• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
The thing that people have (thankfully) realised is that although there are generalities when discussing masses of men and/or masses of women, those generalities don't mean squat when it comes to individuals.  Sure, men don't compete against women at the Olympics (in most sports, anyway), but there we are talking about the 99.9th percentile of human beings.  (the best of the best of the best of the best.  In other words, people who are freakishly fit).  Now, when it comes to reality, person "A" can be an LMG gunner in my company any time, so long as person "A" can hold, aim and fire that LMG effectively, can "hump their stuff" and be counted upon when the chips are down.  I couldn't care less what that person's gender, skin colour, religion, etc was.  The fact that they are man or woman is irrelevant.  Their abilities, however, are, and abilities are not the domain of one gender or the other (except for the vital abilities of standing to pee, childbirth, whatever  ;D)
 
I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

Because at 18 you've actually SEEN how training standards were lowered?  You've seen what it "used to be like"? Impressive if you have, what or where are you basing your information from?

If you're interestd about levels of training I'll PM you a little story about 4 male soldiers from a certain royal regiment you may be familiar with that I caught lighting ammunition on fire at a range.  Trained corporals. Talk about lower standards ;)

"Training standards" isn't how many push ups someone can do prior to joining the CF.

What would benifit the CF more than 9 push ups over 19 is identifying the soldiers who fake injuries (especially on BMQ type courses) and punt them right out of the forces. THAT in my opiion is a much bigger drain on training and effectiveness.

My biggest issue with all this gender stuff is that anytime you see anything to do with recruiting you're force fed a collage of racial and gender junk.
ARE YOU A FEMALE? ARE YOU A VISIBLE MINORITY?
Like give it a rest. Why not ARE YOU A WARRIOR?

How long before we see ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE TALIBAN THAT WANTS TO DEFECT? start appearing on our posters.
 
ArmyVern said:
As you freely admit that you are aware this is covered in many other threads...

You could come over to the Army!! Where we all do the 13k, regardless of sex, trade etc ;)

  Vern

Actually that was my point I was trying to make.

I have been posted to the Army side. (Shilo) and I am a retread, Plus I would more than love to go out for a leisurely 13 k march and having fun, telling jokes, getting through a BFT than running in a stupid Gym with bad airflow for 6 min. 

Regardless of who or what a person is if they can make the minimum standard and be given the proper technical instruction on how to carry out their duties then they should not be restricted in what they do or how they are perceived.

We just need an equal minimum standard!
Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others.

:P you said sex trade :P

 
my computer was stupid last night and won't let me post. But meh, y'all covered everything that I could possibly think of as rebutals.  ;D Plus, I think it comes out more effectively from all those whove BTDT.

Cheers all! :)
 
mover1 said:
  Vern
Actually that was my point I was trying to make. I have been posted to the Army side. (Shilo) and I am a retread, Plus I would more than love to go out for a leisurely 13 k march and having fun, telling jokes, getting through a BFT than running in a stupid Gym with bad airflow for 6 min.  Regardless of who or what a person is if they can make the minimum standard and be given the proper technical instruction on how to carry out their duties then they should not be restricted in what they do or how they are perceived.  We just need an equal minimum standard! Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others.

Dont forget the different test standards for people who are over a certain age!
 
I stated that in the last sentence.

"Otherwise we perpetuate the perception that certain genders/ages are less/more capable than others."

 
Hey cesare,

Women can do quite a few things pretty well nowadays.  We can shoot, fly planes.  Heck, we're even allowed to drive in public and vote too!
 
If women ever want to truly break down gender barriers than they have to take it upon themselves to not accept some of the lower standards that are placed upon them with regard to fitness testing etc.  People initially thought that it wasn't fair for them to have the same standards but all that has done is hurt their campaign for equality.  Women must rise to the occasion and achieve the highest minimum standards regardless of gender if you see what I'm saying...
 
tannerthehammer said:
If women ever want to truly break down gender barriers than they have to take it upon themselves to not accept some of the lower standards that are placed upon them with regard to fitness testing etc.  People initially thought that it wasn't fair for them to have the same standards but all that has done is hurt their campaign for equality.  Women must rise to the occasion and achieve the highest minimum standards regardless of gender if you see what I'm saying...

I see what you're saying, tanner.

For what it's worth:  I was one of the Sr NCOs who objected to women being given access to the full spectrum of CF trades.  Since that time, my mind was COMPLETELY changed - I learned that women are JUST as capable as men - and I won't get into the physical differences between the two sexes.

Studs are studs - gender doesn't matter.  Thud f**ks are thud f**ks - gender doesn't matter.  Most folks (CF included) fall somewhere between the two extremes.

This is a tired and worn out discussion.  Women are here (yeah!!! - and no, my wife DOESN'T frequent these means) - get over it.



Roy
 
So basically you took everything I said and interpreted it as a sexist slur.

PLEASE.

I have ZERO problems with women in the CF, more thread specifically Combat roles, in fact my best military friend IS a female, we've been on every course together so far and are good friends civie side too.

I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is

a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out
and
b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses

but of course, this argument will always be interpreted as "I'm just a sexist male that isn't tolerant of women in the CF"

so what ever.

 
Whether standards are being adjusted in some situations, I think the real question becomes, once everything is said and done, can they (male/female/whatever) do the job to the satisfaction of their team?....because that's who depends on them in a crunch. Everything else is academic...
 
cesare753 said:
I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.


But what do I know?

you know SFA my dear 18 year old reservist friend from Toronto.
 
cesare753 said:
So basically you took everything I said and interpreted it as a sexist slur.

PLEASE.

I have ZERO problems with women in the CF, more thread specifically Combat roles, in fact my best military friend IS a female, we've been on every course together so far and are good friends civie side too.

I am merely expressing concern for the FACT that in training course's, in terms of physical training, standards HAVE been lowered and course's have become easier then they used to be. The problem being, for those unclear, is

a. those weaker mentally and physically, male or female are not being filtered out and

b. Recruits are benefiting less from the modified courses but of course, this argument will always be interpreted as "I'm just a sexist male that isn't tolerant of women in the CF" so what ever.

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

Here's your original post:

cesare753 said:
I must disagree. Now in my defense, i am no sexist but it cannot be denied that since the introduction of women into combat roles in the CF, the training has suffered significantly, women are physically weaker in the upper body then men, naturally and because of this fact, training standards were lowered to compensate, thus all the new combat arms recruits are loosing out on what used to be more powerful and demanding training.

I know im going to get jumped on by everyone for saying this, but I feel the Infantry, Armour, Engineers and other combat roles are loosing out on the training of its HUMAN power.

But what do I know?

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

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

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

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

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

When they don't meet the standards, deal with it and boot their ass if required...guy or girl. But please, stop blaming the women by excusing the shitty soldier's personal responsibility.
 
      Being a Med Tech I have worked with women my entire career, some are good and some are not. But the same can be said for the men I have worked with.
     One example was on a Fall Ex many years ago and I was loading a vulcan heater onto a trailer. I had 2 males and myself and was looking for a 4th to grab a corner. A female Med Tech immediately moved to the vacant corner and awaited the word to lift. I stupidly asked if she was OK to lift for which she responded " You just worry about your end MCpl!" She had no problem lifting and I apologized to her for doubting her ability. I have seen many other occasions where females outperformed males on pure drive,determination and attention to detail.
      I still have a bit of old school in me when it comes to females in combat arms trades but I am trying to shake it. My 17 year old neice just recently informed me that she wants to join the CF and specifically wants infantry. Although I am not discouraging her I am concerned as she is very slim and weighs about 100Lbs soaking wet. Not saying she can't do it but with her slight frame she will have great difficulty with load bearing and rigours of infantry training. If I am wrong let me have it!
     My 2 cents.
 
Bigmac, go back and read that article I posted by the Brits.  It'll assure you that the load bearing gets better with the more load bearing one does (check the references the article give as well - it's all good stuff).  Your niece will be fine providing, as a good uncle that you are, you get her on a training program now...so she has a chance to build up that strength.   
 
niner domestic said:
Bigmac, go back and read that article I posted by the Brits.  It'll assure you that the load bearing gets better with the more load bearing one does (check the references the article give as well - it's all good stuff).  Your niece will be fine providing, as a good uncle that you are, you get her on a training program now...so she has a chance to build up that strength.   

       Thanks for the info. I will be speaking with my niece this coming weekend. She is just at the deciding stage at the moment. If she takes the leap and applies to the CF I will definitely be providing her a training program.
      My only issue with her is she has dropped out of high school at grade 11 with an incomplete. Her options are limited in the CF. The family has been trying to convince her to complete high school but she is determined not to go back. She is a lost soul right now and the way I see it the CF will give her the confidence and self discipline she so strongly needs and then maybe she will get her GED later down the road.
 
Why not suggest to her to try the reserves and when she can, do a few night classes her HS diploma? While she's waiting for her app acceptance, she can train. 
 
      At the moment my niece is not listening to reason. This weekend my wife and I are going to be talking to her in person instead of on the phone. Hopefully we can convince her to finish high school. My wife is an ex military member so can give her the female perspective of the CF.
     I have suggested the reserve option to her before so yes I will definitely pitch that option to her as well. She lives in the Belleville region so the Hastings Prince Edward Regiment is there.
     Wish us luck!
 
Bigmac said:
      At the moment my niece is not listening to reason. This weekend my wife and I are going to be talking to her in person instead of on the phone. Hopefully we can convince her to finish high school. My wife is an ex military member so can give her the female perspective of the CF.
     I have suggested the reserve option to her before so yes I will definitely pitch that option to her as well. She lives in the Belleville region so the Hastings Prince Edward Regiment is there.
     Wish us luck!
Luck!

And what a fine regiment The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment is!  Just ask Farley Mowat!
 
Captain Sensible said:
Luck!

And what a fine regiment The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment is!  Just ask Farley Mowat!

From a Loggie that used to work in their dungeon doling out the kit ... they're OK I guess!!  >:D
 
Back
Top