Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[RCR Grunt]

Ah, Vern, you are the master of the quote out of context... I make the same respectful points over and over again and you bat them back at me with misinterpreted information.  I'm done, have a nice thread.

 

[armyvern]

Ah, Vern, you are the master of the quote out of context... I make the same respectful points over and over again and you bat them back at me with misinterpreted information.  I'm done, have a nice thread.

Interesting comment. Your first line. I heard the exact same thing from another soldier in 1 RCR fellow just last night. What are the odds?? Oddly though, in this case, you threw the "are you TCCCs qualified" into the post and told me I was out of my lane. You presumed to know my background and were wrong. That's not me throwing misinterpretation at you. I simply answered your questions. Guess you didn't like the fact that I could. You have a good night too.

 

[vonGarvin]

EVERYONE TAKE A TIME OUT!
Before making any comments about how people misquote you, or this, or that, or whatever, remember that with text communication, body language isn't able to be read.  So what?  Well, it's hard to read people but easy to misread them.  As I was once told, "Attack the plan, not the man" (pun not intended).  So, point/counterpoint is ok.  Calling people out for misreading your quotes is just rude.

That is all, now "what if..."

;D

 

[neko]

Neko, this is being seen the wrong way.  I'm saying it from a combat leader's point of view.  There is a small piece of the team that may negatively affect the completion of a mission; therefore, this small piece must be fixed.  This is not aboout respect or equality or whatever buzz word you wanna use, its about the mission, and the completion of said mission.  If it was a weapon causing the problem, it would be removed.  In this case it is ingrained cultural traits, which cannot be removed so easily, therefore another fix is required.  I'm not saying your not a good soldier, and maybe your comrades have adapted, but how will we know until our worst nightmare comes true?  How will male soldiers react to a wounded, screaming female comrade?  Probably the way they were raised to, possibly to the detrement of the mission.  The comabt arms are not a special boys club that we have denied to women for some cave man like purpose, sometimes equality is just a bad idea.  And my opinion is that this is one of those places.

I do understand where you are coming from; if men aren't performing their jobs properly due to the women being around then the mission is at risk, understood.
I agree the problem must be fixed, however I'm saying that I don't believe it should be fixed by getting rid of the women. As for the comparison to the weapon well, yes if the weapon was faulty it should be removed, however if its causing a problem just because the men don't know how to work with it wouldn't the solution be training for the men? Why get rid of a perfectly good weapon when more training should solve the problem. You've admitted that the problem here is often the men's difficulty with working with women, so fix the men.

 

[Yrys]

You've admitted that the problem here is often the men's difficulty with working with women, so fix the men.

Make sense to me ...

 

[time expired]

Capt.Sensible,thanks for the good advice,I have put away my pugil
stick and feel much better now.However I am not yet finished with this
subject,I think one area of confusion ,is the Israeli study concerning
women ,was a study based on their experience in COMBAT, and it
should not be dismissed as not applying to the Canadian Forces
because theirs is a different culture, are not valid,their culture is much
closer to ours than the Vietnamese for example.If one accepts the fact
that we raise an army to go out a kill our enemies and not to conduct
social experiments then I feel it behooves us to take such information
seriously.The Canadian military has not faced a true combat situation
since Korea and so far I have not heard any pro- contra opinions about
female infantry soldiers from A-stan.Maybe we will be able to prove
the Israeli study wrong.
                                Regards

 

[time expired]

Army Vern,I forgot,Check Shinigami O2s profile,
                                                  Regards

 

[armyvern]

Army Vern,I forgot,Check Shinigami O2s profile,
                                                  Regards

Ahhh, seen. And, thanks.

Vern

 

[Shinigami02]

Keep going, I would hate for this thread to stop because of me.

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

As is said, it's a "touchy" subject. Everyone got their opinion on it. NEVERTHELESS.

I've read some interesting points in regards of social issues, because it's all about it. It's a highly stereotyped social issue(the men only last line of defence) nothingmore. And probably stereotyped physically speaking and i guess i'm not out of my place to say that women are physically(overall avg stamina/strenght) disatvantaged by nature(or correct me if im wrong)?

Quit babbling obout standards, we all know they already are low, they are unlikely to go up and if the army wants to keep up the (wo)manpower...

Link: Center for military readiness(USA) Women in land combat force: http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233 It worthwhile reading.


The other face of the medal would be like Army Vern's american counterpart(look blue text at bottom of page ) myth and idiotic rumors about military women:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html Make lot of sense.


I still think that everyone has the right to bear his own opinions regarding his own experience and values.
And i'll finish with a question, are soldiers ready to pull the trigger to shoot women or children combattants?

 

[Brockvegas]

I've shared my feelings on women in the CF---->

If you're watching my back when we're in the field, I don't give a rat's *** about your plumbing, as long as you're gonna pull that trigger when the time comes!

Same goes for foreign combatants. If I'm staring down the business end of your rifle, I'm not going to stop to check your naughty bits. True, due to the society I've been raised in, I may feel worse about it afterwards, but I would rather feel guilt and come home to my wife, than not come home at all.

 

[stealthylizard]

Try to think of it from the point of view of an enemy as well.  Not so much with the current operations in countries where women's lives aren't valued as much as in the west, but elsewhere.  Imagine as the enemy having to force yourself to fire on a woman....... it may even give a few extra seconds, because of hesitancy, which may come in handy.  The Vietnamese were very briefly brought up but not really expanded upon.  How well did it work for them having both men and women fighting?  From what I have read, it worked to their advantage against the American forces, because of that hesitancy.  (Just asking because I virtually know nothing about that segment of war history, except for a few reading materials, and movies here and there.)  It is apples and oranges, but still........ if they could do it, why the hell can't Canada?  The two cultures aren't that diametrically opposed when it comes to gender.

The physical aspects are the same excuses that were used by many manual labour jobs, such as the oilfield.  For the most part, it still holds true, but the occasional female can still do just as well if not better than a lot of the males of the industry, and the men got over it (for the most part).  The weak ones are weeded out.  It is an entirely different industry, but still relevant due to the prevalent mindset that there are some jobs that women should not partake.

So what if it makes someone uncomfortable.  It might make a person feel the same way to fight beside a male that is different, either through religion, race, etc.  Do you then exclude that "different" person from fulfilling a role in the combat arms?  Hell no !!!(or it would still be off limits to anyone of colour, and in my opinion it is relevant based on feelings of comfort)  The uncomfortable one has to adapt and overcome.

And besides, it is nice to have a woman to look at once in awhile, instead of 100 other men, even if she is already spoken for, or not easy on the eyes, lol.  After a certain amount of time they all look good.  ;D

 

[Ethier]

The physical aspects are the same excuses that were used by many manual labour jobs, such as the oilfield.  For the most part, it still holds true, but the occasional female can still do just as well if not better than a lot of the males of the industry, and the men got over it (for the most part).  The weak ones are weeded out.  It is an entirely different industry, but still relevant due to the prevalent mindset that there are some jobs that women should not partake.

Well I agree if your a woman and can do the job than all the power to you irregardless if some think it could effect how men react to your gender because the reality is that the same could be said about brothers, family or even just good friends.

Now what I don't agree on is the difference in testing among male and female counterparts. Even the different testing for various ages I don't agree on. The reality is that companies whether it be the Forces (I'm not sure if they have different standards based on gender) police forces or others set about a minimum standard that they believe in the bare minimum that is required of an individual to be able to do that job. Now whether your a female, old man or ape, you still need to be able to do that job and should as common sense would be, pass the minimum requirements. Why woman have lower standards is beyond me, I remember going through police foundation in college when we had 26 students of which 7 were female. Now when testing came around, the results were: 14 men passed, 5 men failed - 5 woman passed, 2 woman failed. Now that would seem Ok except that 3 of those woman that 'passed' got scores high enough for 'their' minimum requirement but not high enough for the males standard. Yet all the men that failed had score high enough for the females standard. This baffled me and wasn't right in my books. Not that fact that those men didn't pass when the females did with the same scores but that those woman passed at all. If they can't meet the standards that are set up for the males then they can't do the job, period. Those are only minimum standards. I know for those testing, the woman struggled pulling the 150lb dummy and lacked the strength for the restraining exercise. Now would you want one of those woman that failed the men's but passed the females minimum be your partner if you were a cop when she struggled immensely on the restraining exercise and pull? Don't get me wrong of the 2 that passed the males minimum standard, they were both great for the job and the one did amazing in the testing in which I would have no problem with her becoming a police officer or being my partner for that matter, that woman was capable and I had nothing but respect for her.

All I'm trying to say is that there should be 1 standard for ALL because standards are what show if a person is capable or not of doing a job and mimic what is the MINIMUM requirement to accomplish that job. If you can't even meet the males minimum requirement, your not fit for that job.

Again, I'm not sure if there are different standards for men and woman in the Forces, if not then good but if there are then I don't agree with it. I know there are different standard for ages and that again I don't agree on for the same reasons, minimum standards should not be bias to age, gender or anything else and should simple be a universal tool for determine if an individual can or can not meet the demands of that job.

 

[armyvern]

Ethier,

There's many threads on this site which discuss the minimum fitness standards required in the CF. I think you'd find that the vast majority of us, women included, agree with your sentiments that there should be one standard for all, regardless of age, sex, and trade, or environment.

The Canadian Forces does exist, after all, to defend Canadian sovereignty, by warfighting if necessary, and that is a duty and responsibility we have all sworn to undertake. If the shit hits the fan, no one is exempt from the requirement to man battlefield trenches if necessary; therefore we should all be required to both meet and maintain the very same physical standard required to accomplish this task, should we ever find ourselves called upon by the Government of Canada to do so.

We have experienced like-situations in the past, and should be not be so quick to write-off their ever occurring again in the future; especially in this day and age. The naval clearance divers now employed in army roles in Afghanistan are an excellent example that highlights this necessity.

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

The army is lacking personnel, if they'd put a one-for-all standard. Lot of old soldiers would have to get out, and lot of young to-be soldiers couldn't get in or they'd put a ridiculous standard to fit everyone.

 

[armyvern]

The army is lacking personnel, if they'd put a one-for-all standard. Lot of old soldiers would have to get out, and lot of young to-be soldiers couldn't get in or they'd put a ridiculous standard to fit everyone.

I know some who've gotten out because they couldn't handle the "easier" double standards anymore. They didn't get out because they couldn't meet them, but rather because the standards have dropped sooooooooooo much.

You should meet some of the people they're letting in these days ... certainly makes you think ...

 

[mudrecceman]

Perhaps a visit to F Div at CFLRS would be in order...that will open some eyes.

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

I know some who've gotten out because they couldn't handle the "easier" double standards anymore. They didn't get out because they couldn't meet them, but rather because the standards have dropped sooooooooooo much.

You should meet some of the people they're letting in these days ... certainly makes you think ...

I assume you're not talking about physical standard, i know old or ex-military that had their basics in the  70's, 80's that are disgusted by today's basic training. I'm trying to figure... they had their basics given during the cold war, and i guess there was a trace of the korean war...
They would never wanted to be instructors on basic training, because it doesn't make much sense to them; charter of the individul rights and shit.

Okay maybe our generation is pathetic, we watched pokemons and shit, but we had GI joes and transformers to compensate.
I'm trying to figure what would be the next generation soldier[...]

I'd like you to tell me, "fictive" examples of what would be so poor soldiers, as to get their supervisers hand-in their release. I just don't get it. Not meaning to be arrogant or anything, i just really wonder, i'd met so many nostalgic been-in-germany "old fashioned" mcpl who kept talking about the "old army" and how wonderful it was, overheard 5 CWO who kept bitching about how weak, sloppy and disrespectful were the youngs now. Well, maybe just the typical older people grunting[...] I always had in mind that there's no poor soldiers, only poor leaders.

 

[medaid]

Charter of Rights and Freedoms is NOT crap. It was created for good reasons, and it has had a positive effect on the citizens of this country. But just like any piece of legislation, it can be abused, and that's what has happened in some cases. Obvious.

Believe it or not there are poor leaders AND poor soldiers. Don't kid yourself. If a troop lacks drive and initiative, is it completely the leaders' fault? No, the soldier is also to blame. If they were born a bag of hammers, and after intensive, and careful training and conditioning, they are STILL a bag of hammers, then well there you go. A poor soldier.

 

[mudrecceman]

I always had in mind that there's no poor soldiers, only poor leaders.

I would have to whole-heartedly disagree with this statement.

I have seen and worked with both.  At various levels of the CF rank structure...