Topic: Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[combat_medic]

So what you‘re saying, Pugil, is that even if a woman is qualified and capable, she‘d be put in the worst place so that there‘s no chance of her doing anything interesting?

No wonder they leave after 3 years... wouldn‘t you?

[Pugil]

The 2nd R22R train less harder and have a lower standard than the rest of their sister battalions. There is a real reason to all this, the Vandoos dont want women in their unit that is why they put all of them in 1 battalion. Those are the words coming from most of the Vandoos I worked with.

[Jarnhamar]

"But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong"

Your opinion can never be wrong combat_medic, it‘s yours after all. YOUR point of view.

I don‘t think what Pugil said was HIS specific point of view, he was just relating on how they set it up and why.  They put the females together because it‘s easier for them to have to her females in their platoons/company then being the only girl per company, this way it makes them stand out less, even if just a little.
Also it helps then in a way i think if their in a "weaker" battalion for the sole fact that if a guy drops out of PT, big deal he had a night of drinking or hes a little out of shape, if a girl drops out then everyone talks about it, rumors start, they question her soldier abilities.
Its not fair at all but thats just how it goes unfortinuatly.

Filling quotas is just wrong on every level.

This summer in pet a female private with about a year in was made 2IC of the kitchen staff over male corporals of 3 and 4 years because someone thought it important to have a female in the chain of command. From day 1 that took away respect from the senior corporals and lowered moral in the whole staff.  Thats not really much of a point though eh, just a side line story i guess  

[canada]

this summer on an unnamed course, we had two very distinct ethnic minotitiy troops.  After the word came down that big brass was going to be there the two top troops lost thier positions as no 1 and 2 and who do you think got the awards? top on course and top shot, we the troops knew what happened, nothing was said to us...how thats for equal?

As for women in the cbt arms, there need to one standard and no slack shown, for anyone, if they can perform to the standard then fine, I‘ve meet a few very good female troops...and a lot of really poor ones, its just frustrating.  Espically for people who work thier hardest and try to be  the best soilder they can be to have doggers, wiether they be female or male.

-Just my thoughts  

[radiohead]

I‘m not sure what you mean by this.... " a male is not even allowed not to talk a female co-worker".  Why wouldn‘t you talk to her while your working?  I‘ve worked with lots of people that I dislike, but I still talk if i‘s related to work and to make the work enviroment friendly.  What signals does that send when you just never say anything to someone your working with day and day out.  We all want to enjoy our day at work.

I‘ve never had a problem working with women, but I know some who do... but hey it‘s real world and guess what women are in it, get use too it.  Women make up 50% of population and the Military need women if it‘s wants to grow and be respected by Canadians at large.  Lower standards just so women can get in the combat arms is wrong, but is making them so hard that only a few women get in: when its not needed for job.

[Jarnhamar]

What i ment is that i do not have the privilage of choosing NOT to talk to a female soldier if i dislike her. I don‘t mean specifically work related, i mean sitting around work making idle chat, relaxing in the mess.

Theres certian male soldiers i don‘t like and i don‘t talk to them, they don‘t talk to me. if they went up the chain of command and complained i wasn‘t "making friends with them" so to speak he would get laughed at. With a female it‘s harassment. I just don‘t like the double standard.

I refuse to put on a friendly face and act buddy buddy around someone who i think is a poor soldier or who does not act professionally. I find it two faced almost. I do my best to make everyone comfortable but theres also a limit.

[Spr.Earl]

If any of you watched the documetary on Afgahnistan and the one shot in the Chanook you would have seen a woman with the men flying into the op.

 So if they whant to try combat arm‘s let them but if they can‘t do the job be honoust with them and tell them and let them go but if they can let them stay and all the power to them.

[radiohead]

Sorry man, I wasn‘t sure how you meant it, and I didn‘t to imply anything by it.  i can understand what you mean now, I thought it was just while you on the job...not at the mess and during relax time.  That is unfair, and there be a double a standard for it.  I can see why in the past they might of needed a rule like that, to stop the old boys ( sorry not sure what what word to use here) from closing ranks and totally shutting out any women who joined.

This is a messy topic though.  My opinion is that most the people who don‘t want women in combat come from it though a sexist view point.  Now before I get jumped on, I;m not saying everyone does, and there are good points being made.  The fact that CF has the trades open is a good starting point.

[Pugil]

In recent history only 2 countries have used women in combat stituation Soviet Union and Israel but both abandoned the pratice for whatever reasons after the war. I remember not far away that the goverment tried to raise up to 50% the number of women(in the reg only I think) in the combat arms, it was a total failure because the females that joined are way below the 50% and worst those who survived after their training are only a couple and add to that those who leave after the 3 year contract. Its not in the natural habit of most women to be aggresive, physical and play in the mud. I seen to many times girls that drop from pt only a couple of minutes after it started, girls that cry when things get ugly or worst fraternisation with other soldiers. But there‘s always a bunch of dedicated females in the armed forces that are to prove me wrong. Dont consider me a macho or sexist, Im just giving you my account of what Ive seen for the sake of the discussion.

[49thrca]

IMHO

If the individual meets the same standards as everyone else then let the person in, regardless of gender, race, height, weight, age or sexual prefs.

Unfortunately, physical tests in the Canadian Forces have something called "norming" which makes the standard different based on your gender and age.  If it is a "standard" it is the basic requirements to do the task and shouldn‘t vary based on gender or age.

If the job requires a fitness level of XYZ then everyone should have to meet it.
To better understand age norming: generally as someone ascends in age they also have ascended the rank structure and therefore will have less physical requirements in their job...but this is not always the case. (Maybe the PT tests should be more geared towards the individual jobs and you should have to meet the requirements for the specific job.)

It is an insult to females to allow such double standards.  I know plenty of females that keep up just fine with the males and do not need the easier testing.

If the double standard was removed there would no longer be any issues about a specific gender (or age) not being capable to do the job.  (If they passed the PT test, they are capable.)

Also, It is a fact that there are alot of individuals who are not prepared to accept women in combat.  Inforcing these double standards just gives them more fuel for there fire.  If they saw the same standards for both sexes they would be forced to admit equal ability.

<<Ranting finished, I will now step off the soapbox>>  

[radiohead]

"Its not in the natural habit of most women to be aggresive, physical and play in the mud."

I‘m not saying your sexist, but this statement is sexist.   say it over again and you‘ll see it, or try replacing the word women with asian, native etc.... if you had it would be a racist a statment and sexist isn‘t much different if you ask  me.

[combat_medic]

*grabs soapbox and steps on... for a moment*

As far as Israel is concerned, women were removed from combat due to religious reasons. However, Israel is still the only country to require military service from women. And even though the US does not allow women into combat arms trades, a large number of women saw combat and performed admirably.

As for physical standards in the combat arms, yes they should be the same, but a test for a 45+ year old CWO will be easier than for a 20 year old woman. What does that say? It perpetuates the stereotype that you‘re weaker as you get older, or higher in rank. Just as different standards for women perpetuates the stereotype that women are weaker.

The job doesn‘t change, right? Ammo, rats, and water don‘t get any lighter as you get older, and carrying a C6 with 6 boxes of ammo sucks just as much whether you‘re male or female.

*steps off soapbox, passes it off*

[humint]

I fully agree with Radiohead.

As for equality (not only in the forces but in all spheres of life), it is something that we, as a society, should strive for.

However, equality only works when hiring/promotion, etc is based on accepted standards or practices, skills, and so on.

I contend that all government services should be reflective of the overall population. This does not mean quotas, but rather this means attracting and encouraging QUALIFIED people from non-traditional areas (i.e. women, people of colour, etc) to join. And, by qualified, I mean that they pass all of the standards.

As for women in the combat arms, I am positive that there are women who are tough enough and strong enough to hack it. Historically, you do see women in combat roles. For example, there were women gladiators in Rome. And, in the modern world, you see women playing key roles in terrorist organizations. What about women in the resistance in WWII?  Women do not have to relegated to support roles, they are capable.

Think about this -- there was a time, and not too long ago, when blacks were not allowed to join the armed forces because society thought that they couldn‘t handle the pressure or even march. Eventually, blacks were allowed into the military, but they were restricted to minor roles because society thought that they weren‘t smart enough to do anything demanding or become ncos or officers. Then blacks were restricted to black-only companies. Eventually, there was full integration.

By restricting women to certain roles or jobs, are we not doing the same thing our ancestors did to blacks a mere 100 years ago?

[Pugil]

Everybody got their own opinion according to their own experience. I admit that my last reply was a bit raw and wasnt politically correct.    

* Society evolves, but war never evolves it is always going to be nasty and cruel*

[Jarnhamar]

I don‘t think a 45 or 50 year old soldier should be expected to keep up to an 18 or 20 year old private. Unless the CWO (for example) is in the infantry there isn‘t really a reason why he should be running along side 18 year olds lugging around ammo.  
I still do not like how they rate people depending on age or epecially gender though. I recently did a pt test, a timed 3.2 km run. A female soldier was about 30 seconds behind me and using that norming scale she litterly blew me away in score. To me that seemed like they figure "well shes a girl so she needs more help and praise" If i was a girl how could i feel any pride?

It‘s really easy to take the moral high ground and say "Well if they can do the same job as men, let them" and i fully agree with that but men and women are not equil (in a mannor os speakng) theres tons of differences physically, mentally and socially between males and females. You can‘t put them together in close quarters and expect everything to be fine like the cf thinks it should be.

[humint]

I‘m not trying to take the moral high road, but I know what you mean.

Yes, there are obvious physical differences between men and women, but there are also differences between men. You can‘t argue that ALL men will handle a specific situation in a particular way. Some can handle pressure, others can‘t. Some cry like babies, other freak-out and lose control while others are cold as ice. Are you telling me that ALL men are tough and ALL women are prats?

I‘ve played semi-pro and university level sports before, and I‘ve seen all sorts of so-called tough guys freak out and $hit the bed when push comes to shove. At the same time, I‘ve seen pro-level women in university sports handle the same situation with tact and awareness.

And I think it would be a mistake to assert that men are predisposed to handle certain situations better than women. What it really comes down to is the individual -- i.e. can that individual handle the situation? If a woman can pass the same test, same standards, same whatever as a man, and can perform equally well or better, than there is no reason why she can‘t be out there kickin‘ some @ss.

It‘s not all about physical strength or about how tall or big someone is, it‘s about how well a person can perform. I think what we need to do is get beyond the narrow outlook that men are more capable.

However, if you are telling me that a woman can‘t keep up because of their less physical nature, but that they are smarter, more intelligence, and less apt to punch a soft-drink machine because it ate a quarter, than I fully agree, all the officers in the CF should be women and all the men can stay in the ranks! May be that way something will get done in HQ.

you go girl!

[Freddy G]

"However, if you are telling me that a woman can‘t keep up because of their less physical nature, but that they are smarter, more intelligence, and less apt to punch a soft-drink machine because it ate a quarter, than I fully agree, all the officers in the CF should be women and all the men can stay in the ranks!" Quote by humint

Feminists and the like can accuse us of sexism... If it‘s sexist to say men are stronger than women, it‘s equally sexist to say women are smarter than woman.

For me, I say there should be women companies. Being led by a woman on the battlefield wouldn‘t feel right, just like a man coaching a team of high school cheerleaders or a woman coaching varsity football. I‘m not saying the woman can‘t cut it, but it‘d just be weird.

Also, women‘s requirements should be raised to men‘s level. The enemy won‘t be easier on the woman, so why should she have an easier time getting in?

[combat_medic]

Yes, men are stronger than women, for the most part. They‘re genetically predisposed to be able to build and maintain muscle tissue faster.  It‘s also true that women have better hand eye coordination, higher pain tolerance, and can take G forces better than men. That‘s not sexism, that‘s genetics.

But female companies? Are you kidding? That idea would throw us back 50 years... at least. What you‘re saying is

"Women can do whatever they want in the military so long as they don‘t do it near me, and I don‘t have to deal with it."

It‘s also reeks of the "all black companies" from the US many decades ago. How long do you think it took the Americans to get used to the idea of having an NCO or officer who was black? While you may not like the idea of taking orders from a woman, I don‘t like the idea of taking orders from some NCO or officer who‘s only looking out for #1. The kind of people like that Captain from "Band of Brothers" who was too self-centred and arrogant to ask for help in reading a map, and would‘ve gotten all of his men killed had he gone to war. Unfortunately, I don‘t have the option of hand picking the leaders that I feel like following.

I‘ve seen guys teaching the "feminine hygeine in the field" lecture to female recruits, just as I‘ve seen women teaching infantry field tactics. It‘s the material, not the teacher, right?

[Pugil]

Anyone noticed that the standard of physical fitness has been downwards since 1989 when they allowed women in the infantry? To get women in the combat arms you need to be less demanding physically because the average women cant cope like the average men in heavy duty, this is not rocket science. Currently there is only 1% of women in the regular combat arms units all around Canada, if women can do the same job why shouldnt it be more of them? The 1% are problably the exception and tough as nail, but what about the rest, the majority?

[combat_medic]

I doubt you would EVER see infantry, or any other combat arms trade being 50/50. Yes, women are capable of doing the job, but it‘s harder for the "average" woman to get into shape for it. Not only that, but less women are interested in the job to begin with. Just like less men want to be nurses. Yes, they‘re perfectly capable of doing it, but the interest isn‘t there to the same extent as the women. And there was plenty of sexism for male nurses. In the American military, a female nurse would receive a commission, but a male nurse (same qualifications) would be made an NCM. That‘s still sexism!

The point being questioned here is if women should be ALLOWED to do it, assuming they‘re capable. I think everyone disagrees with different physical standards.

Oh, and on that point, what about a 45 year old corporal-for-life in the infantry? His physical standards are allowed to be a lot lower than 20 year olds in the same rank and position. Is that not also unfair?

[Freddy G]

I admit the female-only companies were a bit.. backwards.

But yeah, the question of being 100% equal is problematic. I guess we‘ll have to make compromises.

And what I meant about women leading is that it‘d feel strange, not that I‘d never accept it. Kinda like female analysts on football games.

[Jarnhamar]

I‘ve heard people argue that they were concerned that female leaders would take on the attitude of some female cops. They argured that when a female police officer pulls over a male or a group of males they think they are going to be jerked around or not taken seriously so their very aggressive. They thought this might hold true with the military too, a female officer with an all male group might feel the need to be over agressive.

Also im not sure if i can read these posts, when they get too long i only seem to be able to read half of the posts (where usually i hit reply and get to see the rest but now i dont see anything)
just brutal!

[Pugil]

*The point being questioned here is if women should be ALLOWED to do it, assuming they‘re capable* Combat Medic

Honnestly my answer would be no. Why?
Reason 1- If you keep the standard to get in the combat arms high, you would never get more than 1 to 3 percent no matter how hard you try to get them in, 2 to 3 women in a battalion wouldnt make any diffence on paper considering all the effort and money to recruit them.

Reason 2- To keep the integrity of the unit, I dont know which planet they live on those who say that theres no double standard for men and women. examples: men have to shave and keep their hairs short while women can ignore that. 2 different PT test for both sex. Men that do pushups on their knees are considered wimps while women it is normal because they dont have the upper body strength. In a war 1 standard will keep the troops quiet, 2 different standards will incite then to mutinate if proven that they are not well treated.

Im not saying that women cant do the job, All Im explaining is that it is worthed for all the effort and that the army makes to integrate gender, because it is never going to work.  Because of the all the things that involves. Example; men of the 2R22R cant walk in T-shirt in the their hallways since women entered their battalion because it is considered indecent. We train our soldiers to fight a war not to make some human right activists smile.

[Pugil]

Quoted from Canadians for Military Preparedness"

[START ARTICLE]
Gender Integration, Employment Equity and the Lowering of Training Standards
Instead of using our tax dollars to upgrade equipment and increase personnel our current government has spent millions on a campaign to recruit women into combat arms, a campaign that has failed before and is failing now. The Government already spent ½ million in 1987 to do the same thing and only 1 out of 103 women succeeded infantry training. 10 years later – women‘s failure rates are still six times that of men. (199


So why is more money being spent recruiting women into combat arms, and why did the government spend 2.4 million dollars on the study of combat bras and items for pregnant combat soldiers? They are doing it because they have made it clear they want a critical mass of 13% women in combat and this mandate has been given to move forward at "all due speed". Though diversity may be viewed as a source of creativity and strength that contributes to the operational capability of the Canadian Forces, as is expressed by X Chief of Defence Staff Baril, the question remains; should this be a priority when our military lacks essential and modern equipment?

It‘s very clear the government has an agenda that has nothing to do with operating an effective military. Instead it is an agenda of enforced political correctness and social engineering.

In order to meet employment equity quotas, training standards have been compromised. This trend is extremely dangerous as it severely lowers our operational effectiveness and unnecessarily risks our soldier‘s lives.

Here are some examples of Tables of Performance Standards that have been lowered:

In 1984 a soldier need to be able to do 30 push-ups & 33 sit-ups.
In 1994 that was lowered to 19 pushups & 19 sit-ups.
Women only have to do 9 knee pushups & 15 sit-ups.

In 1986 they had to throw a grenade 60 feet and engage the target.
In 1996 they have to throw a grenade – period!

They don‘t have to hit the target and they don‘t even have to clear the burst radius. "Missing the target does not constitute a PO failure."

Consider a combat situation where a fellow soldier is down in hostile territory and he needs to be rescued and carried to a safe zone. Our military‘s training goals used to reflect this very real possibility:

In 1985 a soldier needed to be able to run 16km, surmount a 6 foot wall, clear a 8 foot ditch, and then carry a soldier of average weight (160lbs) a distance of 200 meters.

By 1998 a soldier needed to run only 13km, did not need to demonstrate an ability to scale the fence, nor clear the ditch. Then, after a 10 minute rest, (like they‘ll get that in combat) they are required not to carry the 160lb downed soldier but only one of their own weight and only half the distance (100metres). What are the chances a female combat soldiers fallen comrade is going to weigh the same as her? This is going to put the lives of soldiers at risk!

It‘s time the Government stopped using the military to jam their political correctness down Canadians‘ throats. Canada needs a strong, sizeable, capable military. There is no place for social engineering within our military!

[END ARTICLE]

[Freddy G]

"they are required not to carry the 160lb downed soldier but only one of their own weight"

Which means it‘s absolutely unequal. I weight 200lbs, so I should carry a 200lbs dummy, while a 100lbs woman would carry half the weight I would? Am I misunderstanding or is there something I missed?