- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Britney, my Fiancee wants me to ask if they come with parts options?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Only if the parts are made in Quebec.
I really can't help myself. I gotta say my 2 cents.
I would rather not accept women in combat. So shoot me for being old-fashioned. But, should I meet a woman, and I've worked with women who can do the same physical labour on the farm as me, who chooses to enter the military great. And should she so choose and make it in I would treat her the same as any other person. I forget who said it first on here, soldiers when in uniform ladies when in civvies. Should we change the training to suit them? Hell no. Neither should we change the training to suit my friend who has ashma. He has learned to deal with what he was given in life. He does the same work I do without complaints he just has to work harder sometimes to be in the same shape. For example, for him to run the same distance I do at the same speed he has to be in better shape to be able to have enough oxygen. But the standards don't get lowered for the military. On the farm, we don't have a set standard, the women who do work (which are rare) on the farm generally don't do the heavier work and we make concessions and the work gets done. I don't think any less of them because they don't have the same physical strength or height I do.But I don't believe the mlitary has the liberty of making concessions for someone who can't keep up. Yes, the mlitary does make concessions to help out teamates when needed but they have all met a given operational requirement before that. It's like giving the machine gun to carry to the 150lb guy or to the 240lb guy. Which do you think should carry it? The one who can. So all this crap about woman shouldn't have to do the same number of push-ups because they're not built that way. It's like the same crap that firefighters have, a woman doesn't have to be able to lift 150lb person out of a burning building. Bullshit, that's an operational requirement. You can't do it, go home.
So if you ladies out there want a training regimen to bring you up to the same physical level great. Go to the gym and play sports like the rest of the guys. If you need special treatment or training to get in then either get it on your own time or accept your own limitations. I know I have limitations and I'm working on building on them.
I would rather not accept women in combat. So shoot me for being old-fashioned. But, should I meet a woman, and I've worked with women who can do the same physical labour on the farm as me, who chooses to enter the military great. And should she so choose and make it in I would treat her the same as any other person. I forget who said it first on here, soldiers when in uniform ladies when in civvies. Should we change the training to suit them? Hell no. Neither should we change the training to suit my friend who has ashma. He has learned to deal with what he was given in life. He does the same work I do without complaints he just has to work harder sometimes to be in the same shape. For example, for him to run the same distance I do at the same speed he has to be in better shape to be able to have enough oxygen. But the standards don't get lowered for the military. On the farm, we don't have a set standard, the women who do work (which are rare) on the farm generally don't do the heavier work and we make concessions and the work gets done. I don't think any less of them because they don't have the same physical strength or height I do.But I don't believe the mlitary has the liberty of making concessions for someone who can't keep up. Yes, the mlitary does make concessions to help out teamates when needed but they have all met a given operational requirement before that. It's like giving the machine gun to carry to the 150lb guy or to the 240lb guy. Which do you think should carry it? The one who can. So all this crap about woman shouldn't have to do the same number of push-ups because they're not built that way. It's like the same crap that firefighters have, a woman doesn't have to be able to lift 150lb person out of a burning building. Bullshit, that's an operational requirement. You can't do it, go home.
So if you ladies out there want a training regimen to bring you up to the same physical level great. Go to the gym and play sports like the rest of the guys. If you need special treatment or training to get in then either get it on your own time or accept your own limitations. I know I have limitations and I'm working on building on them.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If I've said it once, I've said it a million times.
The only standards which are different are the fitness standards, which do not reflect anything someone in combat would actually use. Hmm, I am getting shot at. I think I'll run 20 metres, turn around, and run 20 metres again for 7 minutes. Or maybe I'll drop and do 20 push-ups. These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.
The standards that count (such as the Battle Fitness Test -- BFT) are the same if your a man or woman.
If one more person says that the standards should be the same I'm going to jump off my roof (into 3 feet of snow so no worries, I won't hurt myself
).
I'm sure that some have had experiences where women are treated differently than men while on course. They probably were. A good instructor tailors their styles to get the best out of their students. Where the problem lies is when a student gets preferential treatment (ie, getting many chances at completing a task that others failed without a second chance). Given, I have usually been the only woman throughout my training (after university), but I was never given "preferential" treatment. In fact, I saw more than a few guys get many chances when others failed off a course after only one attempt.
Whoo, breath. I'm okay now. Time for a beer.
The only standards which are different are the fitness standards, which do not reflect anything someone in combat would actually use. Hmm, I am getting shot at. I think I'll run 20 metres, turn around, and run 20 metres again for 7 minutes. Or maybe I'll drop and do 20 push-ups. These differences are based on physical abilities of the different sexes and reflect FITNESS, not combat capability.
The standards that count (such as the Battle Fitness Test -- BFT) are the same if your a man or woman.
If one more person says that the standards should be the same I'm going to jump off my roof (into 3 feet of snow so no worries, I won't hurt myself
).I'm sure that some have had experiences where women are treated differently than men while on course. They probably were. A good instructor tailors their styles to get the best out of their students. Where the problem lies is when a student gets preferential treatment (ie, getting many chances at completing a task that others failed without a second chance). Given, I have usually been the only woman throughout my training (after university), but I was never given "preferential" treatment. In fact, I saw more than a few guys get many chances when others failed off a course after only one attempt.
Whoo, breath. I'm okay now. Time for a beer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This is an extremely unrealistic viewpoint, to say the least. If you want to make a case that the CF express test is not valid in evaluating a bona fide occupational qualification, then according to Federal Employment standards, the test must be abolished completely. If it's not relevent then why have it at all?
Recruitment for JTF2 required a fairly high standard of physical fitness, in every sense of the term, so i guess according to you, they're right out to lunch?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Negligent discharge is not just something that happens nocturnally, and clearly, to men.....Britney, that was friggin priceless!!!!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This discussion is preposterous. What is the complaint against (equally) high standards of physical fitness? Look ladies, BEING IN SHAPE/EXCERCISE IS GOOD FOR YOU. You will find youselves more desirable to men(or other women, this being the new army...), you will do better at your job, and you will live a longer and happier life. More excercise also means you can cram more twinkies down your throat without gaining weight. What exactly is the downside here?
Some people seem to think that excercise is some how bad for them, These people do not belong in the CF.
Some people seem to think that excercise is some how bad for them, These people do not belong in the CF.
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
OK, here's the ref: http://www.cfpsa.com/en/PSP/Fitness/expres_e.aspStrike said:
So you're somehow trying to tell me that sandbags for ladies are lighter ?? Or that the dirt in the trench you are digging is lightly packed, because you are female ?? The fitness evaluation is designed to test your capacity to perform the common Military tasks, so how can different standards be justified ?
As an example: the 18-year old son of a guy I know saw an ad in the paper about Hydro-Québec looking for linemen. He applied, and was summonned for an interview and fitness test, which is very similar to out MPFS. Hydro-Qc has determined that being a lineman requires the same effort from everyone, regardless of age or gender. And, their passing-mark for the shuttle-run is level 8
Yes, level 8, a level the majority of CF members cannot reach... Anyway, the kid failed, and was told to return after the 6-month probation period. His dad, an Officer in the CF, told him to join the Military... they would take him. :How many women can do the 100-m fireman carry with an average-weight person ?? (You can't always choose who gets injured). Well, in my 22 years, I haven't seen too many.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jungle,
The MPFS may have been based on all those tasks mentioned, however the only test that would reflect those "common military tasks" is the hand grip test and the sand bag carry -- gotta hold on to that sand bag. Believe me, being good at these tasks will not help anyone in those activities.
You know those skinny guys who can run like gazels (and make it look so easy you want to smack them) and are so light that push-ups are a breeze? They have washboards you could clean your clothes on and probably have a resting heart rate of 55 bpm. Of course, they only weight about 150 lbs but consistently rate high on the PT test. Now, compare it to the larger man who may not perform well in the beep test run, has difficulties with the push-ups and maybe site-ups. But I'll bet you he can shovel dirt 'till the cows come home and, when it comes to the BFT, will march that 13 km in full ruck w/ rifle and carry someone his own weight in the casualty carry without effort. Can you see the inconsistencies?
I work with guys like this. I have seen people who are in very good shape choose to do the PT test because they think the BFT is too hard and those who SEEM to be in lesser shape choose the opposite for the exact same reason. (I work in a section where we have the option to what test we will participate in.)
The point? I really don't care what the fitness standards are provided people pass the levels set out for them. The clincher is if people can perform the task based standards -- which are equal no matter what your sex or age.
You may disagree and that is your perogative. I just feel that the Express test has become more of a fitness test that reflective of physical ability and, since different ages (and sexes) have different indicators to reflect the same fitness level (heart rate and reaction time is a prime example), then these different levels should be accurately reflected.
Before y'all jump on my back please reread that last paragraph carefully. I did not say there should be different standards when it comes to task standards, and that really is what's important, is it not?
Break Break
Britney,
K, now I'm starting to ramble. Too many hours at work this week. I do apologize. There is so much I want to say and not enough room.
The MPFS may have been based on all those tasks mentioned, however the only test that would reflect those "common military tasks" is the hand grip test and the sand bag carry -- gotta hold on to that sand bag. Believe me, being good at these tasks will not help anyone in those activities.
You know those skinny guys who can run like gazels (and make it look so easy you want to smack them) and are so light that push-ups are a breeze? They have washboards you could clean your clothes on and probably have a resting heart rate of 55 bpm. Of course, they only weight about 150 lbs but consistently rate high on the PT test. Now, compare it to the larger man who may not perform well in the beep test run, has difficulties with the push-ups and maybe site-ups. But I'll bet you he can shovel dirt 'till the cows come home and, when it comes to the BFT, will march that 13 km in full ruck w/ rifle and carry someone his own weight in the casualty carry without effort. Can you see the inconsistencies?
I work with guys like this. I have seen people who are in very good shape choose to do the PT test because they think the BFT is too hard and those who SEEM to be in lesser shape choose the opposite for the exact same reason. (I work in a section where we have the option to what test we will participate in.)
The point? I really don't care what the fitness standards are provided people pass the levels set out for them. The clincher is if people can perform the task based standards -- which are equal no matter what your sex or age.
You may disagree and that is your perogative. I just feel that the Express test has become more of a fitness test that reflective of physical ability and, since different ages (and sexes) have different indicators to reflect the same fitness level (heart rate and reaction time is a prime example), then these different levels should be accurately reflected.
Before y'all jump on my back please reread that last paragraph carefully. I did not say there should be different standards when it comes to task standards, and that really is what's important, is it not?
Break Break
Britney,
As stated above, the different levels in the PT test reflect the same level of fitness for the different ages/sexes.
K, now I'm starting to ramble. Too many hours at work this week. I do apologize. There is so much I want to say and not enough room.
- Reaction score
- 9,728
- Points
- 1,260
Strike said:
Hey, that's me.
That being said, I'll always remember what a Force Recon Marine over on SOCNET, who was a giant, said - "never let your size be an excuse".
I like what Mark C once said - that running around in silk shorts and Nike shoes is not fitness in the sense that the Army needs.
We need to come up with a realistic set of tests that by having a soldier meet would indicate a requisite level of speed, stamina and strength (both physical and mental). A series of March-and-shoots and Obstacle Courses seems to fit the bill.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think the standards should be the same for women and men and if women can cut it then hell yeah let them in the military. I hate the fact that I get to do less than a man but We are both expected to do the same job. I want qualified people protecting me and my country not people who got in on some lame ass PC crap. If a woman can do the job in the combat arms then let her. If not, then ship her arse out. hehe
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Oh m' gosh! Infanteer, you actually understood what I was saying? Thank-you for explaining it much better than I (in a much shorter time I might add). I'm an engineer by schooling, not an artsman. Was never good at writing.
:dontpanic: :dontpanic: :dontpanic:
Camochick:
As previously stated, they are the same, when it's task based.
:dontpanic: :dontpanic: :dontpanic:
Camochick:
As previously stated, they are the same, when it's task based.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Strike:
You're still circling around the issue. All you have done is substitute "Big guys" for "women" while making the same excuses, as if a big, muscular guy or a woman has an excuse for not being able to run well(or vice versa with a skinny guy and rucksacks). None of this holds water, I've never EVER seen a real infantryman come close to failing either the Express test(although to be honest I've only ever done it once, I don't think it's really much used in the cbt arms) or the BFT. Arguing whether either is more "suitable" or "realistic" is just searching for excuses for poor standards of personal fitness.
The enemy doesn't care whether you're big or skinny, or whether you're a man or woman. I'm no good at running, because I'm big/a woman? Save the sob story and go for a run, because guess which one's more likely to save you bacon?
Now back to the "issue" of women in combat(heh).
EDIT: Erm, I didn't mean to imply that you were a "big woman", and 'bacon" was the only PG-13 substitute I could think of for "posterior". Now I feel like a jellyfish.......
You're still circling around the issue. All you have done is substitute "Big guys" for "women" while making the same excuses, as if a big, muscular guy or a woman has an excuse for not being able to run well(or vice versa with a skinny guy and rucksacks). None of this holds water, I've never EVER seen a real infantryman come close to failing either the Express test(although to be honest I've only ever done it once, I don't think it's really much used in the cbt arms) or the BFT. Arguing whether either is more "suitable" or "realistic" is just searching for excuses for poor standards of personal fitness.
The enemy doesn't care whether you're big or skinny, or whether you're a man or woman. I'm no good at running, because I'm big/a woman? Save the sob story and go for a run, because guess which one's more likely to save you bacon?
Now back to the "issue" of women in combat(heh).
EDIT: Erm, I didn't mean to imply that you were a "big woman", and 'bacon" was the only PG-13 substitute I could think of for "posterior". Now I feel like a jellyfish.......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I don't even see it as a matter of fitness. I see it as which test is better for judging if someone can do the job because the point of this thread is if women are able to play a combat role. Obviously BFT is the best judge because it addresses the issue of measuring the member in physical performance wrt the tasks they are likely to do AND the standards are the same regardless of age or sex. Period.
BTW, I will admit that I am no speed demon and work hard to get my exemption on the PT test. But guess what. During my evasion course (hey, a task based physical course that had the same standards for men and women) I certainly did not hold back the two SAR techs I was grouped with. I recall a pair of fighter guys (aka gazelles!) who had trouble getting to their locations on time whereas we covered the same distances with hours (really, hours) to spare.
If this still fails to prove my point about the fact that the PT test (and how well someone does) does not prove someone's combat capability then you really already have your mind made up and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Reference the fair comments on my "...fill 67 bodybags" post:
Yes, other countries may react admirably when battle becomes an equal opportunity harvester, but we aren't 'other countries'. Our political leaders may be induced to react unwisely. It has happened. Remember the old saying "It doesn't have to make sense - it's government policy."
Simply put - the issue of women in combat, seen in this light, is not one of "can she do it" or even "should she do it". It now enters the realm of "How crippled would we be if a future government decided to pull all females out of an operation, for whatever the reason?" How do you rebuild your unit after losing ten to thirty per-cent of your soldiers - and some damn good ones at that - due to a policy change? This has happened before in another Army. Very unfair to both the females pulled out, and the men left trying to cover the gaps. Dangerous, if you are in theatre and the women dragged away kicking and screaming occupy key positions - which they invariably will.
Some politicians don't make decisions well under pressure. They don't do "pressure."
Now, this is low risk. So low we probably shouldn't worry about it. If some punk in Elbonia gets in a lucky shot, we should be used to handling things by now. This ain't the early nineties. Right?
As for moot points:
The history links: WW2 is a moot point! The Germans lost! Why talk about it?
Because it is interesting. And fun, that's why. And if we don't talk (and write) about the past, how will others learn about it?
One more (back to the original) point: This subject may keep coming up because after years and years of government efforts to the contrary, Canadian society has still failed to convince a lot of boys and girls that women in the combat arms is a good thing. You lot born in the 80s seem to have payed about as much attention to that as you have to all of the anti-smoking campaigns that my hard earned tax dollars have bought over the years. Oh sure, lots of modern educated women believe in the opportunity. But not for THEIR daughters. THEIR daughters are going to law school. Combat is for the daughters of the POOOOR people.
A few years back, we were doing a Coyote Dog and Pony in rural NB. I did the turret tour part. I tried to talk every 14 to 17 year old girl that passed through the turret into eventually joining the military. Most of them thought it was just for guys (who I also tried to recruit, by the way).
A previous poster raised an interesting point: conscription. At what point will a right to serve become a responsibility to serve? Hmmnnn...My guess is.... Never.
Tom
Yes, other countries may react admirably when battle becomes an equal opportunity harvester, but we aren't 'other countries'. Our political leaders may be induced to react unwisely. It has happened. Remember the old saying "It doesn't have to make sense - it's government policy."
Simply put - the issue of women in combat, seen in this light, is not one of "can she do it" or even "should she do it". It now enters the realm of "How crippled would we be if a future government decided to pull all females out of an operation, for whatever the reason?" How do you rebuild your unit after losing ten to thirty per-cent of your soldiers - and some damn good ones at that - due to a policy change? This has happened before in another Army. Very unfair to both the females pulled out, and the men left trying to cover the gaps. Dangerous, if you are in theatre and the women dragged away kicking and screaming occupy key positions - which they invariably will.
Some politicians don't make decisions well under pressure. They don't do "pressure."
Now, this is low risk. So low we probably shouldn't worry about it. If some punk in Elbonia gets in a lucky shot, we should be used to handling things by now. This ain't the early nineties. Right?
As for moot points:
The history links: WW2 is a moot point! The Germans lost! Why talk about it?
Because it is interesting. And fun, that's why. And if we don't talk (and write) about the past, how will others learn about it?
One more (back to the original) point: This subject may keep coming up because after years and years of government efforts to the contrary, Canadian society has still failed to convince a lot of boys and girls that women in the combat arms is a good thing. You lot born in the 80s seem to have payed about as much attention to that as you have to all of the anti-smoking campaigns that my hard earned tax dollars have bought over the years.
Oh sure, lots of modern educated women believe in the opportunity. But not for THEIR daughters. THEIR daughters are going to law school. Combat is for the daughters of the POOOOR people.A few years back, we were doing a Coyote Dog and Pony in rural NB. I did the turret tour part. I tried to talk every 14 to 17 year old girl that passed through the turret into eventually joining the military. Most of them thought it was just for guys (who I also tried to recruit, by the way).
A previous poster raised an interesting point: conscription. At what point will a right to serve become a responsibility to serve? Hmmnnn...My guess is.... Never.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Women Fighters Among Dead in Congo Clash-UN
Sat Mar 5, 2005 7:57 AM ET
By David Lewis
BUNIA, Congo (Reuters) - Women fighters were among the 50 people killed by U.N. troops during a battle with militia in northeastern Congo, a U.N. spokesman said on Saturday, responding to claims that women and children died in the clash.
The battle on Tuesday at a militia camp near the main town of Bunia in the lawless Ituri district was the deadliest involving U.N. troops deployed in Congo. It came five days after gunmen killed nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers in the same area.
"It seems there were women combatants and some of these were killed during the operation," said Kemal Saiki, a spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo, known by its French acronym MONUC.
He said the United Nations was still investigating reports that about 25 civilians, including women and children, were killed in the clash.
Saiki said up to 500 militia fighters from the Lendu ethnic group were involved in the battle against U.N. forces hunting militiamen suspected of killing civiliajs.
U.N. officials have accused the militias of using villagers as human shields during Tuesday's fighting.
Ethnic warfare, mainly between Lendu and rival Hema factions, has killed 50,000 people in Ituri since 1999. The conflict is rooted in land and commercial rivalries, in a region rich in gold, diamonds and timber.
Major Zahid Khan Aamir, a U.N. officer who took part in Tuesday's operation in nearby Loga, declined to comment on whether women fighters had been killed, but said women regularly appeared in militia ranks.
He said fighters had continued to stream from all directions to attack U.N. troops leaving on helicopters that had been parked in a football field during the clashes.
"We gave plenty of time for these people to leave and only fired when fired upon," Aamir told reporters in Bunia.
"Even as we were withdrawing, the militias were surrounding the football field and they attacked," he said.
The Kinshasa government has come under intense pressure from the United Nations and foreign governments to hunt down those responsible for slaying the Bangladeshi soldiers.
A U.N. spokesman in New York said on Friday that the Congolese government had arrested several militia leaders, detaining them under house arrest, but regretted that they still seemed to be able to move about and communicate freely.
"The mission is calling on the government to truly arrest these people and bring them to justice," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
Floribert Ndjabu, head of the Lendu-dominated Nationalist Integrationist Front (FNI), was arrested in Kinshasa while FNI force commander Goda Sukpa and Lendu ally Germain Katanga were under house arrest, government officials have said.
The fighting has threatened the Democratic Republic of Congo's efforts to move on from a wider war which ended in 2003, killing 4 million people, mainly through hunger and disease.
The U.N. Children's Fund said the renewed clashes had caused U.N. aid workers to quit much of the eastern Congo, cutting humanitarian aid to an estimated 54,000 displaced people.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Sat Mar 5, 2005 7:57 AM ET
By David Lewis
BUNIA, Congo (Reuters) - Women fighters were among the 50 people killed by U.N. troops during a battle with militia in northeastern Congo, a U.N. spokesman said on Saturday, responding to claims that women and children died in the clash.
The battle on Tuesday at a militia camp near the main town of Bunia in the lawless Ituri district was the deadliest involving U.N. troops deployed in Congo. It came five days after gunmen killed nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers in the same area.
"It seems there were women combatants and some of these were killed during the operation," said Kemal Saiki, a spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo, known by its French acronym MONUC.
He said the United Nations was still investigating reports that about 25 civilians, including women and children, were killed in the clash.
Saiki said up to 500 militia fighters from the Lendu ethnic group were involved in the battle against U.N. forces hunting militiamen suspected of killing civiliajs.
U.N. officials have accused the militias of using villagers as human shields during Tuesday's fighting.
Ethnic warfare, mainly between Lendu and rival Hema factions, has killed 50,000 people in Ituri since 1999. The conflict is rooted in land and commercial rivalries, in a region rich in gold, diamonds and timber.
Major Zahid Khan Aamir, a U.N. officer who took part in Tuesday's operation in nearby Loga, declined to comment on whether women fighters had been killed, but said women regularly appeared in militia ranks.
He said fighters had continued to stream from all directions to attack U.N. troops leaving on helicopters that had been parked in a football field during the clashes.
"We gave plenty of time for these people to leave and only fired when fired upon," Aamir told reporters in Bunia.
"Even as we were withdrawing, the militias were surrounding the football field and they attacked," he said.
The Kinshasa government has come under intense pressure from the United Nations and foreign governments to hunt down those responsible for slaying the Bangladeshi soldiers.
A U.N. spokesman in New York said on Friday that the Congolese government had arrested several militia leaders, detaining them under house arrest, but regretted that they still seemed to be able to move about and communicate freely.
"The mission is calling on the government to truly arrest these people and bring them to justice," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
Floribert Ndjabu, head of the Lendu-dominated Nationalist Integrationist Front (FNI), was arrested in Kinshasa while FNI force commander Goda Sukpa and Lendu ally Germain Katanga were under house arrest, government officials have said.
The fighting has threatened the Democratic Republic of Congo's efforts to move on from a wider war which ended in 2003, killing 4 million people, mainly through hunger and disease.
The U.N. Children's Fund said the renewed clashes had caused U.N. aid workers to quit much of the eastern Congo, cutting humanitarian aid to an estimated 54,000 displaced people.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
And now I enter the fray....
There are many factors that cloud or opinions on this issue (IMO): societal (ie. living in a patriarchal society), resistance to change (we never used to have women in combat, so it must have been for good reason), fear (fear of having a girl beat you at your own game), and many others that will spring to mind once I start ranting ;D
I noticed in the article quoted by Big Bad John a few posts back that it mentioned But, by the same token, I wouldn't want to get between a woman who is trying to save their own (by it child, husband, family member, etc).
I remember a bunch of years back when this issue was front page news, a retired female general (CF) and a WWII era officer were debating this issue, I remember scoffing at her (and still do, mostly) because her arguments were of the fluffy "anything men can do, women can do too...." and the real veteran, using "when I was in combat" quite a bit in his arguments against, and cheering him on. I still feel that he was right for the most part with him, but there are a lot of things left out of both of their arguments. Her arguments are based on a lot of PC reasoning that applies to many other issues (politics, "normal" jobs, etc) and I don't disagree, as long as there is equality applied to the hiring, not quotas on minority based things (age, race, sexual preference, height, etc), but can't apply to things such as combat, where there isn't time for ministerial inquiries into why people aren't able to perform, or the wringing of hands over whether Janey (or Johnny) should have been there (combat) and are now dead, just to appease the social scientists who have theories, but no experience. His arguments about how it was (WWII) are based on his experiences, and that beats a theory any day, but as women weren't invited to the dance, he can only speculate on how they would have performed. And that was a different era altogether, were a woman's place was in the home,barefoot, pregnant, and looking after the chidlin's and the man-folk. Times have changed. Whether having double income families is ruining our society, or improving it, won't be seen for some time, but there were problems aplenty with the old ways and the old days, so the rose coloured glasses we normally use to look at the past need to be adjusted. And so it goes with women doing non-traditional roles: I'm all for people doing anything they want, as long as they meet the standards set the the given profession, be it brain power or horse power. I wouldn't want a medical school accept me into med school by reduced standards just because I'm a white, Finno-Canadian male (I hate hyphenated prefixes to "Canadian" BTW....). If anybody saw my shaky hands in action, they wouldn't let me anywhere near a scalpel. And, while maybe they should give me the chance if I want to be a surgeon, I realize my own limitations, and know that that isn't for me. And I think that is the point a lot of the politicians and eggheads are missing: a lot of women (and men) don't think they are cut out for the military, so they vote with their feet, and walk past the recruiting center. Trying to drag people in against their will, painting an unrealistic picture (anybody seen the sides of CF busses or cube vans know what I'm talking about) of what it is like, and then wondering why the retention rate is in the low single digits.... Generally, people will do what they want, and if you lie to them (the equivalent of "this car was owned by a little old lady from Pasedena, and well maintained...."), they will leave.
Our attitude (in society and the CF) will have to gradually change, to both accept that what has been done can't be undone, and also to realize that it (the miltary) isn't for everyone. Everyone loves to quote how they knew 3 girls who joined, and were gone within a year. And these guys are proud of that fact. Probably because the females a) didn't like it, b) they felt VERY unwelcome, and c) moved on with their life, and maybe were better for trying, and applied that elsewhere. GW brought up the very valid point in another thread (that wasn't merged with this one) that the attrition rate for men is very high as well. I can count on one hand out of all the guys I went through Battle School (about 20 guys) with that are still Crewmen. I guess they couldn't hack it, huh??? The rest OT'ed, got out, and/or moved on with their life.....
I have to admit I wasn't exactly tickled pink with the revelation that women were going to be in the Combat Arms (call it upbringing), and over the years that has only gradually diminished (Rome wasn't built in a day....), mainly due to the realization that the societal engineers and politicians have lowered the standard for entrance into the CF. Before we all get excited here, is the reason behind this the fact they want women to enter the CF, or because society has dropped it's collective physical standards? Childhood obesity is considered an epdemic, and I see no shortage of fat-backs in my travels around civvy world..... I know we all ASSUME that the standards have dropped because of women, but do we KNOW that for a fact?
I have seen more than a few women in uniform that aren't just "fit for a chick" but very fit for a soldier. Are all of them in the Combat Arms? No. Some of the fittest men in uniform I have seen aren't in the Combat Arms. Why? By their choice, I imagine. Being physically fit isn't the biggest issue here, but it is a very big part of it. The biggest fallout I have seen from the reduced physical standards isn't with women, but with men. When I did Op Grizzly (G8 security in Kananaskis) we were employed dismounted (Armour soldiers dismounted??!!??! Who carried the urn of gravy???). We had a young female in our troop/platoon, and while she wasn't the biggest physically, she didn't drop her rucksack and try to drag it down the mountain by the sash-cord we carried, like a young male soldier did (or tried to do) (we were dropped off at the top of a mountain, and walked down to our bivouac with 100+ lbs on or back, with snow up to our chest (in June!!!!). It took about 2 1/2 hrs to travel 2 kms (as crow flies), and we were all pretty beat, but she kept up). I saw first-hand the "unit dynamics" that became problematic with her being there: one of the young fella's was all googly-eyed around her, and followed her like a puppy, but she can't be faulted for that. As well, I had to jack up both of them during this operation (using VERY strong language and threats of physical violence due to a lack of diligence to their surveillance task) and I thought he was going to break into tears before she ever would. And she never had me brought up for harassment, like 2 MALE soldiers have, who didn't like the "tone" I used with them (one to his face, the other in talking about him...... and both of these guys were part of the "old ways" system......).
There were (are???) two female soldiers with the Strats, who while not as big and burly than our biggest and burliest, have proven to be capable soldiers. One was with our Mounted Troop, and ended up breaking her leg (and one of my red-neck, old school buddies (who not one of you "real men" would say anything bad to his face, let me tell ya...) told me about this, with much respect in his tone) and she handled having that broken leg (a horse threw her, and I believe it landed on her) a lot better than most guys (myself included, I'm sure) would have. Another soldier plays unit (not female league, but unit) broomball, provincial level rugby and was in a "super soldier" type of competition in Bosnia, and won in her category (might have been a female category, but still....). And a female Private (at the time) of 3 PPCLI was in a mine strike in a HUMVEE in Op Apollo (A'stan 2002), but didn't want any big hoopla raised, and she was bruised very severely, and carried on. Of course, for all of these positive stories, there are negative examples, but then again, I could fill up pages of posts on the useless male soldiers I have encountered in my career. But that brings us full circle to the point that there should be standards, very high and difficult to obtain, for people to be in the Combat Arms. Not so difficult that only Super Elite Ninja Commandos could apply (that's what JTF2 is for.....), but difficult enough that 50 year old, average, people shouldn't be able to meet the standard (emphasis on AVERAGE, not the very fit 50 year olds that put 20 year olds to shame....).
I am more disgusted by people who do't want to have women serve with them, and are an embarrasment to the CF themselves, than the women who should be allowed to at least try out for the CF. It's like the fat slug with the beer belly saying that the hottie SunshineGirl needs to lose a few pounds (even though she's thinner than one of his legs.....). People, of all shapes, sizes, colours, orientations, etc who cling to the fact that being able to (barely) pass the BFT makes them battle ready are on some severe glue. The "60% is good enough for me" attitude, be it for AFV recognition, written tests, or fitness is the death of our military. Given the choice, we would want the Harvard medical school grad to operate on our child with the brain tumour, and not Dr Nick (from the Simpson's). It should be the same for our taxpayers: they should have people that our capable of fighting the wars they (through the people they elect) send us to, not slugs who think that the war will be fought with a doughnut in one hand and a Nintendo controller in the other. If the fight is on the mountain, you're no good if you are stuck in the valley.....
WRT fitness, mental fitness is something that needs to be developed, even more so than physical fitness. There are many examples from war where people's mental toughness carried them further than their bodies should have. I recall reading the Guiness Book of Records years ago, and the longest that a person ever stood still (none of these 5 minute breaks every hour that current records allow) was for 24hours, and that was a British officer standing at attention in a POW camp, who did it to avoid punishment for his soldiers (I may be wrong on the details, but that's how I remember it). Too many people give up (on marches, runs, anything) because "it hurts", "I can't do it", etc, and the sad thing is that it's allowed to happen. I don't want to sound like an old-timer, but falling out of a march was more shameful than pretty much anything else you could do. Now people get on the "man-eating" truck and laugh about it. If a person is injured, and carrying on will cause further injury, yes, get on the truck, but not because it's "difficult". When I was doing PT with an SQ course, I was surprised at how easy the young soldiers gave up, and expected to let me let them "walk it in". I want to see vomit and/or blood before you can walk it in. Will this type of mentality cause injury or death? Yes, in a small amount of cases, but being in the valley while the battle rages on the mountain top will also get people injured or killed, probably at a much higher rate. I have been guilty of taking it easier over the years, but I can proudly say that I have never fallen out of a run or ruckmarch, even with mononucleosis and being hung-over, sick, tired, etc. And I am not the thinnest or strongest of people, but I was (and am able) to get the job done.
As my rant winds down (and my wife wants to respond to this thread, and I'm on her comp) I will just sum up with this: why keep (even though not officially, but with attitudes) 50%+ of our population from wanting to, attempting to, or being in combat roles??? If they can meet the standards (that are kept high), why not? I don't want stunned-ass blow hards speaking with the voice of authority, to come on this forum and spout off their half-baked, "heard it on my grampa's knee, so I'll repeat it without any independent thought" to waste bandwidth, but such that freedom of speech is the order of the day (and Mike allows it), so is the fact that women in the CF will engage in combat, whether we like it or not. Let's look forward, and not backwards, much like those that allowed women and non-whites the vote. Sure, people (read: white males) didn't like that, but we have come to accept it (and now we know that women and non-whites are just as capable of electing crap leaders......).
Al
There are many factors that cloud or opinions on this issue (IMO): societal (ie. living in a patriarchal society), resistance to change (we never used to have women in combat, so it must have been for good reason), fear (fear of having a girl beat you at your own game), and many others that will spring to mind once I start ranting ;D
I noticed in the article quoted by Big Bad John a few posts back that it mentioned
. Until society doesn't differentiate between men (civilians) and women being killed in combat, we'll always relegate women to being non-combatants by default. It's also in our nice polite, Canadian upbringing that we are conditioned to protect women, even at our expense (women and children first.......). And women aren't always willing to buck that trend if it means saving their own skin >
But, by the same token, I wouldn't want to get between a woman who is trying to save their own (by it child, husband, family member, etc).I remember a bunch of years back when this issue was front page news, a retired female general (CF) and a WWII era officer were debating this issue, I remember scoffing at her (and still do, mostly) because her arguments were of the fluffy "anything men can do, women can do too...." and the real veteran, using "when I was in combat" quite a bit in his arguments against, and cheering him on. I still feel that he was right for the most part with him, but there are a lot of things left out of both of their arguments. Her arguments are based on a lot of PC reasoning that applies to many other issues (politics, "normal" jobs, etc) and I don't disagree, as long as there is equality applied to the hiring, not quotas on minority based things (age, race, sexual preference, height, etc), but can't apply to things such as combat, where there isn't time for ministerial inquiries into why people aren't able to perform, or the wringing of hands over whether Janey (or Johnny) should have been there (combat) and are now dead, just to appease the social scientists who have theories, but no experience. His arguments about how it was (WWII) are based on his experiences, and that beats a theory any day, but as women weren't invited to the dance, he can only speculate on how they would have performed. And that was a different era altogether, were a woman's place was in the home,barefoot, pregnant, and looking after the chidlin's and the man-folk. Times have changed. Whether having double income families is ruining our society, or improving it, won't be seen for some time, but there were problems aplenty with the old ways and the old days, so the rose coloured glasses we normally use to look at the past need to be adjusted. And so it goes with women doing non-traditional roles: I'm all for people doing anything they want, as long as they meet the standards set the the given profession, be it brain power or horse power. I wouldn't want a medical school accept me into med school by reduced standards just because I'm a white, Finno-Canadian male (I hate hyphenated prefixes to "Canadian" BTW....). If anybody saw my shaky hands in action, they wouldn't let me anywhere near a scalpel. And, while maybe they should give me the chance if I want to be a surgeon, I realize my own limitations, and know that that isn't for me. And I think that is the point a lot of the politicians and eggheads are missing: a lot of women (and men) don't think they are cut out for the military, so they vote with their feet, and walk past the recruiting center. Trying to drag people in against their will, painting an unrealistic picture (anybody seen the sides of CF busses or cube vans know what I'm talking about) of what it is like, and then wondering why the retention rate is in the low single digits.... Generally, people will do what they want, and if you lie to them (the equivalent of "this car was owned by a little old lady from Pasedena, and well maintained...."), they will leave.
Our attitude (in society and the CF) will have to gradually change, to both accept that what has been done can't be undone, and also to realize that it (the miltary) isn't for everyone. Everyone loves to quote how they knew 3 girls who joined, and were gone within a year. And these guys are proud of that fact. Probably because the females a) didn't like it, b) they felt VERY unwelcome, and c) moved on with their life, and maybe were better for trying, and applied that elsewhere. GW brought up the very valid point in another thread (that wasn't merged with this one) that the attrition rate for men is very high as well. I can count on one hand out of all the guys I went through Battle School (about 20 guys) with that are still Crewmen. I guess they couldn't hack it, huh??? The rest OT'ed, got out, and/or moved on with their life.....
I have to admit I wasn't exactly tickled pink with the revelation that women were going to be in the Combat Arms (call it upbringing), and over the years that has only gradually diminished (Rome wasn't built in a day....), mainly due to the realization that the societal engineers and politicians have lowered the standard for entrance into the CF. Before we all get excited here, is the reason behind this the fact they want women to enter the CF, or because society has dropped it's collective physical standards? Childhood obesity is considered an epdemic, and I see no shortage of fat-backs in my travels around civvy world..... I know we all ASSUME that the standards have dropped because of women, but do we KNOW that for a fact?
I have seen more than a few women in uniform that aren't just "fit for a chick" but very fit for a soldier. Are all of them in the Combat Arms? No. Some of the fittest men in uniform I have seen aren't in the Combat Arms. Why? By their choice, I imagine. Being physically fit isn't the biggest issue here, but it is a very big part of it. The biggest fallout I have seen from the reduced physical standards isn't with women, but with men. When I did Op Grizzly (G8 security in Kananaskis) we were employed dismounted (Armour soldiers dismounted??!!??! Who carried the urn of gravy???). We had a young female in our troop/platoon, and while she wasn't the biggest physically, she didn't drop her rucksack and try to drag it down the mountain by the sash-cord we carried, like a young male soldier did (or tried to do) (we were dropped off at the top of a mountain, and walked down to our bivouac with 100+ lbs on or back, with snow up to our chest (in June!!!!). It took about 2 1/2 hrs to travel 2 kms (as crow flies), and we were all pretty beat, but she kept up). I saw first-hand the "unit dynamics" that became problematic with her being there: one of the young fella's was all googly-eyed around her, and followed her like a puppy, but she can't be faulted for that. As well, I had to jack up both of them during this operation (using VERY strong language and threats of physical violence due to a lack of diligence to their surveillance task) and I thought he was going to break into tears before she ever would. And she never had me brought up for harassment, like 2 MALE soldiers have, who didn't like the "tone" I used with them (one to his face, the other in talking about him...... and both of these guys were part of the "old ways" system......).
There were (are???) two female soldiers with the Strats, who while not as big and burly than our biggest and burliest, have proven to be capable soldiers. One was with our Mounted Troop, and ended up breaking her leg (and one of my red-neck, old school buddies (who not one of you "real men" would say anything bad to his face, let me tell ya...) told me about this, with much respect in his tone) and she handled having that broken leg (a horse threw her, and I believe it landed on her) a lot better than most guys (myself included, I'm sure) would have. Another soldier plays unit (not female league, but unit) broomball, provincial level rugby and was in a "super soldier" type of competition in Bosnia, and won in her category (might have been a female category, but still....). And a female Private (at the time) of 3 PPCLI was in a mine strike in a HUMVEE in Op Apollo (A'stan 2002), but didn't want any big hoopla raised, and she was bruised very severely, and carried on. Of course, for all of these positive stories, there are negative examples, but then again, I could fill up pages of posts on the useless male soldiers I have encountered in my career. But that brings us full circle to the point that there should be standards, very high and difficult to obtain, for people to be in the Combat Arms. Not so difficult that only Super Elite Ninja Commandos could apply (that's what JTF2 is for.....), but difficult enough that 50 year old, average, people shouldn't be able to meet the standard (emphasis on AVERAGE, not the very fit 50 year olds that put 20 year olds to shame....).
I am more disgusted by people who do't want to have women serve with them, and are an embarrasment to the CF themselves, than the women who should be allowed to at least try out for the CF. It's like the fat slug with the beer belly saying that the hottie SunshineGirl needs to lose a few pounds (even though she's thinner than one of his legs.....). People, of all shapes, sizes, colours, orientations, etc who cling to the fact that being able to (barely) pass the BFT makes them battle ready are on some severe glue. The "60% is good enough for me" attitude, be it for AFV recognition, written tests, or fitness is the death of our military. Given the choice, we would want the Harvard medical school grad to operate on our child with the brain tumour, and not Dr Nick (from the Simpson's). It should be the same for our taxpayers: they should have people that our capable of fighting the wars they (through the people they elect) send us to, not slugs who think that the war will be fought with a doughnut in one hand and a Nintendo controller in the other. If the fight is on the mountain, you're no good if you are stuck in the valley.....
WRT fitness, mental fitness is something that needs to be developed, even more so than physical fitness. There are many examples from war where people's mental toughness carried them further than their bodies should have. I recall reading the Guiness Book of Records years ago, and the longest that a person ever stood still (none of these 5 minute breaks every hour that current records allow) was for 24hours, and that was a British officer standing at attention in a POW camp, who did it to avoid punishment for his soldiers (I may be wrong on the details, but that's how I remember it). Too many people give up (on marches, runs, anything) because "it hurts", "I can't do it", etc, and the sad thing is that it's allowed to happen. I don't want to sound like an old-timer, but falling out of a march was more shameful than pretty much anything else you could do. Now people get on the "man-eating" truck and laugh about it. If a person is injured, and carrying on will cause further injury, yes, get on the truck, but not because it's "difficult". When I was doing PT with an SQ course, I was surprised at how easy the young soldiers gave up, and expected to let me let them "walk it in". I want to see vomit and/or blood before you can walk it in. Will this type of mentality cause injury or death? Yes, in a small amount of cases, but being in the valley while the battle rages on the mountain top will also get people injured or killed, probably at a much higher rate. I have been guilty of taking it easier over the years, but I can proudly say that I have never fallen out of a run or ruckmarch, even with mononucleosis and being hung-over, sick, tired, etc. And I am not the thinnest or strongest of people, but I was (and am able) to get the job done.
As my rant winds down (and my wife wants to respond to this thread, and I'm on her comp) I will just sum up with this: why keep (even though not officially, but with attitudes) 50%+ of our population from wanting to, attempting to, or being in combat roles??? If they can meet the standards (that are kept high), why not? I don't want stunned-ass blow hards speaking with the voice of authority, to come on this forum and spout off their half-baked, "heard it on my grampa's knee, so I'll repeat it without any independent thought" to waste bandwidth, but such that freedom of speech is the order of the day (and Mike allows it), so is the fact that women in the CF will engage in combat, whether we like it or not. Let's look forward, and not backwards, much like those that allowed women and non-whites the vote. Sure, people (read: white males) didn't like that, but we have come to accept it (and now we know that women and non-whites are just as capable of electing crap leaders......).
Al
Similar threads
