Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[Cdn Blackshirt]

All I'm going to contribute is this....

Men by nature have a higher peak physical strength than women.  If it only took more time for women to "train-up" to men's peak levels then you'd see women capable of competing in athletics against men.  We do certainly not see this in physical contact sports like hockey or football, nor even in non-contact sports like track & field, tennis, skiing or soccer.

Bottom Line:  There are fundamental differences which have to do with how we've evolved.  To pretend otherwise is disengenuous.

With that in mind, I'll leave it to those that serve to tell me how great an impact those physical differences have on field performance.  My own thought is that as a gender-neutral individual (can be female or a smaller male), I'm indifferent about limitations of physical attributes IF they make up for that by bringing other attributes to the table such as superior marksmanship, or communication skills, or specialized knowledge such as combat first aid.  In short, almost all shortcomings can be overcome if the individuals brings other skillsets to the mix, that otherwise you wouldn't have.  My only caveat is that being of a specific gender should not be a politically-provided "get-out-of-jail free card" to avoid physical training to maximize what potential they do have, as such dereliction constitutes negligence due to the fact a physical failure in the field can easily result in either yourself or comrade dying.  I candidly don't care about which gender you are, I believe there should be physical requirements applied to some trades that have to do with body fat, and relative strength to body weight.  Any deficiency in these should require manditory physical training until requirements are met....or the non-gender specific individual should transfer to a trade where physical demands aren't as strenuous and as such would have lower benchmarks set.



Cheers, Matthew.   

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ruxted dealt with this subject about 18 months ago.

I still agree with this part: "There are a few broad, general differences: most women are not as 'big' as most men but, pound for pound they may be just as strong; most women can get pregnant, no man can; most women have been socialized differently than most men. These factors may mean that: many women are unable to meet the physical challenges of some military occupations; many women need to have extended leaves to give birth and mother their infants; and many women who wish to serve in the military may eschew some occupations. That should in no way disqualify those who want to serve and who can meet the standards from serving wherever they can: at sea, in submarines, flying jet fighter-bombers, chest deep in freezing water building bridges, loading ammunition into a tank gun or in close combat in the infantry."

 

[mover1]

Going to play devils advocate here and try to broaden the debate here. This is in no means an indication of my character its just meant to get the conversation going in a different direction.


What about all those feel good stories out there and media ads that predominately show women on them.
Take the Base bus in Halifax with he huge ass picture of the old PAO from Cold Lake on it.
All the feel good stories about a middle aged private who joined the military and is finding her career "challenging and rewarding" that resonate everywhere.
Is there not a disproportionate amount of public affairs time and recruiting time emphasising women and diversity. When is the last time we ever saw "Joe English" boy from Small town ... represented in a media piece. 
Will there and is there ever going to be an end to "Employment Equity"?  When will we as a society  progress far enough that this program will no longer be needed or has it already out lived it usefullness and can be seen as nothing more that reverse discrimination.

any ideas? thoughts?

 

[armyvern]

Going to play devils advocate here and try to broaden the debate here. This is in no means an indication of my character its just meant to get the conversation going in a different direction.
any ideas? thoughts?

Devil's advocate with whom?? Us women in the CF??

I'd argue that most of us agree with you. We are just doing our jobs as best we can, exactly the same as the guys next to us do. It certainly isn't us asking for special recognition and/or exposure to the public for doing that job.

Again, it comes down to the media ... and what their perception is of "what sells."

This was discussed and debated during the time period shortly after the CFs loss of Capt Nichola Goddard. The women on this forum, and indeed most that I know who wear this country's uniform, were totally against their emphasis of her as the first female combat death. Simply put, we are quite sure she (and we in similar circumstances) would rather be remembered as both the fine leader and person she was, and for the fact that she died doing something she believed in and representing this country proudly and honourably in paying that ultimate price in defence of the people's of Afghanistan.

Like we pointed out at the time, women have now been employed in combat arms trades and in those first line roles for 20 years. That's two bloody decades already. Us women are over it. Why does the media still emphasize it like it were something new or special just because an infanteer happens to be female for example?  I can't answer that, but perhaps when the media decides to admit to itself that women have been performing these jobs for those 2 decades and that it is only they who make a fuss over it; maybe the CF itself, myself, and the men I serve next to, can finally carry on like normal.

You see, being a woman is really no big deal, or really anything special, until someone else decides for us that it will be so.

 

[medaid]

I will admit I am guilty of point out Capt Goddard on some of my recruiting drives. However, I definitely did not do this out of disrespect. I did so, merely to point out to the rest of the world (the people that I am speaking to), that women serve along side men, that they do their duty just as well as men, and they die just like men. I incorporated her sacrifice into the education of the Canadian public, those who don't get in touch with the military often, that YES we do have women serving in our forces, and YES they are more then capable of doing some of the exact same jobs as men.

To me, when I wear my uniform and go into work. I see my fellow soldiers. My brothers, my sisters. There are no inferior to me. Some are good at their jobs and some aren't. This will be the same no matter where we go. Gender has nothing to do with it. I proudly serve with men and women everyday, and I just don't care.

Oh, and my bad for doing this but... cesare753 stand by your points. Don't back pedal. If you think you're wrong, admit to it. It takes a bigger person to realize that they are wrong, then to back pedal and try to cover it up. I learned that the hard way.

Also... I'm sure some Israeli tank commanders and other combat hardened verterans (all women), could probably out march, out shoot and out survive you in a firefight. You know how I know? Becuase they've BTDT GTT and they're still alive to do it all again.

 

[pbi]

the last time we ever saw "Joe English" boy from Small town ... represented in a media piece. 

Just about every newspaper article, web news or TV broadcast I see?  It's kind of hard to hide the fact of who makes up most of  the Armyy.

Cheers

DJB

 

[mover1]

Thanks guys,I was just trying to steerit off from another express test discussion.

No body wants to touch on the emplyment equity question? ;D

 

[armyvern]

Thanks guys,I was just trying to steerit off from another express test discussion.

No body wants to touch on the emplyment equity question? ;D

Sure. Don't hire someone simply to comply with EE. Hire the best person for the job. How's that??  ;D

 

[mover1]

awesome! 

it this thread done yet?

 

[medaid]

Meh, I think so. I'm just glad that we've been able to discuss this for this long without turning it into a gender bash again. I thank you all for your contributions and thoughts. Maybe we can now toss this into the ethers of the internet?

 

[mover1]

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=3478



Female aviators reach beyond the sky



June 7, 2007




By Carmel Ecker


Women working in the male-dominated field of aviation will have a chance to inspire each other at the 2007 Canadian Women in Aviation Conference which starts this week in Victoria, British Columbia.  The conference is held every two years and features military and civilian aviators coming together for networking, professional development, a common love of aviation and to hear a wide range of female aviation experts and motivational speakers.

Having a female-focused event offers a unique opportunity for women in the field of military and civilian aviation, says conference chair Sergeant Stacey Haggar, an Airborne Electronic Sensor Operator (AESOP) at 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, located in Esquimalt, British Columbia.

"Aviation is male-dominated. There are very few women that work together in the same location doing the same job. At this conference, you get to meet people and share stories."

Past conferences have left Sgt Haggar awestruck, having listened to the stories from pioneers such as Major Dee Brasseur, who was one of the first two females to become CF-18 fighter pilots in the world.

"She's very energetic. She's got passion for what she does and she's a very dedicated person," says Sgt Haggar.


Maj Brasseur's planned speech for the June conference details her journey to becoming an CF-18 pilot and her experience during a flight safety investigation of an CF-18 crash in Inuvik, NWT, in 1990.
Maj Brasseur's motivational words from previous speaking engagements gave this year's conference its theme: The Sky is NOT the Limit.  Each person should strive to meet his or her own goals, rather than allow themselves to be bound by other people's doubts or by social constraints, says Sgt Haggar. "It's about not letting limits be set for you."

Other speakers for this year include Major Charity Weeden, currently posted to NORAD in Colorado Springs, who will speak about space travel, including advances in privately funded projects.

Motivational speaker and professional life coach Christina Sestan's talk is "Navigating from within." Lisa Soderquist, an avionics instructor at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, will speak about avionics for private pilots. Also taking the podium is Dr. Peggy Chabrian, president and founder of Women in Aviation International, which represents more than 7,000 people worldwide. She is a pilot and a flight instructor qualified to fly several aircraft, including helicopters and seaplanes.



With such accomplished women present, the conferences "are energizing. You meet all these people who've done amazing things," says Sgt Haggar.
With a large number of military members participating as both attendees and speakers, women in the CF will find the conference helpful, she says. The networking portion will allow them to share common experiences and solutions to common problems.

"They'll walk away with knowledge they didn't have before, stories, validation, role models or how to be a role model."

The participants' chance to share their stories is a key part of the conference, whether they are tales of success or struggle in their chosen field.

Sgt Haggar says her own venture into aviation came later in life. Though she admired the aircraft that flew above her small Manitoba hometown, she never imagined finding a career in the skies.

Instead, she signed up for college in Brandon, Manitoba, after high school. But with a lack of direction after her first year, she decided to get a job and take time to find her calling.  It didn't take long for her to become restless and she was soon looking for a way out of Brandon. She found her ticket in the Canadian Forces and signed on as a meteorology technician.

Three years into her contract, she landed on HMCS Preserver where she was first exposed to CH-124 Sea King helicopters, and she suddenly realized that was where she wanted to be.  Unable to re-muster at the time because the occupation was closed, and later due to pregnancy, she waited seven years, until 1998 for her chance to become an AESOP.
"I like a challenge and I like doing different things, and the Sea King world is definitely a challenge," she says of her career. "I love what I do. I love the helicopter."

When Sgt Haggar started she was one of just seven women in the occupation, and though aviation continues to attract more men than women, she's happy to see more women taking an interest in recent years.

 

[Yrys]

Seem like an interesting conference

!

Is there one for all aviators ?

 

[cesare753]

Oh please, whatever. Don't back-pedal now.

Here's your original post:

Interestingly, in your original argument you don't make a single mention of weak men, only weak women. Then you go on to wonder in amazement when you get called on it as to how it could be interpreted as sexist.

Funny you mention the lowering of the trg standards for zero trades, blaming it on those physically weak women ... but have failed to note that there is a significant difference in standards between trades, enviornments and what the minimum fitness requirements are, regardless of gender. Let's get a little serious shall we? There is a significant difference between trades, enviornments in those standards as well...is that the woman's fault too?

You chose to focus on women's standards and blame that for the decrease in overall fitness standards, well I've got news for you; there was a difference in training and fitness standards between trades and enviornments long before those weak women were allowed, as part of the CREW trials, to enter those zero trades.

What's the bottom line in all of this? Stop blaming the girls and get over it already. The vast majority of them bust their asses everyday just like their male counterparts do. The vast majority of them also perform their jobs just as well as their male counterparts do. Percentage wise, I'd say the men are no better off at achieving than the women are either. But enough with your managing to always blame the fact that there are shitty soldiers out there on the fact that women have lowered the standards. That's bullshit. If a soldier is useless and unfit, it's becuase they personally lack the personal drive, determination, initiative and fortitude to become a good soldier ... male or female.

Don't blame the fact you've got a shitty male or female co-worker who made it through the system on me and other women causing a lowering of the standards, blame it on the instructors or supervisors that let him/her get away with hanging around being a shitty soldier.

When they don't meet the standards, deal with it and boot their *** if required...guy or girl. But please, stop blaming the women by excusing the shitty soldier's personal responsibility.

The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?

My true argument is not that women in the CF is bad, but the lowering of standards on courses to accommodate this IS bad.

Get the idea?

 

[Michael OLeary]

The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?

And you are stating this from long personal experience?

 

[KwaiLo]

Do the non combat arms need to be as physically fit as the combat arms?  If not, why not change the wording in the PT requirements.  Where it lists the requirements for men, substitute 'Combat Arms' and where it says women, substitute 'Non-Combat Arms'.

/my $0.02 (civilian) cents

 

[Edward Campbell]

Women began to serve in the CF during, about, the Boer War period.  They began to serve in very large numbers in the 1940s.  They began to serve in most CF occupational groups in around the 1960s and '70s.

There is no doubt that some standards changed.  There is little doubt that some of the changes to some of he standards has had some undesirable effects.

The 'integration' of women, in and of itself, did nothing to those standards.  The changes were caused by people – mostly senior officers and senior bureaucrats (and, therefore, in the '60s , '70s and '80s, mostly men) - who wanted to ensure certain outcomes.

To the best of my personal knowledge (which is not as much as some others here have but is more than most – I was there in the '60s, '70s and '80s) most women never asked for anything but a fair chance to prove themselves.  Most (almost all, I think) of the the women with whom I had contact were, by and large, opposed to special treatment or lower standards – they just wanted an even chance to compete for the occupation/speciality of their their choice – not all could make it to all jobs but they deserved, and still deserve, a chance to try.

No one is defending the excesses – and there were some – which occurred when some senior officers, aided and abetted by some senior NCOs, decided, for themselves, that there were quotas (despite the government's repeated assurances that there were none) and decided to allow quite unfit and unsuitable people – men and women – into the CF.  There is a famous story about the late BGen Don Holmes (late of The RCR) telling Ottawa ”Don't send me any more fat, ugly women!” and then amending it read, “nor any fat, ugly men, either!”  We had too many fat, slovenly, unkempt service members; we still do; one is too many!

We need lots and lots of people in the CF: the best people we can recruit and train.  Standards, of all sorts, need to reasonably reflect our requirements; all personnel must meet all the standards applicable to their occupation/speciality.  That may mean that we have to tighten some standards to ensure that we don't have any more ”fat ugly men.” or women, for that matter.  If there is a standards problem then it was created by DND's leadership, not my female service members, and they, the leaders, have to fix it.

 

[medaid]

The introduction of women caused the lowering of standards in training, THUS weaker men, mentally and physically, along side WITH women are now gaining entrance into something, they would not have before, understand my point?

My true argument is not that women in the CF is bad, but the lowering of standards on courses to accommodate this IS bad.

Get the idea?

Sorry... I just don't buy your point. As WE the collective have asked both over and over again, from what experience are you saying this from? Also, we have told you that this was not the case over all. But I guess you just refuse to listen. One of those

 

[cesare753]

I apologize, clearly my age would be used against me, I should have seen that earlier, I've accumulated this understanding of mine through several pieces of written work, info seeking on the internet and through word of mouth within my connections locally in the military.

Now, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the message I'm trying to convey, due to my failure to properly convey my message in general.

Standards have been lowered due to the introduction of women in the combat roles of the CF, now WHY, I ask, DND, in its infinite knowledge, would lower such standards of training, if, as it is a well believed and accepted fact in Canada that men and women are equal more or less in the same respects?

I care not that women serve in combat roles, so long as they can carry out their responsibilities on the individual level, I do care however that standards were lowered, even though women were introduced into the combat arms under the impression that men and women were equal.

Furthermore to correct those convinced I am in some way a "sexist", I feel that combat arms recruits are loosing out on valuable training since the lowering of standards as well as collectively in regiments were the level of training would decline as newer junior NCO's eventually begin to fill out the rank and file as others retire or resign within the following years.
Because of this drop in standards, recruits, regardless of sex will either benefit less from training, or such individuals that should not have proceeded past basic in the before time, now are seeping through.


To make a long story short, Men and Women are believed to be equal in Canada, yet DND lowered standards anyways.

 

[medaid]

cesae753 please support your claim with facts and if possible reference them.

 

[KevinB]

Fact -- standards had been lowered BEFORE women where allowed in the cbt arms.
How the frick do you think I made it thru in 1987...

cesare753, I know we have a rule on personal attacks -- but you are an idiot.


Internal unit standards are still going to be similar - due to the role of Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, and Armoured have not really changed in years.  Thus the job is still being done - there are men and women that CANNOT measure up to the required standard - but then there where Men who could not measure up to the standard prior to cbt arms being open to women.

I suggest you shut your 18yr old mouth - cuz none of us really appreciate your ignorant and uninformed comments.  A year or two in the Mo does not give you street cred to come here and offer your "experiences"