Gunnar
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 1,030
Well, I think I‘ve stirred up enough sh|t. My work here is done. 
By stifling freedom of speech and expression, I meant the imposition of gender/race neutral terminology to prevent people from being offended. Freedom of speech implies the freedom to offend. This has obviously been misconstrued by some who don‘t read the fine print.
(And further the right to hate speech, although this isn‘t supported by current laws, and most members of society. And since this is a view that will inspire a strong reaction, let‘s just say that I believe that the best way to destroy bad ideas is with BETTER ideas, not by suppressing the bad ideas...suppression makes some people think that maybe Billy-Bob Redneck knows something about the true government conspiracy, whereas if you can read Billy-Bob‘s uneducated dumbassed opinion and compare to better facts and figures, you know that the facts just don‘t support his claim...).
In the last election, a majority of the voting population voted for the Canadian Alliance. But, because of the seat system, the Liberals still won. Liberal by one vote cancels out Alliance by 30000 votes, a riding being a riding. When you tally all the ridings, you get a "majority" Liberal government.
I hope you are somewhat active on the political front. I have always been one of the silent majority, but the amount of mismanagement going on at the Federal level has forced me to become far more political myself. I suppose in a sense by being silent all along, I was asking for it, but so were a great number of others. We really do get the government we deserve.
By stifling freedom of speech and expression, I meant the imposition of gender/race neutral terminology to prevent people from being offended. Freedom of speech implies the freedom to offend. This has obviously been misconstrued by some who don‘t read the fine print.
(And further the right to hate speech, although this isn‘t supported by current laws, and most members of society. And since this is a view that will inspire a strong reaction, let‘s just say that I believe that the best way to destroy bad ideas is with BETTER ideas, not by suppressing the bad ideas...suppression makes some people think that maybe Billy-Bob Redneck knows something about the true government conspiracy, whereas if you can read Billy-Bob‘s uneducated dumbassed opinion and compare to better facts and figures, you know that the facts just don‘t support his claim...).
In the last election, a majority of the voting population voted for the Canadian Alliance. But, because of the seat system, the Liberals still won. Liberal by one vote cancels out Alliance by 30000 votes, a riding being a riding. When you tally all the ridings, you get a "majority" Liberal government.
I hope you are somewhat active on the political front. I have always been one of the silent majority, but the amount of mismanagement going on at the Federal level has forced me to become far more political myself. I suppose in a sense by being silent all along, I was asking for it, but so were a great number of others. We really do get the government we deserve.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GrahamD,
Are you a politician? Cause you seem to have so much info into their psychi. Let‘s put it this way, if I was a politician, I would be greatly concerned with what the non-voter thinks. Mainly due to the fact that if they don‘t like something I do, they just might be instigated to vote next time, and probably not in my favour. I fail to see how a politician could completely right off the importance of a non-voters opinion. You said it yourself, politicians want more people at the polls. But why would they want non-voters there if they didn‘t care about their opinion? Your logic is self-defeating.
And yes, of course I completely exaggerated in my last post, anyone that couldn‘t see that should have their head checked. So to anyone who took me seriously, find a psychologist...better yet, find a psychiatrist, you‘ll need the drugs.
Are you a politician? Cause you seem to have so much info into their psychi. Let‘s put it this way, if I was a politician, I would be greatly concerned with what the non-voter thinks. Mainly due to the fact that if they don‘t like something I do, they just might be instigated to vote next time, and probably not in my favour. I fail to see how a politician could completely right off the importance of a non-voters opinion. You said it yourself, politicians want more people at the polls. But why would they want non-voters there if they didn‘t care about their opinion? Your logic is self-defeating.
And yes, of course I completely exaggerated in my last post, anyone that couldn‘t see that should have their head checked. So to anyone who took me seriously, find a psychologist...better yet, find a psychiatrist, you‘ll need the drugs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"Any female that wants to be combat arms should get their head checked. "
Why would you say this? There is nothing wrong with a woman who wants to joins the combat arms. The days of a male only trade are gone, along with being a cop, a firefighter... and so on. I‘m glad the good old days are gone, there fitness differences and they need to be look at... but most of the reasons people don‘t want women in the combat arms be narrowed down too sexism. Which holds no water with.
The only advice I have to any female who wants to joins, is make sure you have a tough skin and don‘t let the closed minded few keeep you from joining a great trade.
Why would you say this? There is nothing wrong with a woman who wants to joins the combat arms. The days of a male only trade are gone, along with being a cop, a firefighter... and so on. I‘m glad the good old days are gone, there fitness differences and they need to be look at... but most of the reasons people don‘t want women in the combat arms be narrowed down too sexism. Which holds no water with.
The only advice I have to any female who wants to joins, is make sure you have a tough skin and don‘t let the closed minded few keeep you from joining a great trade.
R
radop211tc
Guest
Imho, I never had an issue with fems in the field, where I find the nightmare begins is when guys start getting all bent out of shape because of their presence and start thinking with the wrong helmet.
So, is it the females‘ fault, I really dont think so,however, I have seen some that do take advantage of their added grenade launchers for advancement and it works really well for them.
Tc...
VVV
So, is it the females‘ fault, I really dont think so,however, I have seen some that do take advantage of their added grenade launchers for advancement and it works really well for them.
Tc...
VVV
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You are right, how I reach my conlusions must be totally useless if I am not a politician myself.
Is every instructor in the CF a combat veteran? If not, then how in your opinion do they presume to tell you, the man who demands experience, what to expect when you get into combat. You must tell them off right? Seek out any hint of a flaw in what they are saying and really tie into them. They didn‘t see action for themselves, and it doesn‘t even count to you if the person who taught them was directly involved in combat, if they haven‘t been there themselves and done it for themself then they can‘t possibly know what they are talking about.
Do you think maybe the moon is made of cheese? Since you have none of your own experience walking on the moon, you aren‘t qualified to tell me that it isn‘t, so don‘t answer that. Even if you knew Neil Armstrong, and he showed you pictures, and disscused the surface of the moon with you in detail it doesn‘t matter, until you‘ve seen it for yourself, you will just ignore what the scientists, and astronauts have to say about it.
It‘s funny because I sincerly doubt that you would question your CF instuctors qualifications and the knowledge that they pass along to you. At least not in a confrontational way. Yet you are very confrontational with me in a forum. You‘ve replied to and tried to contradict to everything I‘ve said. I think that says something.
Plus, you don‘t think politicians study demographics and find out who the target groups are for highest voting per capita in that group? And proceed to work their campaign backwards down that list?
Do you think they don‘t have a certain demographic who are likely to be non voters? Not people who couldn‘t get to the polls, or vote when they are mad enough at a party, but people who make choices not to vote? Do you think they take time and money to go and campaign for that group? If your answer is no, ask yourself why you think that would be. Maybe it‘s because they don‘t waste time finding out what the issues and concerns of non voters are.
When you are talking about gaining or losing the power that a political office holds, you are talking about the fundemental drive of a politician. It‘s a nice fantasy to think that each politician cares deeply about every induvidual Canadian, and wants whats best for all.
However common sense and a modicum of education on the subject tells you, that their personal agenda and the needs of the principle voting demographics are what matter to them. If you aren‘t on their list of registered voters, you don‘t even get flyers in the mail, let alone any candidates knocking on your door to discuss their platform.
Could they make a list of many of the residents who are not registered, and go campaign for them? Sure they could. Some Parties do just that, parties like "The Green Party", or "The Marijuana Party". Parties who know that their only hope for a seat anywhere is to try and hit up induviduals who are going to be overlooked by the main parties.
Well you would have a better understanding of "real War" or War as it is called. Thats how people learn. Having information passed on to them. What do you think you just show up on the battlefield and see how things go until you have some experience? Or did someone teach you how to survive and succeed in battle?
Is every instructor in the CF a combat veteran? If not, then how in your opinion do they presume to tell you, the man who demands experience, what to expect when you get into combat. You must tell them off right? Seek out any hint of a flaw in what they are saying and really tie into them. They didn‘t see action for themselves, and it doesn‘t even count to you if the person who taught them was directly involved in combat, if they haven‘t been there themselves and done it for themself then they can‘t possibly know what they are talking about.
Do you think maybe the moon is made of cheese? Since you have none of your own experience walking on the moon, you aren‘t qualified to tell me that it isn‘t, so don‘t answer that. Even if you knew Neil Armstrong, and he showed you pictures, and disscused the surface of the moon with you in detail it doesn‘t matter, until you‘ve seen it for yourself, you will just ignore what the scientists, and astronauts have to say about it.
It‘s funny because I sincerly doubt that you would question your CF instuctors qualifications and the knowledge that they pass along to you. At least not in a confrontational way. Yet you are very confrontational with me in a forum. You‘ve replied to and tried to contradict to everything I‘ve said. I think that says something.
Plus, you don‘t think politicians study demographics and find out who the target groups are for highest voting per capita in that group? And proceed to work their campaign backwards down that list?
Do you think they don‘t have a certain demographic who are likely to be non voters? Not people who couldn‘t get to the polls, or vote when they are mad enough at a party, but people who make choices not to vote? Do you think they take time and money to go and campaign for that group? If your answer is no, ask yourself why you think that would be. Maybe it‘s because they don‘t waste time finding out what the issues and concerns of non voters are.
When you are talking about gaining or losing the power that a political office holds, you are talking about the fundemental drive of a politician. It‘s a nice fantasy to think that each politician cares deeply about every induvidual Canadian, and wants whats best for all.
However common sense and a modicum of education on the subject tells you, that their personal agenda and the needs of the principle voting demographics are what matter to them. If you aren‘t on their list of registered voters, you don‘t even get flyers in the mail, let alone any candidates knocking on your door to discuss their platform.
Could they make a list of many of the residents who are not registered, and go campaign for them? Sure they could. Some Parties do just that, parties like "The Green Party", or "The Marijuana Party". Parties who know that their only hope for a seat anywhere is to try and hit up induviduals who are going to be overlooked by the main parties.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GrahamD,
Okay, first of all, I find it humorous that you seem to try to justify your opinions by spouting off people you claim to know. Very mature. It‘s like me saying, I‘ve talked to numerous veterans about combat and my Dad was in the army and a guy who fought in Vietnam lives down the street, so I know my s*** about being in a real war. Not really the same thing. Secondly, assuming you do have all these contacts and they have given you insight into what being a politician takes, I question their ability to serve the people they represent if they only care about the opinions of those who voted. I highly doubt they would choose to ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population merely because they didn‘t vote. Oh but wait, you said Gordon Campbell...gosh, you‘re right, he could give two sh!ts about what anyone thinks. You took a nose dive when you jumped from "non-voters opinions don‘t have a right to criticize the gov‘t" to "politicians don‘t care what these non-voters think." Keep digging. If your joining the infantry, it‘s good practice.
Okay, first of all, I find it humorous that you seem to try to justify your opinions by spouting off people you claim to know. Very mature. It‘s like me saying, I‘ve talked to numerous veterans about combat and my Dad was in the army and a guy who fought in Vietnam lives down the street, so I know my s*** about being in a real war. Not really the same thing. Secondly, assuming you do have all these contacts and they have given you insight into what being a politician takes, I question their ability to serve the people they represent if they only care about the opinions of those who voted. I highly doubt they would choose to ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population merely because they didn‘t vote. Oh but wait, you said Gordon Campbell...gosh, you‘re right, he could give two sh!ts about what anyone thinks. You took a nose dive when you jumped from "non-voters opinions don‘t have a right to criticize the gov‘t" to "politicians don‘t care what these non-voters think." Keep digging. If your joining the infantry, it‘s good practice.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I don‘t understand why you would bother saying that. I think as long as a female is physically and metally fit for it, then she should go for it if she so desires. There is the argument that having females in a group of males will change the way the males act. But again, that is not to the fault of the female, nor the males in many instances. It is just the way life works. Men tend to have a desire to protect women, and to think with the wrong head from time to time. That does not mean the females should not be allowed into the combat arms, or that they should be treated differently. I think that females and males should have the same PT requirements, and the same chance for promotion based on their abilities, not their sex.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,718
- Points
- 1,160
"I think as long as a female is physically and metally fit for it, then she should go for it if she so desires"
I‘ve found people consintrate on individual rights and freedoms here. What if (and some would say it does) having females in the combat arms will have a negitive overall effect. Ignore for a moment that girls could and do keep up to men physically (sometimes or often). If in the end females in the infantry lowers the effectiveness of the trade is it more important to have .3% or whatever of the females in our military happy OR is it more important to have the most effective army/trade/company possible. It comes down to deciding the good of the few or the good of the many.
I‘ve found people consintrate on individual rights and freedoms here. What if (and some would say it does) having females in the combat arms will have a negitive overall effect. Ignore for a moment that girls could and do keep up to men physically (sometimes or often). If in the end females in the infantry lowers the effectiveness of the trade is it more important to have .3% or whatever of the females in our military happy OR is it more important to have the most effective army/trade/company possible. It comes down to deciding the good of the few or the good of the many.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Absolutly, as I said it is an argument commonly used, and I don‘t mean to say it is not a valid one. There is no actual evidence showing that women are detrimental to the combat arms trades, or that they make no difference at all. I would expect it entirely depends on the people. However, I think it wrong to say that a women is nuts for trying. Right now there are not enough women in the combat arms for the effectivness of the combat arms to be undermined anyways. Perhaps if one day there are enough women, and it shows that having "co-ed" combat units simply does not work, then they should look at making all-female units, or barring then from the trade completly. In today‘s situation and liberal pc atmosphere, I believe that any Canadian, regardless of sex, is perfectly sane for attempting to serve in the combat arms.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Ghost778,
Playing devil‘s advocate here:
If that is the case, females lowering the effectiveness of a unit, maybe it would be a good idea to examine why this is the case. Is it because of all the reasons stated ad nauseum, physically unable, men‘s need to protect women, etc., or is it because people are unwilling to accept that this is a role women should be in. There is a big difference here especially when you have senior NCO‘s so stubborn they refuse to even give women the chance to prove their worth in a unit. They have preconceived notions of what is proper and what is not.
I have seen things improve substantially since 1988 in the way women are perceived in any given trade. Change comes slowly unfortunately (or fortunately).
The fact is, combat arms trades are open to women. They will join and they will pass or fail. For good or bad it is reality.
Playing devil‘s advocate here:
If that is the case, females lowering the effectiveness of a unit, maybe it would be a good idea to examine why this is the case. Is it because of all the reasons stated ad nauseum, physically unable, men‘s need to protect women, etc., or is it because people are unwilling to accept that this is a role women should be in. There is a big difference here especially when you have senior NCO‘s so stubborn they refuse to even give women the chance to prove their worth in a unit. They have preconceived notions of what is proper and what is not.
I have seen things improve substantially since 1988 in the way women are perceived in any given trade. Change comes slowly unfortunately (or fortunately).
The fact is, combat arms trades are open to women. They will join and they will pass or fail. For good or bad it is reality.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,718
- Points
- 1,160
I know it‘s a reality. I don‘t have a problem with it at all. Truth is i think all your points are right. Theres a host of reasons including, and i think it‘s one of if not the biggest one, guys refusing to accept women. Is that wrong? Sure thing. How can you fix that? Kick out anyone who makes a joke? Change is always slow. Guess it‘s like the weather.
My idea on a big fix? Take anyone who abuses the whole harassment/assault stuff and make a brutal example out of them. Hang them up to dry. Both sides use abuse it. Take that out of the mix and things will get a lot better.
My idea on a big fix? Take anyone who abuses the whole harassment/assault stuff and make a brutal example out of them. Hang them up to dry. Both sides use abuse it. Take that out of the mix and things will get a lot better.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I know that women often abuse the fact that they are women working among men, and it is absolutly disgusting. I don‘t have military experiance for this, but civi side, working on the boats (all men), and a female with less experiance will get the job for high ranking positions (like cap. or skip.) over men, simply because they‘re women, and they threaten them with unequal treatment, and sexism. Not to mention that if you piss a female deckhand off, get on her bad side, she can turn around and charge you with sexual harrasement, and you automatically lose your job, you can get your job back after/if the court finds you innocent.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
" Not to mention that if you piss a female deckhand off, get on her bad side, she can turn around and charge you with sexual harrasement, and you automatically lose your job, you can get your job back after/if the court finds you innocent."
It goes both ways: you can always charge her with sexual harrasement if she gets on your bad side. Most women would never use harrasement charges in this way; and ones that are just petty and no different than men who actually do hassasement.
I‘ve worked with women in every job since I was 17 and I‘ve never had these problems that people list here. Its life, when your skipped over for a bonus, a new position its always easier to say it was because she was a women. I‘m sure it happens, but then I‘ve also seen people get positions because they have friends, or know french, or get passed over becuase they were stationed in a smaller unit, what ever.... there 100‘s of reasons why people someone get a position with less experience and not all of them are bad.
It goes both ways: you can always charge her with sexual harrasement if she gets on your bad side. Most women would never use harrasement charges in this way; and ones that are just petty and no different than men who actually do hassasement.
I‘ve worked with women in every job since I was 17 and I‘ve never had these problems that people list here. Its life, when your skipped over for a bonus, a new position its always easier to say it was because she was a women. I‘m sure it happens, but then I‘ve also seen people get positions because they have friends, or know french, or get passed over becuase they were stationed in a smaller unit, what ever.... there 100‘s of reasons why people someone get a position with less experience and not all of them are bad.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Ghost778,
Like I said, I‘m only playing devil‘s advocate:
It‘s unfortunate that things have completely swung the other way where women are being promoted/advanced when they don‘t deserve it. It has gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. I think if you ask MOST women all they want is an equal opportunity to prove themselves and fill a role in the armed forces. I have been equally disgusted with some people, as you all have described, when they use their sex to make other‘s lives miserable and get ahead themselves without putting forth any effort. Ghost, I agree with you as well, I say take both sides and make an example of them.
Like I said, I‘m only playing devil‘s advocate:
It‘s unfortunate that things have completely swung the other way where women are being promoted/advanced when they don‘t deserve it. It has gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. I think if you ask MOST women all they want is an equal opportunity to prove themselves and fill a role in the armed forces. I have been equally disgusted with some people, as you all have described, when they use their sex to make other‘s lives miserable and get ahead themselves without putting forth any effort. Ghost, I agree with you as well, I say take both sides and make an example of them.
S
shaunlin41
Guest
It seems to me that females in combat arms aren‘t the problem but more so that there are to many cave men in the combat arms that need to evolve a little learn to control themselves and join the rest of society. As for females meeting the pt requirement same as men I would ask a question, I did 82 push ups for my physical test so why shouldn‘t everyone else have to do the same as me? How many of you guys would pass the physical then? It‘s a given that everyone is at different physical levels and should always try to improve but everyone should be treated accordingly including females.
Similar threads
