Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[Weatherwitch]

Howdy all I have been in the CAF both Reg and Reserves, in the Combat arms and support trades for over 33 years now Back in the Regs again.  I have  seen the implementation of Human rites into the CF and in most cases it has been a good thing.  Women in  combat arms is one of the good things, there are male members of the CF that are useless as soldiers, Crewmen, Gunners  and there are female members that are the same way percentage wise the males have them beat probably cause there are more of them.  It dosn't matter if your male of female when you are called to duty and you answer the call you put your life on the line for Queen and country where ever you are asked to go. I have lost many a friend over the last 11 years in the fields of Afghanistan and every year I morn them all.  In my humble opinion there is no difference. the nostalgic statement of COMBAT ARMS  is the ones who fight is very much pas-say as now the support trades also get put in harms way not maybe in direct combat  but as members of convoys, Aircrew, clerks photographers cooks that are attached  to a Combat unit and share some of the same risks that the Grunts and tankers and even the Guns share.  Yes I am Air Force I served In Afghanistan, Croatia, Cypress on board  Several HMC Ships  both as A soldier carrying a Rifle or a Airman sending up Balloons in support of those service personell carring rifles and dropping Shells on the enemies of my Country and some where female doing their Job with pride and dedication knowing the risks they take to get the job done may lead to their demise the same as the male soldier beside them. Female in combat arms if they do the job with dedication and pride I am all for it.

 

[vonGarvin]

Howdy all I have been in the CAF both Reg and Reserves, in the Combat arms and support trades for over 33 years now Back in the Regs again.  I have  seen the implementation of Human rites into the CF and in most cases it has been a good thing.  Women in  combat arms is one of the good things, there are male members of the CF that are useless as soldiers, Crewmen, Gunners  and there are female members that are the same way percentage wise the males have them beat probably cause there are more of them.  It dosn't matter if your male of female when you are called to duty and you answer the call you put your life on the line for Queen and country where ever you are asked to go. I have lost many a friend over the last 11 years in the fields of Afghanistan and every year I morn them all.  In my humble opinion there is no difference. the nostalgic statement of COMBAT ARMS  is the ones who fight is very much pas-say as now the support trades also get put in harms way not maybe in direct combat  but as members of convoys, Aircrew, clerks photographers cooks that are attached  to a Combat unit and share some of the same risks that the Grunts and tankers and even the Guns share.  Yes I am Air Force I served In Afghanistan, Croatia, Cypress on board  Several HMC Ships  both as A soldier carrying a Rifle or a Airman sending up Balloons in support of those service personell carring rifles and dropping Shells on the enemies of my Country and some where female doing their Job with pride and dedication knowing the risks they take to get the job done may lead to their demise the same as the male soldier beside them. Female in combat arms if they do the job with dedication and pride I am all for it.

??? 

Is English your second language?  If so, please feel free to post in French.  Seriously

 

[Rifleman62]

Obviously, women do not have to be Combat Arms to become casualties of direct enemy action. OEF/OIF has more than enough examples, both ground and air. You cannot be an infantryman, but you can fly them into battle.

At the Warrior Family Support Center at Fort Sam Houston, there are, unfortunately, several females wearing the 101st combat patch, missing limbs.

 

[Rifleman62]

2006: An eighteen year-old Army medic has become the first woman ever to win the Military Cross, one of Britain's highest awards for gallantry in combat.

Private Michelle Norris braved heavy sniper and machine-gun fire from 200 insurgents during a fierce battle in southern Iraq earlier this year, clambering on top of an armoured vehicle to give life-saving treatment to a severely wounded comrade, ignoring the bullets smashing into the turret around her.

It was the first time she had ever been confronted with a casualty on the battlefield.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-422754/Teenage-army-medic-woman-win-Military-Cross.html#ixzz1eLXcVNkM


2009: Kate Nesbitt was awarded the Military Cross for bravery in the field. The Royal Navy Medical Assistant had braved Taliban fire to assist a comrade who was wounded in the neck during a firefight in Afghanistan last March. Kate remained with the wounded soldier, dressed the wound and prevented further haemorrhaging whilst the fight continued around her.

Medical Assistant Kate Louise Nesbitt from Plymouth deployed to Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade and worked in close support with “Charlie” Company of 1st Battalion The RIFLES when she found herself under fire from the Taliban.

Lance Corporal Jon List, 21, was treated for 45 minutes by Able Seaman Kate Nesbitt — under heavy gunfire. He was choking to death on his own blood after a Taliban bullet shattered his jaw.

( Note: I think she is five foot nothing. The pack she carried was as big as her!! )

http://www.1664.org.uk/rnmbr/html/body_kate_nesbitt.html

2010: Acting Corporal Sarah Bushbye, Royal Army Medical Corps, is only the third woman to receive the Military Cross, after running 500 yards under heavy fire to try to save four wounded men.

2011: A 23 year old British army medic who put herself in “mortal danger” to treat a wounded Afghan soldier under heavy Taliban fire has been awarded the Military Cross.

L/Cpl Kylie Watson, from Ballymena, Co Antrim, gave medical care in exposed open ground for 20 minutes.

Her citation spoke of her “immense courage” and “inspiration” to her platoon in Helmand province last year. L/Cpl Watson is believed to be only the fourth woman to receive the MC, the third highest award for gallantry.

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2011/03/british-army-medic-awarded-military.html

 

[Good2Golf]

Obviously, women do not have to be Combat Arms to become casualties of direct enemy action. OEF/OIF has more than enough examples, both ground and air. You cannot be an infantryman, but you can fly them into battle and support them with aerial direct fires...

There, fixed that for you. In the US Army, aviation IS a combat arm.  There are numerous examples of female Attack and Armed Scout aviators in the US Army.


Regards
G2G

 

[vonGarvin]

Rifleman:
That those women aren't extremely brave isn't being disputed by me; however, not a single one of them was even a combatant, let alone in the combat arms.  They were on missions of mercy (God bless them), but it still doesn't argue for, or against, why women should be in a profession where their job is to kill people.

 

[Rifleman62]

T, I agree. I was not arguing the point. Rather indicating, as everyone knows (I guess an initial stupid post!), women are in the thick of it already.

 

[Pusser]

It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, "having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?

Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.

Is this the only thing the commendation was for?  Or was that just the thing that everyone focused on?  Without being able to read the citation, we can't know for sure.  Sometimes folks who are predisposed to a conclusion only pick out the parts of the evidence that support their argument, ignoring everything else.  Furthermore, citations are limited in length and unfortunately, sometimes don't do justice to the actual feat of accomplishment.  Your complaint may be better directed at the writer of the citation than at the individual or the chain of command that awarded the commendation.  A look at the actual case file, which is available to committee that makes the recommendation to the commander, may paint a more detailed picture and clearly show that the commendation was justified.

 

[vonGarvin]

T, I agree. I was not arguing the point. Rather indicating, as everyone knows (I guess an initial stupid post!), women are in the thick of it already.

Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, it still says nothing about going to close with and destroy the enemy.  That's what those on the "nay" side would argue: being in danger is on thing, being in the infantry or the armoured corps is another.

(Engineers and Arty aren't combat arms, they are combat support arms.  Our aviation, in Canada anyway, isn't a combat arm either.  Doesn't mean that the danger disappears if you're not in the combat arms.  The examples you posted above make that quite clear.  But this isn't about being in danger.  This is about killing.  Close up.  Jamming a bayonet into someone's face if necessary, or pivot turning over their trench - with them in it.  That's what it's about.)

 

[mariomike]

Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, <snip>.

There may have been extremely isolated cases of Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) along as unauthorized passengers on bombing operations. I have read of only one in Bomber Command, and none in the USAAF ( that is not to say it never happened ).
In early 1942, German propaganda claimed to have found a dead WAAF in a shot down Sterling. There was a story and photo in the German press. It was seen by a German speaking aircrew POW. But, the WAAF ( assuming the story was true ) was not identified.
 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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....

 

[vonGarvin]

There may have been extremely isolated cases of Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) along as unauthorized passengers on bombing operations. I have read of only one in Bomber Command, and none in the USAAF ( that is not to say it never happened ).
In early 1942, German propaganda claimed to have found a dead WAAF in a shot down Sterling. There was a story and photo in the German press. It was seen by a German speaking aircrew POW. But, the WAAF ( assuming the story was true ) was not identified.

I'm talking about the women on the receiving end of those bombing offensives, staying in the targetted area, bravely, to help the victims.

 

[mariomike]

I'm talking about the women on the receiving end of those bombing offensives, staying in the targetted area, bravely, to help the victims.

Sorry, I misunderstood your original post! I thought you meant female aircrews!  :facepalm:
Of course, as you say, there was great bravery among the rescuers, many of whom were women, on both sides.

 

[RebeccaWalden]

Hi there! I'm looking to join the Canadian Forces as a member of the full-time infantry. I'm a woman and I was wondering what inspired other women to join the CF? Was it the challenge? Teamwork? Travel opportunities? Family member? None of my friends want to join so I'm just looking to hear from some like minded individuals.

 

[AKa]

Rebecca,

I've been in the military for 26 years and I admit that I joined for the free education and the job security.  A family history of service did make it more appealing. 

However, I stayed for the comradeship, pride, and the sheer fun that my career brings.  I can't think of another career that would have given me the variety of opportunities, at home and abroad, that I have enjoyed.  And I can't say that I have felt that my gender has impacted my career. (At least not since 1991.)  My limitations are purely my own. 

I will say that I believe entering into male-dominated trades/classifications is a generally a challenge for a woman.  But the women of my acquaintance who entered the combat arms seem to think that it was worth it.  Listen closely to and apply the advice of those women who did the really tough work of clearing the path.  They can save you a lot of frustration.   

Me, I wanted to be a combat engineer, but calculus and iffy knees made that impractical.  But I can’t really complain as I would not trade my experiences with anyone.

Cheers,

AK

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, just as women were in the thick of it during the Battle of Britain, the Allied Bomber offensive on Germany and so forth, it still says nothing about going to close with and destroy the enemy.  That's what those on the "nay" side would argue: being in danger is on thing, being in the infantry or the armoured corps is another.

(Engineers and Arty aren't combat arms, they are combat support arms.  Our aviation, in Canada anyway, isn't a combat arm either.  Doesn't mean that the danger disappears if you're not in the combat arms.  The examples you posted above make that quite clear.  But this isn't about being in danger.  This is about killing.  Close up.  Jamming a  into someone's face if necessary, or pivot turning over their trench - with them in it.  That's what it's about.)

Now we're talkin' combat arms. I feel all warm and fuzzy all of a sudden, but maybe it's just an arterial bleed...

 

[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....

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 ass. 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.

 

[wildman0101]

thank-you Canadian Aviator.
Woman in the Combat Arm's.
No brob. My MoM was a CWAC.
Served 60 to 66
She could teach you the ranger
stuff having been born on the prarie.
She could set your rifle to snipe cause
she was doin it way way back in the
day on the farm. Think pheasent's
are easy to pop outa the air. Those
greasy machine's ,,,maint,,, using La D Dah
She could field strip not only your rifle,,pistol
and or including your tank and put it back
together blindfolded.. As for the woman
serving today MOM would  say "right-on"
"rock on".So if she is a boot on the ground
anywhere MOM and I are right behind ya
100 %. Cheer's Scoty B

 

[vonGarvin]

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.

PATA can be denied for operational reasons.  But I don't see how MATA/PATA gets into the argument anyway.  And for me, the "argument" isn't about deployability, for if it were, then the thread would be about "women in the Canadian Forces" not "women in the Combat Arms", not even "Women in Combat".

I don't have an opinion either way on this.

 

[Haligonian]

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.