I see your conclusion. You said that you believe that looking to recruit women into combat is done because not very many quality selection pools are available. This means they now look "lower" to women, since they obviously wouldn't be included in these "quality selection pools" you speak of. Why would we be included, we are just women after all. Roll Eyes
Ok, let me do a coles notes for you. This is related to women in combat infantry or any direct combat role.
1) True- Men are physically more capable in the means and extremes for armed combat, in comparison to women. Do you buy that? If not, then don't bother read on.
2) The military has a screening process to find quality candidates. Theoretically they only want the prime pickings.
Now it branches off into two different streams. Since men should out score women in equal requirements in an overshadowing majoirty (push ups, chin ups, raw endurance, lifting)..........
3a) Women are hired because they superceded the quality of the male candidates due to a poor turn out of males. IE- women beat the odds.
3b) There are not enough candidates, PERIOD, therefore, quotas to match turnover rates are met by taking the best of what is given. Which is not really prime pickings.
Connotations of 3a)
Women were taken, not because they are the best, but because they are the best of what was available.
Connotations of 3b)
Women were taken, not because they are the best, but because they are the best of what was available.
Still with me?
Ok, great. So whether the Canadian selection pool IS Lacking or IS NOT lacking- it's moot. The point is, the result of letting women fight in combat lends to the idea that the selection pool is LACKING more so than NOT. And that able men are not applying.
What does it say in the end? The Canadian governement is either not intrested in creating an efficient warmachine machine
or they are interested but feel women's rights are being infringed
or The Canadian army will not advertise and market itself to the populace. (popular consensus among civillians is that our army is too irrelvant and small to give consideration too, which is BS, films have done a good job on cementing such tripe-Canadian films)
However, as I already suggested,
the above is probably not the case (Infact I'm sure it isn't). It has more to do with Canadian liberalism and the idea of building a PC army as oppose to an effective one. Heck, the same group who rallied behind women in combat are the same group who cut military funding, slashed the number of ships, planes, and soldiers, abolished old uniforms (later returned by demand), and set quotas that MUST be met for certain peoples within the ARMY, refered to our soldiers as 'boy scouts', shipped them around the world on dangerous missions-poorly equipped, and generally went out of their way to emasculate the once mighty Royal Canadian Military (sounds much stronger than CF, no?). It's called Political Correctness. It's called pandering. These people never intented for Canada to have a mighty army. Chretien, Trudeau, and almost every other liberal party lacky would soon rather see the military gone than effective at full force. It was in a dieing state not to long ago. The people that lobbied women in combat don't give a rats behind about the esprit de corps within the army. Infact, they went out of their way to kill it.
Aluc, of course you're right, and I'm an idiot for trying. I didn't expect open arms, but I certainly did not expect the childish and malicious responses that I got. I thank God the Conservatives got into office. I have great hopes that they will do what they say. Our soldiers in Afghan are equipped with cutting edge material and their presence is felt with a nice sized garrison, and to top it off the mission is over seen by a red blooded Canuck. I really hope he keeps to his word with those budget boosts.
