments. That being:



> Men don't fight for the feminist ideal of androgyny, but to protect the women they love -- wives, daughters, mothers, sisters -- and the values they represent -- normalcy, freedom and peace.



Quite the load of BS there. Here's where I stand on this...IF a female wishes to become a front line soldier and is able to meet the exact same standards as the man and to perform her job just as professionally as the man, why should she not be afforded that opportunity? After all, I believe that she has it all wrong in her quote above. I believe that these very few women able to do this (there's only 1 in 2RCR...well below the 14% ratio) should not be denied the opportunity to die for their "loved" ones (male OR female - as I also suspect is the case with you guys in contradiction to her claim that you only fight for females), their country or their beliefs just because they happen to be a female. 

She seems to be arguing to have all females removed out of the first line fighting Units. I suspect this because of her remarks about how many body bags full of females is it going to take before they clue in and fix the problem.

I believe, and there are many men out there who will back this up, that there ARE females in front line units who can, and are, meeting the exact same standards as their male counterparts and performing just as well the men at any and all tasks assigned. I say good on them and let them continue, they have earned the right.

Now anybody (male or female) who can not meet the standard? Boot their butts out the door, and boot them quick, I have no problems with that, and I'll even help if necessary.

The problem is the lack of a common standard which everyone has to meet and that's it. Sex has nothing to do with it. Set the required standard, and make it applicable to one and all. If you can do...you're in. If not, don't let the door slam into your ass on the way out...

As a side note, the boys do get 'parental' leave too. And we did not comission any 'maternity combats'.
The Tailor shop simply adds in the spandex panel onto the front of the current cadpat pants and adds a panel into the back of the cadpat shirt. Most girls though...just keep exchanging their current cadpat up in waist sizes and chest sizes as their pregnancy progress.' 

Just another girl's point of view...


----------



## Armymedic (9 Nov 2005)

Women who are pregnant are not on maternity leave. That type of leave only starts once the baby is born. They are on sick leave. When you become pregnant, you are given a 1 yr TCat. You do your 6-12 months of maternity leave, and once you return to work, another medical is done to take you off TCat.

Yes, they tailor 1 pr of CADPAT pants for women who are pregnant. Armyvern can comment more on the clothing issue....

I believe that all soldiers deserve the maternity and paternity (thats for us men to take time off, absolutely equal, and a good thing) once they have served some time. I believe the CF should add into its recruiting contract that because you can be provided birth control devices, you will not be entitled the reimbursement (to top up your UI which is 60% of wages) until you have served 3 yrs. 

I am surprised and relieved that the above article is written by a woman. I am tired of seeing, hearing, and reading about female chauvinism and ultra feminism that degrades men(articles like "Why Men Will Become Extinct"). Equality in these cases is only meant as it was in George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal then others".


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I guess you don't see a problem; nor do you see MY point. I see you have less than 10 posts.. by a dozen, maybe you will discover that we have lots of different opinions here - on thousands of different subjects. I doubt every opinion will be the same as your own.
> 
> As I've said twice now, my "problem" is not that you feel women in the CF should have maternity leave; my "problem" is comparing the CF with other employers, in these types of arguments. Even the CDS and Hatchet Man agree with my point - and believe me, that probably doesn't happen so often



I don't think that was the intention in the post...but more like....
Well if a girl shouldn't have the job because she made need to go on maternity leave than the guys who also do the same job should be barred from getting their own wives pregnant, as you would then lose them to parental leave.

But I do agree, I am sick and tired of being compared to a civilian company, or another employer. Do you know what the current Supply manual Volume three is now called? It used to be plain old Volume 3, it's now oficially called "Corporate Supply." Give me a break. I am in the military, I am not a 'manager' the troops who come into clothing are not 'customers.' Save the hugs and the lovey dovey crap. Keep it out of the military and my workplace. I get that at home from my family. I just want to be treated the same as everyone else and continue to soldier on.

Edited to fix typo and to add: And if you boys think fighting's for men you obviously have never been to the "Roma" and seen this red-headed girl in action!!


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Infanteer - maybe you missed my point. In my mind - I hate comparing the CF to "other jobs", no matter what we are talking about. We ask things of soldiers that other employees don't ask of their employees - whether they are accounts, carpenters, store clerks, or crab fishermen..



Okay, I see your point and I think you're right.  The unique nature of the Forces and its requirements (unlimited liability, monopoly on offensive violence, primacy of group over individual) means it shouldn't be viewed as simply another type of workplace.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

I think armyvern's post pretty much put nailed it.



			
				armyvern said:
			
		

> The Tailor shop simply adds in the spandex panel onto the front of the current cadpat pants and adds a panel into the back of the cadpat shirt.



Unfortunately, there are men AND women in the Forces who are getting these Combat's and the aren't pregnant.  Now that problem takes us back to standards, which you covered quite well.


----------



## dutchie (9 Nov 2005)

Armymedic beat me to it... but here's my 2 cents...

Just a point of clarification here.....there are 2 different things going on re:maternity/Parental leave & pay. One is the leave from the employer, the other is the payment from EI.Some people seem to be confusing 'leave' with 'Maternity/Parental EI benefits'.   It may be possible for a member to obtain leave anytime from the CF for Maternity/Parental reasons (I don't know the criteria for sure, Armymedic seems to have outlined that), but EI will not pay a woman Maternity until 8 weeks prior to the due date or the week of birth, whichever comes first. Parental pay from EI (available to Mom and Dad) cannot start prior to the baby's birth date.  Sick pay from EI is only obtained when you are medically incapable of work. Being pregnant is not 'medically incapable' per se, but if the pregnancy is at risk due to work (rising blood pressure, lack of fetal development, etc.), than most doctors will write a sick note allowing an EI sick claim. 

I don't know what a women is to do if she is preggers and in a combat arms unit, or even a Svc Bn about to go on ex. I would hope that the CF medical system would deem her unfit for an exercise and the like. I would also hope that any woman would not even think of going on ex while pregnant.

Women in combat? Yawn. Been there, done that, won't waste my time.


----------



## beach_bum (9 Nov 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I don't know what a women is to do if she is preggers and in a combat arms unit, or even a Svc Bn about to go on ex. I would hope that the CF medical system would deem her unfit for an exercise and the like. I would also hope that any woman would not even think of going on ex while pregnant.



When you are pregnant, your med changes making you unfit field.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Nov 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I don't know what a women is to do if she is preggers and in a combat arms unit, or even a Svc Bn about to go on ex. I would hope that the CF medical system would deem her unfit for an exercise and the like. I would also hope that any woman would not even think of going on ex while pregnant.


Not "Unfit Field" (not allowed to say that anymore)
Women who are pregnant are "fit for sedentary duties only". Meaning office or garrison duties...no field, no hazards, etc.


----------



## beach_bum (9 Nov 2005)

Ahhh...it's been a few years for me.  I just remember what mine said.  LOL


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Armymedic beat me to it... but here's my 2 cents...
> 
> I don't know what a women is to do if she is preggers and in a combat arms unit, or even a Svc Bn about to go on ex. I would hope that the CF medical system would deem her unfit for an exercise and the like. I would also hope that any woman would not even think of going on ex while pregnant.
> 
> Women in combat? Yawn. Been there, done that, won't waste my time.



Well, I stayed field side in Petawawa while I was pregnant. They were going to move me to Base side and I lost it. There were plenty of jobs I was still capable of doing. Even went out to the field on Exs until I was 'too far along.' I don't know if anyone could pull that off these days though. My chit did read "unfit field, air, sea, UN" pretty much unfit to breathe, but my superiors figured I could pull it off and allowed me the opportunity to prove them right.

Women in combat and a yawn? You are truly missing out at your Unit then. Apparently yours 'do not meet the same standard' to which we refer. I dare say, we have quite a few outstanding and extremely competant and capable females in some of the CF front line Units. I'm sure that one of the boys can provide you further education in that area. So please don't let your own personal bias (which are obvious by this remark) undermine your ability to act professionally.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Nov 2005)

"I believe that all soldiers deserve the maternity and paternity (thats for us men to take time off, absolutely equal, and a good thing) once they have served some time"

I have 4 kids, 2 born in Germany.  By your reckoning, I should have had 2-4 years at home, including 1-2 years on vacation in Germany. That's ludicrous, in my admittedly feeble mind.  My job was to be a combat engineer, armoured engineer operator.  Those guys were few and far between, and giving a guy person 6-12 months off is detrimental,  mission before self ring any bells?

Back to the crux of the question.  I have no issue with a woman who can meet the same physical requirements that I had to in '79.  That is not the case today: standards were lowered to encourage female recruitment.  Any female (or male) who can slug Bailey panels with me for 30+ hours is okay in my book.


----------



## dutchie (9 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Women in combat and a yawn? You are truly missing out at your Unit then. Apparently yours 'do not meet the same standard' to which we refer. I dare say, we have quite a few outstanding and extremely competant and capable females in some of the CF front line Units. I'm sure that one of the boys can provide you further education in that area. So please don't let your own personal bias (which are obvious by this remark) undermine your ability to act professionally.



You missed my point. This topic has been beaten to death. I (and others) have heard every coneivable point re:females in combat. I have neither the time nor the inclination to beat my brains out debating this when everyone is so entrenched in their viewpoint, that it turns into a bunfight in around 2 or 3 pages. My 'yawn' was reference the topic, it was not an expression of my position on the topic.


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "I believe that all soldiers deserve the maternity and paternity (thats for us men to take time off, absolutely equal, and a good thing) once they have served some time"


Once they have served some time...I agree with this.


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I have 4 kids, 2 born in Germany.   By your reckoning, I should have had 2-4 years at home, including 1-2 years on vacation in Germany. That's ludicrous, in my admittedly feeble mind.   My job was to be a combat engineer, armoured engineer operator.   Those guys were few and far between, and giving a guy person 6-12 months off is detrimental,   mission before self ring any bells?


Anbody can have UP TO the max time off. Many, males and females included, have chosen to come back from their maternity/parental leaves for precisely the reasons you quote above. 


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Back to the crux of the question.   I have no issue with a woman who can meet the same physical requirements that I had to in '79.   That is not the case today: standards were lowered to encourage female recruitment.   Any female (or male) who can slug Bailey panels with me for 30+ hours is okay in my book.


I'm pretty sure that we agreed with this too. Set a standard (the proper standard) and make it applicable to all. And for the trades, set the trade standard (the proper one - ie slugging Bailey panels for 30plus hours) and make it applicable equally to all members who want to be in that trade. 

Gee I slugged 80 pounders around by myself in Aircraft supply...does that count??


----------



## midgetcop (9 Nov 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I guess you don't see a problem; nor do you see MY point. I see you have less than 10 posts.. by a dozen, maybe you will discover that we have lots of different opinions here - on thousands of different subjects. I doubt every opinion will be the same as your own.



Interesting. I see that my postcount has been brought up as a way to make your point more legit. Pretty sad. Because going by your own supposed point that we all have 1000 different opinions on these boards, then mine shouldn't really make a big wave, should it? 



> As I've said twice now, my "problem" is not that you feel women in the CF should have maternity leave; my "problem" is comparing the CF with other employers, in these types of arguments. Even the CDS and Hatchet Man agree with my point - and believe me, that probably doesn't happen so often



Oh wow, I feel so silly.....OTHERS have agreed with your point.  :

Of course I can bring up maternity leave and bring it up as a comparison to other employers. And yes, I realize that you can't always compare the CF to your average employer out there. But you tell me, how in the instance of maternity/paternity leave, you *can't* compare the CF to other employers in Canada.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Those guys were few and far between, and giving a guy person 6-12 months off is detrimental,   mission before self ring any bells?



It does Kat. But hey, I only abide by the rules...not make them. 

If you don't like it, you should come over here and work at Fd Amb...our Mat/Pat board has more names then my Section does.

And I can't say a darn thing about it.


----------



## Strike (9 Nov 2005)

> Men don't fight for the feminist ideal of androgyny, but to protect the women they love -- wives, daughters, mothers, sisters -- and the values they represent -- normalcy, freedom and peace.



Right, it's one thing for a woman to comment on how she thinks a woman should behave, but when she suddenly "knows" what a man is thiking?  Come on.

As for the numbers -- about 2% of the pilots of the CF are female.  Air Canada barely holds 1%.

WRT pregnancy, we can fly up to 5 months I think, or until we are uncomfortable.  That's for helos at least.  For jets, not at all.  Not sure about the other aircraft though.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2005)

> I see that my postcount has been brought up as a way to make your point more legit



Sorry about your reading comprehension abilities. Your post count was not brought up to discredit your point; it was brought up to ridicule your snotty (and unearned) tone.

That's fine, we've had hundreds of folks hit the boards and try to play pokey-chest right out of the gate - most of them don't last long, or change their tune eventually.

Sorry, I have no qualms about the position you've taken on the issue, but your attitude doesn't  impress me. Good luck...


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

Ain't that the truth....


----------



## Buford001 (9 Nov 2005)

Greetings,
This is my first post here on this site , and read allot of threads with excellent information. I am not a member but my husband is. On the question of lowering standards according to my husband yes they have been lowered not only for females but for males. I was at his last parade and was shocked to see so many men out of shape. One person was back on to me I thought it was a female pregnant until he turned around. Seriously his tunic was tight on his back and when he face me his tunic flared out just like a maternity top. He was 1 of many. My husband joined in the early 80's when going on parade meant looking your sharpest   being male or female. Yes there was different PT standards but they were still realistic and achievable.
That is just my $0 .02   
IMHO


----------



## armyvern (9 Nov 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> You missed my point. This topic has been beaten to death. I (and others) have heard every coneivable point re:females in combat. I have neither the time nor the inclination to beat my brains out debating this when everyone is so entrenched in their viewpoint, that it turns into a bunfight in around 2 or 3 pages. My 'yawn' was reference the topic, it was not an expression of my position on the topic.


Ok...I retract then. Whew. Cause I'm 5'7" 182lbs (and NOT fat) and I was gonna have to challenge you to an arm wrestle for it!!


----------



## ZipperHead (9 Nov 2005)

> I believe, and there are many men out there who will back this up, that there ARE females in front line units who can, and are, meeting the exact same standards as their male counterparts and performing just as well the men at any and all tasks assigned. I say good on them and let them continue, they have earned the right.


 Quote from Armyvern

This could almost be construed as a backhanded compliment: is it that the females are as good as the top performers, or are they at the level of the 60% soldier?? It's kinda like being the tallest midget...

I have no doubt that there are women who can outperform men in many capabilities (I made the mistake of setting my goal for my first road race (the Cabot Trail Relay) of being: As long as I beat all the chicks.... Any guesses on what happened??? And yes, I got SMOKED by a female at Mountain Man this year). But, when the standard is brought to ridiculously low levels (as many would assert that it is now), is their any pride now in being even average??? I would argue: NO!!!!! I am considered (at the age of 37, and a current weight of around 200lbs, on a 6'1" frame) as in very good shape, and yes I can outrun, outruck, and outperform many young 'uns, I don't get a lot of satisfaction out of it. Why?? Because the average fitness levels of my superiors, peers, and subordinates (especially those that came aboard during the "gravy" years) is pathetic. Yes, there are many pers that are MUCH fitter than I am, but that's not the point. I should be the average. 

The reason that we are seeing so many personnel (i.e. fat men) that can be mistaken for pregnant women is that "we" have allowed it, in the name of political correctness. And, due to a lack of pride and/or shame, some people have reasoned "If all I have to do is just meet this low standard, why bother exceeding it? What motivation is there? If I get my ass booted out for being too fat, I will take it to Human Rights (and get back in, with back pay). If I get it written on my PDR/PER that my PT needs to improve, I will pull out the copy of my fitness evaluation and point out that I passed the EXPRES/BFT, so you CAN'T say that, or it's harassment" And the list goes on......

Am I bitter??? Hell yeah!!!! People can't take their head out of their collective a$$es long enough to realize that we are neighbours with a country at WAR. If/when we go to war, to support our closest neighbour and ally (well, either them or Britain) we won't have 2 months on a troop ship to "whip" ourselves into shape. Jesus, at the rate we "ease" into PT programs (about 4 times a year), it would take 2 years for most people to get to level 1 in the new Army Fitness Manual. Let alone be ready to carry a FULL combat load, not the 54 lb total (or whatever lame weight it is for the 13km), greater than 13km, and then not expect the next 2 weeks to "recover". We will be on a plane (an Antonov, or Galaxy, to be sure) and expected to be ready to go in a matter of days, not months. 

I am glad that we have people at the top who realize this. Gen's Hillier, Caron, Natynczk, et al realize this, and are trying to tell us, but the masses are in denial, soothed by the comforting sounds of the operator saying "Ombudsman's office, how may I help you....." as soon as push comes to shove. And the sad thing is, that, try as the General's might to make the changes, unless the "masses" (and there is a pun intended) switch over to their tune (the Generals) and not that soothing voice of the operator (which is my effort at symbolizing the PC ways of society), they may as well be tilting at windmills. Because, as one of my good buddies (who is tired of beating his head against the wall that is the military) pointed out "Yeah, they [the Generals] are trying, but how long will that last? 2 years??? And by then, someone else will be in charge...." And unfortunately, we know what types that can be (i.e the ones who allowed us to get to the point we are at).

After all that, I agree that if women can cut it (at the high level of competency that is required), bring 'em on (to fight wars.... which includes Pte Lynch-like support roles in combat). But if that includes bringing along Chubby McTubby and his bucket of deep fried Ding-Dongs, sorry, try again after this series of wars (which have been raging, for oh, 2000+ years) is over..... which is to say, never....

Al


----------



## Gunner (9 Nov 2005)

My hats off   to the members at army.ca for keeping the focus of discussion on this issue exactly where it should be - on standards.  Women entry into the combat arms are often seen as the "reason" for declining standards but I place the blame squarely on the Charter of Rights.  Its impact on the CF was felt at the same time that women were brought (or forced?) into the CF.  An arty shell is an arty shell, either you can lift it, or you can't.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2005)

> An arty shell is an arty shell, either you can lift it, or you can't.



Pssstt.. but they aren't big, round, iron balls anymore, Sir...   ^-^


----------



## 3rd Horseman (9 Nov 2005)

You cant change 50,000 years of evolution. Men are built to kill woman are not (at least the vast majority).

   Standards are the issue, in 87 I conducted the first trial for women in the Cbt Arms Arty, A whole crew came out from Ottawa lead by the associate minister of National Defense (Mary Collins otherwise known as "the fat lady with the big t#ts). I conducted a 1 day trial on my gun line she questioned everything I did as if I had set up the trial to ensure woman could not do any of the tasks (which I had not). At the end she said so what do you do with the men that cant do the tasks you assign such as lift rounds or change track, manual open m109 breach. I said we usually make them sigs or techs or clks while we process them out of the combat arms. Her response was that she did not believe me and that women in the combat arms could do all those jobs that weak men currently do, since in her mind not all jobs required brute strength.   And TaDa we have double standard. The fix was in from the start she had no plans to really look at it.


----------



## Gunner (9 Nov 2005)

> Pssstt.. but they aren't big, round, iron balls anymore, Sir...



When did that change?  Next you are going to tell me we don't have self propelled howitzers anymore... :


----------



## Gunner (10 Nov 2005)

> You cant change 50,000 years of evolution. Men are built to kill woman are not (at least the vast majority).



We are not beating each other over the head with clubs either.  Societies kept their women from dangerous pursuits (hunting, war, etc) for the basic reason of survival.  The majority of a tribes men could be wiped out but the society could be repopulated thanks to available women of childbearing years.  In effect they could live to fight another day.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We are not beating each other over the head with clubs either.   Societies kept their women from dangerous pursuits (hunting, war, etc) for the basic reason of survival.   The majority of a tribes men could be wiped out but the society could be repopulated thanks to available women of childbearing years.   In effect they could live to fight another day.



Actually, I think it had more to do with hunting and the way our physiology is tied to sexual selection.


----------



## Gunner (10 Nov 2005)

> Actually, I think it had more to do with hunting and the way our physiology is tied to sexual selection.



Infanteer, don't try and take away from my fantasy of being the last warrior standing and having to repopulate the tribe.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

...to expand on sexual selection - males were more inclined to hunt/fight due to the aggressive nature implicit with being a "disseminator" rather than a "nurturer" when it came to reproduction.   Like mating, when it came to hunting or fighting males were built to range beyond the hearth and to take part in intense activities that demanded maximum physical exertion for short periods of time (taking down the mammoth or ambushing a rival hunter group).  Infact, I think most women would probably complain that men are still grounded in the principle of maximum exertion for a very short period of time ("is that it?!?")  :-X.

However, we've moved beyond simple hunter/gatherer instincts, so although I think 20,000 years of human evolution is still relevent (and we see it played out by the notion that sex, and not gender, plays a large part in the fact that 99% of the infantry are still males), it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

So don't worry Gunner - you're still allowed to be the disseminator.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

Read the article at work today, interesting...   In reality the equality issue has been around for awile and to tell you the truth the only people that seem to recognize women and minorities are women and minorities, it's not so much a failure in the system but the acceptance of their presence in uniform the likes that have not been seen before.   I bet if you did a poll today throughout the Army/Navy/Airforce you'd find that a great majority of soldiers do not care what sex/religion/race/... the person next to them is but whether or not they are able to do the job equally - hense sharing the load, in otherwords shut-up about equality, set a realistic standard for entry into the forces, entry into cbt arms trades and postings of those to css units, guaranteed results! I have allot of faith in people that regardless of who they are, when given sound leadership they will understand their short commings and accept where the Military finds them more suitable if they fail to acieve "their goal", after all what more can a person ask for than an honest chance?   Without lowering ourselves to a political debat, why don't we just give it a few years and see what Hillier has in store for us, it may turn out good (which will justify female service in combat roles) and god forbid it may turn out bad and this issue will be solved in an overnight session of parliment. But if one thing is for sure all persons who serve will have to face their own personal demons about being in cbt and ask themselves if they can keep up, pull their weight and make the right decisions when the time comes.   Good-bye peacekeeping, hello combat (it's what most wanted - too bad it is with a peacekeeping army!).


----------



## Acorn (10 Nov 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> My hats off    to the members at army.ca for keeping the focus of discussion on this issue exactly where it should be - on standards.   Women entry into the combat arms are often seen as the "reason" for declining standards but I place the blame squarely on the Charter of Rights.   Its impact on the CF was felt at the same time that women were brought (or forced?) into the CF.   An arty shell is an arty shell, either you can lift it, or you can't.



I don't blame it on the Charter. I blame it on the lack of imagination and will of the CF leadership during the period that all this was put in place. That blame isn't confined to the higher leadership either - it goes right down to the JrNCO level, and we can see the effects today.


----------



## jmnavy (10 Nov 2005)

I don't care if you're in a physically demanding trade or not.  If you don't have the pride and self-discipline to keep at least a _basic_ level of fitness and keep yourself in shape; you're not someone I want to be working alongside.

I say we gather everyone in the cf who can't pass the express test and leave them in the field with a few dozen infantry NCOs for a couple of weeks.  Call it an "aggressive fitness refersher course" >


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2005)

Oh boy! A thread changes direction toward unfit people in uniform! I NEVER get tired of these, and apparently, nobody else does either.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

I guess we have to ask ourselves if we are training soldiers to a standard or are we allowing a suggested standard to dictate how we lead.


----------



## jmnavy (10 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Oh boy! A thread changes direction toward unfit people in uniform! I NEVER get tired of these, and apparently, nobody else does either.



You're right, I hate to be the one to throw things off course.  The point I mean to make is that imho it's not only CF leadership who've dropped the ball on this; every member is accountable for their own level of fitness.


----------



## armywoman (10 Nov 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We are not beating each other over the head with clubs either.   Societies kept their women from dangerous pursuits (hunting, war, etc) for the basic reason of survival.   The majority of a tribes men could be wiped out but the society could be repopulated thanks to available women of childbearing years.   In effect they could live to fight another day.



Too right Gunner, well put!!   

Being able to fight is one thing. Not being allowed to fight because a preconceived notion that you are not able to is quite another.

I agree as well that standards should have been maintained, although I am one of the ones that would certainly be booted out, if I was not allowed to prove I can do it.   
I don't want to be shown the easy way, I don't want to have my bags carried, or to be given a free ticket.   What I want is to earn my place.
Which means to me that someone is not going to tell me I can't because of evolution?! :   Sorry that does not wash.    
Although it seems like a weird example, look at the animal kingdom.   If you were to watch Discovery channel there is one common recurrences nature.   The female species can most often be the deadliest, especially when rearing young.    The same goes with female humans we have taken a back seat and watched as our men go to war not because we couldn't, but because we were not allowed.
(Then again maybe because we were just smarter?!   Let the men kick the crap out of each other!   We will stay behind in our nice warm beds..showering...shopping!)
This is of course because of the same people who said that the world was flat and if you got too close to the edge of the end of the world..you would find sea serpents.
I can not remember where I read this particular ditty, but apparently it used to be a common argument that women should not exercise or exert themselves too much because there was a chemical in our bodies that would kill us if we were to do so ???

I have known women who have stayed at work until they were practically in labour. Swollen ankles, vomitting, diarrhea, getting so fat you wonder if your not going to give birth to a fully grown man.   Yet despite this they went to work, out in the field..they did not run around in a ruck. Crawl around in trenches.   But they kept going.

On a 'unrelated note"   I passed my BFT.   Yay..go me!


To anyone who thinks that women are not capable, they should go to their local library.   Find the history section and find a book on The Amazons.   These women were hard core warriors that apparently would go as far as cutting off one of their breasts so they could shoot their arrows with more accuracy.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Eff me, what are you blabbering about?


----------



## armyvern (10 Nov 2005)

> 1) So there's a woman in the combat arms, she goes out for her patrol...gets involved in alittle action, ends up being taken prisoner. Hypothetically, her captors rape her.
> 
> 2) She's hit in combat near the chest area; surviving the hit, a medic would need to expose the area. Do you see where i'm getting at?


That'slife I think he was referring to your posts. What the heck are you talking about because I think he got them exact same impression from yours that I did.
1) Well that's one of the risks that the girls performing this job take. Not that it's never happened to a man before?? Get real. And yeah, she could get raped and become pregnant; also a risk. We girls know this, and some are willing to take that risk by serving in a front line unit. Good for them, it's got nothing to do with you and your comment here does not do anything to dis-suade, it is irrelevant to soldiering abilities.
2) Yeah so my boobs are showing?? Whipety crap. If I'm injured, the last thing I care about is my chest being exposed. Again, get a grip. Apparently KevinB will also be too busy performing 1st aid as well to take notice.

As a side note, we women expose more than boobs bearing children, so do you really think that an exposed set of boobs on an injured female in an operational setting makes a difference to us? I think not, apparently it may to you though, after all, you brought it up. Let's keep this discussion real shall we?

*It's all about the lack of a proper common standard which must be met by all. It's not about who's torture will be worse at the hands of the enemy, after all, the psychological effects of this on either sex would last forever. Back to reality.*


----------



## ThatsLife (10 Nov 2005)

I was asking those two questions out of mere curiousity, not to gain advantage over a topic regarding women serving in the combat arms. It wasn't meant to offend anyone, nor was it intended to be related to taking advantage of wounded soldiers, but obviously people misinterpreted it and it became offensive and therefore, i'm sorry.


----------



## kcdist (10 Nov 2005)

Out of curiousity, what are the number of females in the Reg infantry?

I was involved in putting through one of the first mixed platoons in battle school. In all, it took dozens of female candidates before one finally passed. If I had one cent for every hour spent discussing the topic at the time, I'd have been a rich man. Eventually, although we all thought the sky was falling, in the end, she ended up in transport platoon and left the infantry shortly thereafter. Essentially, a non-issue, however, alot of grief at the time, a lot of recources wasted, a number of careers effected, all to prove a point I guess.

Later, in a different battalion, there were no women infantryman, except, I think, some reservists that were attatched for a short period.

Have things changed that much?


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Nov 2005)

You know I almost loath to say this but out of the 4 woman I have seen or worked with in the Infantry it was only the 2 female officers that I had anytime for, they were fit, knew their jod and in one case in particular was at one time the OC Pioneer PL and is commonly referred to as probably the best Pl Comdr they had seen in a long time.

At the NCM Level lets just say I'm less then impressed with the quality of soldier like skills I have seen from them (woman). Everything from crying during a section attack because it was "too far" to getting on the man eating truck at every opportunity that presented itself.

My curiosity compels me to ask why is it the the Officers were so much better examples of what woman in a cbt arms  trade could be then at the NCM level.... training at RMC and during the phase process, or that it seems at the NCM lvl the pressure to produce the first cbt arms (reg) Sgt or WO or just generally bending of the standards to push as many woman into the the Bn's to achieve some sort of sexual parity?


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Nov 2005)

As much as this pains me to admit it (everyone knows that I hate officers, women, and reservists, not neccesarily in that order  :-* ), officers in general seem to have more determination and drive as to what they want to be (notice that I said "in general".... I have seen more than a few that were, well to be polite, let's say "rudderless"). And I think that ANYBODY who is trying to break into a non-traditional field, especially one as politically-charged as being a female combat arms officer, is going to want to "WANT it". So with that desire to succeed, and a more than likely above average capability (i.e they trained hard prior to ever starting their "official" training), they were able to succeed. And to be honest, when I go to the gym (here and Edmonton, and I'm sure it's the same elsewhere), I notice that a very high proportion of the female officers (from the base) are in there on a regular basis, more so than female NCM's, and even male officers, so that says something (and officers, if you wonder how I can spot you from the unwashed masses (in civvies and PT gear), I can't tell you.... it's a trade secret).

People who are run of the mill and wishy-washy about what they want are set up for failure, no matter who they are, and what they are attempting to do. The fact that so many people who join the CF that are wishy-washy, don't take the time to prepare themselves mentally, emotionally and physically, and still gain entrance makes me sad. You should have "WANT it", and want it bad to get in, barriers be damned. I think we need to have barriers in place to stop the Walter Mitty types (young 'uns, this might involve a bit of reading to understand what I mean... think "poser" and you get the idea) from joining and then thinking "This wasn't so hard.... I don't know what the big whoop was???!!?" It IS hard to fight wars (not that I actually know this from personal experience, but I have been around enough to know that the training should simulate the experience... alas it has been reduced in standard as well), so we need people capable of fighting (ALL trades, all religions, all genders, all heights, all colours, etc).

Al


----------



## FastEddy (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Isn't paternity leave provided to CF members?   I believe it is, but somebody can clear this one up.   So if we allow women to take time off for parenting needs and we allow men to take time off for parenting needs, then what is the use of comparing it to the issue of rucking and charging an MG nest?




They are two separate issues, Muskrat98 is not suggesting that pregnant CF Female members are subjected or would be required to be put in harmsway.

But the examples he suggests might be difficult or out of character or/and not as attainable to the conclusion in general by a Female Soldier.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But the examples he suggests might be difficult or out of character or/and not as attainable to the conclusion in general by a Female Soldier.



The issue being discussed was parental leave.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Nov 2005)

I'm kind of torn on the article... agreeing and disagreeing all over the place. One point I think she hit, BANG ON, is the emasculation of our society. Feminists have successfully murdered the representation and accomodation of the male pscyhe and masculine value system in our institutions and society at large. Boys aren't just "being boys" any more, now they have ADD or are "delinquent". The system of education is at odds with the character of young males and makes no attempt at accomodation. This isn't surprising when you take into account the fact that the education system is dominated by women. Accordingly, we're seeing boys doing worse and worse in school. I can't imagine an education system which deals realistically with young males having zero-tolerance policies on violence. Boys will fight, that's what they do, but because our education system is female-dominated and female-focused, we're expelling and suspending boys for schoolyard fights, thus damaging their educational prospects and alienating them. 

No surprise that the military's been such a favourite target for the dim-witted feminists out there. After all, it embodies so much of the masculine value base that it was just too male to leave alone. Next we'll start teaching our soldiers the finer points of slapping and hair-pulling, along with classes on "how to listen sensitively to your panzy trenchmate whine about his cramps and feelings of inadequacy" or perhaps a course on "how to over-react to anything and everything you find offensive". 

And what's driving it all? Misandry. Many have never heard the word, it's no surprise - feminists would have us believe there's no such thing when a good chunk of their policies and opinions revolve around it. As someone said once, it's the only form of bigotry considered "politically correct".


----------



## FastEddy (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The issue being discussed was parental leave.




Yes, the general discussion was revolving around Parental Leave, but Muskrat89's issue was he took issue with the CF's being compared to any other employer.

His suggestion of Circumstances and Hazards which are certainally not prevalent for other employers was his point and I presumed he was still on topic "Fighting is for men"


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> along with classes on "how to listen sensitively to your panzy trenchmate whine about his cramps and feelings of inadequacy" or perhaps a course on "how to over-react to anything and everything you find offensive".



Haven't you had your SHARP classes yet?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

As well, I remembered something that may have relevence to this thread.   Note that being in the Combat Arms presents a gamut of other issues, but I think this addresses Ms Kay's notion that "Fighting is for Men":



> For the Record: MPs Outgunned but Win
> Editor's Note: This is an After Action Report on the combat incident on March 20, 2005 near Salman Pak, Iraq, between a squad of ten soldiers from the 617th Military Police Co. (Kentucky Army National Guard) assigned to the 18th MP Brigade, and a group of between 40-50 armed Iraqi fighters. The report was written by the brigade intelligence officer. Names of the troops involve have been deleted, and the text has been slightly edited for clarity.
> AFTER ACTION REPORT: Raven 42 Action in Salman Pak
> 
> ...



Note: this female E5 won the Silver Star for conduct under fire - that is the third highest award for bravery awarded in the US Army.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Haven't you had your SHARP classes yet?



You're right, I suppose they've already instituted those classes.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Nov 2005)

armywoman said:
			
		

> On a 'unrelated note"   I passed my BFT.   Yay..go me!



If that is not based in sarcasm, then:

Are you proud you were able to achieve the minimum fitness standard in the Army?


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Nov 2005)

> Note: this female E5 won the Silver Star for conduct under fire - that is the third highest award for bravery awarded in the US Army.



Based on the report, I definitely think that citations are meritted for the E5. Of course their will be political statements made based on her gender, as though that is the issue. The issues that should be highlighted before gender should be: gallantry, training, and leadership. No need to mention races, genders, sexual orientations, age, political affiliations, astrological symbols, etc.

Well done her, and the rest of the MP squad!! Now if we could our MP's to be like that.... \

Al


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not a woman can do a man's job, the relative numbers within a cbt unit is minimal meaning that women generally are not interested in cbt jobs. So it brings things back around to whether or not they should be alowed to serve in a cbt unit in the first place.  Leave you lilberal brain in the gutter for a moment and ask yourself if it makes sense to change the living arrangements for 1 person? or to have special considerations for one person while deployed just because it is that time of the month?  It is all a question of numbers and is it worth it on those numbers. Based on the numbers it isn't worth it and regardless of what some women think, they don't speak for all women, first buch of Canadian girls to die (in Cbt units) and they'll find out real quick what a democracy wants regardless of what they think or feel on the matter.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not a woman can do a man's job, the relative numbers within a cbt unit is minimal meaning that women generally are not interested in cbt jobs. So it brings things back around to whether or not they should be alowed to serve in a cbt unit in the first place.   Leave you lilberal brain in the gutter for a moment and ask yourself if it makes sense to change the living arrangements for 1 person? or to have special considerations for one person while deployed just because it is that time of the month?   It is all a question of numbers and is it worth it on those numbers. Based on the numbers it isn't worth it and regardless of what some women think, they don't speak for all women, first buch of Canadian girls to die (in Cbt units) and they'll find out real quick what a democracy wants regardless of what they think or feel on the matter.



Interesting point to raise but when I joined, worked-up, deployed and what not, I didn't notice any change in living arrangements that were built around the two females in the company (a clerk and a 031).  Washrooms were shared, living quarters were common, etc, etc.  The only real allowance was that the females could throw a "women" sign on in the shower for 10 minutes giving them access to one of the shower rooms - since a real operating environment wouldn't have showers, I just considered that the price of a luxury.

Have you seen anything to indicate the opposite - maybe with the CSS camps, but then it's not an issue of combat arms, is it?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not a woman can do a man's job, the relative numbers within a cbt unit is minimal meaning that women generally are not interested in cbt jobs. So it brings things back around to whether or not they should be alowed to serve in a cbt unit in the first place.   Leave you lilberal brain in the gutter for a moment and ask yourself if it makes sense to change the living arrangements for 1 person? or to have special considerations for one person while deployed just because it is that time of the month?   It is all a question of numbers and is it worth it on those numbers. Based on the numbers it isn't worth it and regardless of what some women think, they don't speak for all women, first buch of Canadian girls to die (in Cbt units) and they'll find out real quick what a democracy wants regardless of what they think or feel on the matter.



I haven't really looked at it in a 'gender' way, but more as an extra administrative burden in the field or on Ops, much in the same light as Unknown C/S has put it.   Twice the ablution areas to be produced, maintained and secured.   In our North American society, that is the way we are still looking at things.   In many European Armies, where the sexes are more integrated into the Units, Topless or completely naked bodies are more common place in communal showers and ablution areas.   We are a bit more prudish and that causes extra tensions needlessly.   Once our society changes we may see quite a difference, one way or the other.   The pendulum may swing the complete opposite direction too.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

As I said before, my experience with deploying with females was common shitters and showers; the females got to squeeze 10 minutes out of one of the shower trailors - I'd be powering down the morning wood into the urinal and a girl would walk by to brush her teeth.   Since I'm not interested in chasing her tail (1. I don't like to crap where I eat; 2. It is illegal as there was an order against it; 3. My GF was hotter anyways), I didn't mind the fact that I let out a big fart at that moment either....

Is this not common practice; at least for Combat Arms areas?


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Interesting point to raise but when I joined, worked-up, deployed and what not, I didn't notice any change in living arrangements that were built around the two females in the company (a clerk and a 031).   Washrooms were shared, living quarters were common, etc, etc.



I would have to say that they have changed, the initial arrangements were mostly neccesarry because the existing infastructure did not facilitate women.   



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Have you seen anything to indicate the opposite - maybe with the CSS camps, but then it's not an issue of combat arms, is it?



CSS camps or any overseas camp does facilitate women, as for Cbt Arms it does effect them in the sense that insead of women being included in there respective Section/Pl/or Coy for that matter, women are for the most part segregated together with little thought towards their desire to maintain Unit integrity. As you know Cbt Units as a whole require that integrity to a great deal as team building and that closeness often reflects on the battlefield.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Hmm...I must say that was never my experience; perhaps it was because we were in   a Coy(-) camp.  As you said, the number of females is quite small - how much infrastructure do you really need to support 1 or 2 ladies?  A "Ladies" sign was all we needed.

Perhaps this shows that we are a little immature to seperating females and males - I've seen it work with almost no seperation what-so-ever.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps this shows that we are a little immature to seperating females and males - I've seen it work with almost no seperation what-so-ever.



I agree it did work, within the Cbt Units, where it didn't work was in the schools and because of a few leaders that abused thier posn it has set us back probably 10 - 15 years and have set the new standard we see today.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

OK, so schools and dumbasses at the schools were the problem - I think that's a small concern when you consider that on operations, things seem to go fairly well.


----------



## armyvern (10 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not a woman can do a man's job


Yes, it has everything to do with whether or not she can do the job. Whether you like it or not. If she can meet the same common standards as the men and do the job just as well...too bad for you and your chauvinistic attitude. I don't care whether the soldier next to me is orange, green, black, white, male, female, gay or straight, as long as they happen to posses the soldiering skills required to get the job done. I'd rather have an excellent soldier who is female next to me than a shitty soldier who is male any day of the week.


			
				Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> the relative numbers within a cbt unit is minimal meaning that women generally are not interested in cbt jobs.


Or that they can not meet the standard. Which is fine by me because the boys who can not meet the standard are not supposed to be there either.


			
				Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> So it brings things back around to whether or not they should be allowed to serve in a cbt unit in the first place. Leave you liberal brain in the gutter for a moment and ask yourself if it makes sense to change the living arrangements for 1 person?


You'd do this for me? That must be YOUR problem you see. I never had any living arrangements made for me out in the field. Shared my hooch with a man and I can get dressed in my sleeping bag just as good as the boys can. In the odd instance where this occurred out of the bag...it was no biggie to me or to them. It's called professionalism, you should go get issued some somewhere.


			
				Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> or to have special considerations for one person while deployed just because it is that time of the month?


 You are indeed right out of er. We do not need special considerations 'just because it's that time of the month' where do you manage to come up with such an asinine remark? I have never been accommodated due to my period nor have I ever met a single female who has been....perhaps your biased chauvinism is truly showing through when you need to resort to an absolutely falsehood such as this to try to back up your point.


			
				Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> It is all a question of numbers and is it worth it on those numbers. Based on the numbers it isn't worth it and regardless of what some women think, they don't speak for all women, first bunch of Canadian girls to die (in Cbt units) and they'll find out real quick what a democracy wants regardless of what they think or feel on the matter.


Actually numbers are proving that many women either don't want to pursue those first line roles, or that they are not capable of meeting the standards required to fill those first line roles. Less than .075 percent of first line roles are occupied by females, while the general average throughout the CF is 14%. Why does this upset you? After all, having a female beside you in the trench doesn't cost the taxpayer a single penny more than it costs to have you there. She gets the exact same kit, and humps her own ruck. So don't pull the old it costs more BS out of the bag either. She eats, sleeps, drinks and humps the same as you. It ain't costing anybody any more money to accomplish that. Your argument is moot. And, regardless of what you think, no-one on here has claimed that some women think they speak for all women, apparently you presume to speak for those of us with a different attitude than your very own sorely outdated one. By the way, I am not a liberal. Just so we clear that up right away.
If and when a female soldier dies in combat, it will truly be a sad day for this nation, but I doubt that a change will occur in the current situation. After all, in her honour, she has died in battle whilst serving her country amongst her fellow soldiers doing something she believed in. A risk she was willing to accept in order to accomplish the mission, and you presume that the average citizen would destroy her honourable death by advocating a change to the system because you couldn't handle that fact? And yes, I presume that you are amongst those who couldn't handle that fact as you are obviously having a hard time with the reality that there are females currently serving in the PPCLI who are getting the job done, and in a couple of cases, better than some of the men amongst whom they serve. 
I will fight any move to do this very loudly and very vocally every step of the way, she earned that right, just like the man who died beside her.


----------



## armyvern (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Have you seen anything to indicate the opposite - maybe with the CSS camps, but then it's not an issue of combat arms, is it?


Infanteer, I can assure you that no special arrangements are made on the CSS side of the house while I've been deployed or in the field either.


----------



## armyvern (10 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> CSS camps or any overseas camp does facilitate women, as for Cbt Arms it does effect them in the sense that insead of women being included in there respective Section/Pl/or Coy for that matter, women are for the most part segregated together with little thought towards their desire to maintain Unit integrity. As you know Cbt Units as a whole require that integrity to a great deal as team building and that closeness often reflects on the battlefield.


Well, if the need 10 shacks for the number of personnel filling posns, and they have enough females to fill one of the shacks, then they are seperate. It hasn't cost an extra dime, because if those posns were filled by males, they'd still need 10 shacks.

By the way, I'm in a CSS role. Out of all my deployments, only once have I been housed in a strictly female quarters (again because there were enough females that roto to fill up 1 shack out of 9) but even then, it was only for the 1st half of the tour. Upon the 3 month roto which had fewer females, our empty rooms filled up with guys, and they too got their 10 minutes set aside for their showers. It works both ways.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Infanteer, I can assure you that no special arrangements are made on the CSS side of the house while I've been deployed or in the field either.



My experience was that CSS contingents usually had a higher number of females so seperate living stations and bathrooms were arranged for the them (this is what I saw at Camp BlackBear, if I recall correctly).   But since females are a larger proportion of the service trades and since we talking about the Combat Arms, I don't think it was an issue (which was 1 or 2 in a combat arms position).



			
				armyvern said:
			
		

> If and when a female soldier dies in combat, it will truley be a sad day for this nation, but I doubt that a change will occur in the current situation.



They have been dying in Iraq and I haven't seen a huge fallout in the States; 49 women have died in Iraq, and note that most of them were due to hostile acts.   So you're absolutely correct armyvern - as usual, good post.   

Folks, let's not have this thread be about "men vs women" - it'll get locked like the last 500.

As far as the CF is concerned, there is only one criteria - *you can see it below*.   It seems to me that if you can do that, then you're good to go in the Combat Arms.   Unfortunately, many aspects of the CF don't serve to ensure that the standards approach this criteria - how do we fix this?


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

armyvern; the beautiful thing about a democracy is not the ability to speak but to look at both sides of an arguement before you speak.   I am not a chauvanist by any stretch of the imagination.   I will work with anyone any time and I'm sorry that you were unable to go back a couple of pages to read my other posts.   realistically you have to look at every side of this topic in order to support an opinion. That is a debate. But regardless search for your own truth, 'One Standard, One Army' I could give less who you are.   As for males not reaching the standard... I agree.


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Nov 2005)

I have only seen "segregation" in regards to showering (but not completely... I will get back to this in a minute....) and toilets (mostly). 

Women bunk with men on course (in the field shacks), and sleep in the same tents. I'm sure most women have seen more bare, hairy, pimply asses by now than they ever care to, and most guys have got used to changing with women around. It becomes more or less a non-issue. There are some prudes to be sure: I was a DS on a course and went to take a leak behind a LAVIII, and checked my back-blast area, and noticed there was a female student in the back of the LAV. I took a few "courtesy" steps further into the woods, and she called out "I can  still see you!!!" I told her to "turn your head, and look away then!!! You'll have to lose that modesty before you get overseas and have to take a dump on the verge of the road with cars passing by, because you can't walk into the woods because of the mines!!" This was an officer, and I don't think she liked my tone, but tough sh!t... 

As for showering, I showered in a Dutch camp in Bosnia, and we were all aflutter at the thought of the infamous co-ed showers. Well, if they are all like the one we used, there is no big deal. You have your own stall, and you never see any of the other person, other than when they enter/exit (fully clothed usually). Unless you put your face down to floor level to look into the other stall (there is about a 2 inch gap to allow water to flow through), but you would probably end up with a toe in the eye for your troubles. I think by now, everybody has inadvertently seen a member of the opposite sex naked in the field to some degree. I don't think that it's nearly as big of a deal as most people make it, except for wive's (and husbands, I suppose) who hear that their spouse is sleeping 6 inches from that hot young thing they saw at the unit Xmas party..... who is snoring, burping and farting in their sleep just as much as the Tp WO..... sexxxxxxxxy :-X

I don't know if our N American puritanical ways will ever allow a co-ed shower like witnessed in Star-Ship Troopers, and I have heard via rumournet (with more than a few reliable sources) a case of a woman hopping into a gang shower full of men because she didn't want to wait until it was the "girls" turn, and all the hot water was gone. It was a completely non-arousing occurence apparently, as this particular female didn't exactly give Pam Anderson a run for the money, and I think the guys were probably embarassed more than they would care to admit.... imagine if a guy did likewise in a woman's shower!!!! They wouldn't be able to build a pole high enough to hang him from.....

I think that it had taken a while, but most people have adjusted (more or less) to having to work around members of the opposite sex, as long as everyone is adult about it (not walking around with Johnson's exposed for shock value (face it.... most guys are uncomfortable seeing another guy walking around uncovered, let alone a woman having to deal with it) or a rack unsheathed willy-nilly.) 

As for toilets, I hate it when they "segregate" Blue-rockets and the like by gender. If there is only one person in there at a time, there is no requirement to allocate them by gender. I understand there is a requirement for allocating them for cooks, medics, etc due to hygiene reasons (though even that is flimsy to some degree..... I doubt my urine or fecal matter is any less unhygenic than a cooks, medics, etc.... and yes, I know how to wash my hands, and/or use hand sanitizer..... hopefully all the cooks do  :-X ). I hate seeing 30+ guys waiting for the use of 3 Blue rockets, and the one female has exclusive use of her own personal commode.... no wonder there becomes an us/them mentality. My wife has a fairly gross story about having to use Blue rockets in Haiti in '95, and the "remnants" of some guys "holo-deck" experience were covering the walls.... yes, that is disgusting, but I know that some women can be equally disgusting.

Anyway, it's the ablution/toilet/nekkid-ness issues that people always trot out as reasons why we shouldn't mix the sexes, but I think if people can be mature about it, give a little privacy when required, and put up with what are usually only minor inconveniences, I think that the world won't end. 

Al


----------



## George Wallace (10 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I don't know if our N American puritanical ways will ever allow a co-ed shower like witnessed in Star-Ship Troopers, and I have heard via rumournet (with more than a few reliable sources) a case of a woman hopping into a gang shower full of men because she didn't want to wait until it was the "girls" turn, and all the hot water was gone. It was a completely non-arousing occurence apparently, as this particular female didn't exactly give Pam Anderson a run for the money, and I think the guys were probably embarassed more than they would care to admit.... imagine if a guy did likewise in a woman's shower!!!! They wouldn't be able to build a pole high enough to hang him from.....



Al

I think I will have to agree with you 100% on this.....it is a Time Thing.   As Time passes we will see more 'integration' and less prudish behavior.   There still are many, of all ages, who have puritanical beliefs when it comes to genders in various circumstances.   The problems are getting fewer and fewer.   When Unknown C/S and I remember the extra administration, it was Pre-Blue Rocket Days.   Then we had to dig ablution trenches and fence them in with Hessian.   Separate Latrines and ablution areas for everyone.   Actors in the movies had to keep one foot on the floor, in all the bedroom scenes.   Although Times have gradually changed, we still need time to 'adapt' further to have everyone truly think of each other as equals gender wise.


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As far as the CF is concerned, there is only one criteria - *you can see it below*.    It seems to me that if you can do that, then you're good to go in the Combat Arms.    Unfortunately, many aspects of the CF don't serve to ensure that the standards approach this criteria - how do we fix this?



Speaking from and operational and training stand point, the problem looks to be that the CF has an 'enterance standard' whereas the Cbt Arms has an 'operational standard'.   No one seems to realize that once the soldier reaches their parent unit, it is that parent units responsibility to 'train' the soldier to achieve the operational requirements.   Without recognizing that, many will continue to believe that enterance standards are operational standards and that if someone can complete the BFT they are fit.   Where as enforcing a fitness standard at trade schools for specific requirements of that trade, rather than trying to - but being handcuffed because of the enterance requirement, would work a long way to improve fitness levels at unit level.

Enterance requirements are just that, to gain enterance into the CF or Trade, it should not be the soldiers peak level of fitness for their terms of service. Realistically it should be the base for which their level of training starts and progresses from so that when they leave basic they are at respectable level of fitness so that reaching operational readiness is not unobtainable at unit level.   Additionally with realistic fitness standards - required to pass to the next evolution in their training - they have to be enforced and soldier given a set number of chances to reach that standard.   If they reache it they move on, if not trade re-assignment.


----------



## Gunner (10 Nov 2005)

> I hate it when they "segregate" Blue-rockets and the like by gender. If there is only one person in there at a time, there is no requirement to allocate them by gender. I understand there is a requirement for allocating them for cooks, medics, etc due to hygiene reasons (though even that is flimsy to some degree..... I doubt my urine or fecal matter is any less unhygenic than a cooks, medics, etc.... and yes, I know how to wash my hands, and/or use hand sanitizer..... hopefully all the cooks do   ).



I can't remember if I have ever seen segregated blue rockets.


----------



## buzgo (11 Nov 2005)

I have seen segregated rockets and its ridiculous. There are a lot of females in the sigop trade, so I think that we have more integration experience/issues - there always seems to be 'militant' women that put 'female only' signs on the rockets, and then other women who are pissed at them and rip them down... this carries over to everything else. I've seen women with french manicures trying not to break nails while setting up camnets and I've seen other women hauling jerrycans for hours at a time with a smile on their face.

Its the same with guys too, there are always bad apples.


----------



## paracowboy (11 Nov 2005)

Julien was entirely segregated by gender. As were Zgon, Drvar, Tomislavgrad, Glamoc, Valika Kladusa. On my deployments.
Others report differently. Perhaps it simply depended on the maturity level of the troops in question, and the trust their superiors had in them?


----------



## brin11 (11 Nov 2005)

Here's a short story regarding the blue rockets from a few years ago.  

A new private (female type) came up to me during the day and proceeded to state that she thought we should lay claim on one of the rockets a bit of a distance away as the female rocket.  I proceeded to ask her for a count of people in the biv (which was approx. 50).  I then asked her for a count of females in the biv (there were three).  I then asked her why she felt 3 people deserved their own rocket for their exclusive use.  She got the point quickly and I'm pretty sure she'll pass the sentiments on to the next bunch in.  There are some out there that feel they deserve special privileges but I haven't met very many of them.  As for sleeping arrangements, I've always slept with the guys and have fought for the privilege to do so as I think its only right to not divide your section.  What a stupid idea and an easy way to increase the size of the gender divide.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Nov 2005)

As a leader in a unit which has approx 45% women, I feel that there are two factors which determine whether or not you should have separate facilities:

1. time in location, and
2. facilities avail.

Sleeping areas need not be segregated if you have washroom and showering facilities that are segregated. But on lengthy deployments it is preferable to have them segregated as well.

BTW the only troops "entitled" a separate rocket for hygiene reasons in the field are cooks (that also goes for showers and clothes washing). Do you want to force your cook to use the diarrhea filled rocket right before he dishes out your dinner?

Let me rephrase entitled to "that MUST have".


----------



## armyvern (11 Nov 2005)

brin11 said:
			
		

> Here's a short story regarding the blue rockets from a few years ago.
> 
> A new private (female type) came up to me during the day and proceeded to state that she thought we should lay claim on one of the rockets a bit of a distance away as the female rocket.   ... She got the point quickly and I'm pretty sure she'll pass the sentiments on to the next bunch in.



Brin11, I hope you sorted the newbie out!! I gotta tell you, I am sitting here thinking about this, and I can come up with zero legitimate reasons/needs for rocket segregation to occur. This practise must cease !!

Edited to add: "As long as the boys remember to lift the seats"...


----------



## brin11 (11 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Brin11, I hope you sorted the newbie out!! I gotta tell you, I am sitting here thinking about this, and I can come up with zero legitimate reasons/needs for rocket segregation to occur. This practise must cease !!


armyvern,  of course I did.  See the "I'm pretty sure she'll pass the sentiments on......".  

As for the cook's rocket, is it not diarrhea filled as well?  Or are they eating something different from the rest of the troopies??


----------



## armywoman (12 Nov 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> If that is not based in sarcasm, then:
> 
> Are you proud you were able to achieve the minimum fitness standard in the Army?



It was not sarcasm.  And yes..I was proud to pass A fitness test period.  I would like to say that I worked my fat a$$ off, but sadly I look behind me and it is still there.  
Next on my agenda is quickening my pace, and shortening the time it took me to do it.

Going back to the current conversation
I have been on exercises where I was with 30 guys and I am the only female.  We slept in the same tent, no dividers.  Same blue rockets.  It worked out fine, as far as I and my coworkers were concerned. 

When I did my basic my bunk mate was a 17 year old male.  Welcome to the army!  Now that was a challenge, getting dressed when the person you share your small space with is the opposite sex.  Luckily he was an awesome kid and dealt with it like a professional.  There may have been times when trying to put my panties on under my towel was difficult,and there was a few incidents where I lost the grip on my towel. 
 but I hear he has not suffered any permanent damage.
I dealt with it.   That is because I knew what I was getting into when I joined.  Having grown up a base brat.  Unfortunately not all females have the same mind set.  It all comes down to professionalism and teamwork.  If someone was not comfortable with changing in the same room as guys, or girls for that matter concessions can be made.  As much as we would all like a perfect little army world where we don't have to make pretty signs to distinguish the toilet from the toilette, we don't.  We have to make the best of it we can.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Nov 2005)

I crew commanded an AVLB for a few years.  I had a female driver/operator for about a year.  After some initial apprehension on my part (she was much younger than me, and armoured engineer crews live in close quarters) she worked out fine.  there were a few times on combat team attacks when she would jump off the vehicle, run around back, and take a (relatively) quick leak.  I asked her if it bothered her to do that, her reply; "If all these guys out here have nothing better to do than watch me pee, then rock on."  Cracked me up then, still does now.


----------



## armyvern (12 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> there were a few times on combat team attacks when she would jump off the vehicle, run around back, and take a (relatively) quick leak.


Yeah..it does take us a couple extra seconds to get into firing posn for this!!  ;D


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I asked her if it bothered her to do that, her reply; "If all these guys out here have nothing better to do than watch me pee, then rock on."   Cracked me up then, still does now.


Good on her.
And good for you too!!


----------



## HADES 1962 (12 Nov 2005)

Very interesting post.
Did I ever pick a one to respond to, as this is my first.
The lowering of standards yes it fact it had happened.
IMHO I feel that the issue started with the introduction to the human rights bandwagon that entered the forces in the 80's.
Then along came the SHARP awareness training.
I have been the forces now for a little over 21 years, served with 1 RCHA, 2 RCHA, 3 RCHA, AD Troop 2RCHA, and 119 AD BTY was field artillery and ad artillery before OT to CE trade.
In my experience with the artillery both mud gunners and bird gunners, I had females on my detachments, they were given separate tent age.
If mod tent age was used it was divided, out of sheer respect to each other.
On my deployments the females were given separate sleeping quarters, and shower/ washrooms.
I am a married man and no desire to gawk at another woman, if a female was prancing around me in the ala buff I would not appreciate it, but then that is my morals and mine alone.
Its like I told one of my detachment members while on ex the young female gunner
Was the same age as his daughter and would he appreciate his troops gawking at her?
His response was hell no I would kill em.
Basically all that I am saying is the male female idea comes down to a maturity moral ethics issue.
With the exception of the beginning of this thread which was the lowering of standards.
PS yes MR. Monkhouse we did serve in the same battery with Mooner and Sgt Weber.


----------



## steve-o (13 Nov 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> God forbid women get pregnant. I guess women *shouldn't* serve because the idea of a pregnant woman in a uniform is too ridiculous for you?
> 
> Other employers provide mat leave, why is this even an issue in the CF?



Is that what you infered from my post? My god, people really hear what they want to hear. I never said I thought it was rediculous for a pregnant woman to be in uniform, but combats? Do you really think a pregnant woman is capable of combat? Follow the thread and you would realise that I was agreeing that the standards were lowered and PCism was far too rampant in the forces. I hope you ar not in a decision making process in the forces, because you are not smart, plain and simple, midgetop!


----------



## Expat (13 Nov 2005)

Whole problem with the female in the Army is Canadian society. If you look at Europe the female body is not seen as a sexual object. Heck I know for a fact that they have coop bathrooms, showers and bath houses in lots of countries. I had a friend in a German high school and he said he took showers with other females after gym classes.

I am in the ROK at the moment and its the same way here, heck I personally think women here have more balls then men. Its not uncommon to share accommodations with women, and bathrooms, etc. The problem is North American society has turned everything Taboo, the female body is a sexual object where as a lot of different societies don't see it this way. 

Lets face it when crap hits the fan, women, men and even children become front line soldiers. People are overly sensitized by society and the media. Lowering standards will really not solve any problems and they should really remedy this problem rather quickly.


----------



## armyvern (13 Nov 2005)

Expat said:
			
		

> Whole problem with the female in the Army is Canadian North American society. If you look at Europe the female body is not seen as a sexual object.



I'm going to back you up on this. In my experience through postings in Europe, and many a 60s and leaves spent wallowing topless in the waters of Spain, Cyprus, Israel, Italy etc....the only ones who managed to break their necks snapping their heads around to take a look at the assets walking about (and taking lots of pics too) were the soldiers we were on leave with or the obviously 'North American' men spending their vacations in the same places.

Reminds me of the time we had just got posted back from Germany and the family went out to Grand Lake for a swim. My mother and I automatically removed our tops and started walking towards the water. People freaked. It was too funny!! By then it had become habit I guess. Please...post me back to Ontario!!


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

I've been side by side in Mod tent - crew tents, and hooches with female soldiers.
 Trust me after week two - neither of you are in any shape to 1) have energey for "extra curicular" activities 2) you both reek.

Sexuality is highly talked about but unrealistic issue.  Do your job - no problems.

 I dont care if my buddy is black/white/yellow/blue - male-female -- they are all green  and as long as they do their job thats all I need to see.


That said we need to pick up the physical standards in the cbt arms -- a lot of men and women are not combat capable..


----------



## paracowboy (13 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I've been side by side in Mod tent - crew tents, and hooches with female soldiers.
> Trust me after week two - neither of you are in any shape to 1) have energey for "extra curicular" activities 2) you both reek.
> 
> Sexuality is highly talked about but unrealistic issue.   Do your job - no problems.
> ...


there it is.


----------



## ZipperHead (13 Nov 2005)

> That said we need to pick up the physical standards in the cbt arms -- a lot of men and women are not combat capable..



And that, folks, sums up 7 or 8 pages of posts. No gender bashing, just the cold hard truth. I don't care what ANYBODY says: the EXPRES test, the BFT/AFS test, nothing that we currently have as a standard, other than perhaps the JTF selection test (Cooper's test, if my feeble memory serves), determines if a person is physically ready for combat. I think that many people in positions of power realize this, but are afraid to impose a more difficult standard, because a HUGE percentage of the CF would not meet the standard. So the heads go into the sand, hoping that all the hard wars will pass us by..... maybe we can fight a war from our computer workstations, and order take-out after we win!!!! Extra gravy on the fries for me, please....

Al


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

1 and 3 VP do the Coopers.

 Failing making it Army wide - bring back the PT400 (basically Cooper minus the Benchpress).


----------



## Armymedic (13 Nov 2005)

The Coopers test isn't the test for it either. Its a good test to determine overall fitness but there is no 'standard of fitness' in it.

But its not the name or nature of the test that will determine its effectiveness, but the ENFORCED standard one should have to achieve. If we don't set a realistic standard, and strictly enforce it, then no standard will do. Too many times do people fail, yes fail, the BFT yet they still get to go overseas. Why?


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

Enforce a requirement to get X points.

IIRC 031's used to have to get 325 on the PT 400 - and guys who got 400 got a day off.

 I got 386 one year - but never maxed...
(I like Haugen Das Ice Cream too much to do 20 chins...  ;D )


----------



## Unknown Factor (13 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I think that many people in positions of power realize this, but are afraid to impose a more difficult standard, because a HUGE percentage of the CF would not meet the standard.



The sad reality is that those that have been around long enough is that they couldn't meet the physical standard from when they got in, in the the first place.  There are allot of people talking about the fact that we should raise the standard but as you know they are not likely to pass it when it comes, leading me to belive that privately they are happy with the way things are so that they can maintain their current life style. To have and enforce a standard means that a member of the forces would have to be tested and pass it each year and if they don't achieve a pass, have 6 months to try a pass it before being released.


----------



## Haggis (14 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> To have and enforce a standard means that a member of the forces would have to be tested and pass it each year ...



What a novel idea!  ;D

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Until we apply and enforce the existing  standards, there's little sense in creating a new, even more unacheivable, standard.

There's nothing wrong with the EXPRES Test or BFT providing that everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY!!) is tested  on one or the other yearly and sees the consequences of failure in a tangible and, where warranted, career altering way.


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Nov 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> What a novel idea!  ;D
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Until we apply and enforce the existing  standards, there's little sense in creating a new, even more unacheivable, standard.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the EXPRES Test or BFT providing that everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY!!) is tested  on one or the other yearly and sees the consequences of failure in a tangible and, where warranted, career altering way.



There is in fact something wrong with the EXPRES test and/or BFT: it isn't a realistic standard for a combat soldier. In that it is embarrasingly low. In that people strive to barely achieve it. If we wait until every last sad sack can reach the dizzingly low height that the bar is set at, any enemy we encounter will soundly trounce us, rape, loot and pillage (in that order) every small town in their path, and then laugh at us to top it all off. 

I agree that the standards have to be enforced. But to hope that "they" (which is actually "we", but who's counting.....) will make everybody conform is ridiculous. That would be like saying "No pay raises for politicians until every one of them becomes ethical and accountable!!". As someobdy alluded to, there are too many people happy with the standard the way it is: easily attainable with a minimum of output. 

I think that there needs to be a combat arms PT standard enforced. Screw waiting for every last CSS trade to get into shape. This purple trade structure we have will prevent us from this EVER happening. Billy or Suzy Bloggins who spends 15 years in a cushy static posting where the standard is most definitely a large double-double with 2 bear-claws, and then gets thrown into a combat arms unit is going to cry FOUL as soon as they are given 3 months to get into fighting shape. Hell, as soon as most combat arms guys come out of ERE or any other cushy go need a year to get into shape, so why should we expect any different from the purple trades.

IF somebody set a reasonably high standard (300+ in  PT400, or a minimum of level 2 across the board in the PT tests built into the new AFS manual) and enforced it (after a reasonable amount of "work up" time - let's say 3 months), I don't think that's asking too much. But somebody who failed it would invariably whine to a Human Rights tribunal that some navy buddy of theirs isn't expected to do the same, and waaaa waaaaa waaaaa all the way to the donut shop. 

I have a saying that applies (somewhat) to this that I ripped off of a classic saying: "The fit get fitter, and the fat get fatter.....". Any time that you give people the time to get into shape, but don't hold them accountable for an end result, that is what happens.

And don't get me wrong: given the choice, I would gladly sit on my ass and do nothing (if I could remain fit), but that ain't reality. And that, and pride and shame, stop me from sitting around getting fat, and shirking my duty to remain fit to fight (after all, I only get ~$60000/yr for that ). But some people have neither shame nor pride, nor do they feel compelled to give the public what they are paying for.

Al
Al


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> There is in fact something wrong with the EXPRES test and/or BFT: it isn't a realistic standard for a combat soldier. In that it is embarrasingly low. In that people strive to barely achieve it. If we wait until every last sad sack can reach the dizzingly low height that the bar is set at, any enemy we encounter will soundly trounce us, rape, loot and pillage (in that order) every small town in their path, and then laugh at us to top it all off.



US soldiers in the Bataan peninsula were undernourished but gave a good account of themselves tactically on occasion.   German soldiers in the Stalingrad pocket were also severely undernourished and probably not getting much exercise - but still fought well enough until forced to surrender due to lack of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and will.

I'm not recommending that we send unfit soldiers off to fight, and a fit soldier would be superior to an unfit soldier on the battlefield, but your doom and gloom description is a bit over the top.   There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!) - fitness is only one component of military ability.   You could take 700 Olympic class athletes and give them rifles, and they will not be a battalion.   Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.



On top of everything else, I didn't know you were an expert on military police skill sets as well.  ;D

[sorry- had to get even for that little incident in Esquimalt with the boys (and one rather large girl) back in '88].


----------



## Dissident (14 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> On top of everything else, I didn't know you were an expert on military police skill sets as well.   ;D
> 
> [sorry- had to get even for that little incident in Esquimalt with the boys (and one rather large girl) back in '88].



Feel free to elaborate for the new generation...


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> US soldiers in the Bataan peninsula were undernourished but gave a good account of themselves tactically on occasion.  German soldiers in the Stalingrad pocket were also severely undernourished and probably not getting much exercise - but still fought well enough until forced to surrender due to lack of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and will.
> 
> I'm not recommending that we send unfit soldiers off to fight, and a fit soldier would be superior to an unfit soldier on the battlefield, but your doom and gloom description is a bit over the top.  There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!) - fitness is only one component of military ability.  You could take 700 Olympic class athletes and give them rifles, and they will not be a battalion.  Nor would they likely outfight 300 donut-eaters with tactical training.



I'm not sure that I follow you. I say make it so that soldiers are fit. Fit to fight. Very fit, if you would. And then you come up with emaciated soldiers. Hmmmmm. Would it perhaps stand to reason that these same soldiers were very fit. Extremely fit. Perhaps exceptionally fit before they were put on a punishing regime of next to no food, and extreme physical labour. No, I bet they were all fat, lazy sacks of goo prior to this, but heck they probably were super-duper smart and knew their jobs inside out ****Extreme sarcasm alert*******

Well, no sh!t I think that fitness is only one component of military ability. How do you test people on these other components? The ubiquitous multiple-guess tests that we conduct? "Here class, here's a 'review' *wink, wink* of what will be covered on the test tomorrow....". How about going to a conventional range and shooting? Let's see how many 7.62mm and 5.56mm pencils make an appearance to 'help' people meet the standard. You wouldn't believe how many people fail on the ATS ranges, only to be re-tested on a conventional range to 'miraculously' pass. 

The only thing that is usually hard in the military is the PT, but now that is pathetic. It actually takes work. Work!!!!!! to get into shape, and to stay there. But what the hell, let's SAY we did the PT, sit on our fat keisters instead, wait the ministerial inquiries out into why people can't do their job, and see what happens when the smoke clears...... Hopefully the standard is even lower then.....

The types of people that say that fitness isn't that important to being a soldier, aren't fit themselves. There, I said it. Say that I am a muscle-headed lunk. I'm not. Say that I am stupid. I am not. Go ahead and defend your assertion that one doesn't need to be fit to be an excellent soldier. Not a good soldier. Not a pretty good soldier. An excellent soldier. I try my best to be an excellent soldier, and that includes physically, mentally, tactically, administratively, and any other 'ly' that I can think of. The taxpayers of Canada (our bosses) deserve no less. 

And don't try to use historical accounts to back up your assertions, as the ones that you used actually go against what you were trying to prove. Fitness isn't measured in bulging biceps, or sub 3hr marathon timings. 'Fighting fit' means being physically and mentally prepared to fight, especially under adverse conditions. And someone who barely squeaks out a 2hr26min20sec 13km timing is no doubt going to fail abjectly when pushed to the wall..... But what do I know? Not much, apparently, as I don't read me my book learning history.....

Al


----------



## paracowboy (14 Nov 2005)

no no! Dorosh is right. PT is totally unnecessary. In fact, all manner of training is completely irrelevent. We don't need fit, disciplined, motivated, healthy soldiers anymore. What we need are more hugs, more doughnuts, and flashier uniforms.


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

Sigh,

 a Taxi or porter will carry my kit right?  :


----------



## Infanteer (14 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> There are plenty of occasions through history in which "unfit" soldiers fought well (not by design!)



Your use of the term "unfit" does not jive with who you applied it to.   The Marines on Guadalcanal or German soldiers on the Eastern Front were not unfit at all - malnourished at times, but malnourished doesn't mean unfit.   Robert Leckie's Helmet for a Pillow gives a good first-hand account of Marine physical training prior to Guadalcanal while there are plenty of good examples of German training - I think Meyer gives a few stories in his biography while Sajer's account is interesting, but may be lacking as an actual historical source.

Anyways, the point is that these soldiers went into these battles in incredibly good shape - forced marches, PT, team sports, and tough NCO's that hardened them, physically if required.   If they weren't this fit, they would have never have survived the malnourishment and been able to put up the fight that they did.   Physically demanding courses we see today are a testement to this - the Ranger course, focusing on leadership and patrolling tactics, purposefully underfeeds its candidates in order to provide additonal stressors for the soldiers as they attempt to complete their tasks.   Incredibly fit soldiers come out losing 20-30 pounds (I'm sure our Pathfinder Course is no different).   Again, the only way they could handle this and still still have the cojones to complete the course is due to physical (and mental) preparation prior to going into the course.


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Nov 2005)

Some people will misuse history to attempt to prove a point, and will usually be handed their a$$ to them when they get exposed for their lame efforts.
The truth is, a fit soldier will out perform an unfit soldier(all other things being equal) about 99.5% of the time. I will allow a 0.5% cushion for any unforeseen developments. Trying to justify a rapidly lowering standard of fitness in the CF is doing all members of the military an injustice!


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

The Unforseen Development 0.05%  

We could cook up the unfit soliders - the meat would have better marbeling...   ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Nov 2005)

Kevin I must be getting soft in my advanced age (don't ask) and had a slight moment of weakness. Whatever the actual percent is, I can see we're on the same page! ;D


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2005)

Kevin - having seen eaach other run, do you think we could outrunt he kitchen crew coming for us? >


MM


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Nov 2005)

And, because this thread hasn't drifted far enough off track, I quote 'Apocalypse Now':



> CHEF
> They lined us all up in front of
> a hundred yards of prime rib --
> magnificent meat, beautifully
> ...



What's the hardest course in the army???? Cook...... nobody has passed it yet. J/K, the food in the mess halls is good. Too good it might seem, based on the direction the thread (and the CF) has gone in..... But blaming food for people's lack of physical fitness is like blaming Molson's for drunk drivers....

Al


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

MM - hey dude I was on chit (had the endings of another bout with pnuemonia) during that course -- Rob just would not let me not run...


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (14 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> 1 and 3 VP do the Coopers.



Your annoying cousins from Manitoba's frozen center do it too.


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2005)

My apologies dude - I was just getting over a case of FBS - Fat Bastard Syndrome (not to mention a wicked case of shin splints).  Well, we both survived, that's what's important - no orange jumpsuits!! ;D

MM


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

I keep thinking Cairo will show up in one -- you heard he's in Iraq?


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2005)

He speaks the lingo like a local though - he might be able to talk his way out of it.  Please tell me he's not in the business?

MM


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

PM inbound


----------



## Unknown Factor (14 Nov 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> Your annoying cousins from Manitoba's frozen center do it too.



Good to hear the regts come around full circle! So if one regt can get onboard with a pt standard than what's the rest of the Army waiting for? - to be told, no doubt - what leaders!


----------



## ZipperHead (15 Nov 2005)

I went to Bosnia in 00-01 with 2VP, and because we were part of their BG, we (Recce Sqn) had to do the Cooper's Test. That wasn't an issue for most of us, as a good chunk of the soldiers (I would like to say majority, but I think that might be stretching the truth) wanted to take advantage of the 6-7 month tour to get in better shape,or at the least,maintain our fitness level. The problem was that there was no enforcement of any type. There were people, who drink in my mess that I now drink in, if you catch my drift, who had no problem with getting 5 out of 100. Or 12. Or 15. No attempt to do anything more than stroll for the 2.4km run. So, while it was nice to get at least a baseline by doing the test, there were no repercussions in failing, and even worse, not even trying.

Trying to shame people into bringing up their fitness level only works if they have shame. People have to be hit where it hurts: the wallet. I would like to see every rank have a base pay level, and if you do only the bare minimum (barely pass all tests, standards, "efficiency" ratings, etc), you receive no incentives or bonuses. However, if you strive to do your best, you receive bonuses. Reward performance, rather than rewarding mediocrity and complacency. That will never fly, because as the Warrior program highlighted, too many "leaders" didn't make the grade, and only the keen lower ranks (in general) were walking around with the silver and gold standard. For the guys (and girls) that made the gold standard, well done. 

Al


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 Nov 2005)

Interesting idea Allan, but I'm afraid in todays politically correct army where we don't dare challenge anyone it will never fly! It also would create a huge dogs breakfast with the bean counters who are in charge of sorting out our pay.


----------



## Hollywog (16 Nov 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> Well...depends on the police force. But the point remains.



In winnipeg they have different qualifications I guess the women only chase and fight gentler criminals.  
Thats why one man was shot by police last year because his female backup was,... well lacking.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Nov 2005)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Trying to shame people into bringing up their fitness level only works if they have shame. People have to be hit where it hurts: the wallet. I would like to see every rank have a base pay level, and if you do only the bare minimum (barely pass all tests, standards, "efficiency" ratings, etc), you receive no incentives or bonuses. However, if you strive to do your best, you receive bonuses. Reward performance, rather than rewarding mediocrity and complacency.



For Reservists who look at Army pay as simple beer money, this would be ineffective.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> For Reservists who look at Army pay as simple beer money, this would be ineffective.



Unless there were mandatory PT tests every so often, to ensure the troops were keeping in shape, and failure to show up or inability to pass the testing results in verbal/written warnings etc.

Is that feisable?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

You sign up today and have 5 posts - all bashing women.  You're rapidly running out of rope.


----------



## Gunnar (16 Nov 2005)

> Thats why one man was shot by police last year because his female backup was,... well lacking.



Ah, but why was she lacking?  Because of lowered standards, inherent laziness, poor training....or are you just casting aspersions  based on her internal plumbing set-up?

Lowered standards are a problem.  Inherent laziness is a discipline problem.  Poor training is the fault of the force....

Internal plumbing just isn't relevant.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

Hollywog said:
			
		

> In winnipeg they have different qualifications I guess the women only chase and fight gentler criminals.
> Thats why one man was shot by police last year because his female backup was,... well lacking.



lacking? yes, because im sure since she was female, that automatically made her not instinctively start firing rounds to defend her partner, whereas if she had been a man, there would be no problem.

I doubt theres much of a difference between genders that determines ones willingness to kill another person on the spot like that.
The training is the important part, the female part isnt, so why did you mention that when it is irrellevant?


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2005)

This has turned into the typical discussion of degraded standards and I think one of the core issues of the article has been missed in this discussion. The CF has dumped any kind of "warrior culture" from its recruiting and strongly discouraged it in units in order to make a career in the CF more appealing to women and therein the recruiting problem lies. Young men who want to join the army to be warriors are discouraged by the recruiting approach and should they surmount their apprehension and give the CF a chance, they find very few places in the military where "warrior-ness" is actually encouraged.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> This has turned into the typical discussion of degraded standards and I think one of the core issues of the article has been missed in this discussion. The CF has dumped any kind of "warrior culture" from its recruiting and strongly discouraged it in units in order to make a career in the CF more appealing to women and therein the recruiting problem lies. Young men who want to join the army to be warriors are discouraged by the recruiting approach and should they surmount their apprehension and give the CF a chance, they find very few places in the military where "warrior-ness" is actually encouraged.



Which in short, is the biggest reason why I don't like us being called peacekeepers.We're warfighters, that in some circumstances, do peacekeeping missions, if you want to get technical.

But because of all this peacekeeper talk, the general public around where I live are under the misconception that we are no longer canadian warriors but team canada world police.

Lame.


----------



## Gunner (16 Nov 2005)

In the National Post today:

Re: Fighting Is For Men, Barbara Kay, Nov. 5. 

As a female combat arms officer with operational experience, I find that Ms. Kay's archaic comments do a disservice to all serving personnel, both male and female. Fitness standards in the Forces have not been lowered or "dumbed down to accommodate women's lesser strength and ability," as she claims. All combat-arms soldiers, regardless of gender, must annually demonstrate their level of fitness by completing a 13-kilometre march, carrying a weight of 50 lbs, in full fighting gear in two hours and 22 minutes. There is no separate test for women, nor is there any flexibility on the time requirement. 

That a reputable newspaper would print such a column on the eve of a national day of remembrance for service members is especially disheartening. Canadian female soldiers, alongside their male counterparts, are accomplishing phenomenal things in all parts of the globe. 
I would like to remind Ms. Kay that service in combat arms is by choice -- a choice that is not easily made by either men or women. I serve and fight to protect and uphold basic freedoms, and I take offence that someone would have the gall to make such inappropriate and generalized statements. 

Captain Rowena Williams, Ottawa.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> In the National Post today:...Captain Rowena Williams, Ottawa.


while I already stand on record as agreeing with her over-all theme, did Capt. Williams actually use the BFT as a valid means of measuring fitness? She makes it sound as though it's difficult, or even worthwhile. And, I don't believe that Standards have been lowered to accomodate women, but the fact that they have been lowered is indisputable.

I like her standing up and refuting this dumbass article, but she could have chosen her ammunition better.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Young men who want to join the army to be warriors are discouraged by the recruiting approach and should they surmount their apprehension and give the CF a chance, they find very few places in the military where "warrior-ness" is actually encouraged.



Is this "warrior-ness" we seek (funny, the WWII vet in the family never talked about Warrior-ness being a factor in destroying the German war machine, but I digress) dependent upon an all-male environment?



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> I like her standing up and refuting this dumbass article, but she could have chosen her ammunition better.



+1


----------



## rw4th (16 Nov 2005)

> (funny, the WWII vet in the family never talked about Warrior-ness being a factor in destroying the German war machine, but I digress)


You're right, they didn't and that's because they didn't need to. It was understood that jobs like the infantry were typically "testosterone fuelled" environments. Men of that era had not yet been subjected to the emasculation efforts that men in our times are subjected to (did anybody back then even imagine what a "metrosexual" is?)



> Is this "warrior-ness" we seek dependent upon an all-male environment?


No, it's not, but the testosterone environment that is typically associated to it is usually unattractive to women (but It does not mean that some women are not be suited to the work). If we changed our recruiting and got rid the bullshit PC culture, those women (and men for that matter) that volunteer would be much more suited to *closing with and destroying the f-ing enemy*


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> No, it's not, but the testosterone environment that is typically associated to it is usually unattractive to women (but It does not mean that some women are not be suited to the work). If we changed our recruiting and got rid the bullshit PC culture, those women (and men for that matter) that volunteer would be much more suited to *closing with and destroying the f-ing enemy*



You're right - I agree with you as well; the proof is in the pudding in Ubercree's reference to Canadian Native Youth going to the South because organizations like the USMC sell the "warrior culture" better.  I guess this revolves back to standards - tough, realistic training and standards would provide the foundation for a "warrior culture" - irregardless of gender (for example, although open to all CF members, do you think the JTF-2 needs to make any gender specific policies or allowances?)


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Men of that era had not yet been subjected to the emasculation efforts that men in our times are subjected to (did anybody back then even imagine what a "metrosexual" is?)


well, they called them by different names: Dandies, poppinjays, etc. Males (particularly young males) have always done stupid things to attract women and tell themselves they are stylish or what-not. It probably goes back to cro-magnon times.



> No, it's not, but the testosterone environment that is typically associated to it is usually unattractive to women (but It does not mean that some women are not be suited to the work). If we changed our recruiting and got rid the bullshit PC culture, those women (and men for that matter) that volunteer would be much more suited to *closing with and destroying the f-ing enemy*





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're right - I agree with you as well; the proof is in the pudding in Ubercree's reference to Canadian Native Youth going to the South because organizations like the USMC sell the "warrior culture" better.   I guess this revolves back to standards - tough, realistic training and standards would provide the foundation for a "warrior culture" - irregardless of gender (for example, although open to all CF members, do you think the JTF-2 needs to make any gender specific policies or allowances?)


these last two sum it up quite nicely.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2005)

Time out


----------



## hockeysgal (7 Apr 2006)

Okay so I'm fairly certain this might open a can of worms, but I really want to know the opinion of the forum on this.

So anyone who has read this thread will understand why I would like to know your opinions.  Although I am obviously hoping to prove Scipio wrong any answer works for me, it is after all your opinion and you are entitled to it.  For a reference to the mentioned post see this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41949.0.html



> I would be surprised to see a vote turn out that actually is in support of keeping women in combat roles.  I feel an anonymous vote would turn out in my favor among combat infantry members.



Apparently this is what Scipio believes and I would be quite happy to prove him wrong, so please vote and add your comments if you have anything to add.

Cheers

Inf Off


----------



## Cabose (8 Apr 2006)

Why shouldn't women have the same rights to defend ones country as any of us guys?  Don't we live in a free society where women have equal rights as men?  Wouldn't saying you cant join the army because your a women take away that freedom?  
Leum


----------



## karl28 (8 Apr 2006)

I think that a woeman who wants to serve her countries armed forces should be aloud to do so and no restrictions should be placed on them in what trades she can do . If she wants to be combat arms let her as long as she meets the requirements of the job that's all that matters .


----------



## Screw (8 Apr 2006)

Why kick 'em out? One standard for everyone in the combat arms! Meet IT or get out. Man, Woman, Sgt or Pvt.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Apr 2006)

I vote yes, though I think there are issues with cost effectiveness in training women for the combat arms.


----------



## Screw (8 Apr 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I vote yes, though I think there are issues with cost effectiveness in training women for the combat arms.



I can see that- training isnt cheap. Especially with some of those figures I believe you posted regarding women/men failure percentages. Although wouldnt better selection do better for both men and women?


----------

