Author Topic: We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether  (Read 32336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064

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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Buck_HRA

    .

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 587
    • CAF - Find a Recruiter
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)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 12:43:38 by Buck_HRA »

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,358
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,679
  • Ready Aye Ready
"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...
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064
"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?


« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 12:55:29 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Buck_HRA

    .

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 587
    • CAF - Find a Recruiter
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 :-)

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...

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,793

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. 
Optio

Offline EpicBeardedMan

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,861
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
  • Getting better, stronger, faster.
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?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 13:11:00 by EpicBeardedMan »
The military isn't really like a James Bond movie where you go for jet training in the morning and then underwater demolitions after lunch.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064
Quote from: 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...

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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
We're going to be man person people haters now?   :dunno:
FTFY

Double FTFY

 ;D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 433,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,551
  • Crewman
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:
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,793
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.
Optio

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 699
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.
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 566
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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,358
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,679
  • Ready Aye Ready
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. 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 699
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?
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline EpicBeardedMan

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,861
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
  • Getting better, stronger, faster.
Perhaps we will be taking lessons from those Nordic Swedes.....:dunno:

Shield maidens!!!
The military isn't really like a James Bond movie where you go for jet training in the morning and then underwater demolitions after lunch.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,088
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.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064
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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,088
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?

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064
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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Piece of Cake

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 2,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
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?
Policy is more than black and white.  We need to not only understand the spirit of why a policy was written, but also how the policy affects people.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 41,358
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,679
  • Ready Aye Ready
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Piece of Cake

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 2,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
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. 
Policy is more than black and white.  We need to not only understand the spirit of why a policy was written, but also how the policy affects people.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 256,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,064
Is this really a question in 2018?

Sure is.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,261
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
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."
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller