Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[Old Ranger]

Maybe if certain people watched G.I. Jane it could help them understand gender differences and individual determinations to be the Best.

If Not there is one Quote from that movie that applies....


Did you know we have Girl Paramedics, and Boy Nurses too....

MedTech!

Ben

 

[Greymatters]

...I think you scared them all off...

 

[medaid]

Who'd I scare off?  ;D

 

[Greymatters]

All the people who would disagree with you about gender in the military...

 

[medaid]

Sweet! My work is done!  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...

 

[medaid]

Meh, one more thing in life that's out of our collective control. No biggy. 

 

[Greymatters]

That would make the CF about 99.9% 'gender effective'. That's better than most organizations...


...of course, we ruin it all by coming home from work and saying "Hi honey, what's for supper"...

 

[Michael OLeary]

One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...

So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?

 

[medaid]

...of course, we ruin it all by coming home from work and saying "Hi honey, what's for supper"...

Oh but GM, the term honey is unisex, and thus no gender. I think we're still doing good there 

 

[Yrys]

So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?

It's even possible to to a RC priest AND a woman, if you're willing to be expelled
by the Pope... Some women did that, a fews weeks ago, in Canada. I just don't think that
the CF will ask one to be a chaplain....

Canada Catholics 'ordain' women

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697271.stm

 

[dapaterson]

So, it's not the occupation that's closed, just the RC specialist group?

I know the intent was to unify the Chaplain branch, combining the Protestant and RC occupations into a single occupation, but I'm not certain whether the paperwork is complete.  So, if the combination of the two occupations has been done, then you are correct.  If not, you will be correct in the future.

(And the fact that you're making such a comment is proof on first examination that you are a member of the RCR )

 

[cesare753]

I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.


But what do I know?

 

[stealthylizard]

Is upper body strength the one and only concern of training?  I sure hope not.  How about abdominal strength?  Women beat men on that 9 times out of 10.  How about pain tolerance?  Again, most women beat guys out on that.  Women are usually better shots as well, because they have an extra point of contact with the ground (breasts for those that were wondering).  They have superior flexibility.  Better organizers.  The list can go on and on.

If upper body strength is the only concern, then it isn't really an issue when compared to everything else.

 

[niner domestic]

Cesare: I think you'll find that you've fallen into the myth category of physical training between men and women.  In a 1997 study in the UK the docs found a few things to remark upon with female recruits.  One was that they were subject to more injuries while training as they would simply try to keep up with the male recruits and load muscles and skeletal components to the point of injury.  The second was that once put on a training regime that the females would build the necessary strengths as their male couterparts and have less injuries - it just took longer. 

In other words, both male and female persons given the opportunity to strength build, will develop the strength with the exception that females may take a few weeks longer.  The really interesting part of the study was that the more the female recruits humped their rucks, the less they were prone to injury and the more they developed bone density (except in the first 3-4 weeks as this is the time period wheret "the remineralization process lags behind osteoclastic resorption and takes months to complete, so that bone is weakest after 3-4 weeks of continuous training—a phenomenon demonstrated epidemiologically amongst both athletes and military recruits" ).  Which meant they were less likely to be prone to pelvic injuries and large bone fractures and vertebre compromises after the stabilization of training levels. 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279143

To quote from the article: A US Army study showed that the proportion of female recruits capable of passing strenuous physical tests rose from 29% to 40% after 8 weeks of basic training, yet when a similar group were trained over six months with additional resistance training, the proportion capable of achieving the test scores was as high as 78%. (Harman E, et al. Effects of a specifically designed physical conditioning program on the load carriage and lifting performance of female soldiers. USARIEM Tech Rep T98-1;November 1997)

 

[Bobby Rico]

Frankly, I don't see that big of a problem regarding the gender-issue in the Canadian Armed Forces, especially when compared to the US Military.  Physical strength counts for only so much in the Army- mental toughness I would say is just as if not more important, and I know plenty of women who are probably more mentally capable of doing jobs in the military than many guys I know are.  I think the real problem is the 'back-forties' mentality that unfortunately seem prevalant in the Armed Forces, especially in the the NCM ranks in the non-specialized trades.

And regarding Ceasare's comment-  Ask yourself this- since women have been allowed to join combat-arms in the military in this country, even if training standards have been reduced as a result, has our military become somehow less effective in war-fighting?  I'd say, hell no. Soldier-to-soldier, our boys and girls are just as good if not superior to other soldiers around the world, and half the time we're not even as well equipped, so what does that tell you?

 

[Blackadder1916]

... it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

But what do I know?

Okay, what do you know?  Which standards were lowered?  Is your statement based on documentary evidence or a comparison based on personal observation or experience?

 

[vonGarvin]

One note to add: There is still one occupation closed to women in the Canadian Forces.  However, that occupational specification is controlled by Pope Benedict XVI, so I wouldn't expect any movement in the near future...

WAY out of lane, but for what it's worth, there are TWO specifications "closed" by the Catholics: priests AND nuns.  What about all the women Imams out there?  Oh, right, forgot about that.


Sorry, but as a Roman Catholic, I'll just say "bugger off" and "leave us alone".  We'll decide the criteria for for joining our various clubs, associations, trades, whatever. 


[/rant]

 

[mover1]

EXPRESS TESTING

If we are all considered equals then why are there different minimum standards in this area.
I recently did the PARE test for the RCMP and it was non gender specific. If we truly are going to be androgynous in nature then we should reflect it on having ONE BASE STANDARD for every member.

This applies to both male and female of all ages.
The scope of work doesn't change due to age or gender.

I know...I know this has been discussed in another thread  :boring:

 

[armyvern]

EXPRESS TESTING

If we are all considered equals then why are there different minimum standards in this area.
I recently did the PARE test for the RCMP and it was non gender specific. If we truly are going to be androgynous in nature then we should reflect it on having ONE BASE STANDARD for every member.

This applies to both male and female of all ages.
The scope of work doesn't change due to age or gender.

I know...I know this has been discussed in another thread  :boring:

As you freely admit that you are aware this is covered in many other threads...

Feel free to ask your question again in another  thread discussing PT standards etc...

Please though, don't forget to also add on to the question that you post there, that we are not just talking differences between male/female testing, but also between enviornments & trades etc as well. Some do express...some do not. The differentiaiton in PT test standards is NOT limited to differences between male & female test standards, let's try not to make it out to be so.

You could come over to the Army!! Where we all do the 13k, regardless of sex, trade etc