Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[aesop081]

Not much more than a rant, a short-sighted one at that. I think our own experience with women in the CF has proven most of what is said to be wrong.

Only one part caught my eye in a less negative light:

the diversity of our service members is the unique strength of our military.” Not training, not equipment, not technology, not small unit leadership. No sir, diversity

This line is too often used here in Canada too. We even follow it up with the "CF champion for women/persons with disabilities/aboriginals/whatever". If we concentrated on the combat capabilities the country needs, the rest would take care of itself.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We should make the queens champion. Get the biggest strongest scariest troop out there give him the best weapons, some sexy armor and send him off to challenge enemy commanders in single combat.

Just like video games

 

[armyvern]

It pretty fascinating the differences in oppinion between people on this forum and some our our American colleagues.  Read the link below.

http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=4690

I suggest reading the comments as well as it reinforces the notion that this is not a popular idea.  What I find interesting about the US debate is that the case studies from around the world (ourselves, Israel, Australia) of women and homosexuals being integrated into combat units never seems to be mentionned.

It is an interesting divergence of opinion, but, us Canadian girls are doing quite OK me thinks.

I am not worried about us; we kick ass.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It is an interesting divergence of opinion, but, us Canadian girls are doing quite OK me thinks.

I am not worried about us; we kick ass.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Really?? Do you have a link to these statistics that you are tossing about above?? I'd love to see statistics on that too, but I believe you've pulled this speculation out of your ***. You honestly think you'd see a ~45% difference in deployability rates!!??

Really?? Women at "if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%."

I can guarantee that female CF members are not knocked-up at a ~45% level (that is the difference you've tossed out there into cyberspace) which is about the only reason a female would be considered non-deployable where there is no male equivelant to the reason (unless one considered PATA) regardless of their age.

I'd be more likely to wager that for every non-deployable chickie out there at whatever age due to pregnancy, that per capita, there'd be 5 or 6 males out there at that same age on PATA (parental leave ... men get that in the CF when their wives have kids) who are thus non-deployable too. Any other reason a chick would be non-deployable would also be applicable to males. So, statistically, I'd wager the percentages would actually turn out pretty much even IF that study were ever to be conducted.

We have sooooooooooo moved beyond this.


**** Caveat: I am currently deployed (Just one more sleepie here to go!!  ;D) and 47 of my 117 pers are women. That's a little higher than the ratio for women/men in my trade total. How's that for deployed statistics?  Oh ... and we sent two males out as early as we could to hopefully get them home in time for the births of their new chicklets, but no girls. Apparently, we should NEVER have allowed those 2 men to go home on March Break leave before we deployed!!  > Nothing wrong with that. After the CF === one's family still exists no matter what trade they are.

Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss? 

How about you talking out of your *ss?

Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.

In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.


Matthew.

P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?

 

[brihard]

Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss? 

How about you talking out of your *ss?

Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.

In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.


Matthew.

P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?

I read it, and you're right out of 'er. I'm not saying your math is wrong- I'm saying you're wrong for taking that approach.

To quote Heinlein, men (or women) are not potatoes. You cannot apply a purely economic analysis to this question as a prime determinator. If we faced a situation where a *radically* disparate degree of deployability existed, that would be one matter. While the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', you'll find most of us quite comfortable in saying that the 'non deployable' rate of women is not dramatically different from men.

So, dispensing with the actuarial science in a field where it's simply not appropriate, we're left with what it is the job of the C.F. to do, and what the Canadian public expects of us. Part of that expectation is that all Canadians who can hack it in the sense necessary are able to volunteer to serve their country in damned near any capacity and, if found able, to be employed in the trade they are selected for and trained in. Another part is the fact that our constitution guarantees equality of opportunity without regards for gender. I would venture to guess you've never actually read the defense white paper (ca. 1984 if I can recall) that followed the Charter and analyzed the contemporary situation in other nations with regards to gender integration in combat arms, and postulated likely courses of action for the CF? These are not issues that are new, nor have they been somehow immune to more studied analysis than the hallowed halls of army.ca or the JR's mess.

I will take any soldier in my section who is willing to show up and soldier. If they have a vagina, so be it; I'm not fussed. I'll take the chances of a woman getting knocked up with the chances of a dude getting a DUI or hitting a new high score on a piss test. Women don't tend to suffer from that critical condition that DAGs so many men red- testosterone poisoning. I would venture that the rate of men in the combat arms undeployable due to... I'll be judicious and call it 'misadventure' is probably not incomparable to women who get in a family way (which another man might chalk up as misadventure itself?).

 

[armyvern]

Seriously?  You tell me I'm talking out my *ss? 

How about you talking out of your *ss?

Re-read EXACTLY what I posted (instead of what it appears you've inferred and took offense to) and try again.

In particular, try to wrap your head around the context of analysing the information as an insurance table, selecting potential break-even points for the point of discussion and then focus on the use of the word "If" to highlight that if the breakeven points were being hit, then you may have an issue.


Matthew.

P.S.  Did anyone other than Vern interpret it the way it was meant to be interpretted?  Or did everyone take it that I was proposing those were ACTUAL statistics and that something needed to be done about it?

YOU have inferred a belief that you think women DAG red at a higher proportion then men, and thus put out the chauvenistic thought of "are we therefore worth it" under the guise of 'no one will want to address this/only enlightened intellectuals will understand where I'm going with this' ...  :


You, my friend, are right out of 'er. We do nothing of the sort. You want to toss bogusness like that crap up here on the forums, then back it up with with some facts (note: I actually quoted some factual your numbers for you ... ). Until then, I, and every other woman in this outfit is well worth it. I do my job, and my deployments, quite fine thank you.

 

[DexOlesa]

I can see where a person can get the wrong idea from Blackshirts post. As I read it however, he was not making any observations or giving his opinion. He simply stated that it would be interesting to look at it from an insurance point of view to see IF there was any difference in deployability. Then he tossed out hypothetical pulled out of his ass numbers for analogy sake. Saying that the only thing against women in the forces WOULD BE IF we found some sort of disparity or correlation say that a PARTICULAR female (due to medical reasons of a feminine nature) was seen to be less than 40% deployable would it not then be prudent to instead of offering her a position in the name of equality instead offer the position to the healthy 26 yo male that was virtually guaranteed deployable. I do not believe he meant any slight  on women, or any offence. Instead wondering if an all male force, simply as a numbers exercise, is cheaper or easier to field, not that they necessarily were but that he was curious if it were the case.

 

[mariomike]

For what it is worth, a 36 page super-thread on the subject here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27742.0.html

 

[armyvern]

Only thoughts....
1.  I'll leave the assessment of capablity to those who've served with them.  I think any armchair generals on the outside looking in, should do the same.  If you haven't served with them, up close and personal, you don't know.
2.  Special Treatment Issues (such as the medal for carrying the G6) - You hope that's only a phase as integration occurs. 
3.  Deployability Issues- Tough call on that one.  On one hand you don't want to hold biases against an individual because of their gender.  On the other hand, you need to look at it like an insurance table....if aged 26 and of gender F, what is likelihood of ability to deploy?  If <40%, do you invest in training in them?  Or do you invest in aged 26, gender M, who has likelihood of deploying of >85%.  On that note, it would be interesting to do a statistical analysis and find out how many additional soldiers (and how many $) are required to maintain the same level of deployability because of lower rates for females soldiers as I think any time any one has a discussion, hard costs need to be part of the conversation (Bottom Line Question:  If all male, for same $, could Canada deploy an extra Battalion?  Extra two Battallions?  Until you do that math, and you find out....you don't know).

I should add as a civilian, I don't believe the military is just a job, and should have to follow the HR rules that generally apply to civilian employment.  In the civilian world, there's a reality that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure women have the ability to have and raise children, and NOT be punished for it.  But the military is not the civilian world....it's a special service, where the role is to defend the nation and its interests, here and abroard and I'm not sure where child rearding fits into that equation.

I guess where I come down is I think we should look at the math, determine what are the surcharges we pay for the current configuration, and then as adults have the conversation if it's worth the ROI.  If we decide it is, drive on.  If we decide it's not and wan't to reallocate those dollars to other items (either within the military budget, or healthcare, education, environment, lower taxes, expanded CPP, etc.), then you start the conversation about how you start making changes.

For the record, I doubt the above ever happens as the powers that be likely have ZERO interest in having that conversation....

For the record, it's his last line that does it for me and shows where his belief lay. I also have zero interest in continuing this further. Our rates aren't lower (certainly not based on my personal operational experience). We are worth it and I am sooooooo glad 99.99999% of my "powers that be" have also moved on into this era right along with us.

I'm done here. I can find the Flinstones on TV.

 

[Journeyman]

While the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'....

  :rofl:  I love that line; awesome.


For statistical purposes, I too took the post by Cdn Blackshirt as being "much ado about nothing" (at best) or RTFO (at worst).

I suspect that his views are informed more by having an axe to grind than operational experience...but that's just how it comes across. I have no desire to compare MPRRs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

To borrow the wise words from another similar thread already in play....

This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting here forever,
just because....

Merge coming shortly.....

 

[officious]

Maybe it‘s just me, but I think it would be really, really wrong to chase tail within your reg‘t... It unbalances things... distracts the soldier.. not a good thing, I assume.

Lol my Dad met my Mom when they were both reservists; they did alright I think.     My Dad was also a Master Corporal maybe a Sergent and she was a corporal at the time. Mind you this was "back in the day" when they could still drive the duce and a half to get burgers.

 

[shuban]

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.

 

[Strike]

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.

You're really on a roll with your posting streak aren't you...

 

[GAP]

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.

  RTFO :rofl:   

 

[daftandbarmy]

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.

Wrong:

"Life was difficult and precarious for both sexes in nomadic Indian tribes, and other commentators felt that the women did not question their role which was essential for survival. However, it did not accord with European notions of femininity for women for women to be strong. The Hudson's Bay Company men found the unladylike strength of Chipewayan women particularly astonishing. On one occasion David Thompson sent one of his strongest men to help a Chipewyan woman who was hauling a heavy sled; to the man's surprise, it took all his strength to budge the load. The Chipewayan themselves took the superior strength of women for granted. As a famous chief Matonabbee declared, "Women... were made for labour; one of them can carry, or haul, as much as two men can do." Samuel Hearne perceived that the Chipewayan  evaluated women by different criteria than did the European. Physical prowess and economic skill took precedence over delicate features:

Ask a Northern Indian, what is beauty? he will answer, a broad flat face, small eyes, high cheek-bones.. a low forehead, a large broad chin, a clumsy hook-nose, a tawny hide, and breasts hanging down to the belt. Those beauties were greatly heightened, or at least rendered more valuable, when the possessor is capable of dressing all kinds of skins, converting them into the different parts of their clothing, and all to carry eight or ten stone in Summer, or haul a much greater weight in Winter."

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~goudied/a_la_facon_du_pays.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The structure of a Man body and a woman body is quite different. If you're are assigning the same job to a female soldier it's quite unfair. It doesn't mean that I am against of woman's participation in army. Woman can join army but there role in army can't be the same which is male soldier doing.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm going to go against the grain here, so please bear with me.


When the olympics hold competitions that are not qualified by gender, and men and women do equally well in all competitions, then I'll believe it that men and women are physically the same.  (Obscure native North American tribes notwithstanding).

Having said that, a few hundred years ago the great equalizer was invented: the firearm.  No longer do infantryman have to be club-wielding brutes, whose effectiveness is guaged by how well they can wield those clubs.  (And swords, etc).  Although infantrymen need to be physically fit, they don't have to be physically strong in the sense that is often portrayed.  So long as they can carry their own kit to survive, plus carry some extra stuff, and then hold, aim and fire a rifle effectively, that person is going to do pretty well.  Yes, the physical fitness standards for infantry are higher than the rest (or at least, they ought to be),  but they are not so high that they would preclude women from attaining those heights.

The real "resistance" by many out there is to the psychological integration of men and women in such situations, where sometimes instinct can cause men to revert to "protectors" of women.  But as far as physical fitness levels (troll notwithstanding), aren't such that only a select few can make it.

 

[armyvern]

I'm going to go against the grain here, so please bear with me.
...

Well put, but that's not going against the grain.

99.99% of us are well aware that males and females are not physically the same. 99.99% of us are also aware that the physical differences do not mean that no females can do "a historically traditional males" job, but just that fewer are able to do so.

Those who are willing and able to do so, should be allowed to do so. That goes for either sex.

Those .01% who have "psychological" issues with females who are able to do the job actually doing so, have their own issues to deal with because it's their own personal problem to deal with  ... not the females.

You'll never catch me arguing that ALL females COULD be employed as infanteers for example, but you won't catch me saying that about all men either. But, if they are willing, then they should be allowed to try. And, if in trying, are found to be physically capable and able, then they along with the men found capable and able should carry on as per normal. If not, then I hope the door doesn't slam either their female or male ass on their way out.