• 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
CDN Aviator said:
:boring:

It is 2011..........

+1.  We've been in two campaigns in the last 5 years involving hostilities (Afghanistan and Libya) and, contrary to the doomsayers down south, we haven't fallen apart.  Can we just give them the right to vote and get on with things....
 
As a woman not in the CF (and no hardcore feminist) I think there are standards for a reason. If you can pass the standards and perform well, why shouldn't you be afforded the chance to serve your country in a way that interests you? Everyone I know feels the same, civilian and military. The only problem is that being the exception and not the rule makes you a bigger target; one poor female soldier can turn into a generalization of all female soldiers.

I mean haven't you ever seen GI Jane? Don't they say something about menbeing the problem, not being able to get over their own predjudices?  ;)

My husband is Armoured and was in Kentucky last year and I guess the women they have in their unit were getting bombarded by questions from the US troops. They just couldn't grasp that there were female tankers. I thought it was funny, just straight out strange that in 2011 it's even a consideration??

I know the American reasoning behind not wanting women in the Forces, but can I ask you what the UK policy is in not allowing it? Just curious, don't think I have ever seen a British perspective on that.

Have a good day!
 
I am a retired gunner officer, and a bit of a military historian. As such I have been asked to write the gunner history of the War in Afghanistan. In my research I have seen it demonstrated time and time again that gender is not an indicator of ability. As you probably know, the first Canadian gunner killed in the theatre was a female. I know of several others who have done very well, including one who was mentioned in despatches for her actions as a forward observation officer during a fire fight. (She is now a battery commander.)

There is an old line attributed to the late Charlotte Whitton, who was the first female mayor of a large Canadian city, "To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."
 
I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"

Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt. 
 
Silverfire said:
I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"

Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt.

This has been done to death, however the answer is because of body composition and physical strength. The standards were validated over a large population sample (250K) so they're very accurate. Let's not turn this thread into a PT standards cluster()#& for once.
 
AFK said:
One of the most interest facts about the Canadian Forces I confess, as a foreigner, is the fact they permit women to join whichever role they like qualify for in the military

Fixed that for you. 

Old Sweat said:
I am a retired gunner officer, and a bit of a military historian.

Just a "bit" of a military historian?  ;)


Old Sweat said:
"To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."

Too true.  In all trades.
 
Robert0288 said:
Standards exist for a reason, If an individual is able to meet/exceed those standards in leadership/fitness/capability etc... I don't care who they are and I would be happy they're on my team.  Gender plays no part in that.


Standards do in fact exist, but generally speaking, for Police, Military and a few other things the standards are different...yet we do the same job.
 
Silverfire said:
I'm assuming this may have been repeated ad naseum, but if men and women can share the same roles within the military, why is there a different PT standard? Is there an actual official reason or is it just, "Thats the way it's always been done and thats the way we're going to keep doing it"

Granted, platoon runs and such were the same length for everyone, but when I did my EXPRES Test women had a lower score to achieve in order to be exempt.

Biggoals2bdone said:
Standards do in fact exist, but generally speaking, for Police, Military and a few other things the standards are different...yet we do the same job.

Those are the EXPRES test standards, which are just general fitness standards required to be in and remain in the Canadian Forces.

They are not indicative of the standards one has to meet during the training that actually qualifies them for their trade, which is the same for both male and female.
 
Here's my best story on this subject:

Years ago,  my department in one of HMC Ships was about 50/50 male/female.  One of the females was a single mother who received zero support from her child's father who was nowhere on the scene (not sure anyone even knew who the father was).  Nevertheless, she was the consummate professional, exceptionally competent (one of the top sailors on board) and had her act together.  Never once did she miss a trip or deployment or try to whine out of them because of her family situation.  i was sorry to see her go when her posting was up.

Because of the nature of how we "manned" ships at the time, each position was tagged as male or female because of bunking issues.  When my model sailor was posted, I received another female.  She lasted a week before the Doc reported to me that the new sailor had a "female" condition, the name of which now escapes me (but essentially permanent menstruation), which although treatable, rendered her "Unfit Sea."  I received another female sailor onboard.  She lasted about ten days before the Doc (who was now rather nervous about approaching me) came to me and told me that the latest sailor was pregnant, which again meant she was Unfit Sea.  I was fit to be tied at this point!

By this stage, we had run out of female sailors of this trade in the area.  We had to re-jig the bunking arrangements in order to bring a male sailor on board.  He lasted longer than his two predecessors (about a year), but in the long run turned out to be quite the scumbag.  He had an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend and outstanding child support orders from both of them.  My attempts to get him to deal with his legal issues proved fruitless and he was eventually removed from the ship in handcuffs by the local constabulary.  Oh, as a tradesman he was slug to boot.

I was a bit jaded at this point and thought to myself what I needed as the ideal sailor.  I had had a wonderful female sailor replaced by two women, one of whom had to leave through no fault of her own and the other who should have used a condom (yes, it was an accident).  In addition to being a slug, the third replacement caused me much grief due to his propensity to father children with different women.  My conclusion?  The ideal sailor from whom one can expect no huge problems?  A eunuch!  Unfortunately, the CF is somewhat loath to make castration a job requirement.  But think about it.  How many leaders out there can think of situations where sex was the root of all evil?  If all your personnel had no interest in sex (and hence no wives, no children, no love triangles, etc), wouldn't life be so much simpler?

Now, to bring this back on topic:  There is no reason women can't fill any job in the CF (well, except Catholic priest, but that's not our fault).  What I've hopefully shown is that leadership grief comes from all areas and that in my case, the man was far worse than any of the women.  I really don't hold the women in this story responsible for the medical issues.
 
PMedMoe said:
Old Sweat said:
There is an old line attributed to the late Charlotte Whitton, who was the first female mayor of a large Canadian city, "To be appreciated a woman has to be at least twice as good at her job as any man. Fortunately that is not too hard to do."

Too true.  In all trades.
In AND out of the military, sadly.

Short and sweet:  in my time training recruits in a Reserve environment (women weren't allowed in the infantry until just after I got out), some of my best and some of my worst soldiers were both men and women - if they met the standard, happy to have them aboard, and if they didn't, it sucked, no matter the genitalia involved.
 
In my experience good female whatevers are as good as good male whatevers. The bad females whatevers are as bad as any other bad whatever.

But I think the idea that women have to be twice as good is bunk. In my experience with anything to do with the federal government they, in all organizations Ive come in to contact with, are just itching to to stick a female on a post and hang her out in front of everybody no matter how pedestrian her accomplishments. The same for minorities. It drives me nuts when I hear "he's a good native cop" or something similar. He's either a good cop or not. Never "good" for being what race he is. I've seen some real crap pumps recognized for nothing other than a good PR story.

The argument I received the last time I was drunk with marines was that they dont care how good women are- they will never be of a high enough ratio in the combat arms to not be a distraction for the 99 % male marines. I dont agree but I have been on courses where having one female was a distraction- it was the fault of the men. Sure. But it was still a distraction- and when "the men" make up 99% I think maybe sometimes decisions are to be made to keep them in line not just so everyone can live their dream of whatever. I see the point of telling guys to suck it up but I also understood this particular view.

Quite frankly Im glad I dont have to care about things like that. My world is pretty cut and dry- youre good or you're not. And its never because of whats between your legs.

My wife put me in an arm bar the other night that I haven't had a man do so well. I was impressed. It was a good arm bar. Not a good arm bar for a woman.
 
Container said:
.... youre good or you're not. And its never because of whats between your legs.
There's a t-shirt slogan there - good one.

Container said:
The argument I received the last time I was drunk with marines was that they dont care how good women are- they will never be of a high enough ratio in the combat arms to not be a distraction for the 99 % male marines. I dont agree but I have been on courses where having one female was a distraction- it was the fault of the men. Sure. But it was still a distraction- and when "the men" make up 99% I think maybe sometimes decisions are to be made to keep them in line not just so everyone can live their dream of whatever. I see the point of telling guys to suck it up but I also understood this particular view.
I'm more optimistic - if you can train someone to run towards gunfire, I think you can train them to treat everyone the same fairly.
 
I agree that good is good, and bad is bad. Regardless of gender...

But honestly I can think of lots of guys that are guilty of basically harassing females because there are only a few around to look at. Moreover, let's not pretend that many females in the CF don't totally play into it - a good number just love all the new found attention, and use it to whatever end they desire.

Among true professionals, I don't think gender is an issue at all. The problem is, not everyone is a true professional. Many (men and women!) just dress like it...
 
Old Sweat said:
As you probably know, the first Canadian gunner killed in the theatre was a female.

Not to be hyper-picky, but "gunner with an artillery tasking" would be more exact - for the history book... ;D
 
Ralph said:
Not to be hyper-picky, but "gunner with an artillery tasking" would be more exact - for the history book... ;D

Explain, please. Did I miss the date of MBdr Mansell's death?
 
Pusser said:
There is no reason women can't fill any job in the CF (well, except Catholic priest, but that's not our fault).
"Catholic Priest" isn't a trade in the CF, nor it is a position; however, if you mean to say "Female Catholic Chaplain", you're wrong.  3 RCR's former chaplain was a RC.  And Female.
 
Wow, well I certainly got a big response here! I'm rather pleased to see that many Canadians honestly aren't as averse to the idea as the UK/US population.. anytime I've seen an American or British teenage girl or young woman in a public forum express a desire to join the infantry or the likes, she tends to either get ripped to shreads or patronised like hell. Like this Yahoo question I stumbled upon today, well its Yahoo Answers but still.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtxWl7leAFs4nHzAFqe8EOYST31G;_ylv=3?qid=20110910121456AA8qiZv

Delaney1986 said:
I know the American reasoning behind not wanting women in the Forces, but can I ask you what the UK policy is in not allowing it? Just curious, don't think I have ever seen a British perspective on that.

The UK is more liberal on what women can do than the US, but the Ministry of Defence currently has a rather vague policy which basically says women "should not be in military jobs where the >primary duty< is to get up close with the enemy and kill him" - which covers infantry, cavalry/armour, special forces (SAS/SBS), the Royal Marines and the RAF Regiment (the latter two are light infantry). But that's as far as the policy goes - women can do the Commando or Pegasus Company (P-Coy) courses, which are supposed to be very ardous (only one woman has done it so far), and earn the right to work alongside the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment but in a support role - so as engineers, combat medics, artillery, etc. Out of random curiousity I've looked up military jobs which are available to women even here in the UK and I've been a bit surprised at what women are banned from doing in the US, like this: http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/multiple-launch-rocket-system-crewmember.html

Anyways, I don't know what the official reasoning is for, but I've heard it's the usual. "Women aren't strong enough", "women aren't aggressive enough", "women are a threat to combat unit cohesion", "men will die trying to save women", etc.
 
I have no issues whatsoever with women in the combat arms trades.  I have (and still do) work with women who are just as good, if not better soldiers, than a lot of the men.  What I do have issues with is the special treatment they seem to inevitably receive.  I've seen PLQ spots go to females (who aren't ready for the course) simply because the regiment wants to have mod 6 qualified females.

It also doesn't do much to help the argument that we are equals when your sitting on a brigade change of command parade and watch a female receive a Brigade Commanders commendation for, and I quote, "having to carry a C6 for an entire exercise because the primary C6 gunner was injured and couldn't finish the ex."  I'm sorry, but she was an RCR and infanteers are EXPECTED to carry GPMG's from time to time.  Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?

Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.
 
RCDcpl said:
Had it been some 220lb 19 year old male do you think any recognition whatsoever would have been given?

Like I said, no qualms with women in any trade i the CF....I would just like to see true equality one day.

So, do you think she asked for it? Or was it a fault of the chain of command to hold up her performance of expected duties as special?
 
Back
Top