Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[geo]

MRM...
funny thing that - it is also quite probable that same said Bloggins would slag women Troopers in general to camouflage his shortcomings.....

 

[mudrecceman]

MRM...
funny thing that - it is also quite probable that same said Bloggins would slag women Troopers in general to camouflage his shortcomings.....

Which he did do until that day.  His Tae Kwon Do braggings became myths and fairytales about the time his carcass hit the snow too.

 

[armyvern]

Which he did do until that day.  His Tae Kwon Do braggings became myths and fairytales about the time his carcass hit the snow too.

Crap. I'd have loved to be present for this!! I have untold numbers of "requisite emabarassing comments" running through my head just thinking about it!! Be they comments for a male or female.

 

[Remius]

We had a guy once who spouted off about how weak females were and he didn't think they should be in the military let alone the combat arms.  I overheard him and told him my opinion that out of shape (he was out of shape, well, he was pear shaped but whatever) people shouldn't be in the military.  I then called over the three women in our company and challeged them to race each other for 500meters,  if the women won he'd quit if he did I would, needless to say he knew and I knew he couldn't beat them and declined.

Just be careful what you say...somebody might take you to task for it.

 

[Fry]

Exactly. Both  genders are capable of doing work in the CF.

 

[wolseley]

It has been almost 8 years since I was last on this, and I see that the same questions are still being discussed.  Given that I was the first female officer to wear the artillery cap badge, I feel that I can weigh in here with some authority. 
I have always maintained that women should be able to be wherever the men are given that they can meet the same standards. To allow women to meet a lesser standard than the males in order to respect the physical differences between men and women, however politically correct, does no good for anyone when it really matters.  If a woman can not carry a 200lb man in a fireman's carry (for example) then she probably has no place in the combat arms. The terrible, horrible fact is that there might be a day when one of her mates will rely on her to do that very thing.  Then, all the advances in women's lib won't mean a thing if she can't save someone who is counting on her.
I think some of the arguments that have been put forth as a means to keep women out of the combat arms are no longer valid.  There was an argument that stated that women shouldn't be in a combat arms unit because it would distract the men, is a. rather belittling to the men in the unit and b. no longer relevant in today's society.  The younger troops of today have grown up with mothers in the work force and women working in traditionally male jobs are no longer seen as mavericks.
Women in the combat arms, today, quite frankly, wouldn't  *shock* anyone the way it did in 1990 when I reclassified.
However, where the problem lies, I believe, is that women can often find themselves terribly conflicted as their personal life moves along with their career. Simply, it is not easy to balance a family and a combat arms career at the same time.  I know -because I tried.  It is one thing to see Daddy gone to dangerous places on deployment -it seems to be something else when it is mommy gone to such places.  Like it or not, it is difficult to deny our biological and physiological makeups.  Babies need mothers at home -not in Afghanistan and as a combat arms member, you have a much higher chance of finding yourself in such a place.  Look at all our senior officers -how many of them are mothers as well?  I think the statistics speak for themselves.  But just my humble thoughts.  Sheila

 

[Yrys]

Babies need mothers at home

I agree with most of your post, but it seems to me that babies need a parent or a significant adult at home, not
absolutely theirs mothers... (what about homosexual male parents, by the way ? ) .

 

[geo]

Glad to hear from you Sheila.
Most people here are pert much of the same opinion - though there are some young and old dinosaurs arround
we let deeds speak for themselves.

 

[armyvern]

Sheila,

I'm aware of your strides both professionally and personally and I thank you for all that you have done in your support of the CF and in your service. You do us all proud.

As a female, with two children (who loved your book BTW), a service spouse, and many tours, I assure you it can be done, despite our makeup; but it certainly isn't for everyone and I have no fault with those who discover that it is not for them.

Then again, the CF isn't for everyone, regardless of sex. It's definitely something you have to love and enjoy doing.

 

[wolseley]

  First, Thank you for your kind thoughts and it makes me quite happy that you liked my book.k (although I am assuming you mean my children's book?  Have you seen my new peacekeeping one?) I am surprised that you figured out who I was! : While I agree with what you are saying, the only question I might ask is this:  Do you think that females that are on tour in a combat arms role are in more danger than a female in a supporting role?  And, do you think that women that are in the combat arms have more chance of being deployed than a CSS role?  I am not sure what the answer is, hence my question.  I might argue that women in the combat arms (that are mothers) are in an even tougher position because they are a. in a hotter area and b. deployed more often, which, (if you can follow my babbling) means that it makes it that much tougher for them to try and do both?  But then I could be completely out to lunch (wouldn't be the first time) -I am up to my neck in boxes and rangy children (husband left his first day of work here at the new posting) and therefore, my opinion might be somewhat clouded.  ;   Sheila

 

[armyvern]

  First, Thank you for your kind thoughts and it makes me quite happy that you liked my book.k (although I am assuming you mean my children's book?  Have you seen my new peacekeeping one?) I am surprised that you figured out who I was! : While I agree with what you are saying, the only question I might ask is this:  Do you think that females that are on tour in a combat arms role are in more danger than a female in a supporting role?  And, do you think that women that are in the combat arms have more chance of being deployed than a CSS role?  I am not sure what the answer is, hence my question.  I might argue that women in the combat arms (that are mothers) are in an even tougher position because they are a. in a hotter area and b. deployed more often, which, (if you can follow my babbling) means that it makes it that much tougher for them to try and do both?  But then I could be completely out to lunch (wouldn't be the first time) -I am up to my neck in boxes and rangy children (husband left his first day of work here at the new posting) and therefore, my opinion might be somewhat clouded.   ;   Sheila

"A Father to be Proud of" was a personal favourite of my children as they grew up. To be fair though, my daughter also liked "My Mom is a Soldier."

I think most females who came in as part of the CREW Trials, or who rerolled as part of the CREW Trials were privy to your name, amongst others such as Holly Brown and Linda Scrum. I recall many briefings where the women were gathered up for discussion groups and the like and filled out our little survey sheets. Kind of like a recruiting process for those women already in and serving.

As to your questions regarding women in combat arms being more at risk than CSS trades; I think that greater risk is evidenced and inherent in and of the the differences in their primary roles. That being said, there is also the element of manning position in-theatre that needs to be considered. It is entirely possible that a combat arms female may be employed within the wire by virtue of her CFTPO position for the operation while, at the same time, a female who falls into the CSS category can be filling a position that sees her frequently outside the wire as part on DPs, convoys, PRT tasks or other.

Frequency of deployments for combat arms vs noncombat arms is also hard to pin down. I have more tours than my husband who is infantry. He deploys on operations only when his Unit deploys as a whole. My trade can be found deploying on every roto of every tour, regardless of where that tour is. That being said, our roles on tour differ quite significantly (obviously) so the stressors also differ.

I don't think we'll ever really be able to nail down how anyone, male or female, parent or not, combat arms or not, will make out on their tour prior to its actual occurrence as there are just too many factors that play a part. Excellent screening, family support and training remain the critical factors in ensuring success.

 

[vonGarvin]

(what about homosexual male parents, by the way ? ) .

Don't get me started!

But I do agree, having a parent at home (mom OR dad) is the ideal.  My sis worked while my bro in law stayed at home. 
Having both genders as a parent does more than support old traditions.  It teaches kids how to interact with said gender, and gives said kid a model, amongst many other things.

 

[vonGarvin]

"A Father to be Proud of" was a personal favourite of my children as they grew up. To be fair though, my daughter also liked "My Mom is a Soldier."

Hey, I've got those two books as well!  "A Father to be proud of" got my now ten year old through my first deployment to Afghanistan.  Though "My Mom is a Soldier" didn't really apply in our house, there were several friends of hers whose mothers indeed wore army boots! 

 

[time expired]

I have followed this thread since its inception,and am very hesitant about
expressing my views on the subject.What was the original question?,what
is your opinion of women in the combat arms?.This seems like a simple
enough question one is either for or against however I have noticed that
some of the people who are sceptical,and that includes me,are attacked
using the usual PC tactics.First ones qualification to even have an opinion
are questioned,the next step is of course personal attacks, one is labelled
as a sexist and in this case a thinly veiled threat that you may even be a
racist,and then the Mods jump in and threaten you with expulsion.A very
good example of the" Galileo effect".I find this very disturbing,have we
been so cowed and brainwashed by the Feminist movement and their
supporters that a opinion against women in the combat arms is not even
to be expressed?.
    Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience
with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember
is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the
men they were fighting along side.For example when women in a sub unit
were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the
wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders
of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting
their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with
the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me
is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
                          Regards

 

[vonGarvin]

    Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the men they were fighting along side.  For example when women in a sub unit were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
                           Regards

You make some good points; however, I think the biggest thing is that you do not question whether or not women can do it (I think you agree that physically, it matters not if one is a woman or a man, it's up to the individual.  Some men can hack it, some can't.  Same with women).  The opposition you bring forth is interesting, as it talks of the man/woman interface and states of mind (mainly of the men).  Having said that, I have also witnessed that with women in the combat arms, it was "different" at first, some guys acting as you state above.  But, as time progressed, it's become the norm to have women in the field around you, and after a while (once you get used to it, I guess), things are the same as before.  Some women are jerks, some men are jerks, but in the end, most are not.  Just as women faced certain barriers breaking into the work force (Remember, secretary used to be a "stereotypical" male job), there were/are certain barriers vis a vis women in the forces.
As stated elsewhere here, even in a "rear area" job, given that there is no more rear area as such, women can expect to be in combat as much as men irrespective of their trade.
And no, I don't think you're a sexist/racist/whatever.  You are sceptical, is all.  Nothing wrong with that. 

 

[HItorMiss]

I myself am highly HIGHLY skeptical of woman in Cbt Arms. I have seen it with my own eyes and have been less then thrilled with the results in terms of their overall performance. Yes some men have been less then great at doing the job but so far from my experience if I took the women I have seen in Cbt Arms (Infantry as is my trade) and an equal number of men I would find the avg of poor performance on the physical soldiering aspect of that job to be much higher in the females. I am not saying that woman are not capable of doing the job, but I am saying saying so far few I have seen have been.

I believe the reason for this starts right at the recruiting level where our Physical Fitness standard is so highly skewed (Wrongly in my mind) And it never changes from there really.

 

[armyvern]

I have followed this thread since its inception,and am very hesitant about
expressing my views on the subject.What was the original question?,what
is your opinion of women in the combat arms?.This seems like a simple
enough question one is either for or against however I have noticed that
some of the people who are sceptical,and that includes me,are attacked
using the usual PC tactics.First ones qualification to even have an opinion
are questioned,the next step is of course personal attacks, one is labelled
as a sexist and in this case a thinly veiled threat that you may even be a
racist,and then the Mods jump in and threaten you with expulsion.A very
good example of the" Galileo effect".I find this very disturbing,have we
been so cowed and brainwashed by the Feminist movement and their
supporters that a opinion against women in the combat arms is not even
to be expressed?.
    Incidentally I read a report about the Israel Defence Forces experience
with women in combat situations and one of the things that I remember
is the biggest problem lay not with the women themselves but with the
men they were fighting along side.For example when women in a sub unit
were wounded the men abandoned all offensive action and" circled the
wagons" to protect the fallen female.It was also found that commanders
of units were less prepared to initiate offensive actions for fear of putting
their female soldiers in harms way.So one sees the problem lies not with
the women but with us and our ingrained cultural values and that to me
is a valid reason to not have women in the combat role.
                           Regards

Holy moly. 

Actualy time expired, two threads have been merged into one due massive thread. PC arguements from feminists?? Where are they?? I certainly don't see any on this board?? Brainwashed?? The trials were done. The women performed and did the jobs. There's no brainwashing about that. Anyone can express their opinion, that doesn't make their opinion correct. Especially when they voice their reasonings for that opinion, and it happens to be based on mythical women can't do the job and should be home in the kitchen commentary, you're quite correct that I'm going to post contrary to that. That's is what debate is all about.

Just because it has been proven, that's right - proven, in todays CF that there are indeed some (I didn't say all) women capable of performing these roles perfectly as well and as admirably as their male counterparts does not equate buying into some feminist crap agenda.

I assure you that I am no feminist. I'm just someone who believes that any person, regardless of sex, race, religion or other who wantrs to do a job and is capable of doing that job ... should be allowed the same opportunities to do that job. That certainly doesn't make me some PC feminist.

As for your quote above, and the remarks about the mods ... where did the mods comment come from?? Again with the slamming of the mods. You know what? It's getting really tired. 

That's kind of like passing the blame onto someone else for one's own actions ...

Kind of like your last paragraph above. Funny that, when the crap hit the fan the boys neglected to do their jobs in the IDF ... and you've somehow managed to make that the fault of the women. Seems like the males involved failed at their primary task; so it sounds like the men's fault in your example to me. Meanwhile the girls who did their jobs fine, should be barred from doing so because the men didn't?? Because old value culture says so?? No thanks. I value recognition for what one does, not prevention based on what males in this situation failed to do. That's their problem, not the womens. How utterly ironic is that??

It's been 20 years. The arguments have been given for both sides, the girls are still here ... still doing their jobs.

Step out of the past, the CF is doing perfectly fine these days.

 

[vonGarvin]

Kind of like your last paragraph above. Funny that, when the crap hit the fan the boys neglected to do their jobs in the IDF ... and you've somehow managed to make that the fault of the women. Seems like the males involved failed at their primary task; so it sounds like the men's fault in your example to me. Meanwhile the girls who did their jobs fine, should be barred from doing so because the men didn't?? Because old value culture says so?? No thanks. I value recognition for what one does, not prevention based on what males in this situation failed to do. That's their problem, not the womens. How utterly ironic is that??

I think that time expired isn't saying that women can't do the job, I think his reference to one case (though true, isn't enough to warrant an opinion) outlines why, perhaps, men and women shouldn't serve together in combat (his opinion).  Now, I'll let him explain what he means, but I suspect from what I read is that he feels that the limits are due to the gender interaction, vice capabilities of women.
Now, I think you're right in stating that it's not a case of women not being able to do "x", whatever "x" represents.  I also agree with you that the CF has come a LONG way in proving that it can be done.  And, as others have pointed out, the standards should remainarbitrary and do NOT take gender into account: the job is the job is the job.  When you went through training, you had the same rucksack as the next guy (or gal), and had to go the same distance, carrying the same rifle (ah, the old FN C1A1.  I still remember my first: 7L 4246). 

 

[HItorMiss]

Vern,

Before you make assumptions on the content and or action/reactions of those involved in that report I think perhaps you should read it. It highlights ingrained cultural values and lessons as being at fault for certain reactions. It does not place blame on either sex but lays it squarely at the feet of how we raise our children. What the IDF did with the findings of that report was entirely an institutional decision.

 

[armyvern]

Vern,

Before you make assumptions on the content and or action/reactions of those involved in that report I think perhaps you should read it. It highlights ingrained cultural values and lessons as being at fault for certain reactions. It does not place blame on either sex but lays it squarely at the feet of how we raise our children. What the IDF did with the findings of that report was entirely an institutional decision.

HitorMiss,

I'm commenting on what info Time Expired has chosen to provide us with regarding this report.

He has made a statement about items in that report and I have adressed his statements. I haven't adressed the report, as it was not cited for resource. I addressed his comments only.

Cultural values are fine with me. If a woman can't do the job, she should NOT be there. But, that's the same thing for a guy. It really is that simple to me.

Culture is advancing every day. Some people refuse to adapt to changing cultural values, and some don't. In twenty years. Those cultural values are irrelevant to whether or not a woman CAN do the job.

Some people would argue that women should not be in first line combat roles because of those same "curtural valuies;" I am not one them. I say if she can do it, she deserves to be given the opportunity. It really is that easy to me.