cesare753 said:
So basically you took everything I said and interpreted it as a sexist slur.
PLEASE.
I have ZERO problems with women in the CF, more thread specifically Combat roles, in fact my best military friend IS a female, we've been on every course together so far and are good friends civie side too.
I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is
a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out and
b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses but of course, this argument will always be interpreted as "I'm just a sexist male that isn't tolerant of women in the CF" so what ever.
Oh please,
whatever. Don't back-pedal now.
Here's your original post:
cesare753 said:
I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.
I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.
But what do I know?
Interestingly, in your original argument you don't make a single mention of weak men, only weak women. Then you go on to wonder in amazement when you get called on it as to how it could be interpreted as sexist.
Funny you mention the lowering of the trg standards for zero trades, blaming it on those physically weak women ... but have failed to note that there is a significant difference in standards between trades, enviornments and what the minimum fitness requirements are, regardless of gender. Let's get a little serious shall we? There is a significant difference between trades, enviornments in those standards as well...is that the woman's fault too?
You chose to focus on women's standards and blame that for the decrease in overall fitness standards, well I've got news for you; there was a difference in training and fitness standards between trades and enviornments long before those weak women were allowed, as part of the CREW trials, to enter those zero trades.
What's the bottom line in all of this? Stop blaming the girls and get over it already. The vast majority of them bust their asses everyday just like their male counterparts do. The vast majority of them also perform their jobs just as well as their male counterparts do. Percentage wise, I'd say the men are no better off at achieving than the women are either. But enough with your managing to always blame the fact that there are shitty soldiers out there on the fact that women have lowered the standards. That's bullshit. If a soldier is useless and unfit, it's becuase they personally lack the personal drive, determination, initiative and fortitude to become a good soldier ... male or female.
Don't blame the fact you've got a shitty male or female co-worker who made it through the system on me and other women causing a lowering of the standards, blame it on the instructors or supervisors that let him/her get away with hanging around being a shitty soldier.
When they don't meet the standards, deal with it and boot their ass if required...guy or girl. But please, stop blaming the women by excusing the shitty soldier's personal responsibility.
you said sex trade 
