• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
KevinB said:
::)

Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.

Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.

We need standards - realistic to the mission.   Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.

Bingo!
    One standard, based on realistic operational needs, for all.  If anyone can meet that standard (regardlessof gender/race/orientation/whatever special intrest I've missed), then they can do the job.  If they cannot meet that standard, let them do something less important or demanding, like serve in the House of Commons or Senate, where their failures will go unnoticed  ;)
 
Men are being subjected to the fluffy-light recruitment stuff too, but their failure and attrition rates are nowhere near the same as women in the infantry from what I understand.

Because the entry tests are suppose to screen out false positives. It may very well be that 80% of men who apply can hack the training and oly 10% of women who apply can, or maybe only 8% of men and 1% of women, if the entry tests were realistic almost all the recruits chosen should still pass.  It has nothing to do with how difficult the training is in absoluite terms.

Lets look at your viewpoint on costs without touching the gender issue. I agree, and I think that ANY course of training that fails more than 10% of candidates is a waste. What is the point of running a course where half the course won't pass? Those who didn't pass should never have been on the course to begin with, it's a sign that your entry standards are inadequate.
 
I can't beleive that someone actually started this thread in the first place, and secondly, that it is actually up for discussion, and thirdly...that I am posting my thought!
I am outraged to think that some people actually think that a woman cannot pull a trigger the same as a man can...yes my index finger works just the same as yours does...and beleive it or not..I can carry my own weapon and gear too. Ok, so I am being a little sarcastic but the fact remains that either you have what it takes or you don't regardless of gender.

Bojangles
 
Plenty of females fought for the Soviets and the Viet Cong and didn't seem to have much problem.
 
I sure as he** don't have a problem pulling my own weight (no one has ever had to help me carry my gear) or hitting my target (almost always marksmen) , and to quote what Bojangles said "i can't believe this thread was even started".

Jane
 
Much as I have no problem with women anywhere, I do question the last two female posters who stated that this thread should not have been started.
If this is truly what you believe then why shouldn't it see the light of day? I for one do not wish it to be "hidden" in the agenda where some people, if inclined, could make things harder for those effected.
Hiding behind " I can't believes, etc" does no one any justice.
 
I don't see a Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? in the Special Forces? in battle?  Thread. I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female, i believe we should have 1 set standard in the military, not 1 for this and 1 for that.

Jane
 
Quote,
I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female

Well if I may ask, then why in the world did you go Artillery?
To use someone else's anology, I know that if I started working down in Merrickville's day care tomorrow, I would be singled out as change usually is.....and pleeeeeease don't tell me there is not one of you that would not look at me funny when you drop your kids off in our/my care.

If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
[I would much rather work in the day care by the way]
 
Anyone here watch SAS: Are You Tough Enough? A woman won that series once, and on the last series there were two women in the top four. Admittedly two or three weeks of SAS intensity does not make a soldier but it sure goes a long way to indicating capability. Look at all of the men they beat out. Tough, extremely athletic men. Some of the forced marches they do are no walk in the park either. You try tabbing across 30 or 40 miles of Brecon Beacons with a 50 pound ruck. I would bet that a significant percentage of Canadian military personal could not do what these people do physically.

If the women can pass the SAME standard that the men pass then let them in. We need all the good soldiers we can find.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Quote,
I don't like to be singled out because i'm a female

Well if I may ask, then why in the world did you go Artillery?
To use someone else's anology, I know that if I started working down in Merrickville's day care tomorrow, I would be singled out as change usually is.....and pleeeeeease don't tell me there is not one of you that would not look at me funny when you drop your kids off in our/my care.
If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
[I would much rather work in the day care by the way]

I joined because i wanted to experiance the artillery not because i wanted to be singled out.I am not asking to be singled out but i am, and no i would not look at you funny if you worked in a daycare.


Jane
 
GIJANE said:
I joined because i wanted to experiance the artillery not because i wanted to be singled out.I am not asking to be singled out but i am, and no i would not look at you funny if you worked in a daycare.


Jane

(your quote)
If I did not want to be "singled out"[your quote] I would grab a wrench and work in the garage down the street.
[I would much rather work in the day care by the way]

so because because i am a woman i should be a daycare worker? or maybe a nurse? or wait how about a stay at home mommy?? You say you have no problem accepting women in the army but you are quick to single me out by saying "why join the artillery"
 
1. The Freshette (since so many were curious) is labeled as the "feminine urinary director". Basically a funnel with a hose. More information here:
http://www.freshette.com/ with pictures and ordering information.

2. I'm surprised that no one has made this corrolation. We have already established that the majority of the men in the military do not support women in the combat arms. We have also established a higher attrition rate for women in the combat arms (though far from the astronomical figures some would lead us to believe). Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the former is part of the cause of the latter? Are there any women serving in combat roles who have NOT been the victims of harrassment, abuse, and other such professional misconduct? Has anyone stopped to think that their outmoded attitudes towards women is partially responsible for so many women leaving? Even if so many claim to have never engaged in an outright attack, the feeling of being made unwelcome in your workplace is difficult to ignore, and I have little doubt that this covert animosity is partially to blame. Yeah, there are women who can't hack it physically, just as there are men who aren't. Raising standards ACROSS THE BAR would fix this. Make the entry standards realistic to the job you'll be performing... problem solved.

3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?

It's a ridiculous argument.
 
combat_medic said:
3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?

It's a ridiculous argument.

People fail those courses because they are very difficult, mentally and physically.  They are elite courses (except basic para) that only the best should pass, as they will be placed in positions where they will be expected to carry out the things they learned under very arduous conditions..  One female officer has passed JTF selection (she was the first last year.. maybe there have been others since??).  Should we invest tons of money for anyone to try out??  It doesn't make sense. 

When soldiers (male or female) request a one of thses courses, it is up to the chain of command to narrow that field down (through PT tests and pre course packages) and send only their best, so that money isn't wasted when a soldier gets injured or fails in the first week because he/she wasnt prepared. 

We aren't talking about SQ/BIQ or Phase 3 (for the officers)!!!!!  A basic soldier or officer who wishes to complete these courses should be given the opportunity.  If they can hack it, and achieve the set standard, then they pass, and can be employed in a Inf Battalion.  Man or woman. 

and Bring your Freshette if you want!!
 
Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".  Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.

combat_medic said:
2. I'm surprised that no one has made this corrolation. We have already established that the majority of the men in the military do not support women in the combat arms. We have also established a higher attrition rate for women in the combat arms (though far from the astronomical figures some would lead us to believe). Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the former is part of the cause of the latter? Are there any women serving in combat roles who have NOT been the victims of harrassment, abuse, and other such professional misconduct? Has anyone stopped to think that their outmoded attitudes towards women is partially responsible for so many women leaving? Even if so many claim to have never engaged in an outright attack, the feeling of being made unwelcome in your workplace is difficult to ignore, and I have little doubt that this covert animosity is partially to blame. Yeah, there are women who can't hack it physically, just as there are men who aren't. Raising standards ACROSS THE BAR would fix this. Make the entry standards realistic to the job you'll be performing... problem solved.

Now, I'm no sociology expert or anything, but I'll pose the question anyways.

I have no doubt that your right, a good amount of females feel uncomfortable in Combat Arms units - I remember seeing that the "re-up" rate after the Basic Engagement was close to nil for Females in the Combat Arms and I can bet that this was a significant factor.

My question is, is this "uncomfortable" feeling of non-acceptance an active effort of "covert animosity" on behalf of the men in the group (get rid of the chick!), or is it something that "comes with the territory" within a small unit that is built around aggression and violence, two traits that engender themselves to the male buildup.

Now, Whites were once uncomfortable with Blacks in their units, but I've argued that this is fixable because it was superficial, based on nothing but social conditioning.  I feel that the difference between Men and Women is real and needs to be addressed; as I said, nature and hormones will make us act in ways that will often overpower rationality.

Perhaps this difference is the reason that women have a hard time breaking into an institution that caters to the aggressive Male disposition (and has been dominated by that since the beginning of Civilization).  I read Ghiglieri's The Dark Side of Man, which made a very compelling argument for violence as an ingrained method of sexual selection in the male species.  I think that a organization that builds itself around this natural dispostion may not be fully compatable with mixing in females.

The reason I'm arguing that non-acceptance is that I think it may be more of an institutional trait.  I feel that if you take these 9 male soldiers and stick them in a Hospital or Fed-Ex, they most likely would be willing to accept a female coworker.  I just don't feel that widespread "feelings of being unwelcome" are based upon most of the men in the CF being overt sexist pigs.  I'm willing to bet the that the very nature of the institution that the small unit is built around has some sort of effect on attitudes.  If this is indeed the reason, is this system able to be altered without affecting capability and the raison d'ete of a fighting force?  I'm not sure, but I don't think Canada's approach in the 90's (open the floodgates, drop the standards, and target women in recruiting) is the right way to go about things.

That being said, I'm still not going to dispute that women have a place in the Army, and since any branch will fight in battle, the combat arms as well.  I've consistently argued that the numbers show it to be a non-issue - if we have to make some accommodations for a handful of females who wish to (and show they are capable of) being Infantrymen, Gunners, Sappers, or Crewman, then so be it - it shows that the Army is truly in-step with Canadian society and it isn't much to ask considering that most women don't want to be in these overtly "Alpha Male" environment.  I'm just concerned with the argument that a good portion of the males in the combat arms have a overt (or covert) agenda to rid their small units of females, and that the discomfort that many women undoubtedly experience is something institutional instead.

3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?

It's a ridiculous argument.

Your right on that one, CM.  As I argued above, in our country everyone is given the chance to, based upon merit, achieve their goals or to "wash out" and fail.  This is the way it should be.
 
Chags: Yes, units should send their best, toughest, smartest, fittest soldiers on the elite courses, and most of the times they do. You know what? They will STILL mostly wash out. They will fail, they will get injured, they will quit. More than half of them. More than half the budget of the course will have been wasted on soldiers who shouldn't have been sent, and didn't pass. By your argument, elite course or not, since men have demonstrated that they are not capable of passing these course more consistantly than they fail them, they should not have the money spent on them in the first place.

I agree in that targetting particular minority groups for recruiting is a lot of money that could be better spent. I still think everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, or to fail.

Infanteer: Yes, I agree that the more agressive tendancies of humanity tend to show themselves more in the military than in civilian life, but aggressiveness is not purely a masculine trait. If you diasgree, tell your girlfriend you've been cheating on her and see the kind of fiery hell she'll unleash on you. Yes, the girls are playing on the boys' field, and do, to a certain extent, need to become 'one of the boys' in order to fit in. Trust me, I can burp and scratch with the best of them, and being aggressive is not a difficulty, but knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman in the military has faced. I can understand how many people don't believe this exists, because they've never been facing the brunt of it, but I can assure you that it's still there.
 
combat_medic said:
Infanteer: Yes, I agree that the more agressive tendancies of humanity tend to show themselves more in the military than in civilian life, but aggressiveness is not purely a masculine trait. If you diasgree, tell your girlfriend you've been cheating on her and see the kind of fiery hell she'll unleash on you. Yes, the girls are playing on the boys' field, and do, to a certain extent, need to become 'one of the boys' in order to fit in. Trust me, I can burp and scratch with the best of them, and being aggressive is not a difficulty, but knowing that there are people who will never accept you or never give you a fair shake because you're a girl is something that's really hard to deal with, and something that virtually every woman in the military has faced. I can understand how many people don't believe this exists, because they've never been facing the brunt of it, but I can assure you that it's still there.

"Aggressive" is alot more then just being mad or pissed off.  As I said, Ghiglieri builds a solid case for aggression (aimed towards committing violence) as a trait dominant in males (not just humans).  This is why most violent offenders, murders, and gang-bangers tend to be men (not all, but most - and psychotics are not considered as they are abnormal).  When you extend these behaviours to the Military, to small units which maintain as their outlook fighting and killing other humans, you build a institution grounded on principles that cater to the Male psyche (hence why War and Fighting has been "Male" tasks throughout history).  Throwing a female in is liable to be affected by this.

Where am I going with this?  I feel that the military will never achieve "seamless" intergration of Males and Females that the government sometimes appears to desire.  I believe that there will always be problems with females facing discomfort do to "opposition" - it is not males simply being "out of touch with the times", it is something institutional.  If the military builds itself around traits that are prevalent in the Male Psyche (which is why men have traditionally been the fighters), then of course women will never simply be "one of the boys".  Nature has equipped humans in a way that makes these difficulties non-addressable - it is like asking women to use a bathroom filled with urinals, and there is no way to build toilets.

That being said, if a female is willing to accept the extra challenges of socializing into such an institution, then Canada should grant them the opportunity to do so.  But I don't think we can realistically expect the attitudes to change at anytime....  :-\
 
I'm a few posts behind here...you guys are too quick (or I'm too slow), but here goes...

I agree 100% with Infanteer in that social engineering is more easily overcome than biology/phyisiology, and that the barriers to full acceptance and harmony of women in the Army, and specifically the Cbt A, is almost totally biological and only slightly social. I would take it one step further and state that this will never be fully overcome, but can be marginalized and 'managed'.  

My main point is this: In my experience, it is the individual, not the gender, that determines whether or not someone is accepted. The female soldeirs/infanteers I have known have generally not been accepted, with one exception. The ones who were not accepted in the group were either unfit, groundsheets, whiners, poor soldiers, or a combo of these.

The one that did fit in quite nicely was switched on and was quick to jump on any female who played the 'gender card'. I think most importantly, she acted like the rest of us. She cursed, told dirty jokes, drank with the boys, acted aggressively towards other troops when challenged, etc. She didn't throw her gender around, threatening complaints. She didn't blame any rough treatment she received by the Staff or other troops on 'harrassment', she sucked it up.....unfortunatley not so for the rest of the females I have known. She seemed to accept that based on the fact that she WAS different, she would be treated differently, but fairly.

I don't care what gender you are, what your race is, or anything else. If you are a good person that I can trust, I will accept you. If you file harrassment charges (unwarranted), rat out other troops, and generally act like a bi-otch, I will shun you. I make no applogies for that.

CM: i just saw your post.....

re:"virtually every woman in the military has faced"

I think it's really important to NOT generalize. I have noticed you have made this claim several times before, but haven't challenged you on it previously. Do you actually KNOW this? Were you part of some secret CF survey? Are you the CF Harrassment Ombudsman (or Ombudswoman)? Please explain how you know what every woman in the CF has faced. If you cannot substantiate this, please stop claiming that every woman has been harrassed or shunned, as it paints a very misleading picture.

Thanks


Hey, I just noticed that I hit 500 posts!
 
Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".  Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.

First off... I am not dumbing the issue down to that! I am simply saying that just because i have a pair of tits doesn't mean I can't do the exact same job that you can do. Can I ask...does the weight between your legs get in the way of you doing your job correctly?
I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started. I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? ....
I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!
 
bojangles said:
Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger".   Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.

First off... I am not dumbing the issue down to that! I am simply saying that just because i have a pair of tits doesn't mean I can't do the exact same job that you can do. Can I ask...does the weight between your legs get in the way of you doing your job correctly?
I am outraged that this thread was even started for one reason....IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE!!! Women were singled out by the very fact that this thread was even started. I agree with whoever it was that stated...(sorry I am not going to go back and check who said it) Why is there no thread that says "Men in the Army? in the Combat Arms? in the Infantry? ....
I have been a competitive boxer for 10 years and kicked my share of male butt around the ring...Not one man has ever sparred with me and then said "Should women be allowed in the ring?" Why Not I say? If I can kick your butt...then maybe you shouldn't be stepping in the ring in the first place....same goes for the Army...If I can do the job, who cares what private parts I have!


Damn! i agree though, all i ask is to be treated like my brother beside me , we all wear the same uniform, and not be judged on how can do my job because i have boobs, i work with mostly men and i have adapted well and learned not to take offence to everything, we do however have our share of Bi-othces who cry harrassment at everything but we are not all like that, i just wish this wasn't an issue with so many :(


Jane

 
Caesar: No, I haven't done a survey of every serving female soldier. I have, however, witnessed such discrimination against women, and have spoken to probably hundreds of currently serving soldiers across the country who have all expressed some degree of discrimination based on gender. I know women who have been bullied out of infantry regiments, others who were ostracized because they wouldn't have sex with their male counterparts, and others who have been threatened in their position because of sexual coersion. This isn't even limited to the Canadian military either. Yes, perhaps every single person who told me this was lying, or I just happened to stumble across those few who have. I still think it's pretty telling evidence. Also notice that I never said that it was everyone. You may also care to read back at the articles citing that woman are not accepted by their peers in the combat arms, and if you need more proof about the gender inequalities in the CF, all you need to is look.

Imagine, as hard as it may be, being a woman in a combat arms unit, and facing a legitimate harrassment complaint. If you report it, everyone around you will think you can't hack it and are crying wolf. If you don't report it, you have to live with these abusive personalities taking advantage of your gender for their own selfish aims. Pretty crappy decision either way, wouldn't you say?

Furthermore, saying that only one woman you have served with is good because she never made a harrassment complaint is a pretty unfair statement, especially considering how many women have come and gone through the regiment and left because of the unfair treatment they received (no names, no pack drill). All these soldiers claim that women are always making complaints against men for no reason, but has anyone stopped to consider that a lot of these complaints are legitimate? That there are women out there who have been sexually propositioned by their superiors? That they have been the victims of physical assault or verbal attacks because of their gender? That their careers have been placed in jeapardy because some outdated neanderthal can't deal with a woman in his unit?

Considering the majority of the CF is comprised of anglo-saxon white males between the ages of 16 and 50, it comes as no surprise to me that they have a hard time believing such discrimination exists, as they themselves have probably never witnessed it, and have probably never been a victim of it.

Finally, what do you believe is an unwarranted discrimination charge? Were you present at the event? Did you inteview the complainants and respondants? Did you sit it on any hearings or charges? Were you privy to all the information, or are just making a summary judgement based on the heresay of a buddy? Talk about jumping to conclusions.
 
Back
Top