Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[WINDWOLF]

Good points Muskrat.

The way i dealt with it was to consider
females as soldiers in uniforms/combats but
as ladies in civies in public.

Tough i know,but worthwhile.They felt that
they were part of the unit & still maintained
the feminim (sp) aspects outside of the unit.

A old time WO once told me " inside the gate
they are soldiers,outside the gate they are
ladies treat them as such whether they
deserve it or not"

As for the mother dieing,that happens to
both sex,s,its part of the job.
Just as bad for her kids as it would be for
a dad not coming home.

And yes most older males are trained &
conditioned to protect females by our
mothers (of all people)& we don,t want to
disappoint momma now do we?
Is it a good thing? sometimes.
Does it seeem cavemanish? oh ya.
Can we change? i sure hope so.

If we can be conditioned as children to treat
everybody the same then future generations
will handle this better than us old cavemen.

These are just thoughts of mine,but what does
a old caveman really know about sexism today?

 

[Cycophant]

Great posts, from both Muskrat and Windwolf.

I‘m incredibly glad to see some of the "older" (and I use the term very loosely) folks have such open minds about this subject.

That takes a fair bit of load off my mind about what I might be getting into, by joining the Canadian Forces family. Whether they be stereotypes of military folks or not, I know it‘s still a possibility you face with any profession. Now, if I can just learn to deal with the "promotion at any cost" folks, and the "I‘m a killing machine" people, I‘ll be all set

 

[muskrat89]

I guess, I didn‘t mean "we the army" - I meant do we, as a society, as a country - want to send women to die in combat? Why? Because they are capable of it? Kids are capable of combat too - look at the resistance fighters, especially Russians, during WWII. If you‘re 65 or 70, and can pass basic training, why shouldn‘t you have the opportunity to serve? How far do we take equality? If there is a disproportionate amount of male casualties on the field, should Commanders take steps, to give females "more opportunities"? Fair is fair, after all. I guess, I honestly don‘t have a concrete opinion. I think the bigger question for us should be not women in combat from a capability point of view, but truly consider it from a societal point of view. Anyway, you made good points too, windwolf.

 

[gate_guard]

OUGrizz,
The atmosphere I‘m referring to goes beyond the swearing and perverted conversations. The atmosphere is the mentality of males to protect females which, in my opinion, can be dangerous should the s*** hit the fan. It is also the potential for relationships between troops which can also be dangerous. I‘m not saying this is a regularly occuring event, but I do know it has happened. Is my view the majority? Probably not. One of my intent‘s in providing my point of view is to show an alternate look at the subject since many of the posts only deal with the physical ability side of the issue. Your point of view has already been presented numerous times and there isn‘t any need to keep rehashing what, in my opinion, is already a non issue (I‘m sure Infanteer would disagree). Hey Dorosh, I‘m still stalking hot chicks.

 

[Jarnhamar]

When i see some questions that people ask on here i get mad. Sometimes i think to myself, **** just read the history. Then i think to myself, whos going to come on a message forum and start reading everything from day one, months and months ago? It would take them hours if not days. No one is going to do that.

Some topics have been argued to death but with out them resurfacing i think we would be hardpressed to always find a new topic. Personally if i think something is dumb or done to death i just dont respond. If no one else does either the person will get the hint.

On that however, i think if someone asks a question they should let it run for a few days and not post 12 more times asking 12 more questions. Save them for a rainy day.

Personally i don‘t think it‘s a good idea to have female soldiers in the combat arms. I can come up with great reasons why not and someone can come up with reasons why. Just my opinion.

The minute the army decided to give females a different standard for males is the minute that females in the military were delt with a disadvantage that will never go away.

 

[humint]

In the end, we need people who can PERFORM WELL under the conditions expected of combat. If they can, than fine. But if not, then they must go. This goes for both men and women. Please note that I am an equal opportunity, liberated, white, heterosexual male from the middle-class suburbs who, on occassion, skateboarded and blew up bugs with firecrackers in his early teens. Why did I add that last bit. Well, I don‘t know, it just sounded good.

 

[McInnes]

I think that there she should be one set of requirments regardless of sex. Males and females should be able to do the same tasks, and in war, will have to. So why does a female have to do less pushups than a male in order to get into basic? DND wants males and females to be treated as equals, but not even DND can do that yet. If a male or female can pass teh requirements, then thats fine, if they cant, they fail. Why give slack *** objectives to some simply because of their sex. they have to do the same bloody thing in the end anways, it doesnt make sense to me at all.

 

[Etown]

I think this is a pretty simple question that gets over debated. Sure, anyone that is able to contribute to the fighting force should be allowed to fight. Now encouraging people who are more of a hindrance (and I‘m not refering to women here) to join the combat arms for purely political reasons, well that just sucks.

Like the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces is too "white". Now does that really reduce it‘s ability to perform? Personally I couldn‘t care if every CF member just happend to be a Cuban immigrant of Portugese decent and were all named Tito, as long as they get the job done.

But that‘s just my opinion... :evil:

 

[762gunner]

Howdy, all. Over time, I‘ve heard all kinds of opinions, one of which is the instinctive reaction of men to want to protect women. Yeah, I‘ve felt that too, but my professionalism (I like to think) stopped me from acting on that (and/or inappropriately).
However, there is an excellent speech Gen Lewis Mackenzie (ret). gave as the keynote speaker at a major event in Toronto several years ago. He was discussing Leadership (ever hear of that word, Generals?) and described this very thing when he was in Sarajevo when it was being shelled. Not knowing what to expect with women in his unit, he seemed surprised and amazed at the professionalism and maturity of his troops as they sat hunkered down together in their bunkers. No "Let me protect you", no "Let‘s go out with a bang", none of that krap.
In the case of the reporter‘s story in a previous post, I don‘t see anything wrong with ocasionally helping someone with a heavy load (teamwork). Wouldn‘t we all help out a buddy that may be a smaller body? As a trucker, I think that a short skinny (is there a better word?) male would have just as hard a time as a short skinny woman locking up a 200 lb. HLVW tailgate six feet in the air.
Point being... the differences between men and women make no difference. If we all work together, do the best each of us can, the differences fade away into insignificance and our professionalism and effectiveness can only increase.

Cheers.
:warstory:

 

[762gunner]

Howdy, all. Over time, I‘ve heard all kinds of opinions, one of which is the instinctive reaction of men to want to protect women. Yeah, I‘ve felt that too, but my professionalism (I like to think) stopped me from acting on that (and/or inappropriately).
However, there is an excellent speech Gen Lewis Mackenzie (ret). gave as the keynote speaker at a major event in Toronto several years ago. He was discussing Leadership (ever hear of that word, Generals?) and described this very thing when he was in Sarajevo when it was being shelled. Not knowing what to expect with women in his unit, he seemed surprised and amazed at the professionalism and maturity of his troops as they sat hunkered down together in their bunkers. No "Let me protect you", no "Let‘s go out with a bang", none of that krap.
In the case of the reporter‘s story in a previous post, I don‘t see anything wrong with ocasionally helping someone with a heavy load (teamwork). Wouldn‘t we all help out a buddy that may be a smaller body? As a trucker, I think that a short skinny (is there a better word?) male would have just as hard a time as a short skinny woman locking up a 200 lb. HLVW tailgate six feet in the air.
Point being... the differences between men and women make no difference. If we all work together, do the best each of us can, the differences fade away into insignificance and our professionalism and effectiveness can only increase.

Cheers.
:warstory:

 

[riggah052]

Bottom line: we all know the risks that could occur when entering a war zone, no matter what your trade is. Anybody remember the maintainence company that got snapped in IRAQ, 12 got captured but only one got recovered alive. Men AND women here troops, all fully capable of filling their trade requirements. Their enemies didn‘t care wether it was a political thing, and when it comes down to it, in war your enemy isn‘t gonna care either.
Many people argue over the reduced standrds for females in the forces, but when it comes down to it, look at EVERYBODY in your individual unit. Can a person do the job or not? When you think about it, there are men as well as women that either can, or can‘t do a job. Anybody with some time in is bound to see this, it‘s hard to miss. To generalise according to ethnic background, sexual prefrence, gender, religon or any other stereotype is wrong.
One of the reasons that I love my trade is that you have no choice but to deal with people according to their strengths and weaknesses. On some occasions it can mean the difference between a job well done and a job, ... well.. done! On other sites it could literally mean the difference between life and death. I‘m not trying to recruit anybody here, but I‘m just trying to provide an insight as to where my views are coming from.

 

[NMPeters]

My mistake. I misread that. Cheers.

 

[Gunnar]

E-town:

Picture your RSM:

Hey! Tito! No, the other one. No, *Corporal* Tito. No, the *tall* Corporal Tito! The *Infanteer*...oh...**** it...I give up....<sobbing>.

 

[onecat]

"So why does a female have to do less pushups than a male in order to get into basic? DND wants males and females to be treated as equals, but not even DND can do that yet. If a male or female can pass teh requirements, then thats fine, if they cant, they fail."

The whole point is that females are built different. Having set of requirments that is based on male strenghts is not fair to the females who join Forces. It might be easy for a male to 50 push up, but for a female that same level might at 35 push ups. They still worked just as hard and do both deserve to be there. Personally I find it funny how so many people bring the requirments and say they most be equal.... because of differences between the sexes... that alone makes its un-equal. I think the Gov‘t should put some research in place and design fair and sex equal tests for the forces.. which can also be used by the RCMP, OPP and other polices. It should be based on tasks, than just number of push ups you can do. And that doesn‘t make it a SLACK requirment.


"I guess, I didn‘t mean "we the army" - I meant do we, as a society, as a country - want to send women to die in combat? Why? Because they are capable of it?"

Well my answer to that question is: why should it be just be men that die in combat, society has a changed a lot in the last 60 years. And the age old and out dated idea that only should do the killing and protecing of society; is one of though ideas that needs to die.

 

[Gunnar]

The whole point is that females are built different. Having set of requirments that is based on male strenghts is not fair to the females who join Forces

Unfortunately, life isn‘t fair. If you have a mixed company of infantry with the proper strength ratios they will be beaten by an unmixed company of infantry with higher *STRENGTH*. (And yes, I know, there are other factors to consider as well). Still, men are physically stronger than women, and when strength counts, perhaps you should be looking at men to fill the role. If there are exceptional women who meet that requirement, great!

I‘m sorry, but I thought the purpose of the armed forces was to defend my country, not to promote gender equality. Why should my side lose because they were carrying enough ammo and equipment for their size/gender when the other side was carrying *enough ammo and equipment to do the job*?


If I‘m lying bleeding in a trench somewhere, I want the guy beside me to be able to pick me up and carry me to a medic. If it happens to be a woman, whatever...I don‘t care. As long as they can do the job.

Equality is not the same as egalitarianism. Under equality, everyone is given a chance to meet a single objective standard. Those that don‘t make the cut are out. Point final.

Under egalitarianism, you jig the standards so that everyone is treated equally, regardless of their particular qualifications or abilities. Then you have people who are given "special allowances" for their abilities...so how long until we have the 3 Mechanized Wheelchair Infantry Brigade?

I‘d rather have the army recognize people for their abilities. It has been suggested (by Heinlein, dunno how true it is) that women make better pilots than men. Okay...then if this is generally the case, I would expect more hot pilots to be women. I‘m OK with this: Can they get the troops and supplies to the front better than anyone else? Fine. Just make sure that men get a chance to *apply* for the job, then wash them out if they don‘t meet the standards of being "the best pilot", not standards of "the best pilot for their gender/ethnicity/linguistic background".

Recognize people for their abilities. Hey, if there was a tactically sound reason to employ a Wheelchair Brigade, I‘m all for it. If you decide that someone who doesn‘t make the cut for infantry would make a hot intelligence officer, great! Just don‘t try to graft people into roles for which they are not suited in the name of equality.


Now, all that being said, I think it is unfair that only dogs are allowed to be "seeing eye" pets. Why can‘t I have a lobster or a fruit bat as my "seeing eye"? Should we change the standards to make it more equal for all the animals to apply :dontpanic: ?

 

[Bringer]

Perhaps the problem lies with the testing criteria. Battles aren‘t won by pushup competitions. Maybe adopting a test involving a ruck march, followed immediately by a live fire test would be a more appropriate way of determining one‘s capability in the Infantry.

If both genders are able to carry the same weight and meet the same time requirements, there is no more cause to say that women are meeting lower standards. As it is now, the lower physical standards females must meet provide a very easy target for anyone debating females in combat roles.

 

[combat_medic]

I‘ve been trying desperately to avoid this topic of debate, but I feel the need to post now.

Yes, I think that standards should be the same. Period. Irregardless of age, gender, ethnicity or otherwise. If you can‘t do the job, then that‘s it, no complaining about quotas, sexism, racism or anything else. A C6 still weighs the same amount whether you‘re male or female, and if you can‘t carry it for a prolonged period of time, you shouldn‘t be in the infantry. This applies to men too.

Oh, and the whole "group cohesion" excuse as to having no women in the combat arms: that same excuse was used 50 +/- years ago when non-caucasian people wanted to join the armed forces. It was believed that it would lead to a breakdown of group cohesion and discipline within the unit. Has that happened? No, and it‘s just the same with women.

I‘ve heard plenty of little girls whine that "I only have to carry 90% of my body weight." Many of these are fellow medics. So what the f%$k use is it if a 98 lb medic can only carry 80 some odd pounds when the average soldier weighs 180? I myself can fireman carry 220lbs, and it‘s my belief that it‘s necessary for me to get MY job done. If I weren‘t capable physically of hacking it, I shouldn‘t be doing it. Period!

If you can do the job, then do it. If you can‘t, then there‘s the door. Don‘t let it hit you in the @ss on your way out.

Oh, and equality is when a women gets turned on her arse for being an idiot just as quickly and readily as a man does!

 

[McInnes]

will you marry me?
jk jk
i think more "girls" should think like you, more down to earth. i dunno, i think i get more feminists going off at me than most ppl. it gets tiring.

 

[WINDWOLF]

Now,everybody just take a deep breath
& do not frag my a$$ over this,it,s just
a thought.

Could the unwillingness of some males to
except females in combat be due to the fact
that they & they alone can conceive?

My wife brought this up when we discussed
what was being said here.I think as a
person / female/mother,she has a valid point.
The species must continue & females are
the pivotal point in this.Sperm can be saved
,but you got to have a place to put it.
(crude,but i don,t know how else to say it.)

This could have started in older times,when
thousands of males would swing axes @ each
other & then go home to repopulate the race
so that they could do it over again in the
generation.

Men,we are not the brightest bulb in the pack.
Give me your thoughts on this premise.

 

[riggah052]

Windwolf;
WRT your message about women being able to bear children, I think that you and yours might be on to something. It certainly would be a powerfull motivation psychologically for protection and or disdain for having women serve. Never thought of that.
As for you MuayThaiFighter I can see that you seem to think very low of some of the opinions expressed here. Keep in mind that it is a DISCUSSION forum, and that we all have an opinion, wether you believe it right or wrong.