Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[48Highlander]

I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started.

So what?  Have you seen some of the feminist websites out there?  Men get "singled out" on a regular basis too.  Or how about the quota systems which exist in many police forces and government services?  When a branch of the government is forced to hire a certain percentage of females, is that not also being "singled out"?  Nonsense like that exists everywhere in our society, I really don't think that our little discussion in these forums has stepped over the line.

I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? ....

Because you haven't started one.

I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!

In case you haven't noticed, that's the general concensus here.  Only a few of the members have actualy advocated not allowing women in the combat arms.  The rest of us might not be happy about the way it's been done, but most of us agree that those who can do the job should be allowed to do so, regaurdless of sex.

 

[Infanteer]

I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!!

As I said, 30 Pages of arguements from both sides seems to indicate that there are legitimate issues.

There are problems, or we wouldn't have both men and women on this thread making valid complaints.

Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry?

Make one then, I'm sure you'll get a good discussion - I'm trying to back up the arguement with good research here on why Fighting has been a male occupation for 6,000 years of recorded history.

If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!

It's not about "private parts", its about small group dynamics.  I've argued that individual capability doesn't matter but that small group dynamics may be the reason that their are problems with the integration of Females into Combat Roles.  I refuse to accept the claim that "Men are just sexist ogres who are out of touch with the times...."

If you the topic offends you, don't read it or grow some thicker skin.

As I've said, I support the notion of putting women into all trades in the Military, so don't think I'm "against you".  I just find that supposing that we are going to get "seamless intergration" isn't likely to happen.  As Brad Sallows pointed out a few pages ago:

That should not be surprising.  We can compel people to restrain themselves from unjust behaviour prompted by their prejudices; we can not restrain their freedom of thought.

When men are socialized into the military, they aquire behaviours built around these dynamics I've been rambling on about.  You can't tell them to "be buddies with the new girl", regardless of her own capabilities, and assume that they'll enthusiastically carry that out.  This is the discomfort that many women will feel.  How do we fix this, force men to be good-buds with their female squaddies?  The "cold shoulder" isn't harrassment....

 

[combat_medic]

How do we fix this, force men to be good-buds with their female squaddies?

Unfortunately, Infanteer, I don't think we can. Even as a modern, western society, there are still inequalities throughout our society based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference and so on. Until we, as a society can legitimately claim to be genuinely equal, those inequalities will still be present, and often exaggerated in the CF. We need to change society first, and I doubt that will happen in my lifetime... but one can hope.

I doubt the women protesting for suffrage thought they would change everything in one go, but they certainly paved the way.

 

[Glorified Ape]

3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?

It's a ridiculous argument.

The courses, elite or otherwise, have to be staffed and we have two options (IE two genders) to pick from (the debate is whether it should be both). Both have segments that fail and pass, it's just that one has a disproportionately (relative to the other gender) large portion failling consistently, even on courses that are nowhere near the "elite" level. Further, the retention rates in the CA trades for this group are so incredibly low that the training received even by those that pass, and all the associated costs, are virtually wasted when they could have been trained for a trade they may actually stay in.

The question is whether the 1% that actually stay in the trades is worth the cost of training/equipping/etc. the 99% that don't and the others who didn't get far enough to even be employed in the trade. I'm not saying men's performance is superb and irreproachable, I'm just saying that when one assumes staffing has to take place and that we have two groups showing markedly different performance rates (one so much so that the virtual entirety of the employable group can be assumed "lost" after the initial engagement) to choose from, the logical thing to do is spend the money on the option that yields the most efficient output.

Or things could be changed to ensure more women pass the courses - it seems many feel higher standards would have a good effect in reducing the failure rates and I'm sure they're probably right. I don't see that doing anything for retention rates, though. To pass off the low female combat arms retention rates as "male piggishness" is a bit of a copout. As Infanteer pointed out, the very nature of the institution and trade seems a more likely culprit but whether that can be altered sufficiently (or should be) to boost retention rates to that of males (or better) without compromising the effectiveness of the trade/institution is another debate, I guess, and one I'd be interested in hearing about from the members with experience in the combat arms.

Because the entry tests are suppose to screen out false positives. It may very well be that 80% of men who apply can hack the training and oly 10% of women who apply can, or maybe only 8% of men and 1% of women, if the entry tests were realistic almost all the recruits chosen should still pass.  It has nothing to do with how difficult the training is in absoluite terms.

Lets look at your viewpoint on costs without touching the gender issue. I agree, and I think that ANY course of training that fails more than 10% of candidates is a waste. What is the point of running a course where half the course won't pass? Those who didn't pass should never have been on the course to begin with, it's a sign that your entry standards are inadequate.

Do you think the CF should have trade-specific entry standards for the combat arms? I don't think it's a bad idea, although (not from experience really) I think you'd lose alot of people who were OK by the existing standards but wouldn't have passed the trade standard at the time, got in sufficient shape while in preliminary training, and passed muster once the trade standards came around. Higher standards wouldn't raise the number of women in the combat arms or their retention rate (I think) but it would most assuredly increase the efficiency rate. Combine that with higher recruiting numbers and I think you could really improve the combat arms while lowering costs. Another problem, though, is whether the costs incurred by separate facilities, etc. are worth the extremely low numbers of women joining, and staying, in the combat arms. I have no idea what these costs are like - maybe someone knows.

From the little bit of the experience I've had so far (very little, mind you), I saw people (men and women) in IAP who wouldn't have passed the application physical. One girl (and no, I'm not picking her just because she's a girl - the gender in this case is irrelevant to the point - [and she was a "girl" - only 16 or 17]) but she'd drop out of the morning PT runs after 200 or 300 metres, had major issues with push-ups, failed the shuttle run, and started crying/over-exherting during double-time drill lessons. She was released, of course, but the money spent up to that point was wasted. Another woman couldn't do ONE push-up. I'm not joking - not ONE proper push-up. How she passed the recruiting test is beyond me. She was re-tested and failed the second time, but that was due to PSP error in the testing (and so she was recoursed to this summer, thankfully). Another guy failed his grip test on course (must have failed it at the civi PT test too), was given a re-test date a few weeks later, failed it again, and was released. There seems to be an issue with the civilian contractors that are conducting the applicant PF tests, or whoever else is used to do the tests. I think clearing this up would also help with efficiency issues - especially on prelim courses.

[quote author=bojangles]Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry?[/quote]

Because there's nothing to discuss about it vis a vis its appropriateness. I suppose we could debate whether our combat arms should be all-female but considering their success and retention rates, it's a virtual non-starter. It's tantamount to asking "Should we have women in midwifery". Men have been in the infantry since there was an infantry to be in, women in the infantry and combat arms in general is a recent development (in Canada) which still generates several concerns to be discussed - most especially regarding success, retention, etc. I'm not necessarily against women in the combat arms, I just think that it needs to be examined more from a practical and cost-benefit viewpoint than a politically or ideologically motivated one. There's no question that there are women out there that can do the job and do it as well or better than many males, the question (for me) is whether their inclusion is practical, both in terms of cost and in terms of the institutional characteristics. As I said - I'm torn on this one because my politics/beliefs say "yes" but practicality and cost/benefit say "not necessarily".

 

[combat_medic]

Glorified Ape: Some excellent points, and the question I would put to you is, are we simply trying to recruit large numbers (hence the general lowering of standards), or the recruiting of a smaller number of more qualified applicants? If sheer numbers are the focus, then many people, men and women, will enter the CF who may not be able to handle the job, physically, intellectually, or even medically. If getting more elite troops is the focus, then the standards should be raised. Yes, there would be fewer people getting in, of both genders, but it would assure that the people who make it in have a far better chance of making it.

Also, I never mentioned that all women fail because of harassment (yes, that would be a copout), but I'm saying that there's certainly a possibility that the lack of retention of women, particularly in the more male-dominated trades could be linked to the treatment they receive.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Glorified Ape: Some excellent points, and the question I would put to you is, are we simply trying to recruit large numbers (hence the general lowering of standards), or the recruiting of a smaller number of more qualified applicants? If sheer numbers are the focus, then many people, men and women, will enter the CF who may not be able to handle the job, physically, intellectually, or even medically. If getting more elite troops is the focus, then the standards should be raised. Yes, there would be fewer people getting in, of both genders, but it would assure that the people who make it in have a far better chance of making it.

Also, I never mentioned that all women fail because of harassment (yes, that would be a copout), but I'm saying that there's certainly a possibility that the lack of retention of women, particularly in the more male-dominated trades could be linked to the treatment they receive.

I think you've pointed out one of the main problems - spam the populous and admit lower-standard applicants hoping you can overcome shortages and "shape" them into soldiers during training OR set higher standards, be very selective, and admit fewer people who will do better and waste less. The old "quantity or quality" problem. I think it may be possible to find a compromise between the two, maybe by using trade-specific testing for occupations with high course failure rates. I believe the Air Nav and Pilots are both subjected to this higher-level preliminary testing and I'm sure it cuts down on the waste, come occupational training. If we did the same with Combat Arms trades, and especially the infantry (from what I gather, failure and retention rates are some of the worst with this trade) we could probably save alot of money, although there is an advantage to already having a person in the forces when they fail to meet the standards - that way you retain the individual for other jobs and don't have to worry about finding a replacement via recruiting. I'm not sure which would be more expensive, though.

 

[dutchie]

Re: "Also notice that I never said that it was everyone."

CM: You said, "knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman in the military has faced."

'Nuff said.

Re:"If you report it, everyone around you will think you can't hack it and are crying wolf. If you don't report it, you have to live with these abusive personalities taking advantage of your gender for their own selfish aims. Pretty crappy decision either way, wouldn't you say?"

Yes, of course that's crappy. Did I suggest otherwise? I mentioned instances of unfounded harrassment claims, made by females, not legitimate harrassment.

Re:"Furthermore, saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement, especially considering how many women have come and gone through the regiment and left because of the unfair treatment they received."

I said: "She didn't throw her gender around, threatening complaints. She didn't blame any rough treatment she received by the Staff or other troops on 'harrassment', she sucked it up.....unfortunatley not so for the rest of the females I have known" & "If you file harrassment charges (unwarranted), rat out other troops, and generally act like a bi-otch, I will shun you. I make no applogies for that." You'll notice I didn't state she was a good troop because she didn't file a harrassment complaint. I did, however, state that those that claim cry harrassment wrongfully are bags of shyte (paraphrasing).

again, re:"saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement"

Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop? Should I lie and say otherwise? That has been my experience. I didn't say that ALL women are bad soldiers, only that only one was fully accepted in the group. You are generalizing, not me. Are you pissed because you feel that you might not be that 1 troop? If so, you shouldn't care what I think.  edit.
Re:"All these soldiers claim that women are always making complaints against men for no reason, but has anyone stopped to consider that a lot of these complaints are legitimate? That there are women out there who have been sexually propositioned by their superiors? That they have been the victims of physical assault or verbal attacks because of their gender? That their careers have been placed in jeapardy because some outdated neanderthal can't deal with a woman in his unit?"

If a female troop is being harrassed, there is an avenue for complaint. As you know, those complaints are taken seriously. If those allegations are true, those troops should file complaints. If not, refer to my earlier post.

Re:"Finally, what do you believe is an unwarranted discrimination charge? Were you present at the event? Did you inteview the complainants and respondants? Did you sit it on any hearings or charges? Were you privy to all the information, or are just making a summary judgement based on the heresay of a buddy? Talk about jumping to conclusions."

An unwarranted harrassment charge/complaint is one that is not founded in truth. I thought that was obvious and didn't require explanation. Was I present? During some of those alleged events, yes. For the others that I wasn't present at, the complaints were either dismissed or they were withdrawn by the complaintant.

 

[Cansky]

This topic is starting to get a little fired up.  But I will plow forth into the fray.  I'll start off by saying I'm female 17 years regular force served with recruits, infantry, engineers, airforce and I've been on 2 deployments (one which was 3 PPCLI Battle group Op Apollo)  I get a little irate when general comments about men or women are made.  A few years ago harassment was a big news item, especially with recruits.  At that time I had just left a 4 year stint with recruit school Cornwallis and new actually saw or experienced it myself.  I have spoken to many reg force women and men who have never been or have give out any type of harassment.  I spent 2 years with the Infantry 3 PPCLI.  I was treated as a soldier by most of the troops (the rest just ignored me)  I would return to this unit in a heart beat.  I was a cpl at the time so rank really had no effect.  They are some of the best soldiers I have ever had the pleasure of working with.  The worst experience I have had within the military came from Airforce trades.  They made female feel much inadequacy and treat us as second class citizens.  No to say that all airforce treated female bad but it is where I had the worst time. 
    I'm starting to wonder if the problem lies within the reserves.  Don't jump on me here but after reading alot of these post it really is starting to appear that the reserves have a problem with women in the ranks and a huge retention issues.
    As for the amount of personnel who can cut it physically the problem there lies with recruiting process and basic training.  While posted to 1 FD Ambulance I had a new Pte arrive from QL 3 course (less than 1 year in) the Pte was over weight and fell out of every run we did.  The Pte couldn't run 100 m without falling out.  I was fresh off maternity leave(2nd child), in my 30's and could run further than most of the new Pte's we were receiving.  So we wonder where the problem lies.  Well recruiting process, we aren't getting the best applicants therefore we aren't getting the soldiers.  (There are still some great soldiers coming in but a high percentage don't make the grade and are allowed to remain in the military)
    I know this post will get a huge argument started but I have been around the regular force for a long time (others longer than me I hope can back me up)  and this is how I see things.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm starting to wonder if the problem lies within the reserves.

What exactly are you asking or implying with this?

I think the reserves have problems, just like the reg force. I don't think THEE problem is in the reserves.

Seems many people are not considering Infanteers comments about group dynamics.

 

[combat_medic]

Caesar: In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns. If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow.

As for being accepted by the group, if filing a legitimate harrassment complaint is enough for people to turn their backs on a person, then their opinion is hardly one of note. They would be indemic of the problems with the system.

Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop?

If that is, indeed, the truth, then it's not unfair. However to say that she was good because she didn't press harassment charges IS unfair, and that was the implication made. Yes, there are harassment claims made with little or no basis in fact, and that is very unfortunate. It is equally unfortunate that legitimate claims are made and women are segregated from their colleagues because of it.

Kirsten: Perhaps you're right in that there is a greater problem in the reserves. Maybe dealing with each other every day you're able to get closer with the people you work with, and any fostering of an unhealthy work environment is dealt with quickly and appropriately rather than being left to linger.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

GI Jane,
Do you actually read posts before you hit the respond button? Where in the    did you come up with this gem about my statement that when one goes to a trade traditionally occupied by the other sex, one tends to get "noticed?
Quote from GI Jane,
so because because i am a woman i should be a daycare worker? or maybe a nurse? or wait how about a stay at home mommy?? You say you have no problem accepting women in the army but you are quick to single me out by saying "why join the artillery"
I never said why join the artillery, I said if you didn't want to get noticed why did you join the artillery?
World of difference there lad, I'm starting to think all you will accept is "Yes Maam, You are 100% correct.
Remember, I agree with you but this is the REAL world after all. :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I could see the reserves having greater problems, simply under normal circumstances you would not see each other as much....... IMHO,the more time you spend together working the less the gender/race/religion things matter.

 

[dutchie]

CM: Re:"Caesar: In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns."

Actually, as I indicated when I first brought it up, you did said 'virtually all women'. Don't try and backtrack and claim you didn't generalize - you did.

Re:"If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow."

I don't care to, it's not my issue. You are the one who claims discrimination is rampant in the CF, perhaps you should go to the Ombudsman?

Re:"Why is it unfair to state that only one female troop I served with was a good troop?....If that is, indeed, the truth, then it's not unfair. However to say that she was good because she didn't press harassment charges IS unfair, and that was the implication made"

No, YOU implied that I said that. I said she didn't make UNWARRANTED harrassment charges. You can twist it all you like, that's not what I said.

re:"Yes, there are harassment claims made with little or no basis in fact, and that is very unfortunate."

Yes, that is VERY unfortunate. Particularly for those that make the false claims. They tend to not be accepted by their peers.

I'm not going to engage you in a flame war. You made some very general statements, I called you on them. You misread my posts and stated I said something I didn't, and I pointed out your error. It is not my fault you lack attention to detail when reading these posts. Please read my posts more thoroughly before claiming I said "she was good because she didn't press harassment charges".

**************************************************************************
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with women in the CF. I DO have a problem with 'soldiers' who blame their own shortcomings on harrassment. I have no time for people who can't get the concept of earning my respect as all others have to. I won't tollerate blades - those that cry sexual harrassment when in fact it's just normal razing or legitimate 'corrective action' based on perceived deficiencies. If a female troop lays down for 2 or 3 males on her course, she can't turn around and claim sexual harrassment when they don't respect her. Unless of course, she was coerced into sleeping with those guys. I have SERIOUS problems with anyone who claims that sexual assault (that's what that is) is common in the CF, so don't cry "Yeah but how do you know she willingly slept with them/him,'....my answer is: show me the proof. I had to put up with cack on my courses, why should you be different? (obvious jokes aside).

 

[Britney Spears]

I think the unspoken implication is that Reserves=Lower standards=more women.  

There, I said it, since I don't have a horse in this race.  Now don't tell me it isn't true.

Glorified Ape:

I don't think the expenditures to accomodate women are really as significant as you might think. e.g. I would imagine most base living quaters do have female washroom facilities to comply with civillian building regs, and overseas, well, the Dutch seem to have a pretty good approach with these things, If we can all stop being 6th graders(I know, hard for men) for a few month while in a warzone, it is really a none issue.

 

[combat_medic]

I don't care to, it's not my issue.

Sums up your opinion quite well. No doubt since you have nothing at stake and are unaffected by it, you have little vested interest in the issue... other than to post your opinions here.

Also, and for the record, virtually all ≠ all. Perhaps "most", "the majority", or "a staggering number" would have been your preference. You're free to choose, or simply re-read my posts rather than inferring something I never wrote.

No doubt it's easy to avoid a flame war when you throw down insults and leave.

 

[Cansky]

I think the unspoken implication is that Reserves=Lower standards=more women.  


Sorry that wasn't what my implication was.  I should have been clearer.  
    The lower standards is forces wide not just reserves but regs.  Although it does appear that the reserve do handle situations differently.  For example a reg force female in basic training gets pregnant, she is either put in Pat Pl until after her maternity leave and then resumes training or she is release.  A reserve female is allowed to continue even when she fails to complete critical parts of her basic and graduates with the remainder of her course. (A different different standard).  If she stays in the reserves long enough she then component transfers and by passes reg force basic.  Does this happen in all reserve units probable not but it does lead to the fact that maybe there is a larger problem within the reserve in regards to females and how they are treated or perceive they are treated.
   Also when reading this thread it does appear that there is a greater problem within the reserves when it comes to how females are treated by their fellow soldiers.  Maybe I am wrong but it is only my observation after reading through the thread.  I haven't had alot of personal experience with the reserve.  I am solely drawing this observation from what has been written here.  
 

In my experience, it has been all of them. However, even then I never stated it was everyone. Perhaps before every sentence I should write "in my experience" if that would clarify your concerns. If you don't believe me, or care to prove me wrong, see how many women you can find who have served a significant time with the military and have not been victims of this type of discrimination. I sincerely hope that you find them, and I really hope that their numbers continue to grow.


    CM I am  one of those female with significant time in (17 years) and I haven't been a victim of this type of discrimination.  As I said in my last thread I have served with a number of different environments (Infantry, engineers, army, airforce, and Recruiting) so I think I have a fairly good back ground.  As a medic I have worked with a large number of women.  If we have had any problem with any man we address the individual and it always (maybe I've been lucky) been the end of it.

 

[dutchie]

Combat Medic - Who's leaving?

BTW, webster's defines 'virtually' as:In fact or to all purposes; practically: The city was virtually paralyzed by the transit strike. You said it, I called you on it, stop your whining. That is the last I will post on that, as we've flogged that Equine quite enough.

Re:"I don't care to, it's not my issue

Sums up your opinion quite well."

Yes it does. YOU are the one that claims harassment is rampant in the CF, not me. You fail to even acknowledge that your claim needs to be substantiated, never mind actually substantiating it. Your supposed to be DS, but you post like an amateur.

"I am   one of those female with significant time in (17 years) and I haven't been a victim of this type of discrimination. "
Wow! Kirsten posted that while I was typing....how timely.

Kirsten, I guess you're the exception to 'virtually all'.

 

[combat_medic]

Kristen, didn't you also just state that you WERE subject to it by members of the Air Force?

"The worst experience I have had within the military came from Airforce trades.  They made female feel much inadequacy and treat us as second class citizens."

Does this not substantiate my point?

 

[Cansky]

Yes the airforce was the worst experience as a female but we have been focusing more on the issue of women in the army and combat arms and that is where I was treated the best both in garrison and on combat ops.

 

[ArmyRick]

In reference to ANYONE squeaking by on career courses without completing PO checks.
Unacceptable.

The CTP states what the member must acheive for the Course (Regular or reserve serials).

It is up to the Training centers or schools to PROPERLY enforce the Training standards. Yes I know it doesn't always happen that way. I can't say anything more on this issue for certain reasons  :-X

On a side note, in a reserve BMQ or SQ there is no requirement for anyone to complete the BFT or any other PT test.

Look at the CTP  ;D