Navy to consider gender-neutral ranks

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There would be a lot of them too; there are a number of different 'dib' trades (NESOP, sonar op, etc), plus nav comms, WEng techs, bosuns, cooks, sup techs, clerks, Martechs (and probably a few more I'm forgetting about). Most trades are still called by a nickname or a legacy trade name anyway, so think it would get confusing to try and have a distinct rank name for each trade, without actually adding anything.

I kind of like the 'Seafarer' suggestion the RN is looking at; it rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and doesn't sound grammatically off like 'sailor' does.

I prefer things like parts on the shelves, available repair resources, and OPSCHEDS that allow you to fix things and spread maintenance time around the fleet in a logical way, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. However it does still seem like fiddling while Rome is burning when some of those things could be directly addressed by the leadership (particularly the available maintenance time and feast/famine loading created by not staggering ship SWP and sailing schedules). The frigates are 30 years old, but are being driven like rentals, as if a new combat system means that the hull doesn't have 25-30 years of wear with some original equipment actually bought in the mid 80s.

Yes, I should have added that to my post above, "and give me the tools to do the job you pay me for."

 

[Halifax Tar]

IMO, rank+trade badge system just gives those certain types of individuals another chance to get their kicks by jacking up someone either in a different element or newer member who doesn’t have all the trade badges identified/memorized.

I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.

There would be a lot of them too; there are a number of different 'dib' trades (NESOP, sonar op, etc), plus nav comms, WEng techs, bosuns, cooks, sup techs, clerks, Martechs (and probably a few more I'm forgetting about). Most trades are still called by a nickname or a legacy trade name anyway, so think it would get confusing to try and have a distinct rank name for each trade, without actually adding anything.

Thats why I would suggest branches.  As in my post.  Ordinary, Able, Leading, Master Seafarer just doesnt sound right, to me

I kind of like the 'Seafarer' suggestion the RN is looking at; it rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and doesn't sound grammatically off like 'sailor' does.

I prefer things like parts on the shelves, available repair resources, and OPSCHEDS that allow you to fix things and spread maintenance time around the fleet in a logical way, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. However it does still seem like fiddling while Rome is burning when some of those things could be directly addressed by the leadership (particularly the available maintenance time and feast/famine loading created by not staggering ship SWP and sailing schedules). The frigates are 30 years old, but are being driven like rentals, as if a new combat system means that the hull doesn't have 25-30 years of wear with some original equipment actually bought in the mid 80s.

I think we would all like what you mention, unfortunatly this is what is on our plate right now. 

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.

That’s good. I have images of some poor soul saying, “Yes, Master-uhhh...” <blank look>

(I may or may not be referring to the possibility of that being myself in a similar circumstance... )

 

[Underway]

I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.

Unless you are a steward.  The abuse those folks suffer from their own messes...

 

[Halifax Tar]

I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.

Unless you are a steward.  The abuse those folks suffer from their own messes...

I have been in the lower decks for 20 years.  Sailed quite a few ships, and have shared a deptartment with them my whole career.  I have never seen a Steward abused in the JRs or C&POs, now if you want talk about what they put up with in the wardroom, thats a whole other ball of wax. 

 

[dimsum]

From the Deputy CRCN:

Deputy Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy here. I have been made aware of the discourse occurring on on-line forums since we adopted our rank-change initiative, and I apologize for not chiming in earlier but frankly I needed a minute to come to terms with some of the comments that have been posted. First off, I would like to say that in my 33 years of service, I have had the privilege to work alongside the most incredible cohort of talented and professional sailors, who represent the diverse backgrounds that our great country is made of. I am proud to serve alongside the many different women, men, trans and non-binary members who bravely don the RCN uniform in order to serve our country and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is why I strongly support our Rank Change Initiative, as I believe it is long overdue that ALL Royal Canadian Navy processes and policies, including our Ranks, reflect, honour and recognize the service and sacrifice made by ALL of our SAILORS. I would like to thank those of you who have provided constructive feedback and respectful dialogue on this issue, as these kinds of consultations are critical to designing an RCN that is fit for the sailors of the future.

To those of you who have made hateful, misogynistic and racist comments, I am shocked that you think that your comments would be acceptable, and that you are not able to recognize that those you are disparaging are the very people dedicating their lives to afford you the freedom to comment. These comments serve as a reminder of our need to call out cowardly attacks such as these, and remind us also that we should take every opportunity to show support for minority and marginalized groups.

To those of you currently serving with these beliefs, I would like to emphatically state you have no place in our Navy. If you cannot live by or support the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you cannot defend them. Should any serving Royal Canadian Navy Sailors have concerns or questions about this initiative and why this is considered a priority for our organization (and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic), please contact me directly.

Yours Aye,
Rear-Admiral Chris Sutherland

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/photos/a.396471970714544/1204994976528902/

 

[Jarnhamar]

Should any serving Royal Canadian Navy Sailors have concerns or questions about this initiative and why this is considered a priority for our organization (and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic), please contact me directly.

Halifax Tar you should email him and ask him something  ;D

 

[Lumber]

I have been in the lower decks for 20 years.  Sailed quite a few ships, and have shared a deptartment with them my whole career.  I have never seen a Steward abused in the JRs or C&POs, now if you want talk about what they put up with in the wardroom, thats a whole other ball of wax.

I love and I hate stewards.

 

[stellarpanther]

Since things are probably still early on in this plan to change the name of some navy ranks, I'm curious how long something like this will take to implement.  If they simply change the name to Leading Sailor for example, nothing on their current uniform needs to change.  No new badges etc.  Is this something that should happen quickly?

 

[dapaterson]

Short answer: it's harder than it looks.

Longer answer: QR&Os amendments take a considerable length of time, requiring more lawyers than you'd think and supporting documentation.  After legal review and certification, it's about a six month process.  Getting to the top of the list in priority for the specialized legal support can take considerably longer.

 

[NAVCEN]

I love and I hate stewards.

Some in the Wardroom love some stewards more than others. :tsktsk:


Re: DRCN statement.
Some of the comments regarding the change have been pretty vile. But others questioned the need for the change and the way it was being presented. RCN leadership is going to have some work cut out for them to calm the waters. There are now some indications that they are looking at Chief Petty Officer due to the word Chief (I also envision Petty becoming a target as well) being a possible issue with first nations.

 

[stellarpanther]

I'm not being sarcastic, what about the word "Master", that could be looked down on as well based on history.

 

[OldSolduer]

I love and I hate stewards.

Does that trade still exist?

 

[NAVCEN]

Does that trade still exist?

It's a Navy Hard Sea Trade.

Their other duties include casualty clearers, advanced First Aid, and NPF managers.
(although I haven't been to sea in a while so those jobs may have changed somewhat)

 

[Throwaway987]

While we’re at it, do we also need to change the name of General Vance’s appointment? Need to lead by example amirite? 

 

[Ostrozac]

While we’re at it, do we also need to change the name of General Vance’s appointment? Need to lead by example amirite? 

Chief of the Defence Staff is kind of a strange title, isn't it? He isn't actually a Chief of Staff -- he's a commander. The title implies more like a chairman of a committee than what it actually is in practice -- Commander of the Canadian Forces.

The title of the CDS is written into the National Defence Act, however, so it wouldn't be an easy designation to change. Also, tradition and commonality with our allies who use the same or similar terminology.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Halifax Tar you should email him and ask him something  ;D

Don’t really have anything to ask.  And he is right.  The vitriol posted by some people WRT this was disgusting.  I would be surprised if some investigating wasn’t being done to weed out the serving members who posted the stuff.  But this is the world we live in now, everyone has a voice.  Our organization needs to come to terms with that.  Having said that, I have posted what I think are good alternatives, but I will never be a Jr rate again so really for me its inconsequential.

Re: DRCN statement.
Some of the comments regarding the change have been pretty vile. But others questioned the need for the change and the way it was being presented. RCN leadership is going to have some work cut out for them to calm the waters. There are now some indications that they are looking at Chief Petty Officer due to the word Chief (I also envision Petty becoming a target as well) being a possible issue with first nations.

Really ?  This makes me a little sad.  Chief is a long time Naval rank nomenclature.  I would hate to see it be discarded.  Especially as the word Chief is not a term used only by NA First Nations as it has been used to describe leadership in many cultures including Caucasian since Jesus was a cowboy.  This is an over reach IMHO. 

Does that trade still exist?

It does, although their existance has been on very shakey ground as of late, as the RCN looks at its trades and structures. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Don’t really have anything to ask.  And he is right.  The vitriol posted by some people WRT this was disgusting.  I would be surprised if some investigating wasn’t being done to weed out the serving members who posted the stuff.  But this is the world we live in now, everyone has a voice.  Our organization needs to come to terms with that.  Having said that, I have posted what I think are good alternatives, but I will never be a Jr rate again so really for me its inconsequential.

I'd ask him which his preferred rank name is and why. Just seems like an opportunity missed to take him up on an offer to chat :nod:

I agree it's the world we're living in. I'm of the opinion the navy rank change decision makers already picked the name they want. That's fine.
Would it have been better to just make the name change, explain why and carry on?
Does making it a big discussion and putting it all over the news to the tune of 'we're progressive!' give all those hateful people a platform to revel in their hate?

No disrespect to people in positions of authority but those emails and speeches about not tolerating bad behavior and the military being no place for you etc. etc. really come across as canned statements. IMO the Canadian Forces party flight with Tiger Williams is an example of how serious we as an institution take those canned speeches.
VCDS and senior CWO apparently letting troops deal with the problem, one of the flight crew hasn't flown since thanks to all of it.

We can hunt down members who make asshole comments on Facebook sure, but I can't help but feel like there's more to it.  Like chasing after rhibs when there's submarines in the water maybe? Getting a bit off topic sorry.

 

[Adam]

Its too late for real discussion, and not worth the repercussions. Time to just let it play out. 

Whoever is on the GBA+ panel selecting new ranks, keep it simple.  I've been in for 21 yrs and deployed twice with Quebec, and I just learned what an Edif was yesterday. 

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Chief of the Defence Staff is kind of a strange title, isn't it? He isn't actually a Chief of Staff -- he's a commander. The title implies more like a chairman of a committee than what it actually is in practice -- Commander of the Canadian Forces.

The title of the CDS is written into the National Defence Act, however, so it wouldn't be an easy designation to change. Also, tradition and commonality with our allies who use the same or similar terminology.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is the Governor-General ~ see the Letters Patent (King George VI, 1947).

In the 1930s, '40s, '50s, and '60s the Chiefs of the Naval, General and Air Staffs were just that: chiefs of staff. Command of formations, stations, ships and units was vested in the designated commanders of fleets and commands.

During WWII we had a four star Army commander in Europe (Crearer) and a three star CGS (Chief of the General Staff) (Stuart and Murchie) in Ottawa. Canada had a two star Allied Commander-in-Chief (Murray) in Halifax who did not answer to ANY Canadian for anything (except his pay, I suppose) but who was, eventually, hung out to dry (by some of the most reprehensible people (civil and military) every to serve in Canada) for something that wasn't even remotely his responsibility.

The waters got a bit muddied in the late 1960s when Minister Hellyer upset too many applecarts with too little thought. There had already been a four star Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (Foulkes) but he was, still, clearly, a staff officer with no command responsibuility. Commander e.g. Pacific Fleet, Commander e.g. Western Command and Commander e.g. Air Defence Command still commanded fleets, bases, stations, units and so on. But when we went to functional commands ~ MARCOM, Mobile Command, etc ~ there seemed to be some (totally unnecessary in my not at all humble opinion) confusion. Suddenly someone wondered who the next 'superior' commander was. Absent a big war it was, still, the GG, acting, always, through her/his Chief of (the Defence) Staff.

Some Europeans 'solved' the (always more apparent than real) CDS vs Commander thing by renaming the Chief of the Defence Staff to, simply, Chief of Defence ~ Denmark, for example.  Australia, as I recall ~ can someone help, please? ~ fiddled with CDS/Commander ADF or something.

The CDS is properly named. He does performed some 'superior' command duties on behalf of the C-in-C and he acts de facto as the commander of the CF ... but always and only on behalf of the Commander in Chief.