Responses to Sorry, we don't agree: "Fighting is for Men"

[2 Cdo]

Just curious now, when you witnessed these males carrying females kit and weapons did YOU as a SNCO sort it out or did you let it slide.
Just another point, I have served with female infantry soldiers. Some were good to go and others were a bag of hammers. In fact, the first female to pass the PPCLI Battleschool in 1989 ended up in my section as a C9 gunner and completely out-performed the males from her course when we were in Fort Lewis on exercise. To paint all females as inadequate would be the same as saying all reservists are useless. Something most, if not all, reservists would take offence to.
I was also with 3 PPCLI in Afghanistan in 2002 and didn't see or hear of any problems with the female troops. They carried their own kit and did the same ops as the rest of the battalion. You would seem to believe that they shouldn't have been given the opportunity to do their job. I used to think along the same lines as you, thankfully I have since seen what a well motivated, physically fit female soldier can do. I've also seen what lazy, MIR commando, POS male soldiers cannot do.
In closing, I will agree with the fact that I don't think Canadians are ready to see ANY flag draped coffins coming home in any numbers let alone those containing females.

 

[George Wallace]

Well put 2 Cdo.

Most of us older guys think [EDIT: or at the very least are starting to think] pretty much along those same lines.   Boils down to Merit (performance), not profiling or stereotyping by sex, creed, race, religion, etc.

 

[ZipperHead]

when the photo was taken, she had left the Marines IIRC and is a professional bodybuilder now.   So the nails probably didn't look like that when she was "in" - and the earrings that annoy Allan L. probably weren't worn with her uniform.

As I am in a more jovial mood today than I normally am (PD day here at CTC for Sr NCO's), I will take your good natured jibe at my annoyance at the Year of The Vet commercial female soldier wearing earrings, even though it has nothing to do with my fashion sense ("Those earring just DO NOT match her uniform") but more with my keen eye (sometimes) for detail and (perceived) transgressions in dress regulations (my assumption that the peacekeeper was currently still serving).

That, and the fact that you didn't give us our daily dose of history, such as that the earrings that Boudicca wore had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to carry a sword or shield....... or that Joan of Arc's do-rag and/or tattoo were in compliance with the force commanders policy on acceptable PT gear....

"Those that forget history are condemned to be reminded of this fact by somebody who reads too many books.....". As we were reminded yesterday in our PD period, if you keep looking in the rearview mirror, you're going to end up in the ditch. Not all of your historical factoids have relevance with the arguments that we have here (this goes pro and con, folks). Let's focus on what we can do, not what we couldn't do in years past. Today's society IS different, and we have to adapt. That doesn't mean drop the ball that our predessors carried; use the lessons that they taught us, adapt them to our circumstance(s), and move forward. Fighting our last battles (ad nauseum it seems) doesn't bring us forward: marking time doesn't accomplish anything.

Al

 

[armywoman]

However if they land at Dieppe and are sold into the sex trade for german soldiers or Japanese at hong Kong are you ready for that?

Firstly, I can not speak for all GMT, or BMQs'.  That was, however one of the things that was brought up on my course.  We were warned that could happen and I am willing to risk that.  There was one female that had not thought of that (then again she was a band member and did not realize that she was going to have to do any fighting period, same with her male counterpart from the same unit) but there were just as many guys that were discusted by it, then the females.

Secondly I knew what I was getting into, if I want to run that risk, that is my decision..no one elses.  If it should happen however, they better have their fun and make sure they hold me down and don't take their attention away from me for a second, because if I am given the opportunity to fight back.  I will cause so much pain and injury to my attackers that Loreena Bobbit would be sickened, and they won't be able to sew anything back on when I am finished.  :threat:

There is no getting ready for it.  The same with females in coffins. That argument is so old and unimaginative.  No one wants to see males or females coming back in coffins.  Just because the general public are not ready to deal with females dying in combat does not mean that we should be kept from doing a job we want to do. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I remember a female master corporal from the reserves physically pushing me along in order to complete the British forced march we were doing. (I'll mention I had a 2 cracked ribs from a British+1 Canadian vs Turkish fight the night before).

She even gave me a chocolate bar for a "good boy" reward when our platoon completed it and beat the British TA in a bad way.
Good soldier and an even better person whom unfortunately has been ridiculed way too much.

Don't have a problem with female soldiers in general.  There are a lot of female recruits who make it through who shouldn't.  The very same can be said for male recruits.  The fault here lies on our recruiting standards and the whole "Everybody passes" mentality.

As far as 17 and 20 year old guys rhyming off stats about females serving in ww2 and their performace- ya sure.
Maybe YOU should get some "trigger time" before judging anyone who has fought in a war.

Weak women are int he same boat as weak guys. Just seems like guys are quicker to point out weakness in females.

I really agree with the comment about training and conditioning a few pages back.

Modern armies have came a long way in terms of training to kill, as demonstrated by the whole 50% (?) firing rate among infantry in ww2 to 98% in Vietnam.
Where as in the past gender may have played a huge role in performance, now i bet it's a lot more about the actual training and conditioning.

I can't believe people still argue the whole 'but a woman might get raped' line.  Our enemies are cutting the heads off prisoners, blowing up crowds of women and children and mutilating bodies.  There's a hell of a lot more to worry about out there than guys becoming OH so distraught over a female soldier being sexually assaulted. Well in my opinion anyways.

What a dead horse.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As I am in a more jovial mood today than I normally am (PD day here at CTC for Sr NCO's), I will take your good natured jibe at my annoyance at the Year of The Vet commercial female soldier wearing earrings, even though it has nothing to do with my fashion sense ("Those earring just DO NOT match her uniform") but more with my keen eye (sometimes) for detail and (perceived) transgressions in dress regulations (my assumption that the peacekeeper was currently still serving).

That, and the fact that you didn't give us our daily dose of history, such as that the earrings that Boudicca wore had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to carry a sword or shield....... or that Joan of Arc's do-rag and/or tattoo were in compliance with the force commanders policy on acceptable PT gear....

"Those that forget history are condemned to be reminded of this fact by somebody who reads too many books.....". As we were reminded yesterday in our PD period, if you keep looking in the rearview mirror, you're going to end up in the ditch. Not all of your historical factoids have relevance with the arguments that we have here (this goes pro and con, folks). Let's focus on what we can do, not what we couldn't do in years past. Today's society IS different, and we have to adapt. That doesn't mean drop the ball that our predessors carried; use the lessons that they taught us, adapt them to our circumstance(s), and move forward. Fighting our last battles (ad nauseum it seems) doesn't bring us forward: marking time doesn't accomplish anything.

Al

Spoken like someone who's never read one!  Bravo!

And if you can get past reading your own posts in wonder, you'll see that I commented on the earrings also with disapproval.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Modern armies have came a long way in terms of training to kill, as demonstrated by the whole 50% (?) firing rate among infantry in ww2 to 98% in Vietnam.

Much more research needs to be done on this.   Marshall made up the whole thing (his figure was 25% in Men Against Fire) basically.   But Galloway seems to concur that rifles were not much use - whether or not anyone was firing them.   Berton intimates the same about WW I though I think Morton is a better source for this than Berton.

There is firing, and firing effectively.   I don't think any one solid reliable source exists, but there are enough differing opinions out there to conflict with the figures you give, both as being too high, and too low!   but what the hell good are books for anyway - you can't read and mark time simultaneously, or somefink like that.. ???

 

[army girl/army wife]

I'm new here so don't bite my head off. But this topic has bugged me since my GMT( so yes I have been in for a while). When I first joined the reserves as Artillery my grandfather just about killed me, he was of the opinion that females should not be in combat arms. Guess what I proved him wrong and alot of females have proved that they can hack it and do the job. Unfortunately there is some females who should not be in the combat arms, but they slip through the cracks. The funny thing about that though is, the other females that are in already don't tend to take kindly to the whiners and complainers. They tend to quit after the first 2 to 3 years. I have never got anyone to carry my rucksack or dig my trench. I, and many  other females pass our BFT every year, while I see some males drop out, because there feet hurt or their knee. Some of the best C7 shooters I know are female. The thing is there are good and bad soldiers, male or female. The way I look at it I can give birth and put up with that pain which is the worst pain you can imagine, so I figure I can put up with just about anything.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I'm new here so don't bite my head off. But this topic has bugged me since my GMT( so yes I have been in for a while). When I first joined the reserves as Artillery my grandfather just about killed me, he was of the opinion that females should not be in combat arms. Guess what I proved him wrong and alot of females have proved that they can hack it and do the job. Unfortunately there is some females who should not be in the combat arms, but they slip through the cracks. The funny thing about that though is, the other females that are in already don't tend to take kindly to the whiners and complainers. They tend to quit after the first 2 to 3 years. I have never got anyone to carry my rucksack or dig my trench. I, and many  other females pass our BFT every year, while I see some males drop out, because there feet hurt or their knee. Some of the best C7 shooters I know are female. The thing is there are good and bad soldiers, male or female. The way I look at it I can give birth and put up with that pain which is the worst pain you can imagine, so I figure I can put up with just about anything.

I don't think the question is one of whether or not there are females out there that can do the job. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim an absence of capable females. Most of the arguments against women in the combat arms seem based more in the social/institutional effects it is theorized to possibly produce.

I believe Infanteer covered such arguments quite well in another thread on the same topic, to the end of demonstrating that they're largely erroneous or lacking evidence.

 

[paracowboy]

I remember a female master corporal from the reserves physically pushing me along in order to complete the British forced march we were doing.

I've seen the same thing. My RSM (who is harder than woodpecker lips) commented to the UMS NCO about his li'l tiny slip of a girl medic (Pte-type, cuter'n a button) humping as much weight through the mountains of the USMC Mountain School as any male, including some Old Dogs from the Old Days, and when the males were dropping like flies, she "Picked them, treated them, and helped them on their way. That's a good soldier, you got there MCpl D******".

She even gave me a chocolate bar for a "good boy" reward

and you needed a fat pill? YOU?

I can't believe people still argue the whole 'but a woman might get raped' line. Our enemies are cutting the heads off prisoners, blowing up crowds of women and children and mutilating bodies. There's a hell of a lot more to worry about out there than guys becoming OH so distraught over a female soldier being sexually assaulted.

A convenient fact that these particular men neglect is the number of males that have been raped over the centuries, and how much more traumatic is for them. Africa in particular, with the Mau Mau, and Simbas in the middle of the last century come to mind. As well, with the prevalency of homosexuality amongst our enemies, and the traditional outlook on removing an enemy's masculinity by raping him...

Much more research needs to be done on this. Marshall made up the whole thing (his figure was 25% in Men Against Fire) basically. But Galloway seems to concur that rifles were not much use - whether or not anyone was firing them. Berton intimates the same about WW I though I think Morton is a better source for this than Berton.

Have you read Grossman's works? He refers to Marshall's findings and explains his agreeing with them, in a general sort of way. Made sense to me when I read it.

 

[ZipperHead]

Spoken like someone who's never read one!   Bravo!

And if you can get past reading your own posts in wonder, you'll see that I commented on the earrings also with disapproval.

I've read a few books in my day (some even were sans pictures).  But the MAJORITY of the books I read have been printed in the last few years, with an eye to the future, not to the past. The good old days weren't always so good.... Reading about the 524 set isn't going to help you understand the TCCCS.

My point (besides being on the top of my head) is that people rely on what has happened in the past more than focussing on what is happening and what will happen. The CF has tried to force everything into a template of what we have always done. 'SALY' was a mantra in Germany, apparently. 'Same As Last Year'. That served to drive our Forces square into the predicament that we are in. People kept waiting for the dastardly Russians to sneak thru the Fulda Gap, well after the Bear was put out to pasture. People were shocked. SHOCKED!!!! that "we" (N Americans) were attacked on our own soil. What history book was that in???

People like history because they are comfortable with it, because it has already happened. You can even be a revisionist historian if you want. People need to move away from their comfort zone (fighting the Cold War, for example) and fight the war against the "snakes". People like pulling out facts (or manipulated facts, that revisionist historians twist and shine up to their own liking) to suit their own needs.

I will be honest, and say that I never imagined a day that women would be in the Combat Arms. I didn't like it then when I was a young soldier, and I am only now coming to terms with it on a few different levels. My wife is a veteran of combat operations (Op Apollo 2002 - Op Cherokee Sky), and I am not. How weird is that?? Granted I did basically the same things, but have never been granted the illustrious "combat operation" 'qualification' (heliborne operations in Bosnia and Op Grizzly). But no matter: my wife did it. Did any of the naysayers?? If so, well done. But wrap your head around the fact that women have done it, and will continue to do it. As pointed out by a lot of guys who have "been there and done that", there have been women there. And men who could not cut it. The women who made it made it because they did the training alongside men. I also have examples of women who couldn't cut it (training, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan), and they don't deserve to be in the combat arms, or CSS trades for that matter. Either you should be there, or you shouldn't. Make the standards realistic (fuq fairness.... make them realistic), and we will weed out the people who were allowed in by social scientists: men, women, whites, asians, tall people, short people, medium people, young people, old people who can't cut it,alike. Give people an honest chance, but if they can't cut it, don't keep pushing them along just because they made it through the front door.

The Brits have a saying now about moving into the future in regards to e-learning, distance/distributed learning: 'Get on with it.' I couldn't agree more.....

Al

 

[Gunnar]

Make the standards realistic (fuq fairness.... make them realistic), and we will weed out the people who were allowed in by social scientists: men, women, whites, asians, tall people, short people, medium people, young people, old people who can't cut it,alike. Give people an honest chance, but if they can't cut it, don't keep pushing them along just because they made it through the front door.

Bravo 

 

[Hollywog]

Just curious now, when you witnessed these males carrying females kit and weapons did YOU as a SNCO sort it out or did you let it slide.

That's essentially the problem isn't it that things might slide. Guilty as charged I suppose, but if you get a date is it ok?

Guys don't still think that do they?  Naaaah,

Seems all the women people on this thread know in the forces are tougher than the men who would have thunk it? not me.

Just another point, I have served with female infantry soldiers. Some were good to go and others were a bag of hammers. In fact, the first female to pass the PPCLI Battleschool in 1989 ended up in my section as a C9 gunner and completely out-performed the males from her course when we were in Fort Lewis on exercise. To paint all females as inadequate would be the same as saying all reservists are useless.

Hardly the same, there's lots of evidence re reserves to refute that reservists are useless.  Reserves didn't do that bad at Normandy while the reg force was in Italy and the unit with the most battle honours in WWII was a reserve one the Hastings and Prince Edward Regt if memory serves.  So to say Reservists are useless I can easily refute by looking at Canadas more recent battles. 

As for women I get; people who lost their only battle 2000 years ago but scared the romans up to the point where they took 400 dead to wipe them out, Amazons from mythology, and Joan of Arc as some kind of testimonial evidence and I have "a mighty high perch of higher morality"?  Plus even suggesting sending them on their own is apparently misogyny and sexist.

I see it different though.  If it hasn't worked since Emperor Nero just maybe there's a reason. Ie It does not work or they can prove themselves.

I'm glad you say they do just as well, maybe things have improved since I was in, but I'm sure the Israelis had lots of evidence like that before it was tried in real combat and discarded when it failed.  They must be doing something right they get their picture on our currency sans firearm.

Question
Again I ask and this is the crux of the matter that none of the people supporting it seem to want to answer, what are we doing so right that the Israelies could have done before they abandoned the whole idea?  Maybe they should see how it improves our combat readiness and they will put women back there in their infantry. Lord knows if anyone needs the manpower its them not us.

Still awaiting an answer,

You would seem to believe that they shouldn't have been given the opportunity to do their job.

AAAAHHH, I said they should be in units of their own to prove themselves in most every post!

Hardly the same thing as saying "they can't do the job! Don't give them the chance!"

That way armywoman wouldn't have people like me second guessing her role.

Why are people in favour of them integrating so opposed to them being in a unit of their own?


I've said to more than a few people over the years that they should call up Militia Units to go over seas, because I'm confident in their ability to do well in a unit by themselves.  If your Unit could fight in WWII re Goodwood or Totalize how bad can Yugoslavia be.  Sure they might need more lead up time but the rotation cycles from what I've seen are crazy for guys in the regular force and retention would be helped if you got an extra year at home with your family.

Plus there would be lots of money for a PC womans regiment as long as the Libs are in.

I've also seen what lazy, MIR commando, POS male soldiers cannot do.

hmmmm,

There is a mom at my daughters school who just came back lets just say MIR commando too.

However lower standards and expectations can't help.

Just can't do those firing squads like they did in WWI to motivate the troops.

In closing, I will agree with the fact that I don't think Canadians are ready to see ANY flag draped coffins coming home in any numbers let alone those containing females.

So we can agree on this.  and the Japanese using them as "Comfort women" like they did Koreans too I would think.

 

[2 Cdo]

Hollywog, you're argument about reservists is hollow. By citing WWII units as reservists is by all measures wrong. By the time these RESERVE went into battle they had been training in England for YEARS!

If you could step into the present for a few moments there are plenty of incidents involving reservists where one could be inclined to paint all reservists with that ever handy broad brush. (My apologies to those reservists who are good soldiers, you know who you are)

As for Canada's most recent battles, can you name any? I'll give you a hint, they are more recent than WWII.

As for your idea of segregating, maybe we should form all native units, or maybe all black units! :
Actually it's probably a good thing you are no longer serving because with your attitude you couldn't cut it in todays army. Sorry there pal but it's time to join the rest of the country in the 21st century, WWII is history as is my time wasted trying to educate those who wish to remain ignorant. :threat:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

2CDO,
normally you and I get along like oil and water, but well said my friend.....

Isn't it funny how most dissenters are "used to be's" and "never wases"?

 

[2 Cdo]

Bruce you'd be surprised by how much I agree with your posts! ;D
That being said, don't think I'm blowing sunshine up your arse! ;D When you write something I disagree with (and you know you will) I'll be there to correct your obviously misguided views! ;D
Have a nice day!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Hollywog, you're argument about reservists is hollow. By citing WWII units as reservists is by all measures wrong. By the time these RESERVE went into battle they had been training in England for YEARS!

Exactly, I spelled that out in detail a few pages back.   This is going in circles now and Hollywog is not bothering to listen.

 

[paracowboy]

As for women I get; people who lost their only battle 2000 years ago but scared the romans up to the point where they took 400 dead to wipe them out, Amazons from mythology, and Joan of Arc as some kind of testimonial evidence and I have "a mighty high perch of higher morality"?   Plus even suggesting sending them on their own is apparently misogyny and sexist.

I see it different though.   If it hasn't worked since Emperor Nero just maybe there's a reason. Ie It does not work or they can prove themselves.

I'm glad you say they do just as well, maybe things have improved since I was in, but I'm sure the Israelis had lots of evidence like that before it was tried in real combat and discarded when it failed.   They must be doing something right they get their picture on our currency sans firearm.

Question
Again I ask and this is the crux of the matter that none of the people supporting it seem to want to answer, what are we doing so right that the Israelies could have done before they abandoned the whole idea?   Maybe they should see how it improves our combat readiness and they will put women back there in their infantry. Lord knows if anyone needs the manpower its them not us.

The Israelis folded their femail-only battalions because they didn't work. They, and several other armies, have found that an integrated unit, with approximately 30% female, 70% male works best.

As for recent examples of women in combat: this has been addressed several times, with examples drawn from Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the LEO agencies of our own continent.

Why are people in favour of them integrating so opposed to them being in a unit of their own?

because we've found that it works?

I find it ironic (and somewhat pathetic) that men who have never served on an Operational Deployment, to a scary place, with female soldiers, are telling men who have, what works. We know. We were there. We've seen what women can do when properly trained. Sounds a lot like insecurity to me. "If women can do it, then I'm not as special".

The silliest part is that these men are questioning men with several years' experience. At 35, and with only 3 tours, I am the youngest and least experienced of the proponents of women in the CF, and yet, you question them. For Chris'sakes, 2 Cdo is a vet of Apollo, with experience in the CAR, (not exactly a bastion of feminism). If he's fer it, it's prob'ly a good thing. Maybe because it is simple common sense?

Bottom line: I have seen women out-perform men, and I have seen women who should not have been trusted with a firearm.
I have seen men out-perform men, and I have seen men who should not have been trusted with a firearm. Sounds a lot like equality to me.

 

[Jed]

In a previous post the question was raised about segragated training in the CF between women and men.  If I recall correctly I know of 2 women who took ROUTP (RESO) in all women courses in Shilo in 19784. I don't know how many years it ran that way, but I'm sure it did not last very long.

 

[KevinB]

Hollywog -- You seems to be intentional ignoring or sidestepping the comments people are showing you.

I know of both women and men that are not fit to be in the CF for a number of reasons, but still are.  That is not a gender issue,  as well there are females and males performing admirably, which is also not a gender issue.

Hence it is a training and standards issue - not a gender issue at all.