Fighting is for men
- Thread starter Gunner
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Greetings,
This is my first post here on this site , and read allot of threads with excellent information. I am not a member but my husband is. On the question of lowering standards according to my husband yes they have been lowered not only for females but for males. I was at his last parade and was shocked to see so many men out of shape. One person was back on to me I thought it was a female pregnant until he turned around. Seriously his tunic was tight on his back and when he face me his tunic flared out just like a maternity top. He was 1 of many. My husband joined in the early 80's when going on parade meant looking your sharpest being male or female. Yes there was different PT standards but they were still realistic and achievable.
That is just my $0 .02
IMHO
This is my first post here on this site , and read allot of threads with excellent information. I am not a member but my husband is. On the question of lowering standards according to my husband yes they have been lowered not only for females but for males. I was at his last parade and was shocked to see so many men out of shape. One person was back on to me I thought it was a female pregnant until he turned around. Seriously his tunic was tight on his back and when he face me his tunic flared out just like a maternity top. He was 1 of many. My husband joined in the early 80's when going on parade meant looking your sharpest being male or female. Yes there was different PT standards but they were still realistic and achievable.
That is just my $0 .02
IMHO
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Quote from Armyvern
This could almost be construed as a backhanded compliment: is it that the females are as good as the top performers, or are they at the level of the 60% soldier?? It's kinda like being the tallest midget...
I have no doubt that there are women who can outperform men in many capabilities (I made the mistake of setting my goal for my first road race (the Cabot Trail Relay) of being: As long as I beat all the chicks.... Any guesses on what happened??? And yes, I got SMOKED by a female at Mountain Man this year). But, when the standard is brought to ridiculously low levels (as many would assert that it is now), is their any pride now in being even average??? I would argue: NO!!!!! I am considered (at the age of 37, and a current weight of around 200lbs, on a 6'1" frame) as in very good shape, and yes I can outrun, outruck, and outperform many young 'uns, I don't get a lot of satisfaction out of it. Why?? Because the average fitness levels of my superiors, peers, and subordinates (especially those that came aboard during the "gravy" years) is pathetic. Yes, there are many pers that are MUCH fitter than I am, but that's not the point. I should be the average.
The reason that we are seeing so many personnel (i.e. fat men) that can be mistaken for pregnant women is that "we" have allowed it, in the name of political correctness. And, due to a lack of pride and/or shame, some people have reasoned "If all I have to do is just meet this low standard, why bother exceeding it? What motivation is there? If I get my ass booted out for being too fat, I will take it to Human Rights (and get back in, with back pay). If I get it written on my PDR/PER that my PT needs to improve, I will pull out the copy of my fitness evaluation and point out that I passed the EXPRES/BFT, so you CAN'T say that, or it's harassment" And the list goes on......
Am I bitter??? Hell yeah!!!! People can't take their head out of their collective a$$es long enough to realize that we are neighbours with a country at WAR. If/when we go to war, to support our closest neighbour and ally (well, either them or Britain) we won't have 2 months on a troop ship to "whip" ourselves into shape. Jesus, at the rate we "ease" into PT programs (about 4 times a year), it would take 2 years for most people to get to level 1 in the new Army Fitness Manual. Let alone be ready to carry a FULL combat load, not the 54 lb total (or whatever lame weight it is for the 13km), greater than 13km, and then not expect the next 2 weeks to "recover". We will be on a plane (an Antonov, or Galaxy, to be sure) and expected to be ready to go in a matter of days, not months.
I am glad that we have people at the top who realize this. Gen's Hillier, Caron, Natynczk, et al realize this, and are trying to tell us, but the masses are in denial, soothed by the comforting sounds of the operator saying "Ombudsman's office, how may I help you....." as soon as push comes to shove. And the sad thing is, that, try as the General's might to make the changes, unless the "masses" (and there is a pun intended) switch over to their tune (the Generals) and not that soothing voice of the operator (which is my effort at symbolizing the PC ways of society), they may as well be tilting at windmills. Because, as one of my good buddies (who is tired of beating his head against the wall that is the military) pointed out "Yeah, they [the Generals] are trying, but how long will that last? 2 years??? And by then, someone else will be in charge...." And unfortunately, we know what types that can be (i.e the ones who allowed us to get to the point we are at).
After all that, I agree that if women can cut it (at the high level of competency that is required), bring 'em on (to fight wars.... which includes Pte Lynch-like support roles in combat). But if that includes bringing along Chubby McTubby and his bucket of deep fried Ding-Dongs, sorry, try again after this series of wars (which have been raging, for oh, 2000+ years) is over..... which is to say, never....
Al
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
My hats off 
to the members at army.ca for keeping the focus of discussion on this issue exactly where it should be - on standards. Women entry into the combat arms are often seen as the "reason" for declining standards but I place the blame squarely on the Charter of Rights. Its impact on the CF was felt at the same time that women were brought (or forced?) into the CF. An arty shell is an arty shell, either you can lift it, or you can't.
to the members at army.ca for keeping the focus of discussion on this issue exactly where it should be - on standards. Women entry into the combat arms are often seen as the "reason" for declining standards but I place the blame squarely on the Charter of Rights. Its impact on the CF was felt at the same time that women were brought (or forced?) into the CF. An arty shell is an arty shell, either you can lift it, or you can't. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You cant change 50,000 years of evolution. Men are built to kill woman are not (at least the vast majority).
Standards are the issue, in 87 I conducted the first trial for women in the Cbt Arms Arty, A whole crew came out from Ottawa lead by the associate minister of National Defense (Mary Collins otherwise known as "the fat lady with the big t#ts). I conducted a 1 day trial on my gun line she questioned everything I did as if I had set up the trial to ensure woman could not do any of the tasks (which I had not). At the end she said so what do you do with the men that cant do the tasks you assign such as lift rounds or change track, manual open m109 breach. I said we usually make them sigs or techs or clks while we process them out of the combat arms. Her response was that she did not believe me and that women in the combat arms could do all those jobs that weak men currently do, since in her mind not all jobs required brute strength. And TaDa we have double standard. The fix was in from the start she had no plans to really look at it.
Standards are the issue, in 87 I conducted the first trial for women in the Cbt Arms Arty, A whole crew came out from Ottawa lead by the associate minister of National Defense (Mary Collins otherwise known as "the fat lady with the big t#ts). I conducted a 1 day trial on my gun line she questioned everything I did as if I had set up the trial to ensure woman could not do any of the tasks (which I had not). At the end she said so what do you do with the men that cant do the tasks you assign such as lift rounds or change track, manual open m109 breach. I said we usually make them sigs or techs or clks while we process them out of the combat arms. Her response was that she did not believe me and that women in the combat arms could do all those jobs that weak men currently do, since in her mind not all jobs required brute strength. And TaDa we have double standard. The fix was in from the start she had no plans to really look at it.
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
We are not beating each other over the head with clubs either. Societies kept their women from dangerous pursuits (hunting, war, etc) for the basic reason of survival. The majority of a tribes men could be wiped out but the society could be repopulated thanks to available women of childbearing years. In effect they could live to fight another day.
- Reaction score
- 9,243
- Points
- 1,260
...to expand on sexual selection - males were more inclined to hunt/fight due to the aggressive nature implicit with being a "disseminator" rather than a "nurturer" when it came to reproduction. Like mating, when it came to hunting or fighting males were built to range beyond the hearth and to take part in intense activities that demanded maximum physical exertion for short periods of time (taking down the mammoth or ambushing a rival hunter group). Infact, I think most women would probably complain that men are still grounded in the principle of maximum exertion for a very short period of time ("is that it?!?") :-X.
However, we've moved beyond simple hunter/gatherer instincts, so although I think 20,000 years of human evolution is still relevent (and we see it played out by the notion that sex, and not gender, plays a large part in the fact that 99% of the infantry are still males), it shouldn't be the deciding factor.
So don't worry Gunner - you're still allowed to be the disseminator.
However, we've moved beyond simple hunter/gatherer instincts, so although I think 20,000 years of human evolution is still relevent (and we see it played out by the notion that sex, and not gender, plays a large part in the fact that 99% of the infantry are still males), it shouldn't be the deciding factor.
So don't worry Gunner - you're still allowed to be the disseminator.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Read the article at work today, interesting... In reality the equality issue has been around for awile and to tell you the truth the only people that seem to recognize women and minorities are women and minorities, it's not so much a failure in the system but the acceptance of their presence in uniform the likes that have not been seen before. I bet if you did a poll today throughout the Army/Navy/Airforce you'd find that a great majority of soldiers do not care what sex/religion/race/... the person next to them is but whether or not they are able to do the job equally - hense sharing the load, in otherwords shut-up about equality, set a realistic standard for entry into the forces, entry into cbt arms trades and postings of those to css units, guaranteed results! I have allot of faith in people that regardless of who they are, when given sound leadership they will understand their short commings and accept where the Military finds them more suitable if they fail to acieve "their goal", after all what more can a person ask for than an honest chance? Without lowering ourselves to a political debat, why don't we just give it a few years and see what Hillier has in store for us, it may turn out good (which will justify female service in combat roles) and god forbid it may turn out bad and this issue will be solved in an overnight session of parliment. But if one thing is for sure all persons who serve will have to face their own personal demons about being in cbt and ask themselves if they can keep up, pull their weight and make the right decisions when the time comes. Good-bye peacekeeping, hello combat (it's what most wanted - too bad it is with a peacekeeping army!).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Gunner said:My hats off
I don't blame it on the Charter. I blame it on the lack of imagination and will of the CF leadership during the period that all this was put in place. That blame isn't confined to the higher leadership either - it goes right down to the JrNCO level, and we can see the effects today.
I don't care if you're in a physically demanding trade or not. If you don't have the pride and self-discipline to keep at least a basic level of fitness and keep yourself in shape; you're not someone I want to be working alongside.
I say we gather everyone in the cf who can't pass the express test and leave them in the field with a few dozen infantry NCOs for a couple of weeks. Call it an "aggressive fitness refersher course" >
I say we gather everyone in the cf who can't pass the express test and leave them in the field with a few dozen infantry NCOs for a couple of weeks. Call it an "aggressive fitness refersher course" >
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Oh boy! A thread changes direction toward unfit people in uniform! I NEVER get tired of these, and apparently, nobody else does either.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I guess we have to ask ourselves if we are training soldiers to a standard or are we allowing a suggested standard to dictate how we lead.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Gunner said:
Too right Gunner, well put!!
Being able to fight is one thing. Not being allowed to fight because a preconceived notion that you are not able to is quite another.
I agree as well that standards should have been maintained, although I am one of the ones that would certainly be booted out, if I was not allowed to prove I can do it.
I don't want to be shown the easy way, I don't want to have my bags carried, or to be given a free ticket. What I want is to earn my place.
Which means to me that someone is not going to tell me I can't because of evolution?! :
Sorry that does not wash. Although it seems like a weird example, look at the animal kingdom. If you were to watch Discovery channel there is one common recurrences nature. The female species can most often be the deadliest, especially when rearing young. The same goes with female humans we have taken a back seat and watched as our men go to war not because we couldn't, but because we were not allowed.
(Then again maybe because we were just smarter?! Let the men kick the crap out of each other! We will stay behind in our nice warm beds..showering...shopping!)
This is of course because of the same people who said that the world was flat and if you got too close to the edge of the end of the world..you would find sea serpents.
I can not remember where I read this particular ditty, but apparently it used to be a common argument that women should not exercise or exert themselves too much because there was a chemical in our bodies that would kill us if we were to do so ???
I have known women who have stayed at work until they were practically in labour. Swollen ankles, vomitting, diarrhea, getting so fat you wonder if your not going to give birth to a fully grown man. Yet despite this they went to work, out in the field..they did not run around in a ruck. Crawl around in trenches. But they kept going.
On a 'unrelated note" I passed my BFT. Yay..go me!
To anyone who thinks that women are not capable, they should go to their local library. Find the history section and find a book on The Amazons. These women were hard core warriors that apparently would go as far as cutting off one of their breasts so they could shoot their arrows with more accuracy.
- Status
Similar threads
