Experience differences between training women and men

[aesop081]

  Today, a lot of the grunts have college/university educations. 

This is true.

You aren't training uneducated,

You would be surprised.

ignorant members of society.

Generaly speaking this istrue, however, in my experience, there are many who fit this description and they consume the majority of staff time and effort.

  You are training smart, educated individuals,

"smart" and "educated" are not always found together. I instructed many educated people who couldnt figure out whcich end of the shovel to use.

The trouble with the "new army" , IMHO, is that it has not delivered on its promises.

 

[Antoine]

I am still a civilian, not yet in the military, so I'll be off topic if I comment on the why/how male/female during the military training, and I realized that my previous post about the 'why' was off topic, it was more related to training in academia.

However, if I get in CF, I am not expecting to be treated as a golden boy because I could do $$$$$ more in a civilian job with my education level. Neither, I am expecting a "Why" explanation each time an order is given. It is going to be challenging but hopefully I'll relay on my instructor experience to decide if a "Why" will follow or not an order and maybe a "how". And if I don't like it, they and me will come to the release agreement (hopefully, the honorable discharge one  ). However, it is not up to me to decide what kind of candidate the CF is looking for.

But, on the civilian street, as a Canadian, I WILL NEVER TOLORATE THAT SOMEONE IS BADLY TREATED ONLY BECAUSE HE/SHE IS POOR AND/OR HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN DOING A CRAPPY JOB. I STRONGLY STAND AGAINST THIS WAY OF THINKING. However, without sarcasm, I might have misunderstood one of the previous posts, I apologize in advance if it was not the message delivered by the post.

And, to finish, we have (I do for sure) so many examples (recent ones in the financial, economical field and daily examples in the academia and government world) of people highly educated, but particularly not smart, having no common sense and so on....How did they reach their position of power if not smart? I have a couple of unpolitical correct answers that I am sure I don't need to list here.

Cheers

 

[Cleared Hot]

I think the OPs question is an outstanding one for anyone seriously concerned with training / educating within the CF.  It doesn't speak to differing standards (as some have suggested) however, it does question how individual people are motivated to achieve those standards.  The first issue that is being overlooked here in subsequent responses is the difference between training and teaching.  Training is a much less intellectual endeavour than teaching and requires more drills and far less "why".  The further you go through the system the more you shift the focus to "why".  It only makes sense that a student on a small arms instructor course should be asking "why" much more than a student on BMQ.  Like it or not, at the basic level we are looking for obedience, not free thinkers.  The second piece that is being overlooked is a basic understanding of the concept of the "adult learner".  An adult learner is not defined by age but by experience, knowledge, maturity etc.  A 17 year old kid who lost a parent and had to raise his siblings because the other was a drunk may be more of an "adult learner" than the 30 year old who never left his parent's basement.  Being able to identify what motivates students and tailor instruction to that will maximize individual performance.  So if there are generalities between men and women please share.  For example, some countries specifically use female instructors because they feel men will push themselves harder so as to not look weak in front of a woman and also that there is a certain amount of "well if she can do it..." attitude.  This doesn't always work in every country because let's say you are a female Canadian officer tasked as part of the OMLT to mentor an Afghan Coy OC.  Well, let's just say that your opinion may not carry a lot of weight.

It is true that generally speaking resources for courses are maxed out and there is not always a lot of scope for instructors to cater to individuals too much, especially at the basic level, however, I have been fortunate to do most of my instructing at the officer and Sr NCM levels so there is a bit more opportunity to do so.  For example, in the field when students are not "in the breach" I like to pull them aside individually or in small groups and either review info that I know they may be struggling with, or if they are stronger students, introduce them to new concepts or methods that may not be in the TP but that I know they could benefit from.

In the end to answer the OPs question I haven't seen a lot of solid differences that are universally and solely gender based but get to know what motivates individuals in general.  i.e. are they hands on - do they learn by doing?  Are they visual - do they learn by watching?  Do they excel performing in front of a group or are they happy to quietly take it in in the background?  Are they leaders or followers?  Do they need demonstrations or do they do better when allowed to figure things out for themselves?  Obviously not all of these are acceptable for every course or task but where things can be adapted try and accommodate it and you will have much better results with your students male or female?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This is because it is the new Army.  Most people don't understand the term "new Army". 

What does the term 'new army' mean to you then, comparing the way training is conducted/delivered now from when you got in?  (not a sarcastic question, meant seriously.  I am curious to see what people think the differences really are now)

Instructors get directives from standards not to do this, and not to do that to candidates, and the instructors (mostly the old ones) will mutter under their breath "well back in my day...yadda yadda"

Agreed to a point, however, in the defence of the 'old school' types, they probably have seen the benefits of some of the 'old ways' and see something missing from the current ways.  First example that comes to my mind comes from the Defensive ex we ran on a QL3 Crmn course in 2001, where the CO ordered all candidates would get 6 hours continous sleep a night, regardless.  We were also not allowed to run the course during morning PT (no joke).  I certainly muttered under my breath, as I did not see either of these as an improvement in trg.

You can't stand there and smack around a guy who, if he left the Army, will make a 6 figure salary with his education.  You can't treat people bad, spit on them, smack them in the head, kick them in the back, or any of that good stuff instructors did "back in your day".

I did Basic at CFRS Cornwallis 20 years ago this summer....I don't remember ANYONE getting smacked around.  Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone get smacked around (excluding smokers, of course )

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Just to throw in my own two cents... When it comes down to it, I also dont think there should be any training differences between men and women. I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how they will learn best, and will instruct according to that.

 

[40below]

Apropos of nothing but it's my favourite anecdote from this area, I used to know one of the chief labour negotiators for the Ontario government, a chain-smoking piece of old-school brass who made a New York divorce lawyer look like a group-hugging Dr. Phil by comparison. One night we got to talking about how negotiations had changed over the years, and he argued that the biggest change was when women started taking lead roles at the bargaining table.

He maintained, that after years of doing this for a living, that when dealing with men, you dealt – we gave you the dental top-up last time, if you want the additional personal day or another 1% this time, give that back and this other thing too, and things got done. He said with women, the model didn't work that way – once they were given something, it was theirs, and they weren't going to give it back or modify it in the next round, which slowed negotiations tremendously.

Not saying if it was bad, but he said it was the single biggest change in contract talks he'd seen in his working life, and having heard women say the poker game was fun but now that it was over, could they have their money back, I can't entirely discount his take.

 

[Harley Sailor]

Just to throw in my own two cents... When it comes down to it, I also dont think there should be any training differences between men and women. I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how they will learn best, and will instruct according to that.

Now this troubles me.  How can you train everyone the same and still instruct to their strengths and weaknesses? If you give them slack because of a weekness, is that not training different.

 

[aesop081]

I think that any good instructor and leader will know his troops/candidates, know their strengths and weaknesses and know how they will learn best, and will instruct according to that.

You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.

 

[Strike]

You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.

Not always.  But in a class that requires some one on one, like range training or flying for example, you have to be able to read your student properly and adjust your style in order to get the best out of them.

 

[aesop081]

Not always.  But in a class that requires some one on one, like range training or flying for example, you have to be able to read your student properly and adjust your style in order to get the best out of them.

Agreed.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Now this troubles me.  How can you train everyone the same and still instruct to their strengths and weaknesses? If you give them slack because of a weekness, is that not training different.

Its not about giving people slack at all. You dont give them slack, you still expect the same out of them.

You can't instruct a class of 30 by catering to each individual.

Definitly not, but there are cases in which you instruct a smaller class, or have some one on one time with the candidates.

 

[Xiang]

What does the term 'new army' mean to you then, comparing the way training is conducted/delivered now from when you got in?  (not a sarcastic question, meant seriously.  I am curious to see what people think the differences really are now)

Well when I got in we were just starting to introduce SHARP, and there was no physical abuse.  There was still a lot of yelling, swearing, kit tossing and collective punishment though, but it was at a time when the instructors had to get down and do the push ups with you.

What I mean by new army is the way the candidates are treated today.  I have spoken with old WO's and Sgts who did their recruit course back in the late 60's and recall being struck and verbally abused during training. 

Back then however, your average Infantry candidate was someone who was lucky to have a little bit of high school behind him, and the Army was his only choice for anything that would be considered a career. 

Today's army, your average Infantry candidate is a high school/college/university graduate who has a lot going for him, but wants to serve his country (there are exceptions however). 

I am going to be completely blunt here for a moment and say that candidates way back were not as sophisticated or mature (and I am using those terms lightly for lack of a better analogy) as the ones entering the system today, so more harsh disciplinary measures had to be taken to whip them into order (no pun intended).

Why would someone with a university degree want to get smacked around during their recruit course when they can work in the civilian sector and make more money, without the physical abuse? 

People entering the armed forces today have a general understanding that it is a tough venture, but they do not expect to be physically struck, and probably wouldn't stand for it.  There are the odd few grumpy old NCO's who would mutter "back in my day you would have done push ups until you puked while we stepped on your fingers" but the smart ones know that this sort of treatment is not needed to breed good soldiers.

Our soldiers training and professionalism is second to none.  We are hardly a ***** foot army.  Our current training doctrine shows this.

You can be stern with candidates and still instill a sharp sense of discipline in them without hitting them or abusing them.

This is what I mean by the New Army.

First example that comes to my mind comes from the Defensive ex we ran on a QL3 Crmn course in 2001, where the CO ordered all candidates would get 6 hours continous sleep a night, regardless. 

This, I do not agree with.  If it's a driver course, I can see the need for sleep, but not on a defensive ex.  However, I can attest to the fact that it is not like this across the board, and it is at the discretion of the course CO.

I have instructed on SQ courses, and during the FTX the enemy force was constantly attacking the defensive position, day and night.  We had the candidates up all hours of the night on stand to's.  They were tired, they were wet, but they coped with it.  Simple as that.

We were also not allowed to run the course during morning PT (no joke).  I certainly muttered under my breath, as I did not see either of these as an improvement in trg.

I agree, this is not a good practice, and I would certainly question the judgment of the course CO for making such a decision.  Another Reserve SQ course I instructed on saw a group of candidates head to Meaford fresh off their Reserve BMQ course.  During their BMQ they had PT every 2nd or 3rd day.  The candidates could not keep up with a simple 5km PT run.

The reason stated was time constraints.  PT was replaced with course material for certain days.  I don't buy that at all though.  I instructed on Reserve BMQ's where where we had PT every morning for 1 hour.  We were still able to teach everything in the course outline.

I did Basic at CFRS Cornwallis 20 years ago this summer....I don't remember ANYONE getting smacked around.  Come to think of it, I've never seen anyone get smacked around (excluding smokers, of course )

That would be the nearly the 90's correct?  Don't quote me but from what I understand, physical abuse stopped during the late 70's, early 80's.  Again, don't quote me on this.  Perhaps someone who has been in longer than us can confirm.

 

[Old Sweat]

For whatever it is worth, I went through recruit training in 1958 and, while there was a lot of verbal abuse, physical contact between the instructors and the troops was strictly forbidden. I can recall several occasions when an NCO asked permission to touch a recruit to correct part of his dress or kit.

While the average education was not what it is today, that was true for society in general. Certainly we were not very sophisticated, but that was also true of the larger civilian community. As for maturity, a fair number of the recruits had been working in the woods or on the boats to help support their family group and joined the army for what was about the same take home pay with better working and living conditions. It was a very different country back then and except for OAS and baby bonus, the social safety net was pretty sparses. I think there also was UI, but we all knew we would be unable to draw it, so it was more of an irritant that a social program.