Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[the 48th regulator]

I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.

Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general.

Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?

I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.
Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.


To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.

Do you feel that the combat readiness of the troops that have gone to Afghanistan and will be going are substandard?  If we were to raise the standard, and please explain where this level is, would our casualty rate be much lower?

This should be interesting, oh just to let you know "through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military." just tells us you were sitting on the edge of a conversation in the mess after ex with some of the loudmouths  jawing away.....

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

I care not that women serve in combat roles,FLIP so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered,FLOP even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", UH HUH, YOU ARE I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years. SO ONCE YOU MAKE CORPORAL YOU'RE GONNA QUIT? Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.

Gee, well we had better bring all those lower standard guys and girls back from Afghanistan, why they must just be seeping like crazy!!!

 

[armyvern]

...

I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

...
To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.

....

1)  Obviously, I believe you and your arguement trying to justify women as the cause of CF woes in training standards is right the frig out of 'er; and

2)  If this IS the case, please explain to me how & why, if the standards were indeed lowered to accomodate said females in those trades, then where exactly are the females at? Females make up the majoriy of the Canadian population, and by your reasoning (lowering the standards so women could pass and do those jobs) then females should also make-up the majority of the CF and of those trades. It's been 20 years after all.

Quite simply put, some women who do attempt those courses are failing, just as some men are failing. Why? Because they couldn't meet the standard and thus should NOT be there. Sex really does not matter.

Get over yourself already. Quit blaming women for your problems. We've grown up and carried on; can't you?

Edited to add: Son, I see I've got more time in uniform than you have out of diapers...please, do continue to tell me how it is out here in the real world...I beg you.

 

[KevinB]

More like more time on HLTA that he has in uniform Vern...

 

[Michael OLeary]

I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.

Don’t hide behind the fact that you’re young and try to turn that into those who challenge you being the bad guys.  Man up and present your “proof”.

Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general.

No, it’s your failure to present your message in supportable detail.

Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?

Then explain to me why, when I was platoon commander the mid-1980s, we were releasing soldiers that would not have made it into, let alone survived in, today’s army.  That was long before we allowed women to serve in the combat arms.  You may believe that certain “standards” have been lowered, but you have deluded yourself into missing the point that our expectations for soldiers have dramatically increased.  Why do you think there are so many threads on this site talking about responsibility, education, demands of individual training, fiscal responsibility, etc., etc., etc.  We took in soldiers 25 years ago that wouldn’t get past the Recruiting Centre now.  So please, don’t talk to me about your idea of the “old Army.”

I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

That’s funny, I’ve met women in the combat arms, officers and soldiers, are more than equal to their male peers.  How many have you actually worked with?  Maybe it’s you and your sense of masculine bravado that’s being challenged here, and you want to mask it with big talk about the Army degrading standards.

Why don’t you get over yourself and work on being a better soldier in today’s Army rather than day-dreaming about “good old days” that you have no real experience of.

Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior
NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.

I don’t think you’re sexist, I think you are uninformed, and unwilling to take a realistic view of the Army today.  You mask your own lack of real experience and understanding by parroting empty verbiage and refusing to accept the views of experienced soldiers.

I have seen current units doing more and more complex training than we imagined possible 25 years ago.  I see units constructing ranges now I wouldn’t have dared proposing, and those who know me will attest that I did a fair bit of live fire range work in my time and was always willing to go to the limits of the safety manual as it was published then.  I believe we are already seeing the benefits of NCOs trained under these more demanding and more challenging conditions.  Your knowledge of the evolution of army training over the past few decades is very lacking.

Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.

Can you tell us exactly where the “drop in standards” has been affecting the Army.  It may be just me, but I see an Army which is much more capable than it was 20 years ago, which places greater individual and collective demands on its soldiers and gets more from each one of them.  What is your basis for actual comparison?

And I will state again, 25 years ago we had plenty of soldiers that would not have gotten through the recruiting system today, or survived in the demanding training environment we have today.

To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways. 

And today we take young infantry soldiers, of either gender, instruct them in complex ROE, train then to use a vehicle-mounted weapon system that reaches our 2+ kilometres, and we trust them to make the proper decisions on when and what to engage.

Yup, we’ve lowered our standards haven’t we?

Stop selling your own generation short, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[armyvern]

I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.

.....

To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways. 

Can you please, on my behalf, please pass along to your local experts that those who wear the uniform are part of the DND (The Department of National Defense, who as far as I'm aware, have no minimal fitness standards for their civilian employees) but that our military standards are set by the CF (the Canadian Forces) who would be your actual employer?? The next time they pass on their expertize to you up and comers, they at least might want to get that much right. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Suck back and reload, cesare753.

You have displayed poor judgement and immaturity - but no serious harm done: you'll grow out of both, eventually.

Some of us have a fair amount of service - a couple of people who have responded to you have more years of service than you have on earth.  According to your profile I retired, after 35+ years, before you started grade school.  By now you need to have learned from those smart, experienced and senior people that your views are wrong.  Admit that, put this new knowledge into your internal system and process it - decide that you want to watch, listen and learn to become the best soldier and best person you can be.  Understand that being the 'best' is not related, not even slightly, to sex, age, race, creed and so on - its is all about work, work, work!

Don't worry if Kevin calls you dumb; he says that to me, too; we're all dumb about some things - try to shorten the list of things about which you are ill informed.  In the interim: stop talking about them.

Good luck in your life and your military career.

 

[GAP]

Don't worry if Kevin calls you dumb; he says that to me, too; we're all dumb about some things -

Details please....I don't think Kevin has that big of kahunas!!!  ;D

 

[KevinB]

I said it was a dumb idea for you to pay the bar bill, yet once again -- big difference 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I said it was a dumb idea for you to pay the bar bill, yet once again -- big difference 

Actually, I think it was when I decided to hold forth, very briefly I hasten to add, about  :soldier: small arms.  As I recall I retreated, quickly, to safer ground: policy and strategy.

 

[KevinB]

I'd like to appologize -- while I can get emotional about that topic -- I did not intend any offence.

 

[Danjanou]

I'd like to appologize -- while I can get emotional about that topic -- I did not intend any offence.

You get emotional about who pays bar bills? I've heard that 8)

As to the topic on hand and the pup trying ( and failing) to run with the big dogs here, add me to the list of those who based on his profile  was actually doing this for a living while he was still an evil gleam in his father's eye and who also thinks he's right the frig outta er bye.

 

[Good2Golf]

There are multiple standards out there -- they take not only acceptable physical gender differences into account but also operational employment requirements as well. 

In the end, if the CF on behalf of the GoC says that certain folks are good to go, through either achieving the requisite gender and/or employment requirements, then guess what...they're good to go! 

Hands up, how many men currently serving in the CF can do 80+ on the Cooper's Scale?  Thought so...'nuf said.


G2G

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The majority of the trades in the CF can be done as well by the average military woman as military man.  For the more demanding combat arms, the standards are far higher, and there are fewer women who can make it.  Having said that there aren't all that many men up to the standard either.  Those who can make the standard, of either gender are the tip of the spear, the best steel we have.  The rest of the force is the body of the spear, and just as important, but does not have to be quite as hard as the cutting edge.  I have served with some women who made that standard effortlessly.  I have served with those of both genders who fell short.  Gender is like age, or race, something that is easy to use as an excuse based on individual failures, but utterly irrelevant to the question of wether any specific individual has what it takes.  If they have it, then man, woman, or Polar Bear, slap them in Cadpat and give them a rifle.

 

[McG]

The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?

I suspect you are unqualified to make this connection, and I do not believe this connection to be true.  A lowering of fitness levels in the general population could force the lowering of CF fitness standards just to get sufficient recruits that meet the standard.  Alternately, reduced interest in the CF as a career could result in fewer applicants and the requirement to lower standards in order to meet requirements.

. .  but then again, have standards lowered?  What have they lowered from?  You can get recruited without meeting the standard, but once  you are in you will be trained up to the standard.  The nice thing about standards it that they are documented, so you should be able to provide time lines & quantifiables related to the standards drop.  If you manage to do this, then you might also want to find the proof that it is women's fault that standards have dropped.

As an aside, I find it interesting that your greatest concern is WRT the impact on combat arms.  However, you only talk about the CF fitness standards.  What about the Army fitness standards?  If you look into it, you will find that the BFT has in fact become more comprehensive recently with the addition of several upper body tests (ammo can lift, trench dig) that did not exist before.

 

[ZipperHead]

The majority of the trades in the CF can be done as well by the average military woman as military man.  For the more demanding combat arms, the standards are far higher, and there are fewer women who can make it.  Having said that there aren't all that many men up to the standard either.  Those who can make the standard, of either gender are the tip of the spear, the best steel we have.  The rest of the force is the body of the spear, and just as important, but does not have to be quite as hard as the cutting edge.  I have served with some women who made that standard effortlessly.  I have served with those of both genders who fell short.  Gender is like age, or race, something that is easy to use as an excuse based on individual failures, but utterly irrelevant to the question of wether any specific individual has what it takes.  If they have it, then man, woman, or Polar Bear, slap them in Cadpat and give them a rifle.

I didn't want to jump in on this thread, as it seems to re-hash the same-old-same-old, the above comment struck me as peculiar: where is it dictated that there is a "far higher" standard, officially, for the combat arms??? Generally, yes, for those serving in Land Force units (but not always, it seems) the standard is marginally higher (and some would argue the EXPRES test is harder, though I have only done it once..... 19 years ago, as well as the old 2 x 10 miler, so my recollection is hazy at best) with the 13km ruck march, casualty evacuation (to placate those that hate the term "fireman's carry") and trench dig. 2:26:20 is a ridiculously sufficient amount of time to do this, but some people are near collapse after doing this, and almost demand the rest of the day off after this staggering feat of endurance (sarcasm alert). Of course this is re-enforced by those (usually of a higher rank and/or lower standard of fitness) who insist that "You have 2:26:20, take every last second available". These are what I refer to as "60% soldiers". 60% on any given standard is good enough for them. Well, if you can barely make the 60% standard, under the most ideal of conditions (for 13km march: generally flat terrain, minimal weight, lots of advance notice (in form of "work up training"), water and juice and other refreshments at mid-way point) how would you be able to accomplish the same under realistic conditions. I'll allow those with dismounted combat ops experience (Op's Anaconda, Cherokee Sky, etc) to throw in their 2 cents if they feel that the 13km march standards served them well enough, as I haven't faced combat conditions, myself, other than carrying 100+ lbs in mountainous terrain (G8 security in Kananaskis), although don't think that I am comparing that to what those that went through the ops that I mentioned, but I do know that we had to train well above and beyond the 13km standard for that mission. My point here is that you'll never know what will be expected of you, so you should train for the unknown and unknowable (a tenet of CrossFit, BTW), not to the lowest standard possible. Yes, it's hard. The army (and military as a whole) should be hard. That should keep the deadwood out. Instead, it seems we want them in. Go figure why we have these crises.....

I myself get tired of hearing of how the standard has been lowered, but gosh darn it!!! because of that, we haven't suffered for it, and we're better for it. Sure. If that's your opinion, sleep well at night. I feel that it has dropped, and we as a whole have suffered for it, and nobody can blame women, midgets or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarians, unite!!!) if they themselves are out of shape. Look at yourself in the mirror, and that is who is to blame if you aren't the best that you can be (mentally, physically, morally). I'm tired of people blaming society, the military, their neighbour for what is so readily apparent: take responsibility for yourself. The whole "Those who live in glass houses......" thing.

AL

 

[geo]

Heh... had to do the express test at my return from xmass leave - CDS came out with some wild and crazy idea that all CWOs, Cols (& Lcols in a posn of command) would have to lead by example & do it - regardless of express exemption... sigh!

And with April 1st, the 13Km standard.  Did that last friday.  Alan, you're right! Many thought they deserved the rest of the day off.... while I was "as fresh as a daisy" after a  bit of a clean up in the showers.....

I used my age as a tool to encourage some people my junior to catch up & keep up.  Of 98 to take the fitness test, 96 passed... reasonnable results

 

[medaid]

WOW when did my post become a part of the SUPER thread  I am glad to read some of the more experienced members of the forums bring up interesting facts and points with relations to CF and it's supposed lowered standards.

cesare753... I told you stand by your points man... and admit that you were wrong. I guess once again, people just refuse to listen to logic and lessons learned.

 

[canadianblue]

DND lowered the standards?

When I went through BMQ I thought they were trying to improve the training at the time. As well when I was doing BMQ men and women alike would have to meet the same standard, got yelled at the same, and in general had to go through the same hardships. I wasn't aware that the standard has been lowered that much. You'll have to be more specific in how the standards were 'lowered'?

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

Be specific, and what courses have you done that would give you this kind of insight?

In my own opinion the smartest comment on here with regards to training standards was this one:

What would benifit the CF more than 9 push ups over 19 is identifying the soldiers who fake injuries (especially on BMQ type courses) and punt them right out of the forces. THAT in my opiion is a much bigger drain on training and effectiveness.

In my own humble opinion as long as a person can do their job, and is able to do it then whats the issue. Are these supposed lower standards hurting us overseas, are we unable to do the job given because of these 'lower standards'. I haven't seen it, and so far my biggest gripe with the CF would have to be the MIR commando's who do everything in their power to ensure they don't go on a hectic 3km rucksack march.

 

[Jimmy SG]

No one has posted on this thread in over a month but I have a question. Why when this conversation comes up does the conversation always point out the women who cry to get out of work, or aren't physically fit enough to do the job. I know those women exist and have been unfortunate enough to have to "work" (using the term loosly) with them. However I have also had to work with men who can never get themselves out of bed in time to get to work or shave properly, or again aren't fit enough. It is not a problem that only happens with women. It happens with men too and the problem is in how then chain of command handles them. With all the "rights of individuals' it is not a simple thing to do up the paper required. And again that mountain of paperwork is no different to process a female then a male. the problem is not gender specific.
And as to crying I have seen men do it to get out of work as well, it isn't as effective.