Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[Ruthless4Life]

I know this female that has spent some time in RMC. Just like society, discrimination of any kind isn‘t allowed by law, but again like society, it DOES exist, and it will continue to exist. She told me females in the military are like a minority, and she being as one, there IS discrimination one form or another.

But I‘m not saying she shouldn‘t join. I‘m just saying that it will always exist, but that should not be a reason not to join. It‘s like saying the world is dominated by men, which is true, but that shouldn‘t be a reason why women shouldn‘t try.

 

[combat_medic]

If she did join the Seaforths, she would be the first female infanteer in a while (there aren‘t any currently). As a female (medic) in the Seaforths, I have encountered some poor attitudes about women in the military, but rarely ever from people in the regiment, moreso from former members, and very infrequently at that. You can also PM me if you want to ask any specific questions.

 

[Hookflash]

Selective discrimination (aka, affirmative action) will always be an unfortunate part of our society. For example, women don‘t have to do as many push-ups during the CF fitness exam. That is gender discrimination. There is also some racial discrimination going on when you consider the special treatment given to Native Americans who wish to join the Army.

 

[GrahamD]

Did you know that women are beginning to dominate long distance running?

In case you dont understand, that means there is a trend starting amoung the serious long distance races, that is seeing women placing higher in the standings than men. My girlfriend was telling me about it after she read about it in a running magazine.

In fact, just recently I saw a woman on a talkshow that had just completed a competetive 100 mile race. She won the whole thing, beating every man there.

Anyway, Hookflash, are you American?
We don‘t use the term "affirmative action" here in Canada, nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.

Try "equal opportunity employment", and say "Native Canadian" or more appropriately "First Nations (people/s)"

 

[Cycophant]

nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.

I‘m all for being politically-correct in many ways, but I feel this is going too far. For starters, using the term "America" is still ambiguous. "America" is more than just the U.S.A - it also contains Canada, Mexico, and all of South America too.

Finally, out of the hundreds of "Native Canadians" that I‘ve talked to, not ONE has ever mentioned that they don‘t appreciate the term "Native American" or even just "Natives". Many use the Native term themselves, and many more prefer it, it would seem. So to think that referring to them as "First Nations" people or "Native Canadians" seems somewhat pointless.

 

[Gunnar]

Or better yet, call it "discrimination against qualified people to prove some socialist theory" or "just another Canadian who is legally allowed to demand special treatment based on their race/colour/sex/condition".

Justice is blind. Good hiring policies should be colour-(and sex etc.)blind, provided that specific job-related criteria are met.

Women tend to do better at physical exercise which involves long-term stamina...it takes them longer to warm up, but once they warm up, they‘re like the Energizer bunny. Has to do with the way they‘re built. You want someone to run information over to HQ because you don‘t trust the comms? You want someone to do it all day? Pick a suitably qualified woman.

Men‘s bodies are not built as efficiently: bulky, heavy, corded muscles that waste heat and energy. Still, more muscle mass than women. You want a feat of strength, you go with the guy.

 

[GrahamD]

Well you arent going to convince me cycophant that there are no natives who get offended by incorrect terminology regarding their heritage.

I‘ve spent many years living amoung First Nations people, and I know that some, if not many, get very offended. Political correctness isn‘t there to pacify those who don‘t care that much about it (ie the hundreds you‘ve been talking to) and I know that many indeed don‘t care, but it‘s to pacify the traditional types and the radical types.
They just want some recognition that this is where they came from, that some of the places in this country have been sacred to their heritage for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Plus of the hundreds you talked too, how many did you ask point blank if that particular term offended them?

Gunnar I suspect your opinion was stated for shock value, cause that is nearly the rudest thing I have read in this forum yet, so I‘m not rising to the bait on that one.

 

[Gunnar]

See, I don‘t believe in pacifying people so that they will "feel better". I expect them to behave like adults, and suck it up. Heck, even kids know that "sticks and stones...but names will never hurt me".

It was also a clear message that not everyone agrees with your Politically Correct revisionist thinking. While you and people like you are deciding whether or not people in a free country have the right to express their ideas, or even to be rude, freedom goes down the toilet. So I was making a point, with shock value.

It strikes me that Political Correctness is used to pacify people...people with differing opinions, who aren‘t afraid to state them. People like me. Once everyone totes the party line, there can be no dissension, and people will do what they are told. I mean, what if someone were offended...? Won‘t that be great?

Lèse majesté (not in the sense of treason, but in the sense of questioning others‘ right to make decisions for you) isn‘t a capital crime yet. I do not agree with your ideas, but I will defend to the death your right to have and express them. Let‘s see if you, and the other Politically Correct crowd, will do the same for me. I highly doubt it.

 

[GrahamD]

Actually I am in the process of joining up. I will being defending your rights to freedom of speech and thought, and whatever else soon enough I hope. So don‘t be so dramatic.

I hold the same belief that employment should be based on the induviduals competency, and that the minimum quailifications be equal across the board. However, I also belive in our government, and our government has led us to where we are today. It‘s not just me "and my crowd" who conspired to make some policy to piss of the right wingers. It‘s the majority government, representing the majority of people.

Equal opportunity employment, may or may not take the concept too far in terms of better candidates getting left by the wayside (reverse descrimination), however, without it, many Canadians would be overlooked due to their race/religion/sex, and that is worse. That is not freedom.

We have immigration policies that allow people to continue to settle our country, yet we have so many small minded types running businessess and institutions, that we have doctors and engineers from other countries driving taxi cabs and working in Tim Hortons. (yes I‘ve met some, and discussed it). Yet we cry out that our doctors and engineers are all going to the USA to make better money. It‘s discrimination, it‘s wrong, and that‘s why we have policies to try to make change.

Maybe we should all set our focus on improving the policies to avoid both discrimination and reverse discrimination. If you have valid ideas, and don‘t back them up with radical statements about making women run around all day while men complete their feats of strength, then people will listen.

Send your thoughts to your MP, start a pettition, or basically just get involved. It‘s better than just sitting in here flaming me, especially since my opinion is backed up by the current laws of our country.

 

[Gunnar]

What a fantastic reply. Nice to know there‘s a few people out there who understand the democratic process is one that is supported by the people who vote (and not necessarily by a majority of the population, but by a majority of voters).

As far as radical statements about making women run all day...that wasn‘t the point. The point was that in the physical (and come to think of it, mental) realm, people tend to have certain strengths and characteristics that make them more suitable for specific tasks...and that egalitarianism is not a substitute for recognising these facts.

Nice to know I was heard, even if you don‘t happen to agree with me. Dem‘s da breaks. But you‘re still wrong.

 

[gate_guard]

Gunnar raised a good point. It‘s interesting to look at figures for the number of actual votes in the last election compared to the number of eligible voters. A big difference, check it out for yourself. So if you factor in that half of the actual voters filled in the Liberal box, then you really don‘t have a majority government voted by the majority of the people. This doesn‘t factor in those not eligible, so really this means that a fraction of the population voted Liberal. Now you could argue that maybe millions more would have voted Liberal anyways. True, but millions more could have also voted for the Marijuana party and then we‘d have a big Parliament building hotbox.

Aside from this problem, in my opinion the only people who get their way in Ottawa are those that scream the loudest, not the majority of opinion as it should be. That‘s why you have interest groups, they promote the interests of a small group of people, but ****, do they do it effectively. The problem in this country is that people take on the whole, "I‘m just one voice out of millions, my vote doesn‘t matter." For the sake of argument, a recent poll (although I believe in polls as much as I believe in the easter bunny) found that over half of those polled didn‘t think that gay/lesbian couples should be defined as marriage. I‘m not going to spout off my opinion on the matter. I‘m merely trying to show that it‘s the gay/lesbian groups that are screaming the loudest so they get their way, even if it isn‘t the most popular. And you know what? Good for them, cause it serves the rest of the population right for not having the balls to stand up and voice their opinion either way.

 

[nULL]

Those who support proportional representation as opposed to the FPTP system we have in place now really don‘t understand democracy very well; were Canada to adopt a PR system, the chances of a majority government shrink exponentially. While you may not agree with what the Liberals have chosen to do, at least they have DONE something. Were the Alliance (BOO!) and the Liberals to have 50/50 of the vote, can you imagine just how LITTLE would actually get ACCOMPLISHED?

 

[McInnes]

good point. sometimes poor decisions are better than having a complete dead-lock.

 

[GrahamD]

Someone who chooses not to exercise their right to vote, politically speaking, does not exist. Their opinions and viewpoints are irrelevent babbling. Important only to themselves, and possibly their friends or family who have to listen to them.

So my point still stands up about "the majority of people". I wasn‘t talking about every single Canadian.

While its true that there are probably many non liberals who don‘t bother to vote, it doesn‘t matter. They chose to not have a say, so their opinion doesn‘t count.

Also, I just want to say, it seems to me, that having a PC attitude or liberal type beliefs is just cause for lynching in here. So before anyone freaks out, realise I‘m attacking no one, I‘m making judgements about no one, I‘m just trying to point out a different point of view. It‘s a forum for discussions right?

Besides, it keeps getting insinuated that I am a liberal, but no one even asked me. While I think its obvious I would probably rather die than face my friends or family or myself in the mirror, if I ever voted for the likes of the Canadian Alliance, what may not be so obvious is that I have my own concerns about the Liberals, and I choose to use my vote to let those parties know that they lost at least 1 vote.

The liberals swooped into B.C. and are devouring it like a pack of vultures. It tells you there is something wrong when a prosperous province long dominated by the NDP, falls into economic decay only months after the Liberals show up. I haven‘t been home in about 4 years now, so I don‘t know what the political and economical situation is like anymore, but by word of mouth, it still sounds bad.

 

[gate_guard]

nULL,
At no point did I advocate the implementation of proportional representation. I merely addressed the idea that GrahamD suggested "It‘s the majority government, representing the majority of people." I find this laughable because, as my previous post stated, our majority gov‘t in Ottawa was voted for by a fraction of the population. Now if you were to ask me what I suggest to correct this, I would say whatever it takes to get all eligible voters registered and to the polls. It‘s obvious to me that you‘re a fan of the Liberals (BOO!) and hey, that‘s your right.

Now since you raised the issue, lets look at "proportional representation." I don‘t understand how you get the idea that this voting system undermines democracy. Check the definition of democracy again. It means representation of all people, and thus, all votes. With "first past the post", the only voices who are heard are those that get past the magical number of 50% first, what happens to the rest of the vote? Just because a majority of people voted for one party, do the rest of the votes become unimportant? See, I just don‘t get how you can come to the conclusion that proportional representation undermines democracy. In my view, FPTP has failed to properly represent all of Canada to this point, so wouldn‘t a change be in order? Or maybe you‘re just against progress? You say that proportional representation would result in nothing getting done. Well, the implementation of PR would have to result in a lot more cooperation between parties. Is that such a bad thing? I‘d rather see the Liberal‘s and Alliance bickering and occasionally coming up with a few things that represent Canada as a whole, instead of just the Liberal‘s passing legislation that represents the fraction of the population who voted for them.

GrahamD, so those that don‘t vote are unimportant? You don‘t even include them as part of the population to say that the Liberals have a majority gov‘t. Should we just deprive them of all the benefits of Canadian society? Maybe we shouldn‘t give them medicare, or social insurance, or any public funding. I mean, if their opinions become irrelevant "babbling" because they didn‘t vote, are they even Canadian citizens? I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way. Wow, their political opinions don‘t matter, seems kind of harsh. I think you‘re trying to say that they really shouldn‘t criticize the gov‘t since they didn‘t vote. As much as I agree with this, I don‘t think this should deny them the freedom of SPEECH!

 

[nULL]

One only has to look at the completely different stances of the Alliance/Liberals on Iraq, same-sex marriage, and defence spending to know that on IMPORTANT matters, nothing would get done. I mean, they are completely opposite, representing different segments of Canadian society (in large). And why say I‘m afraid of "progress"? Going to a completely ineffective orm of government isn‘t really a step forward. One only has to look at Canadian government to realize that many politicians in the history of the Canadian government (Cline, Chretien, Trudeau, Diefenbaker) don‘t like to give up ground.

 

[gate_guard]

Please give examples of PR being an ineffective form of government that don‘t include Israel and Italy cause in my opinion, 2 out of like 75 aint bad. PR sure has a better track record than FPTP. I guess you‘ve completely written off politicians ability to compromise and make backroom deals. The way I see it, politics evolves just like everything else in society. FPTP has seen its day and it‘s time to try something new. Again, you really don‘t have any CANADIAN examples of PR being ineffective so why not consider it?

 

[nULL]

Ah, why WOULDN‘T you look at other countries? That‘s the BESY way to approach things; look what others have one, then take the best bits.

Back room deals? Over whether or not to goto war? Over whether or not to support government sanctioned descrimination? That‘s not the kind of country I want to live in.

Why not consider it? Well, let‘s hammer this through; most politicians get elected on their promises, on what they‘ve said they will do with Canadian society. If they have to negotiate with other parties, neither side really "wins" and nobody really gets what they voted for.

 

[Hookflash]

GrahamD wrote:
Anyway, Hookflash, are you American?
We don‘t use the term "affirmative action" here in Canada, nor do we call anyone Native Americans, unless we are speaking about Natives who happen to live in America.

Try "equal opportunity employment", and say "Native Canadian" or more appropriately "First Nations (people/s)"

I am Canadian (thank God). However, I use the phrase "affirmative action" (or "selective discrimination" if I‘m in a cynical mood) because "equal opportunity employment" simply isn‘t accurate. There is nothing "equal" about it. It is discrimination against the majority. It is an attempt to correct past discrimination with yet further discrimination. What‘s next? Will the descendants of rape victims be given the right to rape the descendants of rapists (this may seem ridiculous, but it follows the same logic that is used to justify affirmative action)? If your ancestors stole from mine, do I have the right to steal from you?

As for "Native Americans", the simple fact of the matter is that they *are* living in America (North America, that is). They were not the "First" Nation (perhaps the first in Canada, in wich case it should be "First Canadian Nations"), so that label would be much less accurate. Regardless, people should learn not to get so offended by inaccurate labels, especially when it‘s not intended as an insult.

Finally, I find it interesting that gender neutral language is being forced down the throats of Canadian high-school students, while racial bias (ie, referring to one race as "First Nations" [implying superiority]) is actually encouraged.

 

[GrahamD]

GrahamD, so those that don‘t vote are unimportant? You don‘t even include them as part of the population to say that the Liberals have a majority gov‘t. Should we just deprive them of all the benefits of Canadian society? Maybe we shouldn‘t give them medicare, or social insurance, or any public funding. I mean, if their opinions become irrelevant "babbling" because they didn‘t vote, are they even Canadian citizens? I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way. Wow, their political opinions don‘t matter, seems kind of harsh. I think you‘re trying to say that they really shouldn‘t criticize the gov‘t since they didn‘t vote. As much as I agree with this, I don‘t think this should deny them the freedom of SPEECH!

Ok, I hate having to come back and defend everything I write after it has been completely misconstrued. In this case, I don‘t even see how you could possibly assume that I meant to say anything that you have written down there.

I didn‘t say that people are unimportant if they don‘t vote. And no they don‘t get counted in terms of who has a majority government. The number of seats held in parliament is what determines that. And voters determine which party (and MP) they want to represent their riding, each riding = 1 seat. A voter = 1 vote for their own riding a non voter = 0. So the non voter has removed themselves completely from the political landscape, they no longer exist in the eyes of the politician. They only way to make a difference is by either A.) voting, or B.)At least pretending you are a voter to get a politician to listen to you.

Taking away benefits is rediculous and you are really stretching just to try and make that seem like I could have possibly been insinuating that.
Like I said, they are irrelevant politically. They are normal every day people who contribute to society and of course they deserve every right as a Canadian citizen. They have a right to not vote, it doesn‘t make anyone a bad person, but ultimately, in terms of politics, they really don‘t matter.
They can talk all they want about change in the government, they can have outstanding insight into political matters, and they can throw that all out the window on election day, because talk and insight doesn‘t elect our MP‘s, votes do.

I would hope that instead of writing them off, we could come up with a way of getting them to vote, or at least representing them in some way.

Its called election day, that is their representation, just like the rest of us. They are not some elusive clan of right wingers who will swoop down from their mountain caves and vote in the Canadian Alliance party if only we could figure out a way to coax them out. Trust me, no one is writting off the potential votes that exist amoung the non voters, I hear politicians beg for everyone to come out and vote all the time. But try to have a conversation with your MP about the way things are after telling them that you swear you will never vote once in your life. You‘d find out pretty quick how much a non voting opinion means to a politician.

Lastly, nothing I said has anything to do with free speech. I didn‘t say they shouldn‘t be allowed to talk about politics, or anything else for that matter. Again, I said that politicaly speaking, their input, thoughts, feelings, opinions, all count for 0 votes. That means they counted for nothing. Someone who closes their eyes and votes randomly, has made more of an impact on the way our goverment operates than someone who has been analyzing Canadian politics for 25 years and never votes because there just isn‘t a suitable party to vote for. The more educated and insightful of the two, would have failed to ever make any impact whatsoever, his vote (his say, his opinion) has never been conveyed to our government, and therefore doesn‘t make even the slightest difference.

Do you follow? It has nothing to do with the quality of the induvidual, or their rights to talk about it to whomever they want, and to whomever will listen. They can talk about it for 1000 years and still its irrelevent if they choose to not use their vote to back up their opinion. All the talking = 0, voting = 1.