# We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether



## Halifax Tar (29 Jan 2018)

We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether

We could save billions we’d otherwise spend on duct tape for our fleets and squadrons. We could keep some soldiers for disaster response—but they don’t need guns

Scott Gilmore

January 29, 2018

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/weve-given-up-on-canadas-military-so-lets-abandon-it-altogether/


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jan 2018)

Somehow I don’t think the writer was serious.


----------



## JacobPayne17 (29 Jan 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Somehow I don’t think the writer was serious.


I hope not

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO (29 Jan 2018)

I agree that the Canadian public could give two rats about the CAF unless they are being flooded, burned or frozen out of their home. But a lot of his points are pure overwhelmingly stupid uninformed opinions.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Jan 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Somehow I don’t think the writer was serious.





			
				JacobPayne17 said:
			
		

> I hope not
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk



Did you read the article ?


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Jan 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I agree that the Canadian public could give two rats about the CAF unless they are being flooded, burned or frozen out of their home. But a lot of his points are pure overwhelmingly stupid uninformed opinions.



Sarcasm perhaps ?  Frustration ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jan 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I agree that the Canadian public could give two rats about the CAF unless they are being flooded, burned or frozen out of their home. But a lot of his points are pure overwhelmingly stupid uninformed opinions.



If he is saying, that we are a shadow of our former selves and not much better than a paper tiger in some respects, l can't totally fault him.  As has been stated in other threads by many more wise than l, subsequent sitting Governments have willfully whittled us down with a death by a thousand cuts. 

It is a damn good thing we're hard to get to and have a large neighbour in this duplex that is North America that would be pissed off if our side started to burn down.  Because we sure as shit couldn't defend our turf for very long against a serious threat.

So, do we shit or get off the pot?


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Jan 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If he is saying, that we are a shadow of our former selves and not much better than a paper tiger in some respects, l can't totally fault him.  As has been stated in other threads by many more wise than l, subsequent sitting Governments have willfully whittled us down with a death by a thousand cuts.
> 
> It is a damn good thing we're hard to get to and have a large neighbour in this duplex that is North America that would be pissed off if our side started to burn down.  Because we sure as crap couldn't defend our turf for very long against a serious threat.
> 
> So, do we crap or get off the pot?



I think you're picking up what the author is putting down.


----------



## FSTO (29 Jan 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If he is saying, that we are a shadow of our former selves and not much better than a paper tiger in some respects, l can't totally fault him.  As has been stated in other threads by many more wise than l, subsequent sitting Governments have willfully whittled us down with a death by a thousand cuts.
> 
> It is a damn good thing we're hard to get to and have a large neighbour in this duplex that is North America that would be pissed off if our side started to burn down.  Because we sure as crap couldn't defend our turf for very long against a serious threat.
> 
> So, do we crap or get off the pot?



I hear you.
And yes we have been using the USA like a rented mule since about 1965. I guess I over reacted to the comment about the submarines. Even though I'm not a submariner those guys and gals are pure professionals.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jan 2018)

We all are.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (29 Jan 2018)

satire

[sat-ahyuh r]

noun

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

synonyms:	
mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (29 Jan 2018)

Truer words have never been spoken... in regards to politics, not so much the CF, that part stings.



> Because for parties of all stripes, that is the single most important role of the Armed Forces—optics. It allows politicians to look bold, and it allows the country to pretend that we are a useful ally.


----------



## AbdullahD (29 Jan 2018)

Maybe scale back the Canadian military, but evolve it at the same time to far more specialized use??

I do not pretend to know squat about the military.. But if we can not do quantity, why not do quality? Ie evolve the Canadian military into specialist positions that our allies need to rely on, or do rely on?

Instead of a pure base from our armed forces branch, reduce that talent pool and pull talent from the RCMP, CSIS and local policing forces... focus more on training as well (which I believe we have a foot in on) etc etc

I'm just talking out my rear end here, but if we have a big Canadian forces that is I'll equppied I'd feel like we are sending our people to die. if however it is tiny, but highly educated and equipped.. I'd feel it would be better.

My ramblings sorry
Abdullah


----------



## Piece of Cake (30 Jan 2018)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Maybe scale back the Canadian military, but evolve it at the same time to far more specialized use??
> 
> I do not pretend to know squat about the military.. But if we can not do quantity, why not do quality? Ie evolve the Canadian military into specialist positions that our allies need to rely on, or do rely on?
> 
> ...



I would be happy to see Canada fulfill its NATO commitments and spend 2 percent of our GDP on defence.


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2018)

To some extent he's right... but there is a huge fallacy, IMO, that our problems in the CAF are largely related to not having enough money.

Our problems are related to policy surrounding the money (outside of our control, although I think the higher level leadership could at least *try* to influence), particularly around procurement (very much a purely political issue), and also very poor, poor, poor, financial management. We don't just spend inefficiently when we do spend, we also don't ena

The financial management side is almost wholly within our control. Our L2 just turned in $300,000 back to L1 in advance because we know we can't spend it. The fin staff wanted to turn back more but the Comd wants to give every opportunity to get it spent. We're almost guaranteed to turn in more. I spoke to all the units at Ex RELENTLESS WARRIOR and they can't even get small purchases of mats / equipment to support what is a huge growing positive movement, and yet here we are drowning in money.

There is a gaping disconnect between operators and finance. As an Infantry Officer, I never understood it. Money was the solution to all our "good ideas" and yet no one seemed interested in learning the in's and out's of getting more money for x,y,z, or even having their own budget and their own ability to control money. All I ever wanted was a budget and the DOA for EIA/Sect 32.

Now that I'm on the finance side, I see the other side of the frustrating coin. Finance blame operators because don't know anything about money, and yet I got looked at like I had 18 heads when I suggested we need to delegate financial authority down past the unit level so that the first time you see a budget in your career isn't when you are a LCol with a $2 mill operating budget and no clue how you can or can't use it and is just signing what the QM puts in front of him. We actually can't capture costs so that sub-units can start to have a budget, because they refuse to even assign sub-units cost centres out of fear that it will make things "too complicated," let alone encourage operators to actually get a grip over the resources they are using. [/tangent]


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I would be happy to see Canada fulfill its NATO commitments and spend 2 percent of our GDP on defence.



I've said it before... I wouldn't give the DND another dime in its current form.


----------



## Piece of Cake (30 Jan 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> To some extent he's right... but there is a huge fallacy, IMO, that our problems in the CAF are largely related to not having enough money.
> 
> Our problems are related to policy surrounding the money (outside of our control, although I think the higher level leadership could at least *try* to influence), particularly around procurement (very much a purely political issue), and also very poor, poor, poor, financial management. We don't just spend inefficiently when we do spend, we also don't ena
> 
> ...



I strongly believe that we should be teaching financial management as part of BMOQ.  Leaders need to understand how finances affects her / his troops.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jan 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> To some extent he's right... but there is a huge fallacy, IMO, that our problems in the CAF are largely related to not having enough money.
> 
> Our problems are related to policy surrounding the money (outside of our control, although I think the higher level leadership could at least *try* to influence), particularly around procurement (very much a purely political issue), and also very poor, poor, poor, financial management. We don't just spend inefficiently when we do spend, we also don't ena
> 
> ...



Other public sector organizations, as well as the private sector, are strong on performance managing their leaders related to strategic management, goal achievement and associated budget alignment. 

I assume that we don't do that stuff.


----------



## Quirky (30 Jan 2018)

As a lowly worker bee junior NCM I could care less about planes or ships or helicopters. I have no control over the state of our military and it’s easy to see it’s mostly a political problem. ‘Don’t cut my pay or pension’ is the normal sentiment I keep hearing. Do my 20-25 gtfo out of dodge and back into the real world.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jan 2018)

I think anyone with any sort of interests in Canadian Defence matters needs a healthy dose of expectation management.  I also think our Defence priorities are misplaced at times due to historic links.  

Some things we are doing well are growing SOF and the Intelligence community.  There have been some hiccups but long term I see these trends as a positive.  I also see the NSPS as a positive development and hope that it leads to a more capable Navy in the future with more capability.  

Fighter debacle, Armed UAVs, lack of RAS and sea based AAW are things that need an immediate fix IMO.  Complaints in the military are often Army centric.  My opinion is the Regular Army is too large and has an oversized voice in the halls of power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2018)

My, very personal, *opinion* is that while come countries are so weak, so poor, so corrupt and so on that they are barely worth the title of "country," and cannot be expected to defend themselves, Canada is not amongst them.

Canada is, by most sensible measures, one of the _*Top 10*_ counties in the world; where we are not in the _Top 10_ we are, almost always, in the top 10% ... we are rich, sophisticated and stable, we should be a model for the world. 

That we choose, consciously, to not try to defend ourselves or to do a full and fair share of the "heavy lifting" for the common defence of _*The West*_ or to help those who cannot defend them selves against aggression says, _I fear,_ more about us, as Canadians, than about the governments we elect.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jan 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Complaints in the military are often Army centric.  My opinion is the Regular Army is too large and has an oversized voice in the halls of power.



I am not convince that is so, HB. While the Army has an overblown view of itself by pretending of being a four division Corps when it can barely muster enough people to actually constitute a single division, I think that other than the re-organization needed to fit its real size, it is about right for a nation the size and with the world ranking of Canada.

What is missing is that the Air Forces and Navy of Canada have been let to whittle down too much. What is needed is for them to expand to what is truly needed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jan 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My, very personal, *opinion* is that while come countries are so weak, so poor, so corrupt and so on that they are barely worth the title of "country," and cannot be expected to defend themselves, Canada is not amongst them.
> 
> Canada is, by most sensible measures, one of the _*Top 10*_ counties in the world; where we are not in the _Top 10_ we are, almost always, in the top 10% ... we are rich, sophisticated and stable, we should be a model for the world.
> 
> That we choose, consciously, to not try to defend ourselves or to do a full and fair share of the "heavy lifting" for the common defence of _*The West*_ or to help those who cannot defend them selves against aggression says, _I fear,_ more about us, as Canadians, than about the governments we elect.



"Every country has an army: it's own or someone else's." Konrad Adenauer


----------



## Piece of Cake (30 Jan 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not convince that is so, HB. While the Army has an overblown view of itself by pretending of being a four division Corps when it can barely muster enough people to actually constitute a single division, I think that other than the re-organization needed to fit its real size, it is about right for a nation the size and with the world ranking of Canada.
> 
> What is missing is that the Air Forces and Navy of Canada have been let to whittle down too much. What is needed is for them to expand to what is truly needed.



I would tend to agree.  Back in the early 90's there were 90 000 reg force members.  We now stand at less than 68 000.  While all three elements saw reductions, the Air Force and the Navy were hit harder.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jan 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree.  Back in the early 90's there were 90 000 reg force members.  We now stand at less than 68 000.  While all three elements saw reductions, the Air Force and the Navy were hit harder.



If there's one thing we've done right, it's been maintaining 9 x Reg F Infantry battalions while others (like the British Army) have gone through many hoops of reorging.....


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2018)

I don't know if Edward will recall this, but back in the early seventies we were going through a really hard time. The rest of the federal government was enjoying expanding budgets, lots of growth and promotions and a wage gap had opened between the public service and the forces. Someone was quoted, and I can't recall if it was speculation, punditry or authoritative, as stating that the defence cuts were designed to make any attempt to rebuild the forces so prohibitively expensive that no government could afford to do so, while still maintaining the welfare state. Ultimately the forces would shrivel up and disappear.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jan 2018)

Yep! That was the Trudeau senior "defence fixed budget" method: Maintain the defence budget exactly at the amount it is, "frozen", in an era where we had anywhere between 7 and 12 % inflation from year to year. OEM and acquisitions were gutted by almost 90 % during the period, and the reserves raided by the reg. force just to keep ongoing ops, such a Europe and peacekeeping  going.

It finally ended when, in more diplomatic terms (but barely) Trudeau was told at a NATO meeting to basically shut the heck up, go play by yourself in the corner and you can come back to the adults table when you start paying your way like everybody else.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jan 2018)

And even though you aren't supposed to visit the sins of the father on the son, I'll never trust or feel comfortable with the son as PM.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2018)

Slight sidetrack, but the economic mismanagement was mind-boggling. Oil prices had sky-rocketed following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but the Canadian government had instituted a made in Canada oil price that was substantially lower than the world price. So Alberta was forced to sell its oil to Canadian refiners at well below the going rate. So far, so bad, but it gets worse. Oil consumed in Eastern Canada was purchased from foreign suppliers at the world rate, but Canada then borrowed money to subsidize the price so that it was at the made in Canada rate. Imagine what that did to the deficit and the national debt.

I hope Junior doesn't think that was a good idea.


----------



## garb811 (30 Jan 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If there's one thing we've done right, it's been maintaining 9 x Reg F Infantry battalions while others (like the British Army) have gone through many hoops of reorging.....


Yeah, but those 9 x Reg F Inf Bns of today are nowhere near what they were in the 80s-90s, just speaking  in terms of numbers of pers and organic capabilities.


----------



## Piece of Cake (30 Jan 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but those 9 x Reg F Inf Bns of today are nowhere near what they were in the 80s-90s, just speaking  in terms of numbers of pers and organic capabilities.



+1


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2018)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I don't know if Edward will recall this, but _*back in the early seventies we were going through a really hard time*_. The rest of the federal government was enjoying expanding budgets, lots of growth and promotions and a wage gap had opened between the public service and the forces. Someone was quoted, and I can't recall if it was speculation, punditry or authoritative, as stating that the defence cuts were designed to make any attempt to rebuild the forces so prohibitively expensive that no government could afford to do so, while still maintaining the welfare state. Ultimately the forces would shrivel up and disappear.




I recall that very well; I was posted to DLR back then ... the cuts, which began in earnest in 1969 and were "sanctified" in the subsequent Defence White Paper, were, I believe, designed to disarm Canada.

I'm serious.

I have been told on what I think is very good authority that in 1968 Trudeau actually told his cabinet that he wanted to disarm Canada, withdraw from NATO and NORAD and offer us as the "model state" of the future. I was told that it was only when his closest advisors told him that he would split the Liberal Party and, for sure, lose a subsequent vote of confidence in the House that we got the the 1969 decision to cut our NATO commitment in half and make deep, indeed savage cuts to national defence.

At first we were told that there could be no tanks in Canada ~ none. Then, after the famous walk in the garden with the German Chancellor we were told that we could have new tanks in Germany and a few, enough for a training squadron, in Gagetown, but none in Canadian brigades; and that was the origin of the "tank trainer," the Mowag _Piranah_ which became the _Cougar_ (6 wheels and a 76mm gun) and then the _Grizzly_ (8 wheels) and, eventually, was the base for the _LAVIII_ when GMDD took on the project.

Those were tough times ... JayDex* came and spoke to us in the Staff College ~ his remarks were "privileged," of course (and I guess still are) ~ but we listened as a tired man told us about fighting a losing bureaucratic-political battle against an implacable foe ~ and "foe" is, I think, the right word to use when we discuss PET and the Canadian Forces.

The point about inflation is really important ... it wasn't just fuel. Aerospace and high tech weapon systems costs were "inflating" at far above the general rate of inflation in the economy ~ and we were seeing punishingly high inflation rates in the '70s and '80s ~ and we w were, literally, being "priced out of the market" in some areas.

< war story>  [:-[  I remember taking my makeshift but, by our standards, very modern and even sophisticated Army Tactical Trunk Communications System to MGen Herb Pitts for approval ... he was committed to getting it passed and was really, really pleased when I told him that almost all of it was "in stock" and it was only a very few dozen small, automatic, digital multi-line switches (that the US Marines had in stock but hadn't figured out how to use) that were needed and they were available at "fire sale" prices (only tens of thousands of dollars each), including a multi-year stock of spare parts. He asked me three times if I was sure about the costs ... he had come into the briefing expecting me to be asking for tens of millions of new dollars which would have to come from somewhere else in the Army's capital programme; I needed nothing that had not already been approved for a project that, on my tech staff advice, had been cancelled because it didn't actually do much of anything that was needed.  < war story ends >  :surrender:

Anyway, those were, indeed, "hard times."
_____
* General Jacques Dextraze, Chief of the Defence Staff for the youngsters ~ those under 70.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Jan 2018)

And for another horror story to illustrate what the government, elected and non-elected, thought about national defence, what follows was related to me in the late seventies by BGen Benny Oxholm, the Commander of Training Systems at the time. According to him, Treasury Board direction to the MND et al in the era Edward and I have been discussing was to maintain a "minimum military capability." However we used to win far more than our share of international competitions and usually did very well on exercises. Rather than, or at least along with, professional pride, this was a cause of considerable angst to the higher priced help. You see, this could be construed as exceeding TB direction, and could lead to further reductions in the defence budget.

I guess the idea was to finish last consistently.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jan 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but those 9 x Reg F Inf Bns of today are nowhere near what they were in the 80s-90s, just speaking  in terms of numbers of pers and organic capabilities.



Correct. No means of indirect fire, minor engineering tasks etc. I’m sure the current members can fill in the blanks.
While I’m at it I don’t trust the current PM at all. He’s a lightweight amateur in a cage full of middleweight and heavyweight UFC fighters.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jan 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Correct. No means of indirect fire, minor engineering tasks etc. I’m sure the current members can fill in the blanks.
> While I’m at it I don’t trust the current PM at all. He’s a lightweight amateur in a cage full of middleweight and heavyweight UFC fighters.



But he has natty socks!


----------



## AbdullahD (31 Jan 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Correct. No means of indirect fire, minor engineering tasks etc. I’m sure the current members can fill in the blanks.
> While I’m at it I don’t trust the current PM at all. He’s a lightweight amateur in a cage full of middleweight and heavyweight UFC fighters.



Aye but look at all of us young'ins the rough and tough leaders lack curb appeal for a lot of us. He may just be a sign of the times.. I just pray to God he has an steel core if it's needed.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But he has natty socks!



The socks 😍😍😍 totally voting liberal next time 😍😍😂


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2018)

Another indicator of where our priorities are going: "Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, defence minister says". Slipped in here is another call more women in the Armed Forces (although without a rational as to "why" we should do so).

I hope he calls when they decide to take an "Operational" approach to the military:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4017318/harjit-sajjan-military-feminist/



> *Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, defence minister says*
> 
> Amid the growing fallout from the #MeToo movement in Ottawa, Canada’s defence minister is defending the Trudeau government’s record on preventing sexual assault and harassment in the armed forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another indicator of where our priorities are going: "Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, defence minister says". Slipped in here is another call more women in the Armed Forces (although without a rational as to "why" we should do so).
> 
> I hope he calls when they decide to take an "Operational" approach to the military:
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4017318/harjit-sajjan-military-feminist/


. Cause it’s 2018!!! That’s all this GoC needs to give for a reason!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Feb 2018)

We're such a shit show.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We're such a shit show.



Comparing ourselves to our own standards gives us that impression.  When we work with foreign militaries, we will get a better picture.
I was saying that in the '80's, until I was posted over to 4 CMBG.  Then working with the Americans, Germans, Brits, French, etc. I realized that our trained Ptes and Cpls were better than most of their E5 level ranks in NATO.   One of my favourite compliments was: "We all have the equipment; you all know how to use it." or "You Canadians are crazy."


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Feb 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Comparing ourselves to our own standards gives us that impression.  When we work with foreign militaries, we will get a better picture.
> I was saying that in the '80's, until I was posted over to 4 CMBG.  Then working with the Americans, Germans, Brits, French, etc. I realized that our trained Ptes and Cpls were better than most of their E5 level ranks in NATO.   One of my favourite compliments was: "We all have the equipment; you all know how to use it." or "You Canadians are crazy."



This is true, even on the coasts with the Navy doing war games with the Americans. 

"If I had Canadian Soldiers, American technology and British officers I would rule the world."
~Sir Winston Churchill


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2018)

I was on the gold medal team at the DC Olympics held at the Resolve DC School facilities for Fort Lauderdale Fleet Week 2006.  PRE beat a number of USN teams and repeated the performance two years later.   The Resolve's owner wasn't too pleased.  What really blew their minds in particular was the FF's.  They set record times that were minutes ahead for hose set ups, handling and manouvering through the course.  I was quite frankly not prepared for how well we all did that day.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Comparing ourselves to our own



No sir. 

Our defense minister saying Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, is what I'm referring to. And quite retarded  :nod:


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No sir.
> 
> Our defense minister saying Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, is what I'm referring to. And quite retarded  :nod:



What did that even mean? I didn't see what they meant in the article, like do they mean they're focusing on recruiting more women?


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No sir.
> 
> Our defense minister saying Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, is what I'm referring to. And quite retarded  :nod:



We're going to be man haters now?   :dunno:


----------



## GR66 (11 Feb 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We're going to be man person haters now?   :dunno:



FTFY


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

If we're taking a feminist approach to recruiting does that mean the military will no longer have weaker physical fitness standards for women?

Otherwise I'm pretty sure we already get paid the same.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2018)

:facepalm:





			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> FTFY


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we're taking a feminist approach to recruiting does that mean the military will no longer have weaker physical fitness standards for women?
> 
> Otherwise I'm pretty sure we already get paid the same.




Is that still a thing?  I’m pretty sure the force test is one standard.  Unless something else exists in recruiting I’m unaware of.


----------



## Underway (11 Feb 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Slipped in here is another call more women in the Armed Forces (although without a rational as to "why" we should do so).



I think you should be providing a rationale "why" we shouldn't.  It's pretty obvious if you spend 30 seconds thinking about it from an economic, social perspective.  Not even including the whole values proposition.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we're taking a feminist approach to recruiting does that mean the military will no longer have weaker physical fitness standards for women?
> 
> Otherwise I'm pretty sure we already get paid the same.



I'm guessing you are not paid the same because the FORCE standard is a single standard for years now.  How's retirement going?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Is that still a thing?  I’m pretty sure the force test is one standard.  Unless something else exists in recruiting I’m unaware of.



Sorry I mean incentive levels.


----------



## da1root (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sorry I mean incentive levels.


"Incentive Levels" went way of the dodo bird with the introduction of the new FORCE test; now we have a "fitness profile".

https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-Fitness-Profile.aspx

And the "fitness profile" doesn't count for anything; with the new test you either pass it, or you fail it - regardless of gender and age the minimum requirements for passing remain the same.

Edit Note: I did see "Incentive Level" on that page after my post; however it is not the same that previously existed with our previous fitness test.  The site states that in 2017 a motivational program will start to recognize those that perform well - it's 2018 and that hasn't occurred yet (at least in Borden)


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2018)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> "Incentive Levels" went way of the dodo bird with the introduction of the new FORCE test; now we have a "fitness profile".
> 
> https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-Fitness-Profile.aspx
> 
> And the "fitness profile" doesn't count for anything; with the new test you either pass it, or you fail it - regardless of gender and age the minimum requirements for passing remain the same.



I hate that waste measurement thing.  Its dead set against front row forwards.  Forget the fact I ace all the timings the fact I am tight head prop knocks my score down.  Sorry the derail...


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> "Incentive Levels" went way of the dodo bird with the introduction of the new FORCE test; now we have a "fitness profile".
> 
> https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/FORCEprogram/Pages/About-Fitness-Profile.aspx
> 
> And the "fitness profile" doesn't count for anything; with the new test you either pass it, or you fail it - regardless of gender and age the minimum requirements for passing remain the same.



Thanks it's great to hear the CAF is no longer going to discriminate against males when it comes to incentive levels and PER points. I'm genuinely humbly corrected. 


So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open, no extra per points due to incentive levels depending on gender.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?


----------



## da1root (11 Feb 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I hate that waste measurement thing.  Its dead set against front row forwards.  Forget the fact I ace all the timings the fact I am tight head prop knocks my score down.  Sorry the derail...


Totally agree, I'm a 1/2 marathon runner (did the Army Run last year in under 1 hr 50 min) and the first year they did the measurement there was a guy in my unit who couldn't run 5Km let alone 21.1Km and he scored a Silver and I was in the "Operational Fit but Marginal Health-Related Fitness" and we had almost identical timings (except the burpee/run which I had 8 seconds faster) - and all because my waist is a 38" and his was 32"... pffffft ... ok I got derailed too 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks it's great to hear the CAF is no longer going to discriminate against males when it comes to incentive levels and PER points. I'm genuinely humbly corrected.
> 
> 
> So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?



The following statement is not that of the CAF; but rather my experience in recruiting only.</preamble> I don't see any difference in what I'm doing today vice what I was doing 3+ years ago when I first started in the Recruiting world.  Yes we try to "target" (i.e. market to) Women, Aboriginals & Visible Minorities - but that is inline with the Government (and not just Liberal, we did this under the Conservatives too) desire for the military to have a representation of those in uniform that matches what the Canadian population is.

Ok here I got opening a can of worms and I'm sure there are some that will think "oh boy, did he drink the kool-aid" ... but being out there trying to get people to join I do experience the following question from women more than men "Do you think I'm strong enough or in shape enough to be able to be in the military?" - So could we change our marketing a bit so that becomes a question that isn't asked so much...probably...


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?




Feminism is a bit more complicated and diverse than a simple definition.  I believe the actual quote is a feminist approach to the military not necessarily recruiting but I’m sure that’s included.  It’s a bit of a broad statement though.


However look at it from this perspective.  One that Underway touched on.  We have a numbers problem.  We also have a perception problem and a retention problem.  We need to tap into that’s 50% of the population to help with all of those issues.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Feb 2018)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> Ok here I got opening a can of worms and I'm sure there are some that will think "oh boy, did he drink the kool-aid" ... but being out there trying to get people to join I do experience the following question from women more than men "Do you think I'm strong enough or in shape enough to be able to be in the military?" - So could we change our marketing a bit so that becomes a question that isn't asked so much...probably...



There should be different requirements based on what the reasonable expectation of what you expect to be doing within your trade, but I realize that might be an administrative nightmare. On SQ as it was called a few years back, I remember Sig Ops and Combat Engineer women who couldn't march more than 2km with their rucks on and had to pawn them off to other members of the Platoon to carry, so we rotated having to carry 2 rucks each...staff allowed it..imagine how that would have worked out overseas and her FTP was the average male wearing full kit...do you think she'd be able to drag him to safety? 

The top student was a Combat Engineer who didn't know how to field strip a C6 and who dropped a live grenade in her pit during the grenade portion...after a course where most of what you learn is the C6. I think there definitely is some leaning bias towards women in the forces, that's why it's kind of confusing to see things like "we're going to be more feminist in the future", isn't that kind of already a thing, how do you add to that? 

I am aware that feminism is on a broad spectrum but if they don't mean recruiting wise, what else do they mean?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

[quote author=Buck_HRA] .

Ok here I got opening a can of worms and I'm sure there are some that will think "oh boy, did he drink the kool-aid" ... but being out there trying to get people to join I do experience the following question from women more than men "Do you think I'm strong enough or in shape enough to be able to be in the military?" - So could we change our marketing a bit so that becomes a question that isn't asked so much...probably...
[/quote]

But thats an important question to ask isn't it?  I regularly try to follow up with people I help recruit.  The last guy I spoke with said 15 some recruits from his course failed the FORCE test, 12 or 13 of them were female. Only a couple females passed. The CAF then spent money and instructor hours sending  all 15 to warrior platoon essentially paying them to work out, clogging the system and taking spots on future serials.  It seems to be a common theme (YMMV).  

Im not sure what changing our marketing would aim to accomplish.  

I'm hoping saying a feminist approach to recruiting is just a dumb way of marketing the CAF to women more (somehow)  and not changing any more of the recruiting process.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2018)

GR66 said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Double FTFY

 ;D


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2018)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> What did that even mean? I didn't see what they meant in the article, like do they mean they're focusing on recruiting more women?



Perhaps we will be taking lessons from those Nordic Swedes.....:dunno:


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But thats an important question to ask isn't it?
> 
> Im not sure what changing our marketing would aim to accomplish.
> 
> I'm hoping saying a feminist approach to recruiting is just a dumb way of marketing the CAF to women more (somehow)  and not changing any more of the recruiting process.



I think it has more to do with marketing but also creating the conditions to make the CAF an attractive career option for women.  Things like improving and facilitating family life, changing the perception about harrassement etc etc.

While yes it is a feminist approach, it also improves the organisation as a whole.  PATA leave wouldn’t have happened without MATA leave and that was a reaction to getting women to be able to have kids and work.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But thats an important question to ask isn't it?  I regularly try to follow up with people I help recruit.  The last guy I spoke with said 15 some recruits from his course failed the FORCE test, 12 or 13 of them were female. Only a couple females passed. The CAF then spent money and instructor hours sending  all 15 to warrior platoon essentially paying them to work out, clogging the system and taking spots on future serials.  It seems to be a common theme (YMMV).
> 
> Im not sure what changing our marketing would aim to accomplish.
> 
> I'm hoping saying a feminist approach to recruiting is just a dumb way of marketing the CAF to women more (somehow)  and not changing any more of the recruiting process.



How many women are out there hauling sandbags around and dragging 100kg of equipment behind them? 

Even prior to the FORCE test, the Expres Test had women excelling during the 20m Shuttle Run, but then would fail when it came to the push ups; common trend was that they lacked the muscular/upper body strength. 

I hear it all the time from women "Oh I use the elliptical and do yoga, I would never lift weights because I don't want to look like a man."

It's not us that's the problem, and these women aren't entirely to blame either, it's just the way Canadian society has been built.

Maybe, Warrior Platoon isn't such a bad idea when you look at it from that perspective. Lots of women have never thought about strength, having PSP trainers available to them can do great things.

As for clogging up spots... They're not really clogging anything when the dropout/recourse rate would negate there being a "surplus" of recruits waiting for reintegration; they've already been accounted for in the numbers.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think it has more to do with marketing but also creating the conditions to make the CAF an attractive career option for women.  Things like improving and facilitating family life, changing the perception about harrassement etc etc.
> 
> While yes it is a feminist approach, it also improves the organisation as a whole.  PATA leave wouldn’t have happened without MATA leave and that was a reaction to getting women to be able to have kids and work.



Having the MFRC daycares with adequate capacity would be a start for single parents (in general); in Halifax there was a three year waiting list for the 18 month old+ spots (do the math there) and the cost of private made it make more sense if you were a couple for one person to stay home. Still means you are SOL for when you are at sea if you are single so you would need to figure out child care arrangements, but at least having reliable daycare where you work would be a good start.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2018)

I think trying to target certain identifiable groups is great and it would be awesome if the CAF was 100% reflective of the country demographically.  But that is probably never going to happen. 

Perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact free choice is what drives our recruiting.  Trying to dissuade that in some artificial manner is just a waste of resources and effort.  People who want to join will.  Regardless of all the minorities and women we put on recruiting posters.  

Our biggest recruiting tool is active members.  And I am not sure we, active members, are speaking as highly about a career in the CAF as we once were.  If my assumption is correct then we need to take time and find out why our own members aren't promoting this as a career and take a long hard look at how we can change things.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (11 Feb 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think trying to target certain identifiable groups is great and it would be awesome if the CAF was 100% reflective of the country demographically.  But that is probably never going to happen.
> 
> Perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact free choice is what drives our recruiting.  Trying to dissuade that in some artificial manner is just a waste of resources and effort.  People who want to join will.  Regardless of all the minorities and women we put on recruiting posters.
> 
> Our biggest recruiting tool is active members.  And I am not sure we, active members, are speaking as highly about a career in the CAF as we once were.  If my assumption is correct then we need to take time and find out why our own members aren't promoting this as a career and take a long hard look at how we can change things.



The same reasons my grandfather and my father told me "Stay in school, stay away from the Army."

It's all great but, the quality of life can be shite on the best of times, and at the end of your service you may not necessarily get anything of value out of it (certifications, education, a pension you can actually live off of etc). Isolation, archaic and convoluted policies, making things as difficult as possible for serving members to just live (like the new BGRS system - yuck).

There's lots to love about it, but does it really outweigh the rest?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Feb 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps we will be taking lessons from those Nordic Swedes.....:dunno:



Shield maidens!!!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks it's great to hear the CAF is no longer going to discriminate against males when it comes to incentive levels and PER points. I'm genuinely humbly corrected.
> 
> 
> So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open, no extra per points due to incentive levels depending on gender.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?



Well, the academic studies would suggest that implicit bias/Implicit leadership theory (ILT) is an indicator for female numbers, particularly within the combat arms.

ILT, in its simplest form, is simply the concept that leadership and the leader/follower dynamic is based on in group/out group dynamics and how the individual conceives their place within the organization. In this, people develop bias based on the internal self-to-leader (sub-divided into self to prototype (comparing oneself to the self conceived ideal of what a leader in that organization is) and self to exemplar (comparing oneself to the best example of a leader)) analysis. How one conceives leadership and the culture of the organization has the follow-along effect of  impacting how they view their role in the self explanatory in and out groups. If people see themselves as being within the out-group of the organization based on their pre-conceived notions than they are unlikely to participate in it (Article 1).

In terms of gender, ILT has been noted to play a key role in identifying why males and females go into certain jobs. In basic terms, females and males are both equally effective in leadership positions, both inside the military and outside of it. Interestingly, females are found to be more transformational leaders than males who statistically tend to fall more into transactional leadership models (article 2). 

So, to your question- what is the feminist approach to recruiting? To improve recruiting of females, particularly in the combat arms, there is a need for a change in how females view these trades and within the organizational culture of the trades themselves, which is related back to the ILTs. While clearly some trades will remain more aggressive than others (infantry vs HCA), the recruiting must allow females (and people from other cultures) to see themselves within those trades.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Prof Jordan Peterson had an interesting article on this subject. 
I don't remember off the top of my head which country  but he looked at a country known for having the least amount of obstacles and barriers for women to choose whichever profession they wanted.   He highlights how women in this country, with the least amount of barriers, still gravitated towards traditionally women dominated fields. Men gravitated towards male dominated fields.  Just like in bad North America.

Why? Choice.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Prof Jordan Peterson had an interesting article on this subject.
> I don't remember off the top of my head which country  but he looked at a country known for having the least amount of obstacles and barriers for women to choose whichever profession they wanted.   He highlights how women in this country, with the least amount of barriers, still gravitated towards traditionally women dominated fields. Men gravitated towards male dominated fields.  Just like in bad North America.
> 
> Why? Choice.



Yes, choice. The ILT articles and most research on the matter says that Prof Peterson is accurate though he certainly doesn't go into any sort of analysis of the "why" but points at the "what". The question then becomes, why do they choose to stay out of these fields? Why do women generally not want to be infantry officers and men dont generally want to be nurses? It's the individual conception and leadership/organizational stereotype held by persons about the style of leader and soldier required in those jobs that drives gender specific movement towards those fields. The reason why men and women dont go into the fields, though they are open, in equal numbers is because they dont see themselves fitting into the stereotypical image of what it is to be an infantry officer or nurse. 

So, to change this there needs to be a change in both how people in the society view certain trades and professions and how the organizational cultures of the trades present themselves to the wider society. That's the more difficult question for many trades - how (or can) infantry adapt to allow more women to see this as a viable career option?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

BG45 that post might explain what I was talking about. Sounds like it could be plausible. I'll check the sources you included and read up.


----------



## Piece of Cake (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks it's great to hear the CAF is no longer going to discriminate against males when it comes to incentive levels and PER points. I'm genuinely humbly corrected.
> 
> 
> So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open, no extra per points due to incentive levels depending on gender.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?



Is this really a question in 2018?


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes, choice. The ILT articles and most research on the matter says that Prof Peterson is accurate though he certainly doesn't go into any sort of analysis of the "why" but points at the "what". The question then becomes, why do they choose to stay out of these fields? Why do women generally not want to be infantry officers and men dont generally want to be nurses? It's the individual conception and leadership/organizational stereotype held by persons about the style of leader and soldier required in those jobs that drives gender specific movement towards those fields. The reason why men and women dont go into the fields, though they are open, in equal numbers is because they dont see themselves fitting into the stereotypical image of what it is to be an infantry officer or nurse.
> 
> So, to change this there needs to be a change in both how people in the society view certain trades and professions and how the organizational cultures of the trades present themselves to the wider society. That's the more difficult question for many trades - how (or can) infantry adapt to allow more women to see this as a viable career option?



OR 

Perhaps, in general terms, women and men just have different interests in career fields.


----------



## Piece of Cake (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But thats an important question to ask isn't it?  I regularly try to follow up with people I help recruit.  The last guy I spoke with said 15 some recruits from his course failed the FORCE test, 12 or 13 of them were female. Only a couple females passed. The CAF then spent money and instructor hours sending  all 15 to warrior platoon essentially paying them to work out, clogging the system and taking spots on future serials.  It seems to be a common theme (YMMV).
> 
> Im not sure what changing our marketing would aim to accomplish.
> 
> I'm hoping saying a feminist approach to recruiting is just a dumb way of marketing the CAF to women more (somehow)  and not changing any more of the recruiting process.



Clogging the system?  I think we need to look at how much it costs to process a new recruit.  Is it not in the best economic interest of the CAF to help those who may struggle with fitness during BMQ / BMOQ than simply release them due to being unfit?  The CAF is a different lifestyle, and as such, a lifestyle a new recruit may not be familiar.  We should be giving all new members the tools to succeed, and that includes placing someone on warrior platoon.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Is this really a question in 2018?



Sure is.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Clogging the system?  I think we need to look at how much it costs to process a new recruit.  Is it not in the best economic interest of the CAF to help those who may struggle with fitness during BMQ / BMOQ than simply release them due to being unfit?  The CAF is a different lifestyle, and as such, a lifestyle a new recruit may not be familiar.  We should be giving all new members the tools to succeed, and that includes placing someone on warrior platoon.



Yes, clogging the system. The cost to process a new recruit? What about the cost to pay someone a full salary and benefits for 6-12 months so they can literally just work out because they aren't even fit enough to *start* training yet. It's in the best economic interest of the CAF to not enroll people who can't already pass the test. In the past, you had to pass the fitness test before you got accepted into the CAF.

At some point along the way, during a major recruiting drive, they decided that due to a lack of enough quality applicants, it was better to get them in through the door, into the system, and at CFLRS, without doing a fitness test first, with the idea being that we'd now bear the burden of a increasingly fatter society. This may have been in the best interests of the CAF overall, but I highly doubt cost-savings was one of the benefits of the change.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-military-forced-to-accept-fatter-less-educated-recruits-as-demographics-change-audit-reveals

"Despite this, they warned “raising the quality line” could backfire by making it even harder to find new recruits, and instead noted a number of initiatives such as sending out-of-shape recruits to fat camp before basic training has had positive results."


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Clogging the system?  I think we need to look at how much it costs to process a new recruit.  Is it not in the best economic interest of the CAF to help those who may struggle with fitness during BMQ / BMOQ than simply release them due to being unfit?  The CAF is a different lifestyle, and as such, a lifestyle a new recruit may not be familiar.  We should be giving all new members the tools to succeed, and that includes placing someone on warrior platoon.



I can give them tools.  Tell them what the fitness standard is and tell them if they don't meet it then they won't have a job. I'd be benevolent enough to give them nutritional reading material, work out routines and a link to Milnet.ca that has not only tons of work out and training advice but actual first hand accounts from instructors and students.
What we need are recruits who are adults and take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## Quirky (11 Feb 2018)

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> Totally agree, I'm a 1/2 marathon runner (did the Army Run last year in under 1 hr 50 min) and the first year they did the measurement there was a guy in my unit who couldn't run 5Km let alone 21.1Km and he scored a Silver and I was in the "Operational Fit but Marginal Health-Related Fitness" and we had almost identical timings (except the burpee/run which I had 8 seconds faster) - and all because my waist is a 38" and his was 32"... pffffft ... ok I got derailed



To be fair, a larger waist size means you are at a greater risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. Running long distances doesn’t exactly help contain that belly fat either. I’ve stopped running a long long time ago and focus more on strength training and proper diet habits. My cardiovascular endurance has increased in CF sports, waist size has gone down and overall strength has improved substantially. People run because it’s easy, not necessarily overall healthy. Apologize for the thread derailment.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Feb 2018)

Also not often mentioned--most men do not want to join the PBI.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2018)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Also not often mentioned--most men do not want to join the PBI.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Even Walts, they just pretend.


----------



## angus555 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Prof Jordan Peterson had an interesting article on this subject.
> I don't remember off the top of my head which country  but he looked at a country known for having the least amount of obstacles and barriers for women to choose whichever profession they wanted.   He highlights how women in this country, with the least amount of barriers, still gravitated towards traditionally women dominated fields. Men gravitated towards male dominated fields.  Just like in bad North America.
> 
> Why? Choice.



He was talking about Scandinavian countries.
Jordan B Peterson: Why so many Male Engineers and Female Nurses?

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Rereading the article I think I answered my own question - what's a feminist approach to the military.



> “We’ve been setting an example ourselves and from day one when the government was elected — *50 per cent women and 50 per cent men [in cabinet], we have taken a feminist approach as a government,*” he said.



So not so much about equality of men and women in the CAF but quotas. The government wants half of the CAF to be female.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Rereading the article I think I answered my own question - what's a feminist approach to the military.
> 
> “We’ve been setting an example ourselves and from day one when the government was elected — 50 per cent women and 50 per cent men [in cabinet], we have taken a feminist approach as a government,” he said.
> 
> So not so much about equality of men and women in the CAF but quotas. The government wants half of the CAF to be female.



How do they expect to accomplish this with out some sort of press gang or draft ?


----------



## FSTO (11 Feb 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do they expect to accomplish this with out some sort of press gang or draft ?



If that was to happen, I'd draft or press gang the activist first. Just to see how many would last through basic training. Who knows, they may surprise us and flourish in that environment!


----------



## Quirky (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Rereading the article I think I answered my own question - what's a feminist approach to the military.
> 
> So not so much about equality of men and women in the CAF but quotas. The government wants half of the CAF to be female.



Not sure what koolaid they are drinking but that will never happen. We just need to weather this hipster liberal leadership shitstorm and hope the next government doesn’t have their heads up their asses.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Feb 2018)

You may want to read the defence policy on this...


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Rereading the article I think I answered my own question - what's a feminist approach to the military.
> 
> So not so much about equality of men and women in the CAF but quotas. The government wants half of the CAF to be female.




The target might be parity.  That’s does not imply a quota.  People have been barking about quotas since they started letting women serve.  As far as I know the CAF does not nor will it ever have a quota system.  

It isn’t possible or sustainable but trying to increase the number of women is still the goal.


----------



## dangerboy (11 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You may want to read the defence policy on this...



As stated this is the Governments goal: 



> Aspire to be a leader in gender balance in the military by increasing the representation of women by 1 percent annually over the next 10 years to reach 25 percent of the overall force.


 From Strong, Secure Engaged. Canada's Defence Policy.

I don't think that this is a new goal I believe that previous Governments have had this goal also.


----------



## Quirky (11 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> The target might be parity.  That’s does not imply a quota.  People have been barking about quotas since they started letting women serve.  As far as I know the CAF does not nor will it ever have a quota system.
> 
> It isn’t possible or sustainable but trying to increase the number of women is still the goal.



With the amount of attention we’ve been getting, starting with OP Honour and all the people coming out with sexual assault allegations, now is probably the worst time to recruit females. I know I wouldn’t let my daughter join the CF.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Feb 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> With the amount of attention we’ve been getting, starting with OP Honour and all the people coming out with sexual assault allegations, now is probably the worst time to recruit females. I know I wouldn’t let my daughter join the CF.



Keyword being allegations..


----------



## Underway (11 Feb 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I don't think that this is a new goal I believe that previous Governments have had this goal also.



The Treasury board who we take are marching orders from for hiring; has wanted this for decades.  It used to be 15% IIRC (but may be wrong) and we were not allowed to count reservists (which would have got us to 15% easy).

We've now reached the 15.1% mark for the entire CAF this year (rounding down 18% Airforce, 18% Navy, 12% Army).  So the next goal is 25% by the defence policy. Goals not quota's.  I think it's a completely achievable goal.  The critical mass is somewhere between 20-30% to reach a self sustaining percentage with little effort.  Because at those numbers young women can see role models and female mentors, thus changing their cultural perspective on the job in society at large.  They also feel more comfortable at their work without having to be "one of the boys" should that not appeal to them.  Retention improves and the who thing becomes a small positive feedback loop.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> With the amount of attention we’ve been getting, starting with OP Honour and all the people coming out with sexual assault allegations, now is probably the worst time to recruit females. I know I wouldn’t let my daughter join the CF.



Compared with, like, the financial management sector, or fashion industry, or certain parts of the public service, or the natural resources sector, or universities.... right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

[quote author=Underway] Goals not quota's.
[/quote]




> Through Canada’s Defence Policy, the Department of National Defence (DND) and  the CAF * will:*
> -Increase the proportion of women in the military by one percentage point annually, to achieve 25 percent representation by 2026, to our operational advantage;



Perhaps it's semantics but if quotas are  usually defined as required targets, while goals are defined as frequently desired outcomes, the defense policy language  (*will*) sounds like a quota to me.   Or really, an order.


----------



## Piece of Cake (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's semantics but if quotas are  usually defined as required targets, while goals are defined as frequently desired outcomes, the defense policy language  (*will*) sounds like a quota to me.   Or really, an order.



Last time I checked, the SIP numbers are not broken down by gender, nor does gender affect a  recruit' s military potential score.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Rereading the article I think I answered my own question - what's a feminist approach to the military.
> 
> So not so much about equality of men and women in the CAF but quotas. The government wants half of the CAF to be female.



If I may- I believe that the idea was to set the ideal for a force representative of the larger Canadian population in terms of gender and cultural/race makeup rather than establishing a direct quota. The equality of men and women in leadership positions is an established fact, with women being more transformational than transactional (which, IAW our leadership doctrine is what we want). So, there's no reason why quality would even suffer if it _were_ a 50/50 force, physical or intellectually.

So, to meet the 50% as discussed prior, we need to identify the delta that explains why women and minorities do not enter the CAF at the rate that societal percentages would indicate they should. The reason identified in academia is that there are gender and cultural bias, both individual and societal, that need to be overcome. First, the CAF has to be seen as a highly valued employer within those communities (breaking down implied bias') IOT increase the amount of women and minorities who want to enter the force. That's why Op HONOUR is such a large push. If we, the CAF, ever want to convince women that the army is a top tier employer worth their time (or anyone's for that matter) we have to start by convincing them that the stigma of the army as a boy's club is gone. This involves changing their personal bias' towards the CAF and changing CAF culture. Certainly, neither one of those goals is something that is going to happen anytime soon, so the 50% is certainly a goal not a quota.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's semantics but if quotas are  usually defined as required targets, while goals are defined as frequently desired outcomes, the defense policy language  (*will*) sounds like a quota to me.   Or really, an order.



To play a logic game- if we cannot get enough women/minorities into the doors of the recruiting centre what quota can be implemented? The recruiting system already allows any applicant who meets the basic standards of service (or in the case of physical fitness not even). Aside from identifying and working to resolve the reasons as to *why* those groups dont go to the recruiting centre in the first place, who cares what the % stated is? It's not like we're turning away truckloads of applicants.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> To play a logic game- if we cannot get enough women/minorities into the doors of the recruiting centre what quota can be implemented?



Then we start charging recruiters like Buck with disobeying a lawful order  ;D

My only concern is lowering standards or requirements in various ways to achieve certain goals or quota's. If we put too much emphasis on Ys then we might lose a bunch of rockstar X's. 

Maybe I'm a minority  but I think it's more important to have the smartest toughest fastest recruits irregardless of gender race or religion.  I get the government isn't concerned about small crap like that and has a priority of making the CAF look as diverse as possible.  We need to connect to other groups for sure (especially so we don't miss rockstars there because we're not attracting them very well).  I don't have a lot of faith in the CAF doing it in a measured way intelligent way. 

The defense minister was bragging about a feminist driven 50/50 cabinet. The Justice minister comes to mind when I think of qualifications/skills vs putting someone in a position to reach a specific goal.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The defense minister was bragging about a feminist driven 50/50 cabinet. The Justice minister comes to mind when I think of qualifications/skills vs putting someone in a position to reach a specific goal.



ummm, hmmmmn.   I am pretty much now in the camp of those who see the Defence Minister as being in the same skill set as the Justice Minister. Parrots. 
Which sucks, really, really does suck. At least Art Eggleton had an excuse.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Then we start charging recruiters like Buck with disobeying a lawful order  ;D
> 
> My only concern is lowering standards or requirements in various ways to achieve certain goals or quota's. If we put too much emphasis on Ys then we might lose a bunch of rockstar X's.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more that standards shouldn't be lowered. I don't believe in the long run they have to. Men and women are proven to be just as effective in leadership positions and there's no reason why this isn't true in every trade. Moreover, I don't think the kind of women or minorities we want would want standards to drop either. We need to make the CAF the employer if choice for the best and brightest as you note, which means changing cultured and implicit biases.

We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.  

As for the justice minister- yes, she's terrible. However, you can't say it's due to a quota or being a female. She was the crown prosecutor of BC after all, so it's not like she wasn't accomplished.  You may remember one Julian fantino, arguably one of the worst ministers of all time. Does he represent all males or Italians?


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2018)

It doesn't matter what calibre of recruit you attract if you cannot get then through the process in a reasonable time frame.  Getting that fresh face from curbside at the Recruitment Centre to curbside at St Jean, RMC, university or other stream needs to be better.  

I know times have changed and it's no longer two weeks and you're off.  But l know too many kids are spending too long waiting, on PAT etc that we're losing them.  It's happening in the Navy and l wouldn't be surprised the Army and Air Force have similar issues.  Both the recruiting and training systems need to work better to attract and keep those kids we need coming behind us.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Feb 2018)

Quite.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2018)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] 
We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't. 
[/quote]

So how do we achieve 50% (or even 25%)  when women are currently doing so poorly on the FORCE test in basic training and cycle through warrior platoon in large numbers? Will making the CAF more appealing to women change the fitness issues we're dealing with?  

Considering how proud the government is about their 50/50 cabinet I suspect our recruiting system is in for another change. 

Im going off topic but touching on the thread title the CAF seems more and more like a show pony and less like a war horse.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> [quote author=Bird_Gunner45
> We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.
> 
> 
> ...



Judging all women by your example would be the sam as judging all men by the number of men on warrior platoon.

Statistically,  women and men are equally competent. There's no need to lower standards. Just need to attract higher quality pers of all genders. That's the real trick.


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If I may- I believe that the idea was to set the ideal for a force representative of the larger Canadian population in terms of gender and cultural/race makeup rather than establishing a direct quota. The equality of men and women in leadership positions is an established fact, with women being more transformational than transactional (which, IAW our leadership doctrine is what we want). So, there's no reason why quality would even suffer if it _were_ a 50/50 force, physical or intellectually.



If we are 50/50 male/female, the average member is going to be physically less capable than a 90/10 split. Let's not let humanities "academia" get in the way of a very established and credible science called biology. I'm actually very interested in the social construct of gender vs the biological impacts, and I'm in no way denying socially gender biases exist, but I'm not going to go deathcon 10 the other way and pretend biology is just a social construct.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So, to meet the 50% as discussed prior, we need to identify the delta that explains why women and minorities do not enter the CAF at the rate that societal percentages would indicate they should. The reason identified in some areas of academia is that there are gender and cultural bias, both individual and societal, that need to be overcome. First, the CAF has to be seen as a highly valued employer within those communities (breaking down implied bias') IOT increase the amount of women and minorities who want to enter the force. That's why Op HONOUR is such a large push. If we, the CAF, ever want to convince women that the army is a top tier employer worth their time (or anyone's for that matter) we have to start by convincing them that the stigma of the army as a boy's club is gone. This involves changing their personal bias' towards the CAF and changing CAF culture. Certainly, neither one of those goals is something that is going to happen anytime soon, so the 50% is certainly a goal not a quota.



The humanities / critical theory-type fields have some interesting stuff, but they need to be balanced out (a lot actually). They do not hold the "one true answer" as to why imbalances exist, even though they profess to. How much of these imbalances are due to gender and cultural bias and how much are due to biology is a very interesting topic, but there is no doubt that biology also has an influence. Even taking out the obvious physical aspect, men and women also *think* differently which may also explain their choices towards certain fields / careers / aspirations / etc. 



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Men and women are proven to be just as effective in leadership positions and there's no reason why this isn't true in every trade.



When physical performance is one aspect (or very important aspect) of your job, biology may very well be one of the reasons it is not true for every trade. I have served with a few females in the Infantry Officer world but good luck ever getting Infantry Officers to a 50/50 split without the product suffering.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.



There is a difference between standards and the final product. A 50/50 force definitely means our final product will be less physically capable, even if everyone meets the same fitness standard... which at this point is so low it serves almost no purpose anyway. Would a 50/50 force be more intellectually capable? Maybe. Would a 50/50 force, on the balance of both intellectual and physical, be more effective? Also maybe and we'd be taking wild-*** guesses to try and pin the answer down one way or another.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] 
Judging all women by your example would be the sam as judging all men by the number of men on warrior platoon.

Statistically,  women and men are equally competent. There's no need to lower standards. Just need to attract higher quality pers of all genders. That's the real trick.
[/quote]

I don't want to (or mean to) judge anyone. 1%,25%,50% females doesn't bother me one bit. The more trained people in the CAF the better.  

What I'm saying is that if you take 30 male recruits and 30 female recruits and put them through the FORCE  test you'll have a much higher percentage of females who fail and goto Warrior platoon than men.
At least according to the male &  female students and instructors I spoke with.

So what?

Its going to be a real slow grind to hit those gender goals and there's a possibility the government, in their drive to the magic number,  will alter the system to make reaching it easier.  I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what feminism approach to the military pans out to be.


----------



## donaldk (12 Feb 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter what calibre of recruit you attract if you cannot get then through the process in a reasonable time frame.  Getting that fresh face from curbside at the Recruitment Centre to curbside at St Jean, RMC, university or other stream needs to be better.
> 
> I know times have changed and it's no longer two weeks and you're off.  But l know too many kids are spending too long waiting, on PAT etc that we're losing them.  It's happening in the Navy and l wouldn't be surprised the Army and Air Force have similar issues.  Both the recruiting and training systems need to work better to attract and keep those kids we need coming behind us.



CA has done changes to recruiting reserves wise.  RCN is currently implementing similar changes for their NAVRES units.  Both also intend on having RegF recruiting support done thru their PRes recruiting cells (when location to the potential recruit is better than the nearest CFRG det) and are implementing such as the MOU with CFRG just got signed.  RCAF.. dunno... probably still playing XBOX in between sorties.  Biggest hiccup is that the Establishment Changes (ECs) for the billets needed for in-house recruiting to support this endeavour  aren't happening quick enough - still the same old tired Treasury Board sponsored process at play here *YAWN*.  Why did this happen? CFRG (c/o MILPERSCOM.. same L1 command responsible for those shitty JPSUs) ****ed up HARD over the years with not meeting production quotas and thus with one bite at a time CCA & CRCN are taking what they can away from the tired old CFRG dog.  I foresee the MIPERSCOM org getting absolutely blown up yet again given the colossal failures on multiple fronts within this L1.

Those who are on the DWAN go to https://mcsc.forces.mil.ca and start up the CFRG dashboard tool - take note how many 'bins' there are from the street to in the door (sworn in) - each one of these bins is a point where a file could fail if the prospective recruit pulls out (or is forced out on a technicality).  Then once in the door, you have the BTL piece to worry about, where more 'weed out' can occur (as my engineering colleagues put it), be it with the BMQ qualified bin, r subsequently the DP1 occupational function point bin.

As for Employment equity (EE) perspective, specifically for my UIC - the traffic I have seen roll thru my recruiting cell the last couple months certainly has been attracted the requisite minorities in good proportion - HOWEVER - currently only seeing about 10-15% of ALL files get thru to the finish line (i.e. move into BTL for next BMQ load), and unfortunately with this high of a systematic weed out, EE takes a hit paper wise - as at swaer-in point is where the stat is collected.

Btw... Reserves wise - that enhanced reliability security check (ERC) often causes file hiccup.  If the CFRG MCC doesn't turn around the results from their contracted provider to DPM Secur 2 to file the ERC then nothing sticks within SCPS.  Thus, file doesn't move forward.  No ERC means also no DWAN account - which these days are handed out like candy because the new kids have to cozy up to our DLN system for BMQ mod1 and mod 2. (Yes, the DLN is accessible externally, however account creations are only possible via the dirty password recover method with a valid DWAN username).  With the ERC in hand.. the new recruit on day one of work is literally read the riot act by my ISA with DAOD 6002-2 right in front of them - contraband USB sticks aside.


----------



## Piece of Cake (12 Feb 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> If we are 50/50 male/female, the average member is going to be physically less capable than a 90/10 split. Let's not let humanities "academia" get in the way of a very established and credible science called biology. I'm actually very interested in the social construct of gender vs the biological impacts, and I'm in no way denying socially gender biases exist, but I'm not going to go deathcon 10 the other way and pretend biology is just a social construct.



No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.



AH!  "The law of large numbers".  So to get more women physically capable, we will have to recruit large numbers, which would increase those numbers.  Interesting.  So, if for example, 10% of the women recruited are physically capable now, we can increase those numbers numerically by recruiting more women; yet the percentage would likely stay in the 10% range who would be physically capable.  That would still leave 90% not physically capable; but in larger numbers.  Meanwhile the established strength of the CAF will not have changed.  (These numbers are for example only and NOT actual numbers.)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.



Your hypothesis is very flawed.  Women are not as physically strong as men, they do not produce enough testosterone to build muscle and have other physical traits that make their body composition less suitable for frontline service.  You can take 10 average sized women and 1 average sized man and give them six months strength training and that man will be far stronger than any of the women, this ia a fact.

Do I think there are many rolls for women in the military, Absolutely; however, as long as the combat arms still require marching with heavy loads, lifting heavy shells, pounding track, hard physical labour. The job will remain largely outside the purview of most women.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.



Uhhh...what? What does quantity have to do with biology? You're saying by just recruiting swathes of women that, miraculously, a large number of them will in fact be strong to a point where they are like men? How does this happen?


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Uhhh...what? What does quantity have to do with biology? You're saying by just recruiting swathes of women that, miraculously, a large number of them will in fact be strong to a point where they are like men? How does this happen?



It has nothing to do with biology.  Quantity increases your odds of getting better quality. 

Also, some of you should take off your combat arms goggles.

Can women serve in the CAF.  It's a yes or no question.  Either you think they can or you think they can't.  If they can (I think they have proven that they can indeed serve) then you need to attract more of them but more importantly you need to attract the best of them.  

When I was in recruiting you needed 3 to 1 ratio to recruit.  So 1 in 3 would get through the process, but I can tell you they weren't always the best or the brightest.  Those numbers didn't account for who would succeed in basic and then in trade.

You need to attract as many as you can.  It's like a hockey team. If you want the best players you can't just look at one city.  You need to look everywhere and abroad.

How many capable women will I get if I only have 10 of them applying and I have 100 men applying?  If I have 100 women applying, my odds of getting the better candidate goes up because my pool is now 200 and not 110. 

If we want to increase numbers we need to get more people through the door.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2018)

Remius

I will not argue your points; but again I point out that the CAF is limited in its 'established strength level'.  Recruiting more women to meet that 10%, or whatever percentage, required to fill those physically challenging Trades means that less men will have to be recruited.  The glass only holds so much.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remius
> 
> I will not argue your points; but again I point out that the CAF is limited in its 'established strength level'.  Recruiting more women to meet that 10%, or whatever percentage, required to fill those physically challenging Trades means that less men will have to be recruited.  The glass only holds so much.



Of course.  But are we at 100% of the establishment?  I doubt it.  I don't have the numbers but I think we are significantly short in many areas. 

The point is to attract more women to increase our odds of getting to that 10% or 25% (CAF wide) that can meet the standards.  It is still about trying to get the best candidates but we need to expand the pool and find ways to do that.  Like targeted recruiting at women's sports venues, varsity sports etc etc.  Like looking at quality of life issues like daycare, shortened deployments and improved posting process and yes things like Operation Honour.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I know I wouldn’t let my daughter join the CF.



So what have you done to make the CAF an organization you would let your daughter join?


----------



## MAJONES (12 Feb 2018)

Some interesting and well brought up points.  I note that some people have made the point that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer for women.  I would say that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer, period.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Some interesting and well brought up points.  I note that some people have made the point that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer for women.  I would say that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer, period.



And that goes to the point when someone says we need to or should take a feminist approach to the CAF.  What are the key things that are discouraging women from joining?  Likely you will see that if you address those issues you might actually have a better product and make the CAF a more attractive employer as a whole to men and women.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with biology.  Quantity increases your odds of getting better quality.
> 
> Also, some of you should take off your combat arms goggles.
> 
> ...



You're actually talking about three different issues:

1.  Recruit suitability,

2.  Recruit numbers, and

3.  Recruit groups. 

Your argument that we should recruit more women because it would give us a larger pool of recruits to draw from is irrelevant because every trade in the CAF is already open to women.  There is literally no job in the CAF that a woman cannot apply for and be successful in, even the special/secret squirrel units.  I personally believe those that are able and willing should be allowed to; however, the thing that I hate the most in this world is nepotism and favoritism.  

My solution to our recruiting woes is pretty simple and it's the only one that hasn't been tried already.  It's called telling the truth about what the military is for, i.e. "A military is a force authorized to use lethal or deadly force and weapons to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens"

Want to recruit the right people, start making recruiting videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9vGHU1RsF0&t=113s  

hey look, Canadian Soldiers kicking Butt, woohoo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwidx05ZdbU

Hey look!  If I join the Navy, I can fight Pirates!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V9T3d0LE14

OMG, we can even make Logistics look cool!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUaOnzdw5I

Found a video with a woman for effect!

Imagine, showing a military force doing military things, what a revolutionary idea to raise recruitment!


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You're actually talking about three different issues:
> 
> 1.  Recruit suitability,
> 
> ...



Sorry HB but a larger pool isn't irrelevant at all to the discussion.  The larger the pool, the better your odds of getting the best. 

I'm not sure you understand the point being made about _attracting_ more women.  It does not matter if all jobs are available to women. If you don't make those jobs or careers attractive they won't apply in any real number meaning you are limiting your talent pool.  A talent pool someone else will exploit.   

The same applies to men.  If you don't make the jobs attractive they won't apply. 

Like it or not women are on the rise in terms of education and training.  More women are becoming doctors, lawyers, accountants, finance professionals, etc etc etc.  even the trades world is looking to women to fill lacking positions.  50% of the country's population.  If people are our most important commodity then we should be going after the best and brightest regardless of gender but if you can't prove to one gender or the other why they should come work for you then you've already lost regardless of "all jobs are open to women".


----------



## Piece of Cake (12 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You can take 10 average sized women and 1 average sized man and give them six months strength training and that man will be far stronger than any of the women, this ia a fact.



Fact? Not at the gym that I workout at.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Fact? Not at the gym that I workout at.



So you're debating biology then?



> _*Abstract*_
> 
> Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683


----------



## Piece of Cake (12 Feb 2018)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> So you're debating biology then?



Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance. So, can you beat the women's 100m dash world champion? Can you out press a women Olympic weightlifter? I would like to hear your answers.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance. So, can you beat the women's 100m dash world champion? Can you out press a women Olympic weightlifter? I would like to hear your answers.



1. Any man who trains for a specific category of lift will outlift a woman doing the same of set over the same course of training time. Hence why there are womens categories...and mens categories for virtually any and all competitions that involve lifting.

2. I have many certifications that allow me to teach and train Olympic power lifting as well as participating in competitions in the past 7 years. My family owned and ran a gym for years where I was the head Oly lift coach. If you would like my 1RM for specific lifts to compare to Olympic women weightlifters then provide me the specific lift..as there are more than one "press". 


...that being said..my cardio is trash.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> And that goes to the point when someone says we need to or should take a feminist approach to the CAF.  What are the key things that are discouraging women from joining?  Likely you will see that if you address those issues you might actually have a better product and make the CAF a more attractive employer as a whole to men and women.



That is a good basic question, Remius. But what if the answer is: It's not us?

Let me try and illustrate, and since we are in Canada, I'll use hockey - but also because I am heavily involved in my town with the hockey organization. 

Women hockey is pretty well in the news all the time in the last say, 12-15 years. The National team is reported on, incensed in view of its performances, on TV for all major tournaments, the leaders extolled publicly, and employed after their career in sports reporting, etc.

There's a National team, a pro-league and women hockey at the university level and in the lower grades, in every town in Canada or just about.

Yet, every year, in our town, I get 10 boys registering to start to play hockey for every girl that does. Meanwhile, in absolute numbers, the figure skating club gets 8 girls registering to start figure skating  for every girl I manage to attract to hockey.

Is it because I am doing something wrong, or is it because parents still have a girl/boy activities approach as to what their little girls should participate in? In other words is there still a societal values bias against girls in what is seen as "masculine" undertakings? And if so, is it possible that civil society as it exists right now is still the one that pushes male/female distinctions as regards what is "acceptable" for girls or not? I only suggest that you look at the family, at large, reaction when their girl suddenly tells them she wants to be a fireman, or an industrial welder ... or a soldier. Then come and tell me it is the military that is pushing them away by what we present as an image, and not still accepted society norms. 

Shouldn't the government, if it claims to be feminist in the sense of equality of result type of feminism, be better to work on convincing parents to push girls, in their formative years, towards, STEM, physical work and trades and anything "male" like the military, police or firefighting?

Until you change the parents/society at large and what they teach girls to strive for, I surmise that there is no approach, feminist or not, that the CAF can adopt that will lead to more woman showing up at the recruiting centre.



			
				Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance. So, can you beat the women's 100m dash world champion? Can you out press a women Olympic weightlifter? I would like to hear your answers.



Your logic is flawed, Piece of Cake. It's average to average that must be compared, on the basis of large numbers (to quote someone else's previous post): I'll stick to hockey again here: The Women's national team is certainly composed of top female athletes. They constantly train, they have training in cardio, endurance, strength, including upper body, train in skills for hockey etc. They are world level athlete. Yet, the woman hockey level of play is that of a top Midget level, and just about none of those players can match Canadian Hockey League level of junior hockey.

That's your average to look at: On an individual basis, a highly trained woman will beat the untrained man in her sport, but trained athlete for  trained athlete, or untrained woman to untrained man, there is no match on average - and you know it.

There is nothing wrong in admitting for instance, that it is quite possible, even probable, that if we conducted widespread evaluations, we would find that perhaps 35- to 40 % of men only can hack the physical demands of soldiering, while only 10 to 15 % of women can.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sorry HB but a larger pool isn't irrelevant at all to the discussion.  The larger the pool, the better your odds of getting the best.
> 
> I'm not sure you understand the point being made about _attracting_ more women.  It does not matter if all jobs are available to women. If you don't make those jobs or careers attractive they won't apply in any real number meaning you are limiting your talent pool.  A talent pool someone else will exploit.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are trying to say; however, as I've stated there is nothing stopping anyone from joining any trade in the CAF as long as they are physically capable and mentally suitable (according to the CFAT).  So the idea that we aren't capturing this huge pool of recruits is flawed because the service is open to anyone who wants it.  How do you make the Infantry attractive for someone?  How do you make being a sonar operator attractive?  The answer is, you don't.  I would argue that the appeal of something is largely dependent on psychological developments that occurred long before someone joined the military.   

The only way to get more women, minorities, etc in to an organization is to fundamentally change the perception people within a society have of an occupation.  The reason many women don't go in to the military is the same reason many women don't pursue careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) fields or many men don't become Nurses or Teachers. It has to do with psychology and a variety of different factors/variables that play a hand in developmental psychology.  There is no way for the CAF to change this unless we find a way to quietly insert ourselves in to every Elementary School Curriculum in this country and convince all the kids that being in the military is really cool.  

The idea that men and woman are different isn't a popular viewpoint in Canada in 2018 but that doesn't make the point any less valid.  The Deschamps Report brought up a bunch of interesting points and while I agree with some of it, namely the points about cleaning up behaviour in the CAF, some of it is political BS.  

Namely this one: "Females are under-represented in the Senior Leadership in the CAF"

My Point:  Of course they are, there are very few females that actually serve in the Operator/Combat Trades (Infantry, Armour, MARS, Pilot).  You know, the trades that produce most of the General Officers in the CAF and the ones that are slated for the highest command?  Convince more women that they want to be Infantry or Armour and you will have more become Senior Leaders.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> So what have you done to make the CAF an organization you would let your daughter join?



I think we need to have an honest conversation about what the military is, the military isn't some higher calling/sacred organization of values, it's the Government's very own licensed machine of violence.  A female wants to join the infantry?  Awesome! I would love to have a platoon of Xena Warrior Princesses running around with SAWs and Grenades, but the business at its most extreme is "Closing with and destroying the enemy".  

Find me a bunch of women ready to do that and lets sign them up!  Stop trying to convince them of what it is and isn't because the actual job doesn't change.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> And that goes to the point when someone says we need to or should take a feminist approach to the CAF.  What are the key things that are discouraging women from joining?  Likely you will see that if you address those issues you might actually have a better product and make the CAF a more attractive employer as a whole to men and women.



Feminism is still defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.  Women have the same rights as men in the CAF. Same pay, same opportunities to deploy and be promoted, able to access all trades.  
Suggesting better family care as a means to attract women isn't equality or feminism. It's bordering on insulting to single dads and stay at home dads. Our current deployments see more and more fathers at home with the kids and the mothers deployed. The government is misusing the word.


Increasing the number of female recruits we attract is great but looking at the current trend we'll need to increase the space/instructors for warrior platoon/s. That's not me being misogynist, it's numbers. If 12 out of 15 on a course fail the  1st FORCE test and sent to warrior then how many out of a course of 45 will fail? The CAF better be prepared to accommodate that. 

To get (all) our numbers up faster we could always:

1-do away with PT testing all together and make the FORCE test a unit problem.
2.make the FORCE test easier
3-run the FORCE test at the end of basic training as a pass/fail in order to give recruits more time to train
4-have PSP run a pre-basic training month or two long indoc course. 

Also:
better subsidized daycare 
more choice over postings
more chances at operational deployments and small unit exchanges.
modern and updated small arms, equipment, armor and vehicles 
stuff like that 



The government says we're taking a more feminist approach to the military yet our military lawyers say _the government does not “owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault.”_

Now in legal speak that probably somewhere somehow makes perfect legal sense. Optics for women interested in the CAF? Probably not so good.  I'm glad the PM spoke up about it right away, I just hope he follows up.


----------



## Quirky (12 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So what have you done to make the CAF an organization you would let your daughter join?



Treat all women in the CF with equality and fairness and don't give them any special treatment because of their gender. This can be good or bad - I've seen it enough where a female gets promoted over an equally or, in some cases, higher ranked man, because of gender. Ever hear of females going on 9 month parental and coming back with an amazing PER or a promotion? I have.

On a similar issue, I'm glad that OP Honour came out, because I wasn't too sure before on the CF's policy on sexual harassment and assault. Before OP Honour I was under the assumption I could go around and sexually assault and harass the opposite sex without repercussion. I'm glad our leadership has addressed this misconception.  :facepalm: The CF is still such an old boys club.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Feminism is still defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.  Women have the same rights as men in the CAF. Same pay, same opportunities to deploy and be promoted, able to access all trades.
> Suggesting better family care as a means to attract women isn't equality or feminism. It's bordering on insulting to single dads and stay at home dads. Our current deployments see more and more fathers at home with the kids and the mothers deployed. The government is misusing the word.
> 
> Increasing the number of female recruits we attract is great but looking at the current trend we'll need to increase the space/instructors for warrior platoon/s. That's not me being misogynist, it's numbers. If 12 out of 15 on a course fail the  1st FORCE test and sent to warrior then how many out of a course of 45 will fail? The CAF better be prepared to accommodate that.
> ...



Ok, I'll address a few of those.

1) You would not have Pata leave without mata.  That was women's advocacy that lead to better overall policy.  If women don't want to join for fear of reduced family quality of life and this is something that is addressed how is that a bad thing? men can stop being insulted because they'll be getting the same treatment. let's stop with the discrimination against men argument.  Nobody suggested that. 

2) Do you have any actual stats to back up what you say about failure rates for PT/Force while on basic.  Anecdotal evidence isn't the best proof.  And are those stats calculated by proportion?  Not trying to be snarky but I would be curious to know what the actual failure rate is by gender.

Taking a feminist approach is more than just equality or whatever limiting definition we want to use.  As I mentioned before it is a much broader definition.


Again, we have to look at this from outside the little bubbles we've created.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I understand what you are trying to say; however, as I've stated there is nothing stopping anyone from joining any trade in the CAF as long as they are physically capable and mentally suitable (according to the CFAT).  So the idea that we aren't capturing this huge pool of recruits is flawed because the service is open to anyone who wants it.  How do you make the Infantry attractive for someone?  How do you make being a sonar operator attractive?  The answer is, you don't.  I would argue that the appeal of something is largely dependent on psychological developments that occurred long before someone joined the military.



That right there is passive thinking.  That doesn't work in recruiting and especially not in Canada.  You need to convince people to join and show them why we should be an employer of choice.  if all you do is appeal to 50% of your population you've already lost.  It isn't just about making something more attractive. It's going after the right people and showing them.  It's about finding the right people.  A sit and wait approach is a recipe for failure.

Do you know why aboriginal recruiting is so important?  Yeah, there's the whole diversity thing and first nations inclusivity etc etc.  But they are the fastest growing population in Canada.  With more people under the age of 30 proportionately than any other group. So do we wait for them or do we go get them?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> That right there is passive thinking.  That doesn't work in recruiting and especially not in Canada.  You need to convince people to join and show them why we should be an employer of choice.  if all you do is appeal to 50% of your population you've already lost.  It isn't just about making something more attractive. It's going after the right people and showing them.  It's about finding the right people.  A sit and wait approach is a recipe for failure.
> 
> Do you know why aboriginal recruiting is so important?  Yeah, there's the whole diversity thing and first nations inclusivity etc etc.  But they are the fastest growing population in Canada.  With more people under the age of 30 proportionately than any other group. So do we wait for them or do we go get them?



I was hoping you would bring this up  8)

The Canadian Armed Forces has shrunk exponentially since a Cold War Height of roughly 120,000 in the 1960s.  Meanwhile, the population has grown exponentially since then.

CAF in 1960 = 120,000
Population of Canada = 17.91 million
0.006 soldiers per citizen

CAF in 1989 = 84,000 
Population of Canada = 27.38 million
0.003 soldiers per citizen

CAF in 2016 = 68,000
Population of Canada = 36.29 million
0.001 soldiers per citizen

So, the population of Canada is over 2x larger in 2016; however, the size of the military is almost 2x smaller.  Given this very simple fact, it would seem that we should have no problem meeting our recruitment targets; however, we know that this isn't the case, so what gives?  Is it that our pool of suitable recruits is growing smaller?  Or is it that we waste most of our actual recruitment and retention initiatives catering to special interests groups and small but vocal minorities that aren't likely to ever considering serving anyways?

You know the only service in the US military that never has any trouble recruiting is the Marines, wonder why?  It's because they sell guns, blowing stuff up and challenge, same with other organizations like the French Foreign Legion who get upwards of 10,000+ applicants a year but only have an intake of approximately 700-800.


----------



## Quirky (12 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You know the only service in the US military that never has any trouble recruiting is the Marines, wonder why?



Because there are enough people out there that want a legal means to kill people.


----------



## CountDC (12 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll address a few of those.
> 
> 1) You would not have Pata leave without mata.  That was women's advocacy that lead to better overall policy.  If women don't want to join for fear of reduced family quality of life and this is something that is addressed how is that a bad thing? *men can stop being insulted because they'll be getting the same treatment*. let's stop with the discrimination against men argument.  Nobody suggested that.



ok know not adding to the overall line but can we still be insulted that we are not getting the same treatment?  Men pata - 9 months, women mata/pata - 12 months.  Subject to change in the future once TB/DND/CAF catches up to the new government policy.  Why not one policy with one period length regardless of male/female.  I and my wife certainly would not have minded me having the extra 3 months.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Feb 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok know not adding to the overall line but can we still be insulted that we are not getting the same treatment?  Men pata - 9 months, women mata/pata - 12 months.  Subject to change in the future once TB/DND/CAF catches up to the new government policy.  Why not one policy with one period length regardless of male/female.  I and my wife certainly would not have minded me having the extra 3 months.



Sounds like we should be taking a meninist approach to the forces. I'd like to fight for equal benefits and rights in the forces.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> So, the population of Canada is over 2x larger in 2016; however, the size of the military is almost 2x smaller.  Given this very simple fact, it would seem that we should have no problem meeting our recruitment targets; however, we know that this isn't the case, so what gives?  Is it that our pool of suitable recruits is growing smaller?  Or is it that we waste most of our actual recruitment and retention initiatives catering to special interests groups and small but vocal minorities that aren't likely to ever considering serving anyways?
> 
> You know the only service in the US military that never has any trouble recruiting is the Marines, wonder why?  It's because they sell guns, blowing stuff up and challenge, same with other organizations like the French Foreign Legion who get upwards of 10,000+ applicants a year but only have an intake of approximately 700-800.



I'm glad you brought this up as well.   here's the thing:

The pool of people we used to count on to fill the ranks are shrinking.  White, male and less educated (I don't mean that in a bad way).  That group isn't joining or are more and more unable to.   We've been slow at convincing other non traditional sources to join.  it isn't catering to special interest groups as you say.  It is targeted recruiting. It's necessity.  I'd love to think this is just about touchy feely stuff but it isn't, it's about need.

The marines are facing  similar recruiting issues so yes they are having a hard time reaching targets.  

Here is an article from 2016 showing the downward trend for the U.S military as a whole across all services. 

https://taskandpurpose.com/the-military-could-soon-face-increased-recruiting-challenges/

Here is another one about the Marine Corps trying to be more appealing to women and millenials...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/2017/03/18/new-recruitment-ads-stress-marines-as-good-citizens/

And here is an interesting take on changing how they recruit women.

https://taskandpurpose.com/recruiting-women-marine-corps-half-solution/

Also note that the marines have cut their force by 20 000 people, meeting lower targets is always easier.  The big problem the Marines have right now is 1st term re-enlistments which are on the decline.

The marines have had issues meeting their goals before so the rah rah shoot stuff doesn't work anymore.

Your FFL example is not even comparable for so many reasons. 

Smarter flexible recruiting, training and attraction.  Satus quo does not cut it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

[quote author=Remius] 
Ok, I'll address a few of those.

1) You would not have Pata leave without mat. Etc...   [/QUOTE] 
If CountDC's right then I guess we don't have equal rights after all? 
I still can't agree a feminist approach to the military is going to be beneficial, whatever the government thinks a feminist approach is. Maybe the government needs to explain what exactly a feminist approach is since the definition is so ambiguous.  
If I'm wrong I'll own it. 



> 2) Do you have any actual stats to back up what you say about failure rates for PT/Force while on basic.


In fairness nope. I don't. And no worries I know you're not being snarky (hoping I don't come across that way either).  
I only have anecdotal evidence from recruits and instructors about pass/fail rates. 
Its a charged subject for sure. Speaking of which I know someone who was almost charged then dealt administrative measures for voiceing pretty much the same thing as HB over Facebook. It can be a dangerous subject to give your personal opinion on.  

Never the less maybe we should do some digging and see if the CAF keeps track of failure rates for curiosity sake.?Again if I'm in the wrong I'll happily own up.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe the government needs to explain what exactly a feminist approach is since the definition is so ambiguous.


I doubt if even the politicians mouthing such platitudes have a clue what they're talking about;  it's enough that "a feminist approach" is such a progressive, kumbaya-sounding buzzword.

Politicians speaking with precise clarity would have too much difficulty dodging tough questions and being accountable to their constituents.


Say, wasn't the MND supposed to be replaced last year?  Oh right, he only needed Marc Garneau to prop him up for a few public appearances, knowing that the political Alzheimer's would smooth everything over during Parliamentary recess;  after all, it's only the "Defence" portfolio.
      :not-again:


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok know not adding to the overall line but can we still be insulted that we are not getting the same treatment?  Men pata - 9 months, women mata/pata - 12 months.  Subject to change in the future once TB/DND/CAF catches up to the new government policy.  Why not one policy with one period length regardless of male/female.  I and my wife certainly would not have minded me having the extra 3 months.



Treatment is equal.  The moment you pass a child through your vagina (or have it ripped untimely from your womb) you'll get the additional three months.

Right now, your request is the equivalent of a cis-gendered woman complaining that she's not entitled to a prostate exam.


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhammer and Humphrey and others...

There isn’t much more I can add but I do appreciate the tone that’s been maintained here on all sides.  You are correct it is indeed a charged subject.

One thing though is I do agree that the government has not explained it very well if at all.


----------



## Piece of Cake (12 Feb 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Ever hear of females going on 9 month parental and coming back with an amazing PER or a promotion? I have.



Maybe the person(s) you are referring to deserved the PER or promotion?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Treatment is equal.  The moment you pass a child through your vagina (or have it ripped untimely from your womb) you'll get the additional three months.
> 
> Right now, your request is the equivalent of a cis-gendered woman complaining that she's not entitled to a prostate exam.



And if I identify as a pregnant woman who just gave birth? Sounds like discrimination.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

Thanks Remus, likewise for sure. 

[quote author=Remius] 

One thing though is I do agree that the government has not explained it very well if at all.
[/quote]

Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be? 

While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on. 
An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Remus, likewise for sure.
> 
> Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be?
> 
> ...



Will that be like the MP QL 5 where MPs run the crse and no one else is allowed to speak to them?    ;D


----------



## dangerboy (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Remus, likewise for sure.
> 
> Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be?
> 
> ...



What would be the point of this?


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Remus, likewise for sure.
> 
> Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be?
> 
> ...




Interesting.  Maybe a result of this project:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/05/the_women_in_forceprogramanewcanadianarmedforcesinitiativeforwom.html

I’m only vaguely aware of the pilot project but haven’t heard of any results that came of it.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on.
> An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.



Nope.

There was a trial where women (not in the CAF) were brought in and introduced to the CAF, running through a number of activities.  No gender-based speaking restrictions.

Someone is embellishing stories...


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.



You're absolutely right on the rule of large numbers, that hasn't flown over my head.... but you are underestimating the gap that exists because of biology. The law of large numbers doesn't mean you will have enough large numbers to make up for the huge gap that exists in physical characteristics. I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out). 

I know that seems exaggerated, but the biological differences in physical strength / endurance / athleticism really are that stark. Consider that the Canadian Women's Olympic hockey team competes against Midget AAA teams in order to prepare for the Olympics. Literally, the best 20-25 women our country can produce, and they're competing against 15-17 year old boys... not the best 15-17 year olds in the country, not even the best 15-17 year olds in a province.... the best 15-17 year olds from communities / surrounding areas of places like Red Deer, AB.... and they regularly lose! The best adult women in the world lose to local boys who can't even grow a playoff beard.



			
				Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance.



Holy crap! Is that you Cathy Newman? 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is a good basic question, Remius. But what if the answer is: It's not us?
> 
> Let me try and illustrate, and since we are in Canada, I'll use hockey - but also because I am heavily involved in my town with the hockey organization.
> 
> ...



While women still are in the minority in hockey enrollment... the data on female hockey enrollment very much supports the assertion made by BG45 that if women can "see themselves" in a role, it will increase their likelihood to join. Female enrollment in hockey has grown to huge numbers in the last 20 - 30 years, which is correlated with IIHF Women's World Hockey Championships starting in 1990, inclusion of women's hockey in the 1998 Olympics, and the introduction of an U18 World Championship in 2008.

https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/hockey-programs/female/statistics-history

So I do support the idea that making the CAF seem more like a place where a woman can see herself being employed, fitting in, etc is going to have a positive impact on recruiting, and that's why it is important to have females featured in recruiting ads, etc. You're right in that parents play a big role in both children's sports and picking the CAF as a great career option.... so a parent also needs to be able to see the military as a career option for their daughter. I don't really see how that point changes the idea being discussed.

-------

I want to be clear... I fully support the idea of recruiting more females... but I also refuse to let people forget that biology plays a factor and so arguing that we can be a 50/50 force and not be at least *different* than we currently are (maybe not positively, maybe not negatively, but definitely different) is just ludicrous, we would definitely be physically weaker. Or arguing that the physical weaknesses will not have any kind of impact on a female's ability to lead in the Infantry, for example... we can't bury our heads in the sand because of a bunch of humanities professors published a billion papers about it, over 80% of which are never even cited by anybody else, not even once.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> There was a trial where women (not in the CAF) were brought in and introduced to the CAF, running through a number of activities.  No gender-based speaking restrictions.
> 
> Someone is embellishing stories...



I spoke with an nco I know quite well and I'm inclined to believe him. I'm aware of that trial but he's telling me there is currently an all female course going on there. I'll look for something in writing to back that up.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What would be the point of this?



"To see how females operate in an all-female environment".

Since we don't have female units I'm guessing just an experiment to improve numbers.  
The USMC does an all female boot camp  but I'm reading there is a pressure to change it for a few reasons.


----------



## Piece of Cake (12 Feb 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out).



I think a few on this forum have over estimated the physical condition of our men in uniform.  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I know that seems exaggerated, but the biological differences in physical strength / endurance / athleticism really are that stark. Consider that the Canadian Women's Olympic hockey team competes against Midget AAA teams in order to prepare for the Olympics. Literally, the best 20-25 women our country can produce, and they're competing against 15-17 year old boys... not the best 15-17 year olds in the country, not even the best 15-17 year olds in a province.... the best 15-17 year olds from communities / surrounding areas of places like Red Deer, AB.... and they regularly lose! The best adult women in the world lose to local boys who can't even grow a playoff beard.



How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.   Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey.  

What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I think a few on this forum have over estimated the physical condition of our men in uniform.
> 
> How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.   Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey.
> 
> What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.



Why do you continue to compare "apples" to "oranges"?

I have no doubt that professional female athletes can outperform non-athletic or less athletic men in a given sport.  What is being argued here, and you are ignoring, is that both sexes, on an even playing field, with the same training, are NOT Equal physically.  

[Edit to add "physically"]


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.   Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey.
> 
> What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.



 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: No one is disputing that select females aren't capable, or that select females aren't in better condition than an average male. Do you know of 30,000 female Olympians we can sign up? If not, please come back to reality where the rest of us need to work within.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2018)

I’ll say this:

The CAF Hockey Program May not be as good as the junior program .
The juniors aren’t training to put themselves at the risk of being killed. 

Let’s keep this in perspective. The CAF trains to kill people.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Feb 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I’ll say this:
> 
> The CAF Hockey Program May not be as good as the junior program .
> The juniors aren’t training to put themselves at the risk of being killed.
> ...



But now it will have to be in gender-equal numbers.


----------



## Underway (13 Feb 2018)

Good god.  

Using _biology_ (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.

I've seen some extremely out of shape people, both men and women pass the test.  I've seen a desk jockey female who does no PT and weighs perhaps 120lb soaking wet do the casualty drag.

Throw the biology argument out.  It's irrelevant with the new FORCE standards, and even more irrelevant with the most important skill sets that the CAF needs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Good god.
> 
> Using _biology_ (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.
> 
> ...



Excellent point. We'd better revise that famous SLA Marshall quote:

"Truly then, it is killing men *and women *with kindness not to insist upon physical standards during training which will give them a maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war." S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire

https://books.google.ca/books?id=rsfA3LkUsTYC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=battle+fitness+killing+with+kindness&source=bl&ots=7QBNkTruyy&sig=MwhBp3QQfBoRGRRxsaQIcTykwGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwyt-kp8nYAhXB7YMKHeg7BaUQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=battle%20fitness%20killing%20with%20kindness&f=false


----------



## ballz (13 Feb 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Good god.
> 
> Using _biology_ (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.
> 
> ...



I've already stated that the bar (aka the FORCE test) is set so low now it's lost all usefulness. I've also pointed out that there is a difference between the "standard" and the end product which is relevant when you're talking about how there can be a 50/50 split and it's not going to effect anything.

I sure hope you're not talking about me when you're saying people want to use biology as an excuse to exclude women, because there is nothing I have said that would provide any evidence of that. I fully support including women, and gearing marketing towards them to attract more of them... but that does not mean we have to pretend biology shouldn't even be _considered_ when we talk about grand ideas of 50/50 splits and whether or not physical capability might affect your ability to lead in a physical job. : Speaking of which, we have other standards to lead in some of those jobs, if we didn't, we wouldn't have massive RTU rates... so the FORCE test isn't the only relevant standard.


----------



## quadrapiper (13 Feb 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> The law of large numbers doesn't mean you will have enough large numbers to make up for the huge gap that exists in physical characteristics. I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out).


A few musings.

- more women in the MARS/combat arms/(pilot?) sourced senior command roles means enough women moving through the ships, battalions, and squadrons to be positioned for Cmdre/BGen. The only ones that really, truly, must be PT monsters are in the combat arms, especially the infantry - don't know how many you'd need to maintain a decent stream into the senior officer world, but it's definitely a more achievable number than 33k women matching the CAF's fittest 33k men. 
- 25% in the Reg Force covers a vast number of roles currently being filled by _men_ operating at non-gender-differientiating levels of fitness.

On the recruit fitness side of things, seems like a pre-BMQ point would be ideal for addressing those recruits who are in all ways great candidates but would, under the current system, be diverted during Basic. Whether that should look like a CAF funded or led training scheme (e.g. USMC poolees), more difficult fitness testing or increased standards at the CFRC, or something else, I'm not sure - but can't imagine the current approach is the most efficient.

As for societal pressures: my gut says we might be seeing _more_ gender role reinforcement (or fewer balancing messages) in middle through high school aged populations than in the 90s. Recruiting and retaining female cadets has certainly become harder over the last ten years compared to males. The ones that do stay in for the duration are often (not exclusively, but enough to notice) outliers, trending to traditionally masculine activities, in other ways - in trades programs, contact sports (lots of rugby players), hunting or 4x4 enthusiasts, etc. 

On a broad public policy level, if we as a country - forget about the CAF - want to see the full potential of the population realized, a serious effort needs to be made to ensure that girls and young women are in no particular order: a) not driven away from e.g. the CAF, trades, or whatnot by idiot men, b) measuring success by classically male matrices - career, cash, and accomplishment, c) are desensitized to hands-on work, and d) realize that partners are infinitely replaceable non-vital parts of their lives.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Feb 2018)

"On the recruit fitness side of things, seems like a pre-BMQ point would be ideal for addressing those recruits who are in all ways great candidates but would, under the current system, be diverted during Basic. Whether that should look like a CAF funded or led training scheme (e.g. USMC poolees), more difficult fitness testing or increased standards at the CFRC, or something else, I'm not sure - but can't imagine the current approach is the most efficient."


How much of a deterrent is the fitness issue for recruiting? I really like this idea of a pre-BMQ program, perhaps run by community colleges during summer months when there is space in dorms?  In fact there are probably quite a few men and women serving in the forces that could use and would jump at the chance to take a month or 6 weeks of fitness development, health and well being.  Much easier to concentrate on just that issue alone without having all the pressures of BMQ and/or work (for those spreading serving).  Builds individual confidence, self esteem, reclaims morale, -all wins for the forces.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2018)

[quote author=whiskey601]

How much of a deterrent is the fitness issue for recruiting?
[/quote]

it's been a long time since I've been in an official recruiting position but both back then and the people I engage with now and brainwash guide towards joining the CAF I can say that fitness, or rather fear of the PT, was and is the primary concern of most.  I'm certain a lot of injuries that recruits (or students) stem from lack of physical fitness. Both legitimate injuries and fake ones. 

A month or two pre-fitness course run by a hired company would be expensive but also free up sorely needed instructors to put time and effort into physically fit recruits.  The pre-course may also be less scary for people intimidated by the idea of regimented PT or who need to be eased in to that lifestyle because it's a big culture shock to some (and also why I think a lot of people quit). We have to adapt to the times and society (which can be a whole different bag of problems) but in an intelligent and measured way.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> it's been a long time since I've been in an official recruiting position but both back then and the people I engage with now and brainwash guide towards joining the CAF I can say that fitness, or rather fear of the PT, was and is the primary concern of most.  I'm certain a lot of injuries that recruits (or students) stem from lack of physical fitness. Both legitimate injuries and fake ones.
> 
> A month or two pre-fitness course run by a hired company would be expensive but also free up sorely needed instructors to put time and effort into physically fit recruits.  The pre-course may also be less scary for people intimidated by the idea of regimented PT or who need to be eased in to that lifestyle because it's a big culture shock to some (and also why I think a lot of people quit). We have to adapt to the times and society (which can be a whole different bag of problems) but in an intelligent and measured way.



A lot of people point at the Royal Marines and marvel at their fitness program but, having been part of their system for a couple of years and seeing it in action, they freely acknowledge that some of of the main secrets of their success in this area is the fact that:

1) They have a 30 week training program, one of the longest in the world, which allows them to very gradually ramp up recruits to the high levels of fitness (and other infantry type skills of course) required without injuring them or chasing them away, and

2) They have an in-house cadre (a 'Specialty Qualification' as they call it - the 'Club Swingers') of Royal Marine PT instructors, who are all Royal Marines themselves as well, who are professionally trained to ramp people up fitness wise.

I don't see why we couldn't do the same, especially given the low standards of fitness in our average recruits (and elderly Majors  ) these days.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Feb 2018)

In the 1990s, the CAF was downsizing and had a choice.  Which is a more important capability to keep in uniform: musicians or fitness instructors?

And the senior leaders of the day made their choice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Clogging the system?  I think we need to look at how much it costs to process a new recruit.  Is it not in the best economic interest of the CAF to help those who may struggle with fitness during BMQ / BMOQ than simply release them due to being unfit?  The CAF is a different lifestyle, and as such, a lifestyle a new recruit may not be familiar.  We should be giving all new members the tools to succeed, and that includes placing someone on warrior platoon.



The removal of the PT test in 2006 (sorry Uncle Rick, this was a mistake) was done for one reason only;  to get more 'recruits' thru the door.  Originally called the RFT (Recruit Fitness Training) platoon, it quickly grew in size and more and more unfit and overweight IAP and BMQ candidates waddled their way (literally in some cases) thru the Green Doors in late 2006/early 2007.  

Removing the PT test from the Reg Force side was a mistake, if anything it should have been done across the board (PRes still have an entrance PT test) or it should have been removed from the PRes and left for the Reg Force.  Warrior is "ops normal" now because it has existed for a decade +, but that just means we've yet to fix the situation that created it in the first place.

*opinion of someone who was staff at CFLRS around the time RFT came into being when the PT test was removed from Reg Force application processes - it was a mistake and still is a mistake.  If you aren't motivated enough to get into shape before entering the military, you should continue working at Walmart or being a fat bank manager or whatever it is you spend you time doing, chances are you won't be any more motivated during or after your stay at Fat Camp.


----------



## pbi (15 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the 1990s, the CAF was downsizing and had a choice.  Which is a more important capability to keep in uniform: musicians or fitness instructors?
> 
> And the senior leaders of the day made their choice.



But to be fair here, most of the CF bands disappeared. We lost a very fine PPCLI band which we were quite proud of.  A bit of creative thinking might have given them a secondary role to keep them on the ORBAT. (No...CF Musician Branch members were NOT stretcher bearers-that was an old legend-but maybe they could have been given something similar)

Physical fitness in most field units was led by the chain of command, not PERIs anyway, so that wasn't much of a loss.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance. So, can you beat the women's 100m dash world champion? Can you out press a women Olympic weightlifter? I would like to hear your answers.



How about dealing with the 'average man' and the 'average woman'...those are often the people who walk into recruiting centers, not world champion athletes. 

I spent time in the combat arms, I've taught on reg and res BMQs, QL3s to CLC/PLQ whatever it is called now.  On average, the female candidates were less able to maintain physical effectiveness (march at a set pace, with a standard load, etc) than the male ones.  No fancy studies and papers, just observations of reality where the rubber meets the road.  Guess how many females ran in the 'fast' group in my platoon in Cornwallis in '89?  

None.  Not one of the 12 or so females in my platoon ever pushed themselves or had the ability to keep up to the fast group.  That is the reality in using the 'average' woman rather than world champion athletes, because not many female world champion Canadian athletes are interesting in hasty defences, fighting withdrawls, month long FTXs and other realities of army life.

 :2c:


----------



## Piece of Cake (15 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the 1990s, the CAF was downsizing and had a choice.  Which is a more important capability to keep in uniform: musicians or fitness instructors?
> 
> And the senior leaders of the day made their choice.



I had a similar conversation with a PSO several years ago.  It was an interesting conversation to say the least.


----------



## Piece of Cake (15 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How about dealing with the 'average man' and the 'average woman'...those are often the people who walk into recruiting centers, not world champion athletes.
> 
> I spent time in the combat arms, I've taught on reg and res BMQs, QL3s to CLC/PLQ whatever it is called now.  On average, the female candidates were less able to maintain physical effectiveness (march at a set pace, with a standard load, etc) than the male ones.  No fancy studies and papers, just observations of reality where the rubber meats the road.  Guess how many females ran in the 'fast' group in my platoon in Cornwallis in '89?
> 
> ...



I will simply state what has already been said.  Let's change our recruitment to target the right people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on.
> An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.



The USMC does (or did) do this in recruit training.  Not sure when it started, why it started etc but I've seen a few videos about it in the past.


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I had a similar conversation with a PSO several years ago.  It was an interesting conversation to say the least.



I'm sure it was but it was likely factually wrong.

As mentioned most CAF bands and many reserve bands disappeared or became association/civilian member bands. 

And I believe that Fitness instructors were replaced by civilians.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I will simply state what has already been said.  Let's change our recruitment to target the right people.



I'm not convinced we aren't targeting the right people now, or that the average woman (or man) grows up wanting to dig trenches, fight fires and do DC on ships or jump out of planes.

Maybe...maybe...we don't have 25% of the CAF strength from females because not that many Canadian females want to grind out the life of an infanteer, or sailor, or bounce around the back of an aircraft that might be older than their parents are.

They want to be teachers, own a flower shop, or be world class athletes or something.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced we aren't targeting the right people now, or that the average woman (or man) grows up wanting to dig trenches, fight fires and do DC on ships or jump out of planes.
> 
> Maybe...maybe...we don't have 25% of the CAF strength from females because not that many Canadian females want to grind out the life of an infanteer, or sailor, or bounce around the back of a an aircraft that might be older than their parents are.
> 
> They want to be teachers, own a flower shop, or be world class athletes or something.



Have a conventional life.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxT0BDrPVl4

Now make it twice as long, in the dark on an unprepared site, raining sideways, or snowing if you're really lucky. Panels up, ladies!


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The USMC does (or did) do this in recruit training.  Not sure when it started, why it started etc but I've seen a few videos about it in the past.



Good article from the MarineCorpsTimes about the gender divided boot camp.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/08/03/the-boot-camp-gender-divide-the-case-for-co-ed-training/


----------



## Piece of Cake (15 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm sure it was but it was likely factually wrong



More than likely.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> As mentioned most CAF bands and many reserve bands disappeared or became association/civilian member bands.



Please show me where this was mentioned.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> And I believe that Fitness instructors were replaced by civilians.



What's your point?

Now enjoy this picture of a dinosaur.



Retracted


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> More than likely.
> 
> Please show me where this was mentioned.
> 
> ...



Pbi mentioned it in post #160. 

I was adding that as part of the discussion on getting rid of fitness instructor.

As for your dinosaur pic I’m guessing it wasn’t to elevate the tone or maintain a professional bearing in the discussion.  Sorry you felt insulted somehow by what I said that you decided to do that.  Feel free to explain that to me if I was wrong.


----------



## Piece of Cake (15 Feb 2018)

I happen to agree with the direction the CAF is going.  It is clear from the replies on this forum not everyone is.  The CAF like every organization needs to evolve.  Name calling by those who are unhappy with change are counterproductive to the mission and values of the CAF.


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2018)

OK, you’ve lost me now.  Who called you any names?  And I agree with you, sadly your dinosaur pic comment seems to indicate otherwise.

I suggest you go back and read the post I've written about women in the CAF, targeted recruiting etc etc in this thread.

Not sure what has you triggered but I’m willing to hear specifics if you can explain a bit better.  I still don’t know what my comment on bands and fitness instructors merited setting you off.


----------



## Piece of Cake (15 Feb 2018)

I was never upset.  

The dinosaur pic was not the best idea.  As such, it has been retracted.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I happen to agree with the direction the CAF is going.  It is clear from the replies on this forum not everyone is.  The CAF like every organization needs to evolve.  Name calling by those who are unhappy with change are counterproductive to the mission and values of the CAF.



I agree that the CAF needs to evolve with this caveat:

As long as the members are merit selected, and the principles of good leadership are followed the CAF will have few issues it can’t handle. 

Sadly as we have seen in the past, the selection by merit principle and the Principles of Leadership have been neglected.


----------



## mariomike (15 Feb 2018)

Adding for reference to the discussion,

Canadian Forces Employment Equity Regulations
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-421/page-1.html#wb-cont

Date modified:  2018-02-08


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I was never upset.
> 
> The dinosaur pic was not the best idea.  As such, it has been retracted.



Ya pretty lame and unoriginal.  Besides our civilization is built on the bodies of and powered by dinosaurs, have some respect.

The direction the CAF is heading  IS mostly good. But it's easy to go off course (like our ridiculous HQ bloat).

Given our current government's behavior and climate it's not beyond the realm of possibility to expect safe spaces on training bases.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ya pretty lame and unoriginal.  Besides our civilization is built on the bodies of and powered by dinosaurs, have some respect.
> 
> The direction the CAF is heading  IS mostly good. But it's easy to go off course (like our ridiculous HQ bloat).
> 
> Given our current government's behavior and climate it's not beyond the realm of possibility to expect safe spaces on training bases.



This is my safe space, especially with a battery in DS


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This is my safe space, especially with a battery in DS



Touche.

Plus that's great example of how new ideas (getting rid of the .50) aren't always the right ideas. And now that they're out of the system generally and much of the knowledge base gone, we're bringing them back.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2018)

Along with mortars, TOW, Assault Pioneers, et al


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> A lot of people point at the Royal Marines and marvel at their fitness program but, having been part of their system for a couple of years and seeing it in action, they freely acknowledge that some of of the main secrets of their success in this area is the fact that:
> 
> 1) They have a 30 week training program, one of the longest in the world, which allows them to very gradually ramp up recruits to the high levels of fitness (and other infantry type skills of course) required without injuring them or chasing them away, and
> 
> ...




Your points 1) and 2) were very much liken the Army that I joined well over a half century ago ...

Recruit training was, as I recall, 25+/- weeks long ~ three "phases" of eight weeks each, I think; I'm happy yo be corrected.

Army physical training instructors were regimental NCOs who were specially trained in the occupation, in health and safety and in motivational techniques. My memory is that they actually wanted to make us fit without injuring us.

I guess that a typical recruit platoon started with, say, 30 would-be soldiers; by the end of the first phase about ¼ of the platoon had been "back-squaded" ~ sent back to the a PAT platoon to try again ... a few from injuries, one or two for being terminally stupid, but most because they couldn't meet the steadily increasing physical fitness requirements. We lost another¼ in the second and third phases, most, i both cases, replaced by soldiers who had been "back-squaded" to us from a more senior platoon.

My recollection is that no-one who started was seriously over-weight or "weak," but most of us were not fit enough, and that included a lot of guys from rural areas, even First Nations guys who were pretty used to hard work and privation "out on the land."

Anyway, there was enough time to make us all, well almost all, except for those who were terminally stupid or had really bad conduct, fit enough ... 25+/- weeks was longer than needed to teach basic discipline and skill at arms and fieldcraft/battlecraft; fitness was why it took so long.

IF the CAF wants fit men and women then it has to make the resources available, and training time is a resource with a cost attached to it. IF then CAF doesn't want to spend the resources then I can only conclude that the most senior national leadership doesn't care about winning the next war.


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Treat all women in the CF with equality and fairness and don't give them any special treatment because of their gender. This can be good or bad - I've seen it enough where a female gets promoted over an equally or, in some cases, higher ranked man, because of gender. Ever hear of females going on 9 month parental and coming back with an amazing PER or a promotion? I have.



No.  No you haven't.  You may _think_ you have, but you have not.

Pers heading out of work on long-term leave (Extended sick leave, MATA, PATA, post deployment leave [with a theatre PER to cover their tour time], LWOP for education or spousal accompaniment, etc etc etc) who do not have an observable amount of time actually at work receive EXEMPTION PERs.  Exemption PERs are neither scored nor ranked.  Exemption PERs cause a member's place on the merit list to be 'frozen' - they move neither up nor down the merit list - they sit exactly where the last fall merit boards PRIOR to their departure on leave had them merit listed at.  If on MATA or PATA and that gal or guys merit number is reached for promotion, that individual will be promoted with the relevant effective date.  That promotion was earned BEFORE the individual went on extended leave (guys & gals) and both guys and gals receive those non-scored exemption PERs for their time not at work. 

Likewise, any guy or gal who is at work for an 'observable' period of time during the FY gets a PER that scores their actual performance while actually at work - guys and gals.   Not a shred of difference between men and women here.



> On a similar issue, I'm glad that OP Honour came out, because I wasn't too sure before on the CF's policy on sexual harassment and assault. Before OP Honour I was under the assumption I could go around and sexually assault and harass the opposite sex without repercussion. I'm glad our leadership has addressed this misconception.  :facepalm: The CF is still such an old boys club.



It has zero to do with any old boys club and your sarcasm is noted.  You do realize however that not every Canadian, thus not every recruit is raised with the same ethical and moral standards that you were apparently raised with right?  Some have higher than yours and some have lower.  OP HONOUR is about getting ALL CAF members to a COMMON minimum standard. Given the continuance of instances, some obviously still need the step up to that common standard.




			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks it's great to hear the CAF is no longer going to discriminate against males when it comes to incentive levels and PER points. I'm genuinely humbly corrected.
> 
> So then we're paid the same, have the same rights, same fitness standards, all trades are open, no extra per points due to incentive levels depending on gender.  Feminism is defined as fighting for women's equality. What exactly is this feminist approach to recruiting?



Let's dispel some myths.  After 3 decades past the CREW trials that I joined under --- it's high time.

For 30 years, I've heard bitching about lowering standards and women getting undeservedly promoted ahead of their male peers just to reach quotas.  How the EXPRESS Test and FORCE with their gender-different testing results in women moving ahead of their male peers undeservedly, creating a worse-off CAF etc etc.

You know what?  Facts on the ground don't back up a single one of those things.  For the amount of times I've seen it posted on this site (often by the same individuals) or heard it said, EVERY WO & above in the CAF should be a woman by now.

I live it every day.  I am a female in the Canadian Army (there are many).  I am a female CWO in the Canadian Army (there are a few more).  I am a female Formation Chief Warrant Officer in the Canadian Army (I am by myself in this respect).  I am the only enlisted female in the Canadian Army serving in a Senior Appointment (I'm talking non-commissioned).  Based on the message I received last week, I will continue to be the sole Cdn Army female in an SA until APS 19, at least, if something doesn't change between now and then.

A quick review of my fellow Cdn Army Snr Appt CWO peers' bios indicates that all of my male peers in this group took approx 29-30 years to reach this level. It took me 29.5.  I'd say that's pretty damn equal despite all that "biased fitness and PER points" I've apparently been receiving my entire career" that some so frequently like to banter about.

Some would say there should be more of me - ie women - in this group.  I say perhaps, but not too many people - male or female - are willing to put up with the pace, the frequency of postings (or the many unaccompanied [9 years of that straight for me]) that one undoubtedly goes through to make it to this level.  Extremely hard work and dedication and a priority to do what is asked of us whenever and wherever it is asked of us. One doesn't need to always be happy about it, but do it anyway as that is what I signed up to do.

Someone has also suggested that I am the first female in the Canadian Army to make it into the Senior Appt level (you no longer belong to your branch or trade, wear the crossed swords as my collar dogs, become a MOSID 00351 etc).  I have no idea whether that is true or not and I wouldn't begin to know how to find out of it is factual or not, but I do know that it took sacrifice to get here, exactly as it did for the men.  My peers are actually quite the awesome bunch of gents too.  I didn't reach this level any faster than any of them reached this level, nor did I get here any slower.

30 years.  30 years since the CREW trials, and we're still hearing the same tired myths about women getting promoted faster, undeservedly, treated easier, and it's simply not factual.  

If we want women to join the CAF, and to retain them, then those myths and non-factual statements about women not desrrving that promotion they worked for and earned, or that somehow fitness testing sees them vault wrongly ahead of men coming from their supposed peers have got to stop.  The facts and the stats don't back up what you both seem to be putting out there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2018)

[quote author=ArmyVern]

30 years.  30 years since the CREW trials, and we're still hearing the same tired myths about women getting promoted faster, undeservedly, treated easier, and it's simply not factual.  

If we want women to join the CAF, and to retain them, then those myths and non-factual statements about women not desrrving that promotion they worked for and earned, or that somehow fitness testing sees them vault wrongly ahead of men coming from their supposed peers have got to stop.  The facts and the stats don't back up what you both seem to be putting out there.
[/quote]

Great post.  Reading my quoted comments above I should have worded it better. I've personally never once suggested women get promoted faster then men in the CAF whether in person or on this site.  My comment here about no longer going to discriminate against, was solely targeted towards the _planned_ FORCE test incentives that would see members scoring silver gold and platinum given PER points where the simple change of ones gender could bump them up two incentive levels. Which I believe is unfair and discriminatory.  It seems the CAF isn't going through with that after all (something the head PSP person related to me) but it doesn't appear to be official yet.  As far as I'm aware fitness testing has never had anything to do with promotions in the past.


If you don't mind me asking whats your views on the concept of a female only recruit platoon with female only instructors?


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Touche.
> 
> Plus that's great example of how new ideas (getting rid of the .50) aren't always the right ideas. And now that they're out of the system generally and much of the knowledge base gone, we're bringing them back.



Ok, here's one thing I learned...if you hang around the Army long enough, everything comes back. Sometimes it's hard to stifle a nasty cynical old-guy smirk when the latest "revelation" gets announced.

War Story!!   Ref the .50, I was once on a night mounted patrol with US MPs around the Bagram area. I noticed that while some of the HMMVWs had MK19s or SAWs mounted, a few had .50 HMG. When I asked the Pl Comd why, he explained that at the close quarters of a village street, the rounds of the Mk19 would not arm before they hit the dirt wall and fell on the ground.  The .50 would tear right through dirt or cement block walls, or anything else, and get at the baddies in a very efficient and effective way. Hmmmmm, I thought....so why did we get rid of it again? Like we got rid of the 60mm?

Ok sorry that was a tangent that probably belongs somewhere else....


----------



## FSTO (16 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Ok, here's one thing I learned...if you hang around the Army long enough, everything comes back. Sometimes it's hard to stifle a nasty cynical old-guy smirk when the latest "revelation" gets announced.
> 
> Ok sorry that was a tangent that probably belongs somewhere else....



Navy and Air Force included.
The RMS phase is gone and we are now back to Finance and HA.
The Navy is doing a big amalgamation of the Engineering trade and mark my words in 15 years there will be a study as to why we need Hull techs and Electricians hived off to their own subtrade.

Got to keep those "Leading Change" PER points open for future CPO's and Flag officers!


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Got to keep those "Leading Change" PER points open for future CPO's and Flag officers!



Here is an old quote, variously attributed but usually to the Roman Gaius Petronius:

_"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later
in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress
while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."_

Sound familiar?  "When in doubt, shuffle things about"


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Ok, here's one thing I learned...if you hang around the Army long enough, everything comes back. Sometimes it's hard to stifle a nasty cynical old-guy smirk when the latest "revelation" gets announced.
> 
> War Story!!   Ref the .50, I was once on a night mounted patrol with US MPs around the Bagram area. I noticed that while some of the HMMVWs had MK19s or SAWs mounted, a few had .50 HMG. When I asked the Pl Comd why, he explained that at the close quarters of a village street, the rounds of the Mk19 would not arm before they hit the dirt wall and fell on the ground.  The .50 would tear right through dirt or cement block walls, or anything else, and get at the baddies in a very efficient and effective way. Hmmmmm, I thought....so why did we get rid of it again? Like we got rid of the 60mm?
> 
> Ok sorry that was a tangent that probably belongs somewhere else....



The RCN still has .50s.  When you guys bring them back and need some help re-learning it all, let us know


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The RCN still has .50s.  When you guys bring them back and need some help re-learning it all, let us know



Ouch. That stings.


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Great post.  Reading my quoted comments above I should have worded it better. I've personally never once suggested women get promoted faster then men in the CAF whether in person or on this site.  My comment here about no longer going to discriminate against, was solely targeted towards the _planned_ FORCE test incentives that would see members scoring silver gold and platinum given PER points where the simple change of ones gender could bump them up two incentive levels. Which I believe is unfair and discriminatory.  It seems the CAF isn't going through with that after all (something the head PSP person related to me) but it doesn't appear to be official yet.  As far as I'm aware fitness testing has never had anything to do with promotions in the past.
> 
> 
> If you don't mind me asking whats your views on the concept of a female only recruit platoon with female only instructors?



In my original post, please see the first poster that I quoted.  That statement of mine was in reference to his claim.

As for your last sentence here, I'll put my thoughts up as soon as I can pull off enough dedicated front-time with my laptop.

V


----------



## TCM621 (16 Feb 2018)

Vern, first of all congrats on being a formation Chief. If your dedication to people on this site is any indication, it is well earned. 

Anyway, I have personally seen an example of a woman getting ranked vastly higher than she should have been because she was pretty and most of the NCOs and junior officers were pretty infatuated with her. She was MOI, and she was acting lacking in the rank and on her first PER in rank . She was nice and pretty good at her job. So I don't want anyone to think, I think she was just a pretty girl. It isn't the only time I have seen something like that just the most blatant version I have seen. It does happen and it causes strife with in a unit. However, it generally happens at the lower ranks to younger, pretty women. There is a pretty good body of evidence that pretty women get promoted faster but tend to not get promoted as high. 



In general, I think one of the biggest issues with all this stuff is the lack of transparency and accountability. If you see something that looks like our favouritism (of any stripe) and say something you are told that PERs are individual evaluations even though you know they did a ranking board prior to writing the PERs. And the only recourse is a long drawn out grievance process which will likely hurt your standing in the unit and your PER next year. I think the new direction that you shall not rank personnel prior to completing the PER helps. More transparency would go a long way to dispel rumours and catch the instances of pure favoritism when they do happen. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No.  No you haven't.  You may _think_ you have, but you have not.
> 
> Pers heading out of work on long-term leave (Extended sick leave, MATA, PATA, post deployment leave [with a theatre PER to cover their tour time], LWOP for education or spousal accompaniment, etc etc etc) who do not have an observable amount of time actually at work receive EXEMPTION PERs.  Exemption PERs are neither scored nor ranked.  Exemption PERs cause a member's place on the merit list to be 'frozen' - they move neither up nor down the merit list - they sit exactly where the last fall merit boards PRIOR to their departure on leave had them merit listed at.  If on MATA or PATA and that gal or guys merit number is reached for promotion, that individual will be promoted with the relevant effective date.  That promotion was earned BEFORE the individual went on extended leave (guys & gals) and both guys and gals receive those non-scored exemption PERs for their time not at work.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (16 Feb 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Vern, first of all congrats on being a formation Chief. If your dedication to people on this site is any indication, it is well earned.
> 
> Anyway, I have personally seen an example of a woman getting ranked vastly higher than she should have been because she was pretty and most of the NCOs and junior officers were pretty infatuated with her. She was MOI, and she was acting lacking in the rank and on her first PER in rank . She was nice and pretty good at her job. So I don't want anyone to think, I think she was just a pretty girl. It isn't the only time I have seen something like that just the most blatant version I have seen. It does happen and it causes strife with in a unit. However, it generally happens at the lower ranks to younger, pretty women. There is a pretty good body of evidence that pretty women get promoted faster but tend to not get promoted as high.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  I haven't personally seen that, but it's not on.  That being said, I have seen some of the guys who play hockey well sports scholarships go out pretty high based on little time at work actually working.  But, not progress very high either.  I consider those as the exceptions to the rule and far from the "normal".  It's bad leadership, but again I'd think they are exceptions and the instances on both sides probably even each other out.

It's too bad that a few instances of _that_ taint the way every other hard working and deserving individual is regarded and/or treated. 

I also believe the new PER system will help guys and gals be fairly assessed across the board and will also serve to weed out those few instances of cliquing within regiments etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I haven't personally seen that, but it's not on.  That being said, I have seen some of the guys who play hockey well sports scholarships go out pretty high based on little time at work actually working.  But, not progress very high either.  I consider those as the exceptions to the rule and far from the "normal".  It's bad leadership, but again I'd think they are exceptions and the instances on both sides probably even each other out.
> 
> It's too bad that a few instances of _that_ taint the way every other hard working and deserving individual is regarded and/or treated.
> 
> I also believe the new PER system will help guys and gals be fairly assessed across the board and will also serve to weed out those few instances of *cliquing* within regiments etc.



cough <_ring knockers_> cough  ;D


----------



## pbi (17 Feb 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I haven't personally seen that, but it's not on.  That being said, I have seen some of the guys who play hockey well sports scholarships go out pretty high based on little time at work actually working.  But, not progress very high either.  I consider those as the exceptions to the rule and far from the "normal".  It's bad leadership, but again I'd think they are exceptions and the instances on both sides probably even each other out.
> 
> It's too bad that a few instances of _that_ taint the way every other hard working and deserving individual is regarded and/or treated.
> 
> I also believe the new PER system will help guys and gals be fairly assessed across the board and will also serve to weed out those few instances of cliquing within regiments


I clearly remember the protection of hockey players. I recall one company merit board in the early 1980s  when we had to rate a hockey playing NCO nobody had even seen in the last few months. He was given a good score. This was resented at company level as unfair and illicit, but grudgingly accepted as something the Regiment wanted. Personally I think it was a symptom of a garrison army.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Feb 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Vern, first of all congrats on being a formation Chief. If your dedication to people on this site is any indication, it is well earned.
> 
> Anyway, I have personally seen an example of a woman getting ranked vastly higher than she should have been because she was pretty and most of the NCOs and junior officers were pretty infatuated with her. She was MOI, and she was acting lacking in the rank and on her first PER in rank . She was nice and pretty good at her job. So I don't want anyone to think, I think she was just a pretty girl. It isn't the only time I have seen something like that just the most blatant version I have seen. It does happen and it causes strife with in a unit. However, it generally happens at the lower ranks to younger, pretty women. There is a pretty good body of evidence that pretty women get promoted faster but tend to not get promoted as high.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, there are many directives that specifically state that units are not to hold merit boards and that units are not to hold PERs or reference PERs for annual evaluations. The nature of the beast is that merit boards, regardless of direction, dont seem to want to go away. But you're right- merit boards do hurt transparency and allow for favouritism.

As for your example of the female- I'm sure there are cases of favouritism towards females (and minorities) just as there are cases of favouritism towards males, the difference is that while there are many males there are far fewer females (or minorities), so the pool against which they are judged is naturally lower, raising the implicit bias that are held. If you've only worked with 1 female and she's bad, it's natural to attribute that with all females. For what it's worth, I've seen endless examples of males who have been promoted due to their BBB profile (backyard BBQ buddy), being athletes (hockey players was mentioned, but I can think of a volleyball player and swimmer that have also fallen into this category), or being in great physical shape (but terrible at their jobs) that should never have. 

As for the comments about physical fitness that have been on the thread- yes there is a physiological difference between men and women, with men generally being higher in upper body strength (though IDF studies have shown that females have been able to achieve similar results to males after basic training). However, the CAF standard is the FORCE test and the CA standard is the FORCE combat test. That's it. That's all. The other physical standards are trade related (to mostly infantry) but not official standards. When discussing the requirement for physical strength surpassing the basic standard than there is no administrative argument to be made. However, I do understand that some trades (infantry and combat engineer specifically) require more physical strength due to the nature of the task. I leave artillery out as it requires a specific upper body strength requirement for the gunline (lifting a 155 shell) but the remainder of the trade doesn't have this requirement and, tbh, lifting a 155 shell isn't an obstacle for females. Armour, I would argue, is similar for physical strength as it is largely related to stamina, which has less to do with upper body strength and more with cardio. The remainder of the CAF, in a real sense, has far less physical fitness requirement past the FORCE tests. 

For argument sake, there are a total of 5400 infantry soldiers in the 9 Battalions (600 pers/Bn based on my knowledge of 2 VP being at 550 right now). Lets say there's another 1000 in ERE postings, bringing the infantry branch up to 6400 soldiers or a bit lower than 10% (9.4%) of the total of the CAF. If the infantry branch was even 10% female (540 soldiers) than the CAF would need to have 16,460 females in the other MOSIDs to hit the 25% mark. As there are many studies that show that females make better pilots than males, perhaps the delta could be made up in the pilot world.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there are many directives that specifically state that units are not to hold merit boards and that units are not to hold PERs or reference PERs for annual evaluations. The nature of the beast is that merit boards, regardless of direction, dont seem to want to go away. But you're right- merit boards do hurt transparency and allow for favouritism.
> 
> As for your example of the female- I'm sure there are cases of favouritism towards females (and minorities) just as there are cases of favouritism towards males, the difference is that while there are many males there are far fewer females (or minorities), so the pool against which they are judged is naturally lower, raising the implicit bias that are held. If you've only worked with 1 female and she's bad, it's natural to attribute that with all females. For what it's worth, I've seen endless examples of males who have been promoted due to their BBB profile (backyard BBQ buddy), being athletes (hockey players was mentioned, but I can think of a volleyball player and swimmer that have also fallen into this category), or being in great physical shape (but terrible at their jobs) that should never have.
> 
> ...



Women make pretty good tank drivers too:


Mariya Vasilyevna Oktyabrskaya (Ukrainian: Марія Василівна Октябрська; 16 August 1905 – 15 March 1944) was a Soviet tank driver during World War II. She was the first of the few female tank drivers to be awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's highest award for bravery during combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Women make pretty good tank drivers too:
> 
> 
> Mariya Vasilyevna Oktyabrskaya (Ukrainian: Марія Василівна Октябрська; 16 August 1905 – 15 March 1944) was a Soviet tank driver during World War II. She was the first of the few female tank drivers to be awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's highest award for bravery during combat.
> ...



and snipers. Perhaps the infantry can make the delta up with female snipers a la the Soviet Union? 

https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/06/20/lady-death-and-the-invisible-horror-the-female-face-of-war_786422

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Battalion


----------



## dimsum (17 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Women make pretty good tank drivers too:
> 
> 
> Mariya Vasilyevna Oktyabrskaya (Ukrainian: Марія Василівна Октябрська; 16 August 1905 – 15 March 1944) was a Soviet tank driver during World War II. She was the first of the few female tank drivers to be awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's highest award for bravery during combat.
> ...



I seem to recall the IDF using female tank instructors?  Is that a thing still?


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2018)

Few stats on women in the  IDF from Wikipedia.



> -with women comprising over 20% of Israeli forces in 1948, and 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, in 2011
> -As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions
> -Women currently make up 3% of the IDF's combat soldiers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2018)

IIRC, the IDF took women out of direct combat roles as they determined once the enemy discovered they were up against women, it made them fight harder.  This was, needless to say, counter productive for the IDF.


----------



## Underway (18 Feb 2018)

For full disclosure there is one trade in the CAF that is not fully open to women.  Milpoints to whomever gets it right.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Feb 2018)

Chaplain (RC)?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there are many directives that specifically state that units are not to hold merit boards and that units are not to hold PERs or reference PERs for annual evaluations. The nature of the beast is that merit boards, regardless of direction, dont seem to want to go away. But you're right- merit boards do hurt transparency and allow for favouritism.
> 
> As for your example of the female- I'm sure there are cases of favouritism towards females (and minorities) just as there are cases of favouritism towards males, the difference is that while there are many males there are far fewer females (or minorities), so the pool against which they are judged is naturally lower, raising the implicit bias that are held. If you've only worked with 1 female and she's bad, it's natural to attribute that with all females. For what it's worth, I've seen endless examples of males who have been promoted due to their BBB profile (backyard BBQ buddy), being athletes (hockey players was mentioned, but I can think of a volleyball player and swimmer that have also fallen into this category), or being in great physical shape (but terrible at their jobs) that should never have.
> 
> ...



I think you're pretty much spot on with this.  I'm of the opinion that women can do any job to the same standard that men can in the CAF with the exception of very physically demanding jobs like Infantry and Combat Engineers.  This is not to say that certain women can't do it, we are talking averages here.  

It has nothing to do with women not being smart, as intellectually capable, etc, it has everything to do with them being generally physically weaker than men which makes those occupations poor choices for them.  In some cases women are probably better choices for certain occupations than men as they are better at multitasking for instance.  

Of course as soon as we have exoskeleton suits than the playing field is levelled, until that time, a man's ability to lift greater loads under stress will give them a significant advantage.  

As for favouritism, don't think for a second the CAF isn't above using people as pawns for political/institutional gain.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Feb 2018)

Chaplain is now a single trade, which includes RC pastoral associates, who can be female.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Chaplain is now a single trade, which includes RC pastoral associates, who can be female.



True, but he said "not fully open" to female. And in typical fashion, you all thought of RC Chaplain as opposed to Protestant ones (you colonized people, you!).

But, surprise: There are no female Rabbis and no female Imams - and they would be Chaplains, and no "pastoral associates" in those two religions.  ;D


----------



## mariomike (18 Feb 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There are no female Rabbis and no female Imams - and they would be Chaplains, and no "pastoral associates" in those two religions.



"Joan Friedman became the first woman to serve as a rabbi in Canada in 1980, when she was appointed as an Assistant Rabbi at Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_rabbis


----------



## Piece of Cake (18 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that women can do any job to the same standard that men can in the CAF with the exception of very physically demanding jobs like Infantry and Combat Engineers.  This is not to say that certain women can't do it, we are talking averages here.



Ecological fallacy!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Ecological fallacy!



Whatever you say sweetie  8)

Shout louder, that's what they teach the SJWs  :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Of course as soon as we have exoskeleton suits than the playing field is levelled, until that time, a man's ability to lift greater loads under stress will give them a significant advantage.



Or, until we institute the right way to develop people physically (because we break a lot of men too due to hammer headed and unskilled/ unqualified/ unscientific fitness training delivery).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or, until we institute the right way to develop people physically (because we break a lot of men too due to hammer headed and unskilled/ unqualified/ unscientific fitness training delivery).



So true, how many times have you been injured and been given some cepacol, foot powder and been told to get back on the horse?

I had better medical care when I was a rugby player at RMC, full access to physio, athletic therapists, etc.  The military lets go of a lot of people with perfectly treatable issues if caught early on and corrected.


----------



## Underway (18 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or, until we institute the right way to develop people physically (because we break a lot of men too due to hammer headed and unskilled/ unqualified/ unscientific fitness training delivery).



Yes.  If you want to develop people physically then we need to properly invest in and train people physically.  We have no issues with training people on educational requirements for their job, with a fully developed TDO signed off plan. Despite our grumbling we are actually quite good at training people.  But to get them there physically it comes under the "your own responsibility" category.  That's fine after BMQ, but during BMQ and perhaps even whatever SQ is now.

It might be expensive to do but hell we've got 1-3 billion we can't spend every year.  I'm sure a bunch of that you can throw at the problem.


** note:  Chaplain is the correct answer, because divinity qualifications (whatever their source) are not equally granted to men and women in all religions.**


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Feb 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes.  If you want to develop people physically then we need to properly invest in and train people physically.  We have no issues with training people on educational requirements for their job, with a fully developed TDO signed off plan. Despite our grumbling we are actually quite good at training people.  But to get them there physically it comes under the "your own responsibility" category.  That's fine after BMQ, but during BMQ and perhaps even whatever SQ is now.
> 
> It might be expensive to do but hell we've got 1-3 billion we can't spend every year.  I'm sure a bunch of that you can throw at the problem.
> 
> ...



I've found that the PSP staff in the NCR are of better quality then what I saw in Halifax for support. I also wrecked my back in basic and had good physio and PSP support in St.. Jean, but unless you were recovering from an injury you never had access to them.

The lack of preventative measures is weird though; even simple things like getting my cubicle raised means I need to go to sick parade to get a physio referral, go to physio to get a referral for an assessment, then take the assessment and open a ticket to have someone raise my desk 2" and remove one of the cuboards in 6-12 months. It's crazy, as it's pretty obvious that the desk set up for someone that is 5'8" won't work when your 6'2", and hunching over all day is good for no one. 

At least on the Navy side, we're terrible for the 'human factor engineering' when setting up work areas. The US has pumped in massive amounts of money to the air side, and there has been some research on the ship's combat systems, but all the day to day stuff (steering, cooking, the engineering consoles, tool crib set up) that people always use is ignored until someone gets hurt, or we run into something. It's pretty silly.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> So true, how many times have you been injured and been given some cepacol, foot powder and been told to get back on the horse?
> 
> I had better medical care when I was a rugby player at RMC, full access to physio, athletic therapists, etc.  The military lets go of a lot of people with perfectly treatable issues if caught early on and corrected.



We could offer performance enhancing drugs to soldiers who want to build lots of muscle. If someone someone can get prescribed testosterone and steroids to become a man (cool) then I should have access to the same (with some HGH on the side)  in case I want to hand throw a TOW missile or fire the C16 without the cradle  8)


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar: I'm pretty certain the objective of the current government is to reduce the amount of testosterone in the CAF, not increase it.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for the comments about physical fitness that have been on the thread- yes there is a physiological difference between men and women, with men generally being higher in upper body strength (though IDF studies have shown that females have been able to achieve similar results to males after basic training).



Yup, that's it... just upper body strength :facepalm:



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I leave artillery out as it requires a specific upper body strength requirement for the gunline (lifting a 155 shell) but the remainder of the trade doesn't have this requirement and, tbh, lifting a 155 shell isn't an obstacle for females. Armour, I would argue, is similar for physical strength as it is largely related to stamina, which has less to do with upper body strength and more with cardio. The remainder of the CAF, in a real sense, has far less physical fitness requirement past the FORCE tests.



I'm glad you have finally addressed your thoughts on the physiological differences so that I can understand where you sit... which is somewhere very far out in left field if you think the only difference in physical capability is upper body strength. 

Practically every measure of cardiovascular fitness is better in men. The average man has about a 40% high VO2 max than the average woman, and even adjusted for weight has a 20% higher VO2 max... there are no weight classes in combat by the way. https://www.livestrong.com/article/546912-gender-vs-level-of-cardiovascular-fitness/

This website uses a bell curve to create "squat standards," by gender. The sample sizes they use are enormous. The median 200 lb male vs the median 200 lb female lifter is 320 lb vs 196 lbs.
https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/squat/lb

There are mountains of other data that show this, I can't believe you will sit here and try to pretend this is just fake news.



			
				Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Ecological fallacy!



Both of you only do more harm than good to gender equality issues if you purposefully ignore the facts because you don't like them. You make it _impossible_ to have an objective conversation that might actually lead to correcting gender inequalities that are a result of social constructs. Women are physically weaker in almost every meaningful way by a huge margin... it is not a social construct, it's just reality. Facts don't care about your feelings.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think you're pretty much spot on with this.  I'm of the opinion that women can do any job to the same standard that men can in the CAF with the exception of very physically demanding jobs like Infantry and Combat Engineers.  This is not to say that certain women can't do it, we are talking averages here.
> 
> It has nothing to do with women not being smart, as intellectually capable, etc, it has everything to do with them being generally physically weaker than men which makes those occupations poor choices for them.  In some cases women are probably better choices for certain occupations than men as they are better at multitasking for instance.



I would literally be interested in objectively discussing whether women can make better infanteers or combat engineers than men. Perhaps they are 15x smarter and 15x more efficient, and their transformational leadership leads to reorganizing into ways that make the fighting force so effective it overcomes all of the physical advantages that males have. But this discussion can't happen if we can't even get past the most glaringly obvious difference between the two genders that already has mountains of empirical evidence behind it.

Personally, I've been trying to find some studies on men vs women in chess but it's hard to find anything useful to compare especially since men outnumber women in chess 16 to 1. Maybe women are more intellectually suited to war-gaming than men are and we are failing to leverage that? I find these are all interesting rabbit holes to go down.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Of course as soon as we have exoskeleton suits than the playing field is levelled, until that time, a man's ability to lift greater loads under stress will give them a significant advantage.



I tend to think that even with exoskeletons, humans at war with other humans are going to push the human body to it's physical limitations. An exoskeleton that carries my 100 lb ruck sack for me just means I'll end up with a 200 lb ruck sack. That's my feeling on it anyway but it is always interesting to see how technology changes everything.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> For argument sake, there are a total of 5400 infantry soldiers in the 9 Battalions (600 pers/Bn based on my knowledge of 2 VP being at 550 right now). Lets say there's another 1000 in ERE postings, bringing the infantry branch up to 6400 soldiers or a bit lower than 10% (9.4%) of the total of the CAF. If the infantry branch was even 10% female (540 soldiers) than the CAF would need to have 16,460 females in the other MOSIDs to hit the 25% mark. As there are many studies that show that females make better pilots than males, perhaps the delta could be made up in the pilot world.



And what happens if, after all the social constructs have been broken down, and the best people for all jobs are in the jobs they do best, and we are not at 50/50? Then what? And what if we are at 50/50 but we are not at 50/50 for all trades, because some trades are at 60/40 and others are at 40/60? Then what? Has gender equality been achieved or do we need equality of outcomes? Because the latter (equality of outcome) is what all the modern day Marxists want at all costs, and it's quite frankly a terrible idea.


----------



## Piece of Cake (18 Feb 2018)

Here's the thing, many females who may be interested in joining the CAF as infantry, may choose not to, if all they hear is "women are not strong enough, women have no upper body strength ect." 

Can women be in the infantry. Yes.  No one has presented any stats to say otherwise.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, many females who may be interested in joining the CAF as infantry, may choose not to, if all they hear is "women are not strong enough, women have no upper body strength ect."
> 
> Can women be in the infantry. Yes.  No one has presented any stats to say otherwise.



Tells us we are making baseless claims only to make an equally baseless claim "that many women would join the infantry if only there weren't so many telling them they couldn't do it".

Women can serve in the infantry right now, the question is, should they?

The reason the CAF has no quantifiable evidence on any of this is it's actually illegal for us to test due to Employment Equity Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc.  If we were to test an all female infantry platoon vs an all male infantry platoon in combat skills, we would be breaking the law.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, many females who may be interested in joining the CAF as infantry, may choose not to, if all they hear is "women are not strong enough, women have no upper body strength ect."
> 
> Can women be in the infantry. Yes.  No one has presented any stats to say otherwise.



Question - have you ever served in a combat arms unit?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (18 Feb 2018)

Let’s get one thing straight, period. I’m female. SOME women can do mainly male-dominated, physically demanding, jobs that the majority of people struggle with, men and women. SOME women kick ass at jobs like infantry. SOME women can bench/squat/dead-lift weight amounts which surpass quite a few men’s. SOME women can out-run, out-smart, out-wit, out-lift, out-shoot, out-play, out-whatever tons of men. Likewise, there are a crap-ton of men who would make awful infantry soldiers, regardless of who the ‘stronger’ sex is. Bottom line is that certain jobs aren’t fitted for everyone, plain and simple. And the fact of it is (which I’ve said somewhere else on this site, but can’t find the post) if you take the strongest male in the world (determined by any method of physical testing) and you take the strongest female in the world (determined by said same physical testing) the male will be stronger. It’s the way it is. It’s the way it’s always been. We are made differently. Our bodies are simply not designed to withstand the same things. SOME women are physically exceptional. SOME men the same. On average, yes, women are weaker but there are still many who can do the heavy, hard, physically stressful/demanding jobs that mainly men perform. It’s just a matter of those women coming forward and doing it. 

So, with that said, let’s not delve further into the whole ‘who is stronger, who’s better fitted, better equipped, who should or shouldn’t be doing what’ and get back on track with the original ideas this thread started with.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2018)

Just an observation, in line with Ballz thoughts.

Back in the day, when the EXPRES test was still the standard, it recognized the difference in upper body strength and VO2 Max, with different requirements for pushups for men and women (interesting, even older men like myself were still required to do more pushups than 19 year old female recruits).

While this might have been very scientifically designed, it failed to address the real operational point that equipment does not magically change its characteristics based on if a man or woman is carrying it. A C-6 still weighs 11Kg, and it still comes with an SF kit, a teaser belt and (between the gun team) 440 rounds of 7.62mm link. In my own persona experience, most of the female infantry solders who passed the  EXPRES test fell down in the field because they could not be loaded down with the extra ammo and equipment for the platoon support weapons. This meant that there were always a few soldiers in the platoon who simply never carried the kit, and the burden shifted onto the remainder of the platoon, with the obvious risks of exhaustion, ankle and joint injuries and people falling out because they were no longer able to carry the extra load without relief.

In that regard, the FORCES test is much, much better, since there are no exemptions based on sex or age.


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just an observation, in line with Ballz thoughts.
> 
> Back in the day, when the EXPRES test was still the standard, it recognized the difference in upper body strength and VO2 Max, with different requirements for pushups for men and women (interesting, even older men like myself were still required to do more pushups than 19 year old female recruits).
> 
> ...



Agreed. Stuff weighs what it weighs. Stuff doesn't care who is carrying it. I never understood the idea behind  the old BFT that required you to carry a casualty your own body weight.: what do you do, pick out a casualty who looks like they might weigh as much as you do? Much better to use an " average weight" dummy, like firefigher training normally does.


----------



## armyvern (18 Feb 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Tells us we are making baseless claims only to make an equally baseless claim "that many women *would join* who may be interested in joining the infantry if only there weren't so many telling them they couldn't do it".
> 
> Women can serve in the infantry right now, the question is, should they?
> 
> ...



Don't twist her words; I've corrected it for you.

That particular question was answered by the CAF and Canada back when I joined as part of the CREW Trials.  30 years.  The point is, a  bunch of so-called "peers" need to stop living in the past.  If a woman can do the job - she's allowed to and should be respected for doing such without the groundless and negative commentary based only upon her sex by those who _should_ know better. Move on already.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If a woman can do the job - she's allowed to and should be respected for doing such without the groundless and negative commentary



I haven't read anyone saying they shouldn't be allowed to? And what are you referring to by "groundless and negative commentary?"

I tell every inquiring female I've spoken to the same thing I tell the inquiring males who are asking about the arduous training. It will be physically and mentally tough, you will likely fail multiple times along the way. You may find yourself awake for 5 days, without enough food, carrying a 100lb pack up to 20km throughout a 24 hr period, and when you get to where you're going you'll get to dig a hole until the sun comes up... then you'll find out it's your turn to lead the next 5-6km withdraw because you guys are no longer where you're supposed to be.

I don't tell them two different things based on their gender, and I encourage them all to give a try because succeed or not, they'll probably be better off for the experience.


----------



## armyvern (18 Feb 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I haven't read anyone saying they shouldn't be allowed to? ...



Then you didn't read the post I quoted whereby I even included his statement, "Women can serve in the infantry right now, the question is, should they?"?

That was easy no?

Groundless and negative commentary?  Still questionning whether "they should be allowed to" 30 years after we've decided they can, they will, and they do.  Imagine putting up with that crap attitude from your peers or a supervisor, or - an Officer - just based upon your sex and not your performance and ability to do the job.  And, believe you me, they don't need to state it out loud for that attitude to be recognized by most of those who they feel to be unworthy.

Some fun, isn't it?  Some welcoming isn't it?  Amazing way to retain a female who can actually do the job.  Inspirational leadership _that_ is!  [/end sarcasm]   :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Feb 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Then you didn't read the post I quoted whereby I even included his statement, "Women can serve in the infantry right now, the question is, should they?"?
> 
> That was easy no?
> 
> ...



This is clearly an emotional issue for you so I'm going to cease and desist because at this point, I'm not going to throw any more gas on the fire.  



> I would literally be interested in objectively discussing whether women can make better infanteers or combat engineers than men. Perhaps they are 15x smarter and 15x more efficient, and their transformational leadership leads to reorganizing into ways that make the fighting force so effective it overcomes all of the physical advantages that males have. But this discussion can't happen if we can't even get past the most glaringly obvious difference between the two genders that already has mountains of empirical evidence behind it.
> 
> Personally, I've been trying to find some studies on men vs women in chess but it's hard to find anything useful to compare especially since men outnumber women in chess 16 to 1. Maybe women are more intellectually suited to war-gaming than men are and we are failing to leverage that? I find these are all interesting rabbit holes to go down.



There is no data in Canada as far as the military is concerned.  As I said before, doing any sort of study like what you would propose would violate a number of Acts and Human Rights.


----------



## armyvern (18 Feb 2018)

Actually not an emotional issue for me in any way, shape or form.

Just an issue that the CAF decided upon 30 years ago.

Apparently, some have yet to get over it and move on (the girls didn't bring it up in here).


----------



## ballz (19 Feb 2018)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Actually not an emotional issue for me in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Just an issue that the CAF decided upon 30 years ago.
> 
> Apparently, some have yet to get over it and move on (the girls didn't bring it up in here).


 
No topic, decision, or policy is above questioning / criticism / objective analysis. Don't care if it's uncomfortable for you or anyone else.


----------



## armyvern (19 Feb 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> No topic, decision, or policy is above questioning / criticism / objective analysis. Don't care if it's uncomfortable for you or anyone else.



I think it may actually be you who is uncomfortable with REALITY.

Fill 'yer boots then; I don't see us going back 31+ years in time, but you go guy!!  I'll better spend my time moving ahead with the CAF instead of insisting on living in the past.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Feb 2018)

On that note, I’m shutting this down for a while. I requested that things get back on course in my earlier post, but that didn’t happen. This thread has certainly somewhat drifted off from the original article contents which were posted. 
Let’s take a breather.

Staff


----------

