# GBA+ training



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2017)

Thought this might be an interesting debate. 

(picked up from here - http://army.ca/forums/threads/60282/post-1481467/topicseen.html#new )

Reading the GBA+ website( http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html#what ) I came across the "some myths page" that I have questions about.



> 1. Myth: Women and men are already equal in Canada, so GBA+ is not needed.
> 
> While many advances have been made, equality gaps remain. Women in Canada today earn, on average, only 73.5 cents for every dollar that men earn. Women are also more often the victims of domestic and sexual violence and continue to be under-represented in leadership and executive positions, occupying only 10.3% of positions on corporate boards.
> 
> This is especially evident for certain groups of women. For example, women from northern and rural communities are more likely to experience poverty; Aboriginal women are far more likely to experience sexual and intimate partner violence; and immigrant women experience higher rates of unemployment.



Does this mean to say that women aren't paid the same salary as a man is for doing the same job? Or is it saying women don't earn as much as men, which I've seen explained by ones career path and choice.

Why point out women are more often the victims of sexual and domestic violence? Men are more often the victim of suicide, homelessness (75%) and homicide. What's the relevance?
Why are women representing only 10%ish in leadership positions (except yahoo I think they're something like 99%). Is it suggesting men won't let women get promoted? I've read elsewhere that women often behave in a more passive-aggressive way in the workplace which isn't conducive towards promotions. 


How exactly does GBA+ training apply to the military?

And Iis it "wrong" of me to suggest it's unfair that women get single rooms to themselves while males have to cram a bunch into one? Or that a female gets her own recce/crew tent to sleep in while guys are given the option of sleeping outside or cramming 3 people into a 2 person tent?


----------



## Remius (24 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thought this might be an interesting debate.
> 
> (picked up from here - http://army.ca/forums/threads/60282/post-1481467/topicseen.html#new )
> 
> ...



Have you completed the actual training/course? 

The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women.  

A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job.  Your question about how fair it is that women get their own tents or single room actually goes to the point that gender may or may not be a factor in that decision making process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Have you completed the actual training/course?
> 
> The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women.
> 
> A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job.  Your question about how fair it is that women get their own tents or single room actually goes to the point that gender may or may not be a factor in that decision making process.



I've taken the GBA+ and I've reworded your post below, with my amendments in yellow, to be more valid to GBA+  IF  GBA+ actually considers males AND females.  Why are you discriminating against shorter/taller/heavier males?  That makes me sad.   :'(



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man or the average woman and don't factor in women and men, either of whom could be shorter than average, or taller than average, or perhaps huskier than average you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her or his job.



You've made it about a female and, not considering ALL gender factors, you've let it become about females only and not even considered your male soldiers who are shorter than average, taller than average, heavier than average.  FAIL.  You must now redo GBA+ (unless the purpose of GBA+ isn't in any way tied to considering male CAF members as well).

 [Xp


----------



## Remius (24 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've taken the GBA+ and I've reworded your post below, with my amendments in yellow, to be more valid to GBA+  IF  GBA+ actually considers males AND females.  Why are you discriminating against shorter/taller/heavier males?  That makes me sad.   :'(
> 
> You've made it about a female and, not considering ALL gender factors, you've let it become about females only and not even considered your male soldiers who are shorter than average, taller than average, heavier than average.  FAIL.  You must now redo GBA+ (unless the purpose of GBA+ isn't in any way tied to considering male CAF members as well).
> 
> [Xp



Um, that was exactly my point...but I get it  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2017)

But you said...



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> GBA+ isn't just about women.



and then...



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job.



Compared to my version, your example only speaks to women and issues with kit for them.  After saying its not about women, you went right to using an example that considers only women.

Irony?  8)


----------



## Lumber (24 Mar 2017)

Did anyone else get the impression that I they are saying that we now have to conduct thorough GBA+ analysis, including keeping documentation of our research, for all projects now? Not just with planning new policies, but when planning operations, training, and exercises? 

I've got one of my OJT pilots planning a day staff end-of-year excursion... Is he supposed to conduct a GBA+ analysis for this?


----------



## Remius (24 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But you said...
> 
> and then...
> 
> ...



It isn't just about women. Or just about gender either.

The example i gave is in relation as to how gba+ is relevant to the CAF which was a question the OP had.  

I used an example where GBA+ should have been applied.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Mar 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Did anyone else get the impression that I they are saying that we now have to conduct thorough GBA+ analysis, including keeping documentation of our research, for all projects now? Not just with planning new policies, but when planning operations, training, and exercises?
> 
> I've got one of my OJT pilots planning a day staff end-of-year excursion... Is he supposed to conduct a GBA+ analysis for this?



Truthfully I think it was a simple way for the GOV/CAF to be able to say we have all been trained and are cognitive of the special needs of people, in relation to gender and sex.  So now when we fornicate the K9 up they can prove they did their due dillegence.


----------



## Remius (24 Mar 2017)

I see it more as a tool at much higher level for policy making but that whoever came up with it wants everyone to know about it.  

At a micro level I think most people/leaders in the CAF already apply it or should be under the heading of "know your troops and promote their welfare".


----------



## ballz (24 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does this mean to say that women aren't paid the same salary as a man is for doing the same job? Or is it saying women don't earn as much as men, which I've seen explained by ones career path and choice.



Calculating the wage gap is a contentious issue. Depending on what variables you isolate, it can range from the low end (70-75 cents per "male-earned dollar") up to the high end of (~95 cents per "male-earned dollar").

The low end literally just takes all the money earned by females and compares it to all the money earned by men. It doesn't even account for the most basic variable of men working more hours... so if a male and female are getting paid the exact same hour wage, but the male works twice as much (let's take OT pay out of the equation to simplify this example), it will show "females make 50 cents for every dollar earned by a male." No $hit someone working twice as much brings home twice as much money...

This is where progressives shoot themselves in the foot.... they focus on these extreme numbers that come from a deliberately poor statistical analysis, and they lose all credibility because it doesn't take very long for people to catch on and then ignore them.

I think there is a very legitimate discussion to be had on the wage gap and other gender-related issues... but first we need to isolate for certain variables and get the accurate picture. If, after doing that, we see a 5-10 cent wage gap (and I believe that this exists), then we can properly ask "why?" and perhaps find some real answers. Perhaps, armed with those answers, we can find solutions.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Mar 2017)

There are other issues that such analysis brings to light.  If earnings discrepancies are tied, in part, to family caregiving that is unpaid labour and is predominantly done by women, is one solution to encourage more male participation in those areas?  I believe one of the Scandinavian countries directs that a certain portion of parental leave must be taken by the second parent (where there is one).  Would that sort of intervention help narrow the perceived gap?


----------



## Flavus101 (25 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are other issues that such analysis brings to light.  If earnings discrepancies are tied, in part, to family caregiving that is unpaid labour and is predominantly done by women, is one solution to encourage more male participation in those areas?  I believe one of the Scandinavian countries directs that a certain portion of parental leave must be taken by the second parent (where there is one).  Would that sort of intervention help narrow the perceived gap?



Whenever the government inserts themselves into family life in such a way it rarely works out over the long haul...

There is an ever increasing amount of parents who believe that the school system is meant to teach their kids everything they need to know about life and that when the kid messes up it could never be their fault (the parents). Although I see where you are coming from, I think simply imposing legislation by the government is the easy way out and will be harmful in the long haul.


----------



## ballz (25 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Whenever the government inserts themselves into family life in such a way it rarely works out over the long haul...
> 
> There is an ever increasing amount of parents who believe that the school system is meant to teach their kids everything they need to know about life and that when the kid messes up it could never be their fault (the parents). Although I see where you are coming from, I think simply imposing legislation by the government is the easy way out and will be harmful in the long haul.



Essentially, this is exactly what I was thinking. I am disappointed when the first thought people have is to use the government to force people to behave the way in which they desire. While in spirit I am a feminist, I don't identify with feminists because 99% of the solutions coming out of that camp are using the government to force exactly these kind of things on people.

There are some people (men and women) who believe a man's primary responsibility is to work and bring in the income while the woman's is to look after the household. I am not one of those people, however, it is none of my business to force them to live another way. If it works for them and they are happy living that way, that's great, we can cross off the list as "don't have to fix this."

Something I would be more concerned about is, "Why don't more women end up higher-paying, more prestigious leadership roles, even in female-dominated careers?" If the answer is because of voluntary lifestyle choices or what have you, then I don't see a case for anything needing to be fixed. 

But, if the answer is "because when a woman exhibits leadership qualities like being assertive, she is perceived as a contrary b*tch to work with, whilst a man exerting the same quality is labelled as a strong, assertive character"..... now that's an issue where gender is an unfair barrier to success that needs to be talked about and a solution needs to be found (and I would argue the solution is probably a social one, not a government legislated one).


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Have you completed the actual training/course?
> 
> The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women.



Yes of course, all ranks had to. It was such a huge deal.  I still struggle to see how it applies in our workplace, especially at the private/corporal level.
I was going to respond earlier about your example but EITS beat me to it.

Agree about the wage gap. The whole men make more than women seems a very subjective argument.


----------



## Remius (25 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes of course, all ranks had to. It was such a huge deal.  I still struggle to see how it applies in our workplace, especially at the private/corporal level.
> I was going to respond earlier about your example but EITS beat me to it.
> 
> Agree about the wage gap. The whole men make more than women seems a very subjective argument.



It applies to our workplace in regards to a lot of things that affects the privates and corporals.  It also depends on how much of an impact someone's job has on policy or what not.  Things like changes to parental leave or even something as simple as accessible washrooms.  Was it a bigger deal than it it really is? Yes.  Is everyone going to use this info, no.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> It applies to our workplace in regards to a lot of things that affects the privates and corporals.  It also depends on how much of an impact someone's job has on policy or what not.  Things like changes to parental leave or even something as simple as accessible washrooms.  Was it a bigger deal than it it really is? Yes.  Is everyone going to use this info, no.



Like the pressing need to call MATA/PATA leave Parental leave  ;D

What's the issue with washrooms that we're facing? Is it the transgender picking a washroom issue or something else?

Interesting points Ballz, thanks.


----------



## Remius (25 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like the pressing need to call MATA/PATA leave Parental leave  ;D
> 
> What's the issue with washrooms that we're facing? Is it the transgender picking a washroom issue or something else?
> 
> Interesting points Ballz, thanks.



It's an example, not a pressing need that I know of.  But when someone says build a washroom on this base or this CAF facility and say ok, men and women.  No problem. But might forget injured men and women and don't include the right kind of things like ramps or holding bars for specific types of injuries that might be more common for CAF members.  So the GBA might of been done but forgot the + part.  So while the Pte and Cpl really has no effect on the policy or decision they are I lacked by the decision that was made.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Mar 2017)

If we need GBA+ now, how the flying frack did we survive before?

I mean, not counting things like common sense, a planning process (estimates, and that kind of old fashioned stuff that came before iGagdet Apps)...

I guess what we need to bring back then is common sense and planning...and all it took was a GBA+ course for the entire CAF to fix itself!   [lol:

I can, I honestly believe, replace 90= % of this 'special' training we all get forced upon us with this neat little jingle I learned way back in '93 on CLC and then learned to use and employ effectively (later on in FTXs, leadership courses as a SNCO, etc, after my CLC was over).  And it went a little something like this:

**AIM, FACTORS, COURSES, PLAN**.  It worked for war/combat/peacekeeping/you name it, I am sure I could teach people to use it for deciding how to make a bathroom in a gov building.   :nod:  I will call it CFS+  (Common Fucking Sense +).   ;D

Add as added bonus, I'll also throw in, at no extra charge, this other helpful leadership tool called *The 3 M's*.  I'll keep that one for later though...I want people to focus on CFS+ for now.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Mar 2017)

I just had a look at the CAF Pay Scales tables....I don't see anything there about gender.

A Leading Seaman Boatswain gets paid the same as a Corporal Infantry soldier.  Gender doesn't matter.

In the civilian work-force, maybe such an issue exists, but I think our house is quite squarely in order on this aspect.

NS


----------



## FSTO (27 Mar 2017)

When I was told to do the GBA+ online course I did the WASPish thing and grumbled "Another stupid check the box CYA waste of time". By the end I was actually interested in the subject. It confirmed a few common sense policies but also pointed me to other issues I would never have thought of.

That being said, the spin from the current government is that they used GBA+ to write the budget and that it was designed with females in mind and its feminist focuses and blah blah blah. This is not what GBA+ is all about, at all.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Mar 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> it was designed with females in mind and its feminist focuses and blah blah blah. This is not what GBA+ is all about, at all.



You'd never know that, looking at the discriminatory remarks Remius made in this thread!   rly:






 ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> t confirmed a few common sense policies *but also pointed me to other issues I would never have thought of.*



Could you elaborate?


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Mar 2017)

For context we should look at the history of GBA since it dates back 20+ years and is not something 'new'.  It has been 7+ years since the Privy Council added the + that includes: the consideration of other identity factors such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income.  So it was about Women but now it is not only about Women.
Source: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/history-histoire-en.html

Canada ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1981.CEDAW requires state parties to take measures to eliminate discrimination in political, economic and social life.

In 1995, Canada adopted the UN Beijing Platform for Action which requires all member states to "seek to ensure that before policy decisions are taken, an analysis of their impact on women and men, respectively, is carried out."

Also in 1995, in accordance with these international obligations, the Government of Canada committed to conducting Gender-based Analysis (now called Gender-based Analysis Plus) on all future legislation, policies and programs.

This commitment led to the implementation of Gender-based Analysis (GBA) in several departments, though different areas of government proceeded at different rates with differing results.

In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada conducted an audit of GBA in nine departments. The audit found uneven implementation of GBA and little evidence of its influence on decision-making.

As a result of the audit, Status of Women Canada along with the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat were required to table the Departmental Action Plan on GBA to Parliament. This plan increases the federal government's accountability for GBA.

Since then, Status of Women Canada has launched the modernization of GBA to GBA+. This updated approach emphasizes the consideration of other identity factors such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income.

Analysis that incorporates gender and these other diverse, intersecting factors is called GBA+.

GBA+ is used by the Government of Canada, but it is used by many other governments, organizations and companies also.


----------



## Loachman (27 Mar 2017)

Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> *Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order*, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".



I was going to say the same thing.


----------



## Flavus101 (27 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".



But then the optics would be all off for those that "matter"....


----------



## Strike (28 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> But then the optics would be all off for those that "matter"....



Dude, seriously?  With that comment right there we can all tell that you have yet to take the training.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Mar 2017)

IMHO what a joke this GBA+ training is, I just hit do the test and got 90%...


----------



## Happy Guy (28 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".


GBA and HFA are two different things.

Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=human+factors+analysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=04TaWKnwON-AkgWVk7TgDw
The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) identifies the human causes of an accident and provides a tool to assist in the investigation process and target training and prevention efforts.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2017)

I'm not 100% sold on GBA+ training being pushed down to the private corporal level (or even a bit higher) but I'd suggest taking a 'Bystander training' approach might be a hell of a lot more effective than forcing members to do an online quiz.  One where they can either share answer via cheat sheet or challenge the test.


----------



## Loachman (28 Mar 2017)

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> GBA and HFA are two different things.
> 
> Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=human+factors+analysis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=04TaWKnwON-AkgWVk7TgDw
> The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) identifies the human causes of an accident and provides a tool to assist in the investigation process and target training and prevention efforts.



Yes, and I know - we do the same thing in Flight Safety as well.

I didn't have any interest in putting a lot of thought to a new name, but don't think that the current one is brilliant so just threw that out.


----------



## Flavus101 (29 Mar 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Dude, seriously?  With that comment right there we can all tell that you have yet to take the training.



Apologies, my post wasn't clear.

When I stated those that matter I meant all the government folks who use the naming and framing of programs to gain political points.

I have taken the "training", I personally think it is a poor excuse for the word training, like jarnhamar I felt the Bystander method of training was much more effective. I've completed it twice actually as the first time I did it was simply to help explain to a few PLQ candidates why it was relevant to their course and then I had to complete it again a couple months later so that I could print off proof of completion (being silly and not doing that the first time).


----------



## Strike (29 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Apologies, my post wasn't clear.
> 
> When I stated those that matter I meant all the government folks who use the naming and framing of programs to gain political points.
> 
> I have taken the "training", I personally think it is a poor excuse for the word training, like jarnhamar I felt the Bystander method of training was much more effective. I've completed it twice actually as the first time I did it was simply to help explain to a few PLQ candidates why it was relevant to their course and then I had to complete it again a couple months later so that I could print off proof of completion (being silly and not doing that the first time).



Coolio.   ;D


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Perhaps a more inclusive name for the programme is in order, that better describes it while not annoying many people, such as "Human Factors Analysis".


I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> IMHO what a joke this GBA+ training is, I just hit do the test and got 90%...


I also noticed that most people seem to be taking this route of skipping the training and passing the test.  If you actually take the training, there is an interesting teaching point that states organizations should create their own tailored training as opposed to relying on generic packages.  ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Mar 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.
> I also noticed that most people seem to be taking this route of skipping the training and passing the test.  If you actually take the training, there is an interesting teaching point that states organizations should create their own tailored training as opposed to relying on generic packages.  ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.



Well I did skim over the material....


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I proposed "Diversity Based Analysis" because I noticed that is what the course claimed it was about.  I noticed a lot of people go into the course with opinions formed and minds closed because of the "G".  The course also contributed unnecessary pages to explaining that it was about more than "G" and that it was not an employment equity course.  When the name of your programme closes minds and causes confusion as to aims, then it may be time to come up with a new name.



A perfect match to my opinion.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.



The challenge: How long would it / will it take the CAF to develop its own material?  Would it be better to wait for something better, or to cross the start line with a 65% solution while working on our own?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge: How long would it / will it take the CAF to develop its own material?  Would it be better to wait for something better, or to cross the start line with a 65% solution while working on our own?



I would say *wait*.  A 65% solution _isn't_ a solution IMO.


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2017)

It is a little of column A and a little of column B.  WO and offr should be able to take the generic course and apply it.  As a prerequisite to PLQ, it is not helping.  But, as noted in the CANFORGEN, this training has been made a prerequisite for NCO leadership courses but it is integrated into officer leadership courses.  I assume the generic Government of Canada package is not what is being taught in either Army or Joint staff colleges.  Have we really not had time to make our own training package yet?


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is a little of column A and a little of column B.  WO and offr should be able to take the generic course and apply it.  As a prerequisite to PLQ, it is not helping.  But, as noted in the CANFORGEN, this training has been made a prerequisite for NCO leadership courses but it is integrated into officer leadership courses.  I assume the generic Government of Canada package is not what is being taught in either Army or Joint staff colleges.  Have we really not had time to make our own training package yet?



Well, it's seven years since DND bought the old Nortel buildings, and the first folks are just getting settled in.  If it takes that long to move across town...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, it's seven years since DND bought the old Nortel buildings, and the first folks are just getting settled in.  If it takes that long to move across town...



Well part of the delay was due to the Chinese.....

We don't have that excuse for lots of other things, though.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I also noticed that most people seem to be taking this route of skipping the training and passing the test.  If you actually take the training, there is an interesting teaching point that states organizations should create their own tailored training as opposed to relying on generic packages.  ... good thing we are using the generic government of Canada package and not something CAF or L1 specific.



Funny how diversity can only be explained using generic, one size fits all programs.......


----------



## TCM621 (31 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The challenge: How long would it / will it take the CAF to develop its own material?  Would it be better to wait for something better, or to cross the start line with a 65% solution while working on our own?


Consider GBA has been around for 20 years and we don't have CAF specific material, I'll say at least 30 years. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Happy Guy (31 Mar 2017)

I actually went through the course instead of skipping the material and directly writing the test.  I'm glad that I did.  Most of us tend to pay lip service to courses such as these but as I read into this I learned some new things.  Perhaps this is because I am the very proud father of two young females adults that I decided to pay attention.

Remember when the female Officer Cadet complained that her kit didn't fit correctly?   Well the proper application of GBA+ probably would have greatly improved the chances of having kit that fits females.  We would have probably learned not to develop the combat bra.  It is not just about females but diversity too.  A growing part of population do not have European origins.  The application of GBA+ at the onset for recruiting may help.

Cheers


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Mar 2017)

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Remember when the female Officer Cadet complained that her kit didn't fit correctly?   Well the proper application of GBA+ probably would have greatly improved the chances of having kit that fits females.  We would have probably learned not to develop the combat bra.  It is not just about females but diversity too.  A growing part of population do not have European origins.  The application of GBA+ at the onset for recruiting may help.
> Cheers



What about short slight build males? Or short, husky males?  Back to the *its not about females* point I keep making, that people are saying its not only about females and then substantiating that with examples about females only.


----------



## Strike (31 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What about short slight build males? Or short, husky males?  Back to the *its not about females* point I keep making, that people are saying its not only about females and then substantiating that with examples about females only.



Unfortunately it's that mentality that disregards that the shoulder and hip ratio of women is different to men, so just shrinking the height of a ruck will not make it fit a woman better.

It's also forgetting that every month (more or less) a woman's body goes through menses so keeping people in the field with only a bush or long flights in a plane with only a curtain for privacy is less than ideal.

It's that a woman's bone density is much lower than that of a man, so they are more prone to stress fractures if they don't have the proper equipment (not all footwear is equal after all).

It's that the first generation Japanese guy that you just recruited is also taking care of his parents, as is the custom, and posting him to the middle of nowhere where there are no other Japanese speakers for his parents to mix with is a recipe for failure and that guy is only going to be in for a minimum time if nothing better comes along. (yes, I understand this is culture, not gender, but some of the things that need to be considered)


----------



## Remius (31 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What about short slight build males? Or short, husky males?  Back to the *its not about females* point I keep making, that people are saying its not only about females and then substantiating that with examples about females only.



I gave you a non-just-female  example previously. 

I get that you didn't like the training and don't think it's of any value.  That just tells me you didn't take the training or likely skipped to the test.  The web training had plenty of examples that were not just females. 

There is going to be some policies that will disproportionately affect women more than men when it comes to the CAF because the gender analysis has always been historically shitty in our organisation catering for the most part to men only because the CAF is predominantly male.  The + part adds another element that can include culture, background etc etc

You are not going to get the answer you want here.  Probably because we aren't explaining it properly and a combination of you not getting it. 

I suggest you go to the GBA+ site and read the FAQ and ressources.  If you still don't get it, nothing here will be of any help to you. 

For now I get the feeling you're just trolling.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Mar 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it's that mentality that disregards that the shoulder and hip ratio of women is different to men, so just shrinking the height of a ruck will not make it fit a woman better.
> 
> It's also forgetting that every month (more or less) a woman's body goes through menses so keeping people in the field with only a bush or long flights in a plane with only a curtain for privacy is less than ideal.
> 
> ...



What I am saying it what I said wayyy back earlier in the thread.  If this GBA+ training was actually being applied (using the same example, kit fit for females), and was all inclusive for *anyone except the average weight/height male*, the kit considerations would consider other *people* like I'd mentioned; short skinny/short husky men.  I didn't say it would NOT include consideration for females, just that only going the "what about females" would stop short.  Because short skinny/short husky males have issues with kit designed for "average height/weight males" as well.  That's the point.  My issue is, in that example of the female cadet, no one goes the step beyond the "maybe this is a problem for females" to the "hey maybe this is actually a problem for some males too, who aren't the average height and weight we are basing this stuff off of".  Now its a more comprehensive and inclusive look at the problem.  Trust me, I've had enough male subordinates, students, etc that have been short and stocky, etc that also have some real issues with the way kit like rucksacks and manpacks fit.  It isn't limited to females and it was a real issue for some people, including males, long before this female Cadet mentioned it.  I'm not sure why her question is viewed as some epiphany ???

As for the posting stuff, I think some of this is starting to go down the lines of "anyone who isn't English speaking Caucasian" is going to get some special consideration.  What if Pte Johny is looking after his grandmother, because *insert reason here*.  Does he get the big F-U because its not on the list of "approved cultural considerations"?   I dunno.  We're creating a society of special snowflakes.  I know people who are forced to go IR because there is no job for their wife, or their kids are in the last years of school, etc.  They are given special consideration.  I'm having a hard time with the cultural stuff, because it seems to include everyone but Pte Johny, the English speaking fair-skinned guy looking after his grandmother but gets posted to *insert location here* anyways.  That isn't the best example but...I've been reading DL material for most of the day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I gave you a non-just-female  example previously.



Actually, no you didn't.  I gave you one, after modifying yours a wee bit.  Remember?  http://army.ca/forums/threads/125436/post-1481484.html#msg1481484  



> I get that you didn't like the training and don't think it's of any value.  That just tells me you didn't take the training or likely skipped to the test.  The web training had plenty of examples that were not just females.



Truth be told?  I was in theatre when I did it, and someone who wasn't on the pointy end there came up with some arbitrary date it had to be done by (no idea why, however...).  By the time it trickled down to my level, I was just stepping back into Ops after being up for XX hours and completing post-mission *stuff*.  I found out this had to be done *ASAP* to meet some dobbers time schedule, so I did it before getting to my rack.  All of that considered, I gave it the due attention I felt it was worth at that time.  I had bigger and more important fish to fry at that point in time and being 100% swept up and bought into *yet another XYZ program* wasn't even on my list of 'things I really need to care about right now'.



> There is going to be some policies that will disproportionately affect women more than men when it comes to the CAF because the gender analysis has always been historically shitty in our organisation catering for the most part to men only because the CAF is predominantly male.  The + part adds another element that can include culture, background etc etc



I think someone said it earlier, this might be a beneficial thing at the higher levels.  I don't see it being very applicable at the crew/platoon level, to be honest.



> You are not going to get the answer you want here.  Probably because we aren't explaining it properly and a combination of you not getting it.



Oddly enough, I never said I was asking a question, did I?  I am trying to make a point.  *If the female cadet raised a question about kit not fitting females right because it is designed for the average male CAF member, then chances are if you asked the NON-average size Males if they have issues with the kit, they also will...and that data can also be added to come up with an even MORE comprehensive solution that takes into account *_everyone_ who isn't an average size male*.  Including females and the short skinny/short stocky males.  

Why am I making that point?  Because people are saying (you included) *its not just about females* and then looking at an issue (in this case, how kit fits) only as it applies to females.  And it should be about males other than average size ones, too.

And I say that because I've served with short guys who had a real problem in the field carrying heavy loads in the standard 82 pattern rucks, carrying a radio and ammo and platoon stores etc etc and had the shit torn out of their sides and lower backs etc.  I don't know why this question from the female Ocdt is being regarded as some epiphany;  half the guys on my CLC in '93 could tell you *the issued kit doesn't fit everyone so well!* after they were humping pers and platoon kit around for XX days.

Seriously, that's the point.  It started out at the first with mostly the intention of light humour at the top of the first page and now...



> For now I get the feeling you're just trolling.



M'kay.   :


----------



## TCM621 (31 Mar 2017)

Short guy who hated the 82 pattern ruck chiming in. There was literally no way to make that fit me with out my back pad being down by my butt. Well actually on top of my butt pack which would have had to be down by my hamstrings to have the ruck flat on my back. No one gave a shit about my problems back then, this only is getting traction now because of gender. 

There are a lot of problems, philosophically, with GBA+ but I don't have time to go through them all right now. I'll try and type up a detailed post later. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2017)

It seems to me, however, based upon comments posted in various threads, that the CF has taken major steps lately to address the kit-fitting problem for women and short men: stocks of all sizes are approaching, or have reached, non-existence.

Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.

Progress.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it's that mentality that disregards that the shoulder and hip ratio of women is different to men, so just shrinking the height of a ruck will not make it fit a woman better.
> 
> It's also forgetting that every month (more or less) a woman's body goes through menses so keeping people in the field with only a bush or long flights in a plane with only a curtain for privacy is less than ideal.


You're forgetting men can menstruate too (and women can get prostate cancer).   ;D


Do the 70 some new genders that popped up mean we need to take Gender Fluid, Gender Bender, Genderqueer and Androgynous people into consideration when planning policies and such?


I find the example of the RMC cadet a pretty good one. Her kit doesn't fit. How viable is it to make rucksacks boots and uniforms for someone who weights 90 pounds? How many 90 pound service members do we have?  When there is a shortage of average sized uniforms (won't even mention boots), average sized body armor, rain suits, rucksacks and such how much money should we put into designing and supplying extra extra small or quadruple large sized kit for a small percentage of soldiers?

As far as the_ first generation Japanese guy_, should he get preferential treatment with postings over a Caucasian male because of his culture? It might affect recruiting but I guarantee it would affect morale and not in a good way.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As far as the_ first generation Japanese guy_, should he get preferential treatment with postings over a Caucasian male because of his culture? It might affect recruiting but I guarantee it would affect morale and not in a good way.


According to the charter of rights, we cannot discriminate on those factors.  So, no.  He should not get preferential treatment.

But, let's say the CAF is forming a new unit.  Should we not consider the attraction. And retention of first generation Canadians when deciding where to base the new unit?  Or maybe this is relevant when we define relocation benefits and the extension of cost coverage to what is typically seen as extended family from a western perspective? 

If you understand GBA+ to be special treatment to individuals in specific circumstances, then you probably did not do the training.  If you understand GBA+ to be about considering those individuals when developing policy or making decisions that impact on everybody, then you are getting close to understanding GBA+.


----------



## TCM621 (31 Mar 2017)

I have some time now so I will elaborate on the problems inherent in GBA+. 

1. Look at the source. It is the Ministry for the status of women. It's entire mandate is predicted on advancing women's issues. The source comes with an inherent bias. 

2. It is called Gender based analysis not outlier bases or human factor analysis. It can claim it is not about gender but if you ask anyone to do a gender based analysis what factor do you think will be at the forefront? You can argue that it shouldn't be this way but by naming it as such it introduces an unconscious bias. 

3. Despite claiming it isn't about gender, the coursework goes on the primarily focus on gender. Again, reinforcing a bias. 

4. Being that it primarily focuses on gender, it cones of the Status of Women department and that it is routed in the early 90s idea of gender equity, it is no surprise that the focuses on enhancing things for women. This necessarily leads to not  focusing what is still the majority of the CAF and that could have unintended consequences down the line. 

5. Anyone who doesn't plan for the reality of their staff is a poor leader and should be fired. If someone thinks the 72 percent of CAF members wear a size 8 to 11 boot, so I am just going to buy those sizes they are an idiot. No amount of training can fix that. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## TCM621 (31 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It seems to me, however, based upon comments posted in various threads, that the CF has taken major steps lately to address the kit-fitting problem for women and short men: stocks of all sizes are approaching, or have reached, non-existence.
> 
> Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.
> 
> Progress.


How very Stalinist of them. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flavus101 (31 Mar 2017)

> It's that the first generation Japanese guy that you just recruited is also taking care of his parents, as is the custom, and posting him to the middle of nowhere where there are no other Japanese speakers for his parents to mix with is a recipe for failure and that guy is only going to be in for a minimum time if nothing better comes along. (yes, I understand this is culture, not gender, but some of the things that need to be considered)



The first part is reasonable, though not for the reason you state. It shouldn't matter if the soldier is Japanese, if any soldier is looking after their parents that is a consideration that should be kept in mind.

As far as posting someone into the middle of nowhere... Should considerations be made for those who have always lived in a city and therefore do not like the rural life or the rural folks dialect? At what point do we draw the line and say that you knew what you were getting into? Obviously I am not saying we should just simply use that line all the time as there are times where we must take into account a soldiers situation. I just find it bullshit that someone will get a "preferred" posting due to their parents not wishing to live in an area with a low/nil concentration of Japanese speakers.

I know that this next bit is going to be a touchy subject. At what point do we draw the line for "field amenities"? The concern about how good we are at erecting massive immobile command centres has already been brought up. Part of doing the job means that you are going to be away from shower facilities, warm meals and you therefore must be able to look after your personal hygiene. It has been pointed out that we have this habit of dropping blue rockets wherever a decent biv site is and near every occupied defensive position. At what point do we say, "well folks you have all been taught how to properly care for yourselves in the field, go mark your shitters and here's a shovel, tickets and handsanitizer". Perhaps I am swinging too far in the other direction, I just feel that we have become lax towards being able to operate in an AO occupied by a peer (or near-peer as the propagandists like to say) enemy.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2017)

My overall comment on this is we are seeing yet another example of embedding "process" without considering "outputs".

Does anyone really believe that we will be getting sufficient boots (of any size) because we now have another "tick in the box" to add to the planning process? Human factor analysis and ergonomics can be traced as far back as Fredrick W Taylor in the early 1900's, so suggesting we need GBA+ because a female cadet in RMC has ill fitting equipment is, sad to say, crock. Designing equipment for the 95 percentile is decades old science, and we are now in an era where it is both practical and possible to custom tailor equipment for the people who fall outside of the 95th percentile, *should anyone be willing to make the time and effort to do so*. Human Resources is also a decades old process, so factoring in things like family location, language preferences and so on isn't some arcane new idea.

Frankly, this is resembling self licking ice cream cones like the old "Expres Test", which were "scientifically validated", yet never factored in the basic idea that military equipment like GPMG's don't stop weighing 11Kg just because the person carrying it in your platoon is a woman, or overweight, or is (insert ethnic origin here). It was always sad to see people who had passed being totally unable to function in the field when draped with weapons, ammunition and other gear.

It is long past time that we work our way backwards from what an operationally effective force looks like and needs to be able to do, then build training, testing and standards towards achieving that aim. It is also sad that a statement like that will likely be considered radical by the powers that be in the political or academic world.


----------

