- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Good2Golf said:Amongst many others, two things to consider:
1) Does Society have an obligation to provide a breadth of its young members to the military if it wishes to be appropriately supported, or must the military force through whatever means, participation of demographics to feed the CAF that would support Society's demands for the military's understanding and support; and
2) Would it be considered acceptable for a (any) guest speaker to specifically accuse all of the male cadets as being potential rapists, during opening statements? How privileged should the guest speaker's 'privileged platform' be? Could not such unjustified accusations in and of themselves be considered sexual harassment and is that acceptable, whether the speaker is "trying to make a point?" Just wondering.
:2c:
Regards,
G2G
1. In terms of the former, the society feeding a breadth of pers to the army, the only means to do that would be through conscription. If you read the links I posted, or many of the others that are of the same "military-civilian divide" the main premise of many is that a key drawback of the professional force is the loss of diversity and the creation of a warrior caste (which is a seperate debate point). However, at a hypothetical level you could argue that either: A) neither case need be true- some form of mutual understanding and promotion would allow more exposure to the military and could increase recruitment amongst different segments of society. Neither side in this case forces anything. or B) The CAF represents Canadian society and not vice versa. A military that believes that society should resemble it has historically been a dangerous thing and has led to military coups. Personally, I go for A, which was the original point. Some form of mutual engagement, even in "soft" ways of just having civilians see military pers regularly and talk over a coffee would be beneficial. The ability for this to occur in the largest Canadian urban centres is minimal. For example- years ago I was working at the booth of the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. On the way to the Ex I got free coffee at a Timmy's because the worker thought my Navy DEUs (AB at the time) were Metro Police, who got free coffee. At the fair I got multiple surprised people who thought we didn't have a navy and a couple who didn't think we had a military. I also had an 8 year old ask me if I was a veteran (it was remembrance day) so that they could finish a project. Take into account things like the police being called because of reservists doing a BFT and it's clear that the CAF is an alien concept to the GTA and Southern Ontario, which makes up 30% of the Canadian population. How can these people support something in any meaningful way, let alone understand it, if they have zero exposure to it?
2. If Mrs Lalonde started her conversation with an accusation, at what point does that condone RMC cadets, ie- the future leaders of the CAF, acting like a*&holes, stating that alcohol related rape was the woman's fault, telling her that they might listen to her if she "wasnt a woman and a civilian", and cat-calling her LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE DESCHAMPS REPORT. i have talked to RMC pers who were there and heard that she was provocative at the beginning, but I disagree that that gives anyone any licence to act the way they did. There were multiple ways they could have dealt with this. The fact that they referenced alcohol related rape and the woman/civilian divide could be seen as a symptom of the larger sickness RMC was being accused of at the time. They had a choice and made the poorest one. Finally, how can we expect civilians, who only get their information and opinions from media and read this article to maintain a positive view of the military as accepting of women. Quick story- when Maj Gen Whitecross came through a co-worker described how her mother cried when she enlisted saying, "you're going to be raped". Is this an isolated case or a wider issue? the fact that several women in the audience had similar stories leads me to believe that it is likely more widespread than we think.