Posted by "Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com> on Fri, 28 Apr 2000 17:58:35 -0400
Gunner, sorry to delay my response like this. I was off-line for a few days
while we packed up the house for this summer‘s move early sale, posted to
Halifax in July. I‘m now established in quarters for a few months and am
back on line.
I agree with you that women deserve the right to volunteer for the combat
arms. Those that do really want to try, they have the heart, or guts if you
prefer, to try and achieve something that still causes a third of the male
candidates to fall by the wayside. Meaford has not seen a lot of female
candidates, the policy is still to try and achieve a critical mass in one
training centre for courses at LFWA TC Wainwright.
I personally feel that the original CREW trial was doomed to failure
because of the recruiting aproach. I‘ve been told that many women were
offered the trial as a means to enroll, with protection for reassignment to
their trade of choice if they failed in the infantry. Not much different a
motivation to participate than some of the misperceptions that we still see
the occasional male candidate suffering under. For the record, the easiest
way for a recruit to get a trade reassignment right now is to request a
voluntary release and go back to the Recruiting Centre to reapply and wait
for an opening in the trade of choice. But I digress.
The bottom line for women in the combat arms is that most women don‘t want
to be there. Mandated objectives for recruiting goals is not going to
change the average teenage female‘s opinion of digging a trench, slinging
105/155 shells or torquing track in the rain. How many of us had that
moment of bitter reflection at O-dark-thirty, hip deep in muck and no
relief in sight that we should have listened to that blue-suited recruiter
trying to get us to a "softer" trade. And we never lost any respect for
those fine soldiers we knew that were culled by the tech trades during the
high volume LOTP era.
I have a high regard for any women with the courage to try to make it in
the combat arms. They at least deserve an equal oportunity to succeed. The
female officers and soldiers I have met from the infantry and artillery
have impressed me with their skill and determination. And the Reserves, who
have an increasing percentage of females in arms units are certainly not
declaring it all a doomed experiment.
As for any perception that lowering of standards most often quoted for
physical fitness standards is linked to women in the combat arms I have
only one question - Why, then, hasn‘t the male candidate pass rate
improved? Woemn in the combat arms and the perceived lowering of standards
is coincidental, the lowering standards fits our overall decrease in
physical fitness standards in our society, we can‘t blame it on the gender
integration policies.
Just my opinion. For those whose delicate consitutions have been offended,
we‘ve already heard all the applicable rants on this subject. It‘s not
going away, so let‘s reserve ongoing comments to rational discussion.
Mike
At 08:44 PM 4/27/00 -0600, Gunner wrote:
>An interesting article win. As in Canada, so in the US, the left wing
>feminist radicals have control of what they believe women want. They
>are best termed femi-nazis if I can steal Rush Limbaughs labeling of
>them.
>
>I honestly believe that women have the right to be in combat arms. Most
>of the people I speak with believe it as well as long as the standards
>are not lowered. My concern is when CFRCs are pressing women to go into
>the infantry or other trades that they simply aren‘t interested in. I
>was hoping Mike O‘Leary would be able to comment on his experiences at
>LFCA TC with the women coming through. The ones coming through LFWA TC
>are being "bullied" into the infantry and its not what they want to do.
>If you are not motivated for the job, you are not going to want to be
>there, and won‘t do well. This doesn‘t serve women, men or DND.
>
>Equal access to all jobs shouldn‘t make it mandatory...Lord knows the
>infantry has a hard enough time keeping its soldiers in.
>
>Wyn van der Schee wrote:
>>
>> For a logical analysis of the topic, based on some hard research in the US
>> forces, I would recommend an article entitled Feminism and the Exclusion of
>> Army Women from Combat
>> http://hdc-www.harvard.edu/cfia/olin/pubs/no2.htm
>>
>> Wyn van der Schee
>> Calgary
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
