D
Disturbance
Guest
Get them all out of the combat arms. Make one HIGH standard for everyone and then open the gates again. I am sick of writing the same stuff over and over so I will leave it at that.
E
ender
Guest
Disturbance,
I too am sick of writing the same thing over and over again.
I am in the Combat Arms. I can do my job. I can build a bridge. I can can hump a rucksack and a C6 as well as anyone. I can do 50 pushups. I am a member of my section and have been so for 2 years. I‘ve been through the physical and mental he*ll of an Engineer QL3 in Gagetown. I‘m also female. Doesn‘t make me any less of a soldier.
I don‘t care what the percentages are. I know I can do it, because I have.
Make one high standard. I agree. Anyone who makes it, makes it. Male of female.
I too am sick of writing the same thing over and over again.
I am in the Combat Arms. I can do my job. I can build a bridge. I can can hump a rucksack and a C6 as well as anyone. I can do 50 pushups. I am a member of my section and have been so for 2 years. I‘ve been through the physical and mental he*ll of an Engineer QL3 in Gagetown. I‘m also female. Doesn‘t make me any less of a soldier.
I don‘t care what the percentages are. I know I can do it, because I have.
Make one high standard. I agree. Anyone who makes it, makes it. Male of female.
H
Harry
Guest
Thank you Ender.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
(here‘s another perspective, from Britain):
Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:26 GMT
Women soldiers ‘face frontline ban‘
Many women want to be able to fight
Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a study found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the Human Rights Act.
But a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average male soldier, the newspaper says.
The study also suggests women are up to eight times more likely to be injured.
‘Barred from units‘
The MoD is already facing a number of compensation claims from women who were injured during "unisex" basic training, introduced four years ago.
The paper says Mr Hoon‘s decision would mean women could keep serving in units in wartime as long as they did not risk close combat.
This will bar them from special forces, commando units and armoured regiments.
The Independent says the report was based on an "exhaustive" series of tests.
Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a colleague for 50 yards.
Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the newspaper reports.
Saturday, 30 March, 2002, 02:26 GMT
Women soldiers ‘face frontline ban‘
Many women want to be able to fight
Female soldiers will not be allowed to fight in the frontline after a study found they were not physically capable, it has been reported.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will make the announcement in the next fortnight, according to the Independent newspaper.
Many ministers and activists want women soldiers to be eligible for frontline duty, with others believing the current ban breaches the Human Rights Act.
But a Ministry of Defence report, entitled Combat Effectiveness Gender Study, has found fewer than 2% of female soldiers are as fit as the average male soldier, the newspaper says.
The study also suggests women are up to eight times more likely to be injured.
‘Barred from units‘
The MoD is already facing a number of compensation claims from women who were injured during "unisex" basic training, introduced four years ago.
The paper says Mr Hoon‘s decision would mean women could keep serving in units in wartime as long as they did not risk close combat.
This will bar them from special forces, commando units and armoured regiments.
The Independent says the report was based on an "exhaustive" series of tests.
Soldiers under 30 had to carry 20kg of equipment and their rifle while running a mile and a half in 15 minutes, as well as carrying a colleague for 50 yards.
Not one of the female soldiers were able to complete this task, the newspaper reports.
M
mlabonte
Guest
Take a look at this site...
go to :
http://www.d i c k inson.edu/~lessards/Page4.html
thanks
(ed. Unfortunately the automated profanity editor has played havoc with this URL - you‘ll probably have to manually type in the offending four letters ... MB)
go to :
http://www.d i c k inson.edu/~lessards/Page4.html
thanks
(ed. Unfortunately the automated profanity editor has played havoc with this URL - you‘ll probably have to manually type in the offending four letters ... MB)
P
Pugil
Guest
Canada is the only Nato country that allows women in the combat arms. A recent study made by the Mod in Uk confirms that women in combat arms would unbalance the group cohesion giving more risks than assets.
http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=1723
http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=1723
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
And here‘s another study that proves the opposite:
"Army researchers came up with a new study that concludes that, when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man. The report by the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don‘t need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape. They were unaware that their performance might eventually be used to topple one of the last citadels of bias against women in both the military and society. The 24-week training study began in May 1995 with women spending 90 minutes a day, five days a week, building themselves up for endurance tests. They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders. Nationally certified trainers oversaw the conditioning. Improvement of over 33 percent was noted by the scientists who wrote the report.Nearly concurrently with this test, the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain conducted the same kind of study. The Sunday Times of London reported that "by using new methods of physical training, women can be built up to the same levels of physical fitness as men of the same size and build." The British article also notes that "contrary to the view of many traditionalists, the operational performance of groups improve greatly if both sexes are involved."
"Army researchers came up with a new study that concludes that, when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man. The report by the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don‘t need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape. They were unaware that their performance might eventually be used to topple one of the last citadels of bias against women in both the military and society. The 24-week training study began in May 1995 with women spending 90 minutes a day, five days a week, building themselves up for endurance tests. They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders. Nationally certified trainers oversaw the conditioning. Improvement of over 33 percent was noted by the scientists who wrote the report.Nearly concurrently with this test, the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain conducted the same kind of study. The Sunday Times of London reported that "by using new methods of physical training, women can be built up to the same levels of physical fitness as men of the same size and build." The British article also notes that "contrary to the view of many traditionalists, the operational performance of groups improve greatly if both sexes are involved."
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,042
- Points
- 1,160
"when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man"
I think the physical part is only have of the argument though, maybe not even. Personally i think the major conflict is simply biased opinions and that guys are not always keen on letting girls in their brotherhood (for lack of a better term). Some guys, myself included, are uncomfortable working with women. A male is not even allowed to not talk with a female co-worker (for whatever reason). He HAS to talk to her, other wise it‘s creating a poisonous work enviroment. I think thats unfair, some people you just do not like and don‘t want to talk with but since in this case it would be a female that sends up the warning bells. The CF is so **** bent on weeding out harassment and complaints that they are actually putting females in a bad position. Girls can physically and mentally do the same job as guys (if their prepared for it) but the few trouble makers really do a lot of damage against both genders working together.
I think the physical part is only have of the argument though, maybe not even. Personally i think the major conflict is simply biased opinions and that guys are not always keen on letting girls in their brotherhood (for lack of a better term). Some guys, myself included, are uncomfortable working with women. A male is not even allowed to not talk with a female co-worker (for whatever reason). He HAS to talk to her, other wise it‘s creating a poisonous work enviroment. I think thats unfair, some people you just do not like and don‘t want to talk with but since in this case it would be a female that sends up the warning bells. The CF is so **** bent on weeding out harassment and complaints that they are actually putting females in a bad position. Girls can physically and mentally do the same job as guys (if their prepared for it) but the few trouble makers really do a lot of damage against both genders working together.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I‘m a bit with you and a bit against you on that one. Yes, there should be girl guides and BOY scouts... there should be men and women‘s sports teams, and men and women‘s health clinics. There‘s a place for gender separation, but I don‘t think the military is the place for it. Yes, the problem arises when the "old boys", for a lack of a better term, have an objection to women being there, and create problems where there aren‘t any. Also, you have the forced integration where underqualified people are being placed into positions to fill quotas, causing resentment among the people there before.
So what about ethnic minorities in the military? What about homosexuals? I‘m sure a hundred years ago, when you had to be of british descent to join the military, that the same reasons were given for ukranians not to join, or natives, or asians, or whoever it was.
That being said, I also think that there are a lot of women who take advantage of the lower standards to get into the military, and use things like quotas to get into difficult, dangerous positions in which they‘re not qualified to be. They then will piss and moan about standards, and equality, and "I want to be the first woman ______ ". BUT, if you‘re qualified, if you can do the job, and you can handle it without differences getting in the way, then you should do it... no matter if you‘re male, female, gay, straight, white, purple, green, or a circus midget on stilts with an AK47.
But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
So what about ethnic minorities in the military? What about homosexuals? I‘m sure a hundred years ago, when you had to be of british descent to join the military, that the same reasons were given for ukranians not to join, or natives, or asians, or whoever it was.
That being said, I also think that there are a lot of women who take advantage of the lower standards to get into the military, and use things like quotas to get into difficult, dangerous positions in which they‘re not qualified to be. They then will piss and moan about standards, and equality, and "I want to be the first woman ______ ". BUT, if you‘re qualified, if you can do the job, and you can handle it without differences getting in the way, then you should do it... no matter if you‘re male, female, gay, straight, white, purple, green, or a circus midget on stilts with an AK47.
But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
P
Pugil
Guest
I know that in the regular Royal 22ième Regiment the have like 5 to 6 women in their regiment and they put them in the same battalion, the 2nd of R22R. The reason why is that because women tend not to stay more than a 3 years contract if there are less than 25% of their peers of the same sex in the trade or unit. Another reason is that the 2nd battalion is known by the reg Vandoos to be the weakest of all the 3 battalions in term of battle readiness and they are also the "guards" in red scarlett. So the high ranking Vandoo officers keep the 1st and 3rd strictly to men and the 2nd is open to all women that pass battleschool.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
So what you‘re saying, Pugil, is that even if a woman is qualified and capable, she‘d be put in the worst place so that there‘s no chance of her doing anything interesting?
No wonder they leave after 3 years... wouldn‘t you?
No wonder they leave after 3 years... wouldn‘t you?
P
Pugil
Guest
The 2nd R22R train less harder and have a lower standard than the rest of their sister battalions. There is a real reason to all this, the Vandoos dont want women in their unit that is why they put all of them in 1 battalion. Those are the words coming from most of the Vandoos I worked with.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,042
- Points
- 1,160
"But that‘s just my opinion, I could be wrong"
Your opinion can never be wrong combat_medic, it‘s yours after all. YOUR point of view.
I don‘t think what Pugil said was HIS specific point of view, he was just relating on how they set it up and why. They put the females together because it‘s easier for them to have to her females in their platoons/company then being the only girl per company, this way it makes them stand out less, even if just a little.
Also it helps then in a way i think if their in a "weaker" battalion for the sole fact that if a guy drops out of PT, big deal he had a night of drinking or hes a little out of shape, if a girl drops out then everyone talks about it, rumors start, they question her soldier abilities.
Its not fair at all but thats just how it goes unfortinuatly.
Filling quotas is just wrong on every level.
This summer in pet a female private with about a year in was made 2IC of the kitchen staff over male corporals of 3 and 4 years because someone thought it important to have a female in the chain of command. From day 1 that took away respect from the senior corporals and lowered moral in the whole staff. Thats not really much of a point though eh, just a side line story i guess :blotto:
Your opinion can never be wrong combat_medic, it‘s yours after all. YOUR point of view.
I don‘t think what Pugil said was HIS specific point of view, he was just relating on how they set it up and why. They put the females together because it‘s easier for them to have to her females in their platoons/company then being the only girl per company, this way it makes them stand out less, even if just a little.
Also it helps then in a way i think if their in a "weaker" battalion for the sole fact that if a guy drops out of PT, big deal he had a night of drinking or hes a little out of shape, if a girl drops out then everyone talks about it, rumors start, they question her soldier abilities.
Its not fair at all but thats just how it goes unfortinuatly.
Filling quotas is just wrong on every level.
This summer in pet a female private with about a year in was made 2IC of the kitchen staff over male corporals of 3 and 4 years because someone thought it important to have a female in the chain of command. From day 1 that took away respect from the senior corporals and lowered moral in the whole staff. Thats not really much of a point though eh, just a side line story i guess :blotto:
C
canada
Guest
this summer on an unnamed course, we had two very distinct ethnic minotitiy troops. After the word came down that big brass was going to be there the two top troops lost thier positions as no 1 and 2 and who do you think got the awards? top on course and top shot, we the troops knew what happened, nothing was said to us...how thats for equal?
As for women in the cbt arms, there need to one standard and no slack shown, for anyone, if they can perform to the standard then fine, I‘ve meet a few very good female troops...and a lot of really poor ones, its just frustrating. Espically for people who work thier hardest and try to be the best soilder they can be to have doggers, wiether they be female or male.
-Just my thoughts :evil:
As for women in the cbt arms, there need to one standard and no slack shown, for anyone, if they can perform to the standard then fine, I‘ve meet a few very good female troops...and a lot of really poor ones, its just frustrating. Espically for people who work thier hardest and try to be the best soilder they can be to have doggers, wiether they be female or male.
-Just my thoughts :evil:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I‘m not sure what you mean by this.... " a male is not even allowed not to talk a female co-worker". Why wouldn‘t you talk to her while your working? I‘ve worked with lots of people that I dislike, but I still talk if i‘s related to work and to make the work enviroment friendly. What signals does that send when you just never say anything to someone your working with day and day out. We all want to enjoy our day at work.
I‘ve never had a problem working with women, but I know some who do... but hey it‘s real world and guess what women are in it, get use too it. Women make up 50% of population and the Military need women if it‘s wants to grow and be respected by Canadians at large. Lower standards just so women can get in the combat arms is wrong, but is making them so hard that only a few women get in: when its not needed for job.
I‘ve never had a problem working with women, but I know some who do... but hey it‘s real world and guess what women are in it, get use too it. Women make up 50% of population and the Military need women if it‘s wants to grow and be respected by Canadians at large. Lower standards just so women can get in the combat arms is wrong, but is making them so hard that only a few women get in: when its not needed for job.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,042
- Points
- 1,160
What i ment is that i do not have the privilage of choosing NOT to talk to a female soldier if i dislike her. I don‘t mean specifically work related, i mean sitting around work making idle chat, relaxing in the mess.
Theres certian male soldiers i don‘t like and i don‘t talk to them, they don‘t talk to me. if they went up the chain of command and complained i wasn‘t "making friends with them" so to speak he would get laughed at. With a female it‘s harassment. I just don‘t like the double standard.
I refuse to put on a friendly face and act buddy buddy around someone who i think is a poor soldier or who does not act professionally. I find it two faced almost. I do my best to make everyone comfortable but theres also a limit.
Theres certian male soldiers i don‘t like and i don‘t talk to them, they don‘t talk to me. if they went up the chain of command and complained i wasn‘t "making friends with them" so to speak he would get laughed at. With a female it‘s harassment. I just don‘t like the double standard.
I refuse to put on a friendly face and act buddy buddy around someone who i think is a poor soldier or who does not act professionally. I find it two faced almost. I do my best to make everyone comfortable but theres also a limit.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
If any of you watched the documetary on Afgahnistan and the one shot in the Chanook you would have seen a woman with the men flying into the op.
So if they whant to try combat arm‘s let them but if they can‘t do the job be honoust with them and tell them and let them go but if they can let them stay and all the power to them.
So if they whant to try combat arm‘s let them but if they can‘t do the job be honoust with them and tell them and let them go but if they can let them stay and all the power to them.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sorry man, I wasn‘t sure how you meant it, and I didn‘t to imply anything by it. i can understand what you mean now, I thought it was just while you on the job...not at the mess and during relax time. That is unfair, and there be a double a standard for it. I can see why in the past they might of needed a rule like that, to stop the old boys ( sorry not sure what what word to use here) from closing ranks and totally shutting out any women who joined.
This is a messy topic though. My opinion is that most the people who don‘t want women in combat come from it though a sexist view point. Now before I get jumped on, I;m not saying everyone does, and there are good points being made. The fact that CF has the trades open is a good starting point.
This is a messy topic though. My opinion is that most the people who don‘t want women in combat come from it though a sexist view point. Now before I get jumped on, I;m not saying everyone does, and there are good points being made. The fact that CF has the trades open is a good starting point.
Similar threads
