GBA+ training
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
Happy Guy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 601
- Points
- 810
I actually went through the course instead of skipping the material and directly writing the test. I'm glad that I did. Most of us tend to pay lip service to courses such as these but as I read into this I learned some new things. Perhaps this is because I am the very proud father of two young females adults that I decided to pay attention.
Remember when the female Officer Cadet complained that her kit didn't fit correctly? Well the proper application of GBA+ probably would have greatly improved the chances of having kit that fits females. We would have probably learned not to develop the combat bra. It is not just about females but diversity too. A growing part of population do not have European origins. The application of GBA+ at the onset for recruiting may help.
Cheers
Remember when the female Officer Cadet complained that her kit didn't fit correctly? Well the proper application of GBA+ probably would have greatly improved the chances of having kit that fits females. We would have probably learned not to develop the combat bra. It is not just about females but diversity too. A growing part of population do not have European origins. The application of GBA+ at the onset for recruiting may help.
Cheers
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Happy Guy said:
What about short slight build males? Or short, husky males? Back to the *its not about females* point I keep making, that people are saying its not only about females and then substantiating that with examples about females only.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Eye In The Sky said:
Unfortunately it's that mentality that disregards that the shoulder and hip ratio of women is different to men, so just shrinking the height of a ruck will not make it fit a woman better.
It's also forgetting that every month (more or less) a woman's body goes through menses so keeping people in the field with only a bush or long flights in a plane with only a curtain for privacy is less than ideal.
It's that a woman's bone density is much lower than that of a man, so they are more prone to stress fractures if they don't have the proper equipment (not all footwear is equal after all).
It's that the first generation Japanese guy that you just recruited is also taking care of his parents, as is the custom, and posting him to the middle of nowhere where there are no other Japanese speakers for his parents to mix with is a recipe for failure and that guy is only going to be in for a minimum time if nothing better comes along. (yes, I understand this is culture, not gender, but some of the things that need to be considered)
Eye In The Sky said:
I gave you a non-just-female example previously.
I get that you didn't like the training and don't think it's of any value. That just tells me you didn't take the training or likely skipped to the test. The web training had plenty of examples that were not just females.
There is going to be some policies that will disproportionately affect women more than men when it comes to the CAF because the gender analysis has always been historically shitty in our organisation catering for the most part to men only because the CAF is predominantly male. The + part adds another element that can include culture, background etc etc
You are not going to get the answer you want here. Probably because we aren't explaining it properly and a combination of you not getting it.
I suggest you go to the GBA+ site and read the FAQ and ressources. If you still don't get it, nothing here will be of any help to you.
For now I get the feeling you're just trolling.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Strike said:
What I am saying it what I said wayyy back earlier in the thread. If this GBA+ training was actually being applied (using the same example, kit fit for females), and was all inclusive for *anyone except the average weight/height male*, the kit considerations would consider other *people* like I'd mentioned; short skinny/short husky men. I didn't say it would NOT include consideration for females, just that only going the "what about females" would stop short. Because short skinny/short husky males have issues with kit designed for "average height/weight males" as well. That's the point. My issue is, in that example of the female cadet, no one goes the step beyond the "maybe this is a problem for females" to the "hey maybe this is actually a problem for some males too, who aren't the average height and weight we are basing this stuff off of". Now its a more comprehensive and inclusive look at the problem. Trust me, I've had enough male subordinates, students, etc that have been short and stocky, etc that also have some real issues with the way kit like rucksacks and manpacks fit. It isn't limited to females and it was a real issue for some people, including males, long before this female Cadet mentioned it. I'm not sure why her question is viewed as some epiphany ???
As for the posting stuff, I think some of this is starting to go down the lines of "anyone who isn't English speaking Caucasian" is going to get some special consideration. What if Pte Johny is looking after his grandmother, because *insert reason here*. Does he get the big F-U because its not on the list of "approved cultural considerations"? I dunno. We're creating a society of special snowflakes. I know people who are forced to go IR because there is no job for their wife, or their kids are in the last years of school, etc. They are given special consideration. I'm having a hard time with the cultural stuff, because it seems to include everyone but Pte Johny, the English speaking fair-skinned guy looking after his grandmother but gets posted to *insert location here* anyways. That isn't the best example but...I've been reading DL material for most of the day.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Remius said:
Actually, no you didn't. I gave you one, after modifying yours a wee bit. Remember? http://army.ca/forums/threads/125436/post-1481484.html#msg1481484
Truth be told? I was in theatre when I did it, and someone who wasn't on the pointy end there came up with some arbitrary date it had to be done by (no idea why, however...). By the time it trickled down to my level, I was just stepping back into Ops after being up for XX hours and completing post-mission *stuff*. I found out this had to be done *ASAP* to meet some dobbers time schedule, so I did it before getting to my rack. All of that considered, I gave it the due attention I felt it was worth at that time. I had bigger and more important fish to fry at that point in time and being 100% swept up and bought into *yet another XYZ program* wasn't even on my list of 'things I really need to care about right now'.
I think someone said it earlier, this might be a beneficial thing at the higher levels. I don't see it being very applicable at the crew/platoon level, to be honest.
Oddly enough, I never said I was asking a question, did I? I am trying to make a point. *If the female cadet raised a question about kit not fitting females right because it is designed for the average male CAF member, then chances are if you asked the NON-average size Males if they have issues with the kit, they also will...and that data can also be added to come up with an even MORE comprehensive solution that takes into account *everyone who isn't an average size male*. Including females and the short skinny/short stocky males.
Why am I making that point? Because people are saying (you included) *its not just about females* and then looking at an issue (in this case, how kit fits) only as it applies to females. And it should be about males other than average size ones, too.
And I say that because I've served with short guys who had a real problem in the field carrying heavy loads in the standard 82 pattern rucks, carrying a radio and ammo and platoon stores etc etc and had the shit torn out of their sides and lower backs etc. I don't know why this question from the female Ocdt is being regarded as some epiphany; half the guys on my CLC in '93 could tell you *the issued kit doesn't fit everyone so well!* after they were humping pers and platoon kit around for XX days.
Seriously, that's the point. It started out at the first with mostly the intention of light humour at the top of the first page and now...
M'kay. :
Short guy who hated the 82 pattern ruck chiming in. There was literally no way to make that fit me with out my back pad being down by my butt. Well actually on top of my butt pack which would have had to be down by my hamstrings to have the ruck flat on my back. No one gave a shit about my problems back then, this only is getting traction now because of gender.
There are a lot of problems, philosophically, with GBA+ but I don't have time to go through them all right now. I'll try and type up a detailed post later.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
There are a lot of problems, philosophically, with GBA+ but I don't have time to go through them all right now. I'll try and type up a detailed post later.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
It seems to me, however, based upon comments posted in various threads, that the CF has taken major steps lately to address the kit-fitting problem for women and short men: stocks of all sizes are approaching, or have reached, non-existence.
Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.
Progress.
Everybody is now equally not provided with well-fitting kit.
Progress.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,046
- Points
- 1,160
You're forgetting men can menstruate too (and women can get prostate cancer). ;DStrike said:
Do the 70 some new genders that popped up mean we need to take Gender Fluid, Gender Bender, Genderqueer and Androgynous people into consideration when planning policies and such?
I find the example of the RMC cadet a pretty good one. Her kit doesn't fit. How viable is it to make rucksacks boots and uniforms for someone who weights 90 pounds? How many 90 pound service members do we have? When there is a shortage of average sized uniforms (won't even mention boots), average sized body armor, rain suits, rucksacks and such how much money should we put into designing and supplying extra extra small or quadruple large sized kit for a small percentage of soldiers?
As far as the first generation Japanese guy, should he get preferential treatment with postings over a Caucasian male because of his culture? It might affect recruiting but I guarantee it would affect morale and not in a good way.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
According to the charter of rights, we cannot discriminate on those factors. So, no. He should not get preferential treatment.Jarnhamar said:
But, let's say the CAF is forming a new unit. Should we not consider the attraction. And retention of first generation Canadians when deciding where to base the new unit? Or maybe this is relevant when we define relocation benefits and the extension of cost coverage to what is typically seen as extended family from a western perspective?
If you understand GBA+ to be special treatment to individuals in specific circumstances, then you probably did not do the training. If you understand GBA+ to be about considering those individuals when developing policy or making decisions that impact on everybody, then you are getting close to understanding GBA+.
I have some time now so I will elaborate on the problems inherent in GBA+.
1. Look at the source. It is the Ministry for the status of women. It's entire mandate is predicted on advancing women's issues. The source comes with an inherent bias.
2. It is called Gender based analysis not outlier bases or human factor analysis. It can claim it is not about gender but if you ask anyone to do a gender based analysis what factor do you think will be at the forefront? You can argue that it shouldn't be this way but by naming it as such it introduces an unconscious bias.
3. Despite claiming it isn't about gender, the coursework goes on the primarily focus on gender. Again, reinforcing a bias.
4. Being that it primarily focuses on gender, it cones of the Status of Women department and that it is routed in the early 90s idea of gender equity, it is no surprise that the focuses on enhancing things for women. This necessarily leads to not focusing what is still the majority of the CAF and that could have unintended consequences down the line.
5. Anyone who doesn't plan for the reality of their staff is a poor leader and should be fired. If someone thinks the 72 percent of CAF members wear a size 8 to 11 boot, so I am just going to buy those sizes they are an idiot. No amount of training can fix that.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
1. Look at the source. It is the Ministry for the status of women. It's entire mandate is predicted on advancing women's issues. The source comes with an inherent bias.
2. It is called Gender based analysis not outlier bases or human factor analysis. It can claim it is not about gender but if you ask anyone to do a gender based analysis what factor do you think will be at the forefront? You can argue that it shouldn't be this way but by naming it as such it introduces an unconscious bias.
3. Despite claiming it isn't about gender, the coursework goes on the primarily focus on gender. Again, reinforcing a bias.
4. Being that it primarily focuses on gender, it cones of the Status of Women department and that it is routed in the early 90s idea of gender equity, it is no surprise that the focuses on enhancing things for women. This necessarily leads to not focusing what is still the majority of the CAF and that could have unintended consequences down the line.
5. Anyone who doesn't plan for the reality of their staff is a poor leader and should be fired. If someone thinks the 72 percent of CAF members wear a size 8 to 11 boot, so I am just going to buy those sizes they are an idiot. No amount of training can fix that.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The first part is reasonable, though not for the reason you state. It shouldn't matter if the soldier is Japanese, if any soldier is looking after their parents that is a consideration that should be kept in mind.
As far as posting someone into the middle of nowhere... Should considerations be made for those who have always lived in a city and therefore do not like the rural life or the rural folks dialect? At what point do we draw the line and say that you knew what you were getting into? Obviously I am not saying we should just simply use that line all the time as there are times where we must take into account a soldiers situation. I just find it bullshit that someone will get a "preferred" posting due to their parents not wishing to live in an area with a low/nil concentration of Japanese speakers.
I know that this next bit is going to be a touchy subject. At what point do we draw the line for "field amenities"? The concern about how good we are at erecting massive immobile command centres has already been brought up. Part of doing the job means that you are going to be away from shower facilities, warm meals and you therefore must be able to look after your personal hygiene. It has been pointed out that we have this habit of dropping blue rockets wherever a decent biv site is and near every occupied defensive position. At what point do we say, "well folks you have all been taught how to properly care for yourselves in the field, go mark your shitters and here's a shovel, tickets and handsanitizer". Perhaps I am swinging too far in the other direction, I just feel that we have become lax towards being able to operate in an AO occupied by a peer (or near-peer as the propagandists like to say) enemy.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
My overall comment on this is we are seeing yet another example of embedding "process" without considering "outputs".
Does anyone really believe that we will be getting sufficient boots (of any size) because we now have another "tick in the box" to add to the planning process? Human factor analysis and ergonomics can be traced as far back as Fredrick W Taylor in the early 1900's, so suggesting we need GBA+ because a female cadet in RMC has ill fitting equipment is, sad to say, crock. Designing equipment for the 95 percentile is decades old science, and we are now in an era where it is both practical and possible to custom tailor equipment for the people who fall outside of the 95th percentile, should anyone be willing to make the time and effort to do so. Human Resources is also a decades old process, so factoring in things like family location, language preferences and so on isn't some arcane new idea.
Frankly, this is resembling self licking ice cream cones like the old "Expres Test", which were "scientifically validated", yet never factored in the basic idea that military equipment like GPMG's don't stop weighing 11Kg just because the person carrying it in your platoon is a woman, or overweight, or is (insert ethnic origin here). It was always sad to see people who had passed being totally unable to function in the field when draped with weapons, ammunition and other gear.
It is long past time that we work our way backwards from what an operationally effective force looks like and needs to be able to do, then build training, testing and standards towards achieving that aim. It is also sad that a statement like that will likely be considered radical by the powers that be in the political or academic world.
Does anyone really believe that we will be getting sufficient boots (of any size) because we now have another "tick in the box" to add to the planning process? Human factor analysis and ergonomics can be traced as far back as Fredrick W Taylor in the early 1900's, so suggesting we need GBA+ because a female cadet in RMC has ill fitting equipment is, sad to say, crock. Designing equipment for the 95 percentile is decades old science, and we are now in an era where it is both practical and possible to custom tailor equipment for the people who fall outside of the 95th percentile, should anyone be willing to make the time and effort to do so. Human Resources is also a decades old process, so factoring in things like family location, language preferences and so on isn't some arcane new idea.
Frankly, this is resembling self licking ice cream cones like the old "Expres Test", which were "scientifically validated", yet never factored in the basic idea that military equipment like GPMG's don't stop weighing 11Kg just because the person carrying it in your platoon is a woman, or overweight, or is (insert ethnic origin here). It was always sad to see people who had passed being totally unable to function in the field when draped with weapons, ammunition and other gear.
It is long past time that we work our way backwards from what an operationally effective force looks like and needs to be able to do, then build training, testing and standards towards achieving that aim. It is also sad that a statement like that will likely be considered radical by the powers that be in the political or academic world.
Similar threads
