MND 2019

[dapaterson]

Or consider getting equipment designed and tested considering female physiques (load carrying and protective devices), vehicles that consider female physiology (civilian side, women in a vehicle accident are about 47% more likely to be injured and 17% more likely to be killed in an accident), career paths that consider that women in the demographic we're trying to recruit are likely to bear and care for children (and care for ageing parents - elder care remains heavily gendered in expectations and execution)...

Mostly, the military's systems assume that you've got a wife back home to care for the family while you do a year-long program of study or take a five month course, or slavishly follow a certain sequence of training and experience.


Or we can not change anything, continue the same way we have for decades, and wonder why, when we don't change the underlying conditions, the outcomes don't change.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Or, we could focus and insist on enrolling the most qualified candidates, rather than some % target based on what bathroom you default to.

Crazy idea.

 

[dapaterson]

Or, we could focus and insist on enrolling the most qualified candidates, rather than some % target based on what bathroom you default to.

Crazy idea.

When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.

 

[McG]

Or we can not change anything, continue the same way we have for decades, and wonder why, when we don't change the underlying conditions, the outcomes don't change.

Many of those family quality of life issues that have previously deterred and/or discouraged women are today also driving away men who expect to fill more domestic rolls than a generation before them.  If the system continues as it has for decades, there will be fewer of everybody.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.

So, we've been doing it horribly and incorrectly for decades and decades?  And only recruited sub-standard personnel... ???

 

[FJAG]

So, we've been doing it horribly and incorrectly for decades and decades?  And only recruited sub-standard personnel... ???

Yes. Everyone recruited after integration etc after 1967 and who has never worn puttees just doesn't measure up.  ;D

op:

 

[Furniture]

Or consider getting equipment designed and tested considering female physiques (load carrying and protective devices), vehicles that consider female physiology (civilian side, women in a vehicle accident are about 47% more likely to be injured and 17% more likely to be killed in an accident), career paths that consider that women in the demographic we're trying to recruit are likely to bear and care for children (and care for ageing parents - elder care remains heavily gendered in expectations and execution)...

Mostly, the military's systems assume that you've got a wife back home to care for the family while you do a year-long program of study or take a five month course, or slavishly follow a certain sequence of training and experience.


Or we can not change anything, continue the same way we have for decades, and wonder why, when we don't change the underlying conditions, the outcomes don't change.

So the magic bullet is female designed armour, and more time off for parents/guardians?

Except for every person we have on some form of "special accommodation" we need at least two that are deployable. Chances are those not on some form of special accommodation are young, and male.

This isn't because the CAF disadvantages women, but specifically because the CAF disadvantages people that can be deployed with little notice. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.

Arbitrary?  Are we now denying there has ever been any connection between what soldiering demands on some occasions, and the standards set for various things?

 

[Ostrozac]

Perhaps Canada should consider conscription of females into under-represented CAF occupations?

If we, as a nation, are in fact actually serious about having a military that reflects the diversity of the Canadian public, then conscription cannot be dismissed out of hand. Especially since the military seems incapable of attracting, recruiting and retaining sufficient volunteers to hit diversity targets despite years of being directed to do so.

If we are not serious, and all of this diversity stuff is just posturing that should be given some lip service then ignored, then we will be fine keeping to the status quo.

A compromise might be a hybrid force as used by France during the Cold War — a large conscript force of indifferent quality, coupled with a small professional force for expeditionary warfare. In the Canadian context, the conscript force can be used as a showcase for everything good and proper about Canadian values, the professional force can focus on being lethal to our enemies.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

all of this diversity stuff is just posturing that should be given some lip service then ignored

Best summary of the topic to date, IMO.  The text with the strikethrough is 'optional' as in it has zero bearing on operational capabilities to me.

I remember seeing a FB article or something where the CMP stated "having 25% females increases our operational ability".  Bullshit;  having 100% of our people recruited from the best applicants, trained and kitted out the best we can manage, increases our operational ability.

Anything else is just mumbo-jumbo that is related to the quote above.

 

[dapaterson]

>When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.

Arbitrary?  Are we now denying there has ever been any connection between what soldiering demands on some occasions, and the standards set for various things?

Not at all.  Justifiable, demonstrable standards are necessary.  But when arbitrary, "because it's always been this way" or other barriers are introduced / imposed / sustained without deliberate examination and validation, we run into trouble.

When we don't provide proper tools to do the work (eg load bearing vests, rucksacks, body armour) we can't honestly assess whether someone can meet the standard (even if the standard is objective and validated).

When we conduct public activities and deliberately exclude women from participation "because that's the regimental tradition" we are not setting standards, but perpetuating discrimination.

When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.



When we create unwarranted barriers it means we aren't choosing the best; we're choosing the best who meet our preconceived biases.  Standards are necessary.  But they must be supportable.

 

[dimsum]

When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.

That's still a thing in 2019 (almost 2020)?! 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When we don't provide proper tools to do the work (eg load bearing vests, rucksacks, body armour) we can't honestly assess whether someone can meet the standard (even if the standard is objective and validated).

The CAF can't do this for the 'majority' of members (the other group outside the 'average' male, including members like very short males, etc.  Why would you think there should be a focus on a 'minority' group of people (in this case, the % of the 16% serving female mbrs who don't fit current issued kit very well)?  If we can't meet the operational needs for kit in the majority of our members, that should be the first goal.  TacVest - horrible failure.  Boots...only recently (sort of) sorted out. 

The RCAF can't seem to manage to keep flight suits, Lightweight Thermal Headgear, flying gloves and survival knives in stock needed to support ops.  Until that is sorted out, I'm not concerned too much if the size Small LPSV doesn't fit a % of 16% of members "as nice as they'd like". 

When we conduct public activities and deliberately exclude women from participation "because that's the regimental tradition" we are not setting standards, but perpetuating discrimination.

When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.

I've been in since summer '89 and I've never witnessed or heard of this type of behaviour.  Can you give specific references/instances?  Not saying it hasn't happened, but I've honestly never seen or heard of it.

If it has happened, when was the last time?  Recently (in the last 5-10 years?)?  Genuinely curious about this...

 

[Brad Sallows]

The "Old Boys" are just about the least problem, but should be one of the easiest to fix.  So sort out all the minor chaff issues and see whether the real impediments are revealed to be the bona fide standards, for which the others are merely providing camouflage.

 

[dapaterson]

Re: Equipment: for safety / load bearing equipment, it's not "nice to have" - it's "injure you because it's wrong".  ACK to the need to fix the end-to-end of the clothing / operational equipment supply chain.


And re: My two examples: Both are things I have witnessed from 1989 onwards, one within the past five years.



I think we all agree in the need for justifiable and supportable standards, and for proper equipment for all CAF members to properly perform their duties.

 

[Zoomie]

Genuinely curious about this...

Concur - if this has indeed happened in this century there has been a complete failure in leadership somewhere.

FWIW the Pilot trade is heavily lopsided towards the white, male persuasion.  Is this by design or just because that’s what we are churning out of the school?  If you can grab the controls and keep your head in the game, you will succeed at flying any aircraft in the RCAF inventory.

 

[quadrapiper]

Re: Equipment: for safety / load bearing equipment, it's not "nice to have" - it's "injure you because it's wrong".  ACK to the need to fix the end-to-end of the clothing / operational equipment supply chain.

How's the current stuff as far as the range of male heights and shapes it'll fit?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think we all agree in the need for justifiable and supportable standards, and for proper equipment for all CAF members to properly perform their duties.

Of course;  where the "dots don't connect" for me is that this affects recruiting and the failure to reach the 25% quota/target for females.

Recruits don't know what CAF kit and equipment fits/does not fit them.  They don't even really know what the kit is, or how to fit it properly until XX days after the go thru the green doors at CFLRS, or X/XX days after they're sworn in to a Reserve unit.

So I don't see this as a "why we can't recruit 25% females" issue.  Retention issue?  Possibly, but I don't know anyone personally who released because their kit was just too sub-standard.


On the issue of the Old Boys Club wanting/attempting to deny females access to Mess Dinners etc in the last 5 years...I will say I hope that person was sorted out, quickly and permanently.

 

[dapaterson]

Our best marketing is serving CAF members.  If women in the CAF have negative experiences, it acts as a deterrent to future generations to serve.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

A good point to consider.

Question;  how much of an issue is 'ill-fitting equipment' given as a reason female decide to release?  Is there any tracking?  Is it the same % as males releasing?