We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]
We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.
[/quote]

So how do we achieve 50% (or even 25%)  when women are currently doing so poorly on the FORCE test in basic training and cycle through warrior platoon in large numbers? Will making the CAF more appealing to women change the fitness issues we're dealing with? 

Considering how proud the government is about their 50/50 cabinet I suspect our recruiting system is in for another change.

Im going off topic but touching on the thread title the CAF seems more and more like a show pony and less like a war horse. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45
We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.


So how do we achieve 50% (or even 25%)  when women are currently doing so poorly on the FORCE test in basic training and cycle through warrior platoon in large numbers? Will making the CAF more appealing to women change the fitness issues we're dealing with? 

Considering how proud the government is about their 50/50 cabinet I suspect our recruiting system is in for another change.

Im going off topic but touching on the thread title the CAF seems more and more like a show pony and less like a war horse.

Judging all women by your example would be the sam as judging all men by the number of men on warrior platoon.

Statistically,  women and men are equally competent. There's no need to lower standards. Just need to attract higher quality pers of all genders. That's the real trick.

 

[ballz]

If I may- I believe that the idea was to set the ideal for a force representative of the larger Canadian population in terms of gender and cultural/race makeup rather than establishing a direct quota. The equality of men and women in leadership positions is an established fact, with women being more transformational than transactional (which, IAW our leadership doctrine is what we want). So, there's no reason why quality would even suffer if it were a 50/50 force, physical or intellectually.

If we are 50/50 male/female, the average member is going to be physically less capable than a 90/10 split. Let's not let humanities "academia" get in the way of a very established and credible science called biology. I'm actually very interested in the social construct of gender vs the biological impacts, and I'm in no way denying socially gender biases exist, but I'm not going to go deathcon 10 the other way and pretend biology is just a social construct.

So, to meet the 50% as discussed prior, we need to identify the delta that explains why women and minorities do not enter the CAF at the rate that societal percentages would indicate they should. The reason identified in some areas of academia is that there are gender and cultural bias, both individual and societal, that need to be overcome. First, the CAF has to be seen as a highly valued employer within those communities (breaking down implied bias') IOT increase the amount of women and minorities who want to enter the force. That's why Op HONOUR is such a large push. If we, the CAF, ever want to convince women that the army is a top tier employer worth their time (or anyone's for that matter) we have to start by convincing them that the stigma of the army as a boy's club is gone. This involves changing their personal bias' towards the CAF and changing CAF culture. Certainly, neither one of those goals is something that is going to happen anytime soon, so the 50% is certainly a goal not a quota.

The humanities / critical theory-type fields have some interesting stuff, but they need to be balanced out (a lot actually). They do not hold the "one true answer" as to why imbalances exist, even though they profess to. How much of these imbalances are due to gender and cultural bias and how much are due to biology is a very interesting topic, but there is no doubt that biology also has an influence. Even taking out the obvious physical aspect, men and women also *think* differently which may also explain their choices towards certain fields / careers / aspirations / etc.

Men and women are proven to be just as effective in leadership positions and there's no reason why this isn't true in every trade.

When physical performance is one aspect (or very important aspect) of your job, biology may very well be one of the reasons it is not true for every trade. I have served with a few females in the Infantry Officer world but good luck ever getting Infantry Officers to a 50/50 split without the product suffering.

We need to move from the idea that a 50/50 force means lower standards- it doesn't.

There is a difference between standards and the final product. A 50/50 force definitely means our final product will be less physically capable, even if everyone meets the same fitness standard... which at this point is so low it serves almost no purpose anyway. Would a 50/50 force be more intellectually capable? Maybe. Would a 50/50 force, on the balance of both intellectual and physical, be more effective? Also maybe and we'd be taking wild-*** guesses to try and pin the answer down one way or another.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]
Judging all women by your example would be the sam as judging all men by the number of men on warrior platoon.

Statistically,  women and men are equally competent. There's no need to lower standards. Just need to attract higher quality pers of all genders. That's the real trick.
[/quote]

I don't want to (or mean to) judge anyone. 1%,25%,50% females doesn't bother me one bit. The more trained people in the CAF the better. 

What I'm saying is that if you take 30 male recruits and 30 female recruits and put them through the FORCE  test you'll have a much higher percentage of females who fail and goto Warrior platoon than men.
At least according to the male &  female students and instructors I spoke with.

So what?

Its going to be a real slow grind to hit those gender goals and there's a possibility the government, in their drive to the magic number,  will alter the system to make reaching it easier.  I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what feminism approach to the military pans out to be.

 

[donaldk]

It doesn't matter what calibre of recruit you attract if you cannot get then through the process in a reasonable time frame.  Getting that fresh face from curbside at the Recruitment Centre to curbside at St Jean, RMC, university or other stream needs to be better. 

I know times have changed and it's no longer two weeks and you're off.  But l know too many kids are spending too long waiting, on PAT etc that we're losing them.  It's happening in the Navy and l wouldn't be surprised the Army and Air Force have similar issues.  Both the recruiting and training systems need to work better to attract and keep those kids we need coming behind us.

CA has done changes to recruiting reserves wise.  RCN is currently implementing similar changes for their NAVRES units.  Both also intend on having RegF recruiting support done thru their PRes recruiting cells (when location to the potential recruit is better than the nearest CFRG det) and are implementing such as the MOU with CFRG just got signed.  RCAF.. dunno... probably still playing XBOX in between sorties.  Biggest hiccup is that the Establishment Changes (ECs) for the billets needed for in-house recruiting to support this endeavour  aren't happening quick enough - still the same old tired Treasury Board sponsored process at play here *YAWN*.  Why did this happen? CFRG (c/o MILPERSCOM.. same L1 command responsible for those shitty JPSUs) ****ed up HARD over the years with not meeting production quotas and thus with one bite at a time CCA & CRCN are taking what they can away from the tired old CFRG dog.  I foresee the MIPERSCOM org getting absolutely blown up yet again given the colossal failures on multiple fronts within this L1.

Those who are on the DWAN go to https://mcsc.forces.mil.ca and start up the CFRG dashboard tool - take note how many 'bins' there are from the street to in the door (sworn in) - each one of these bins is a point where a file could fail if the prospective recruit pulls out (or is forced out on a technicality).  Then once in the door, you have the BTL piece to worry about, where more 'weed out' can occur (as my engineering colleagues put it), be it with the BMQ qualified bin, r subsequently the DP1 occupational function point bin.

As for Employment equity (EE) perspective, specifically for my UIC - the traffic I have seen roll thru my recruiting cell the last couple months certainly has been attracted the requisite minorities in good proportion - HOWEVER - currently only seeing about 10-15% of ALL files get thru to the finish line (i.e. move into BTL for next BMQ load), and unfortunately with this high of a systematic weed out, EE takes a hit paper wise - as at swaer-in point is where the stat is collected.

Btw... Reserves wise - that enhanced reliability security check (ERC) often causes file hiccup.  If the CFRG MCC doesn't turn around the results from their contracted provider to DPM Secur 2 to file the ERC then nothing sticks within SCPS.  Thus, file doesn't move forward.  No ERC means also no DWAN account - which these days are handed out like candy because the new kids have to cozy up to our DLN system for BMQ mod1 and mod 2. (Yes, the DLN is accessible externally, however account creations are only possible via the dirty password recover method with a valid DWAN username).  With the ERC in hand.. the new recruit on day one of work is literally read the riot act by my ISA with DAOD 6002-2 right in front of them - contraband USB sticks aside.

 

[Piece of Cake]

If we are 50/50 male/female, the average member is going to be physically less capable than a 90/10 split. Let's not let humanities "academia" get in the way of a very established and credible science called biology. I'm actually very interested in the social construct of gender vs the biological impacts, and I'm in no way denying socially gender biases exist, but I'm not going to go deathcon 10 the other way and pretend biology is just a social construct.

No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -. 

 

[George Wallace]

No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.

AH!  "The law of large numbers".  So to get more women physically capable, we will have to recruit large numbers, which would increase those numbers.  Interesting.  So, if for example, 10% of the women recruited are physically capable now, we can increase those numbers numerically by recruiting more women; yet the percentage would likely stay in the 10% range who would be physically capable.  That would still leave 90% not physically capable; but in larger numbers.  Meanwhile the established strength of the CAF will not have changed.  (These numbers are for example only and NOT actual numbers.) 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

No.  It is clear that a major point is being lost.  If the CAF improves its appeal to women, the number of able body women will increase.  Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.

Your hypothesis is very flawed.  Women are not as physically strong as men, they do not produce enough testosterone to build muscle and have other physical traits that make their body composition less suitable for frontline service.  You can take 10 average sized women and 1 average sized man and give them six months strength training and that man will be far stronger than any of the women, this ia a fact.

Do I think there are many rolls for women in the military, Absolutely; however, as long as the combat arms still require marching with heavy loads, lifting heavy shells, pounding track, hard physical labour. The job will remain largely outside the purview of most women.

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

Thus, we will have more women who are physically capable - the law of large numbers -.

Uhhh...what? What does quantity have to do with biology? You're saying by just recruiting swathes of women that, miraculously, a large number of them will in fact be strong to a point where they are like men? How does this happen?

 

[Remius]

Uhhh...what? What does quantity have to do with biology? You're saying by just recruiting swathes of women that, miraculously, a large number of them will in fact be strong to a point where they are like men? How does this happen?

It has nothing to do with biology.  Quantity increases your odds of getting better quality.

Also, some of you should take off your combat arms goggles.

Can women serve in the CAF.  It's a yes or no question.  Either you think they can or you think they can't.  If they can (I think they have proven that they can indeed serve) then you need to attract more of them but more importantly you need to attract the best of them. 

When I was in recruiting you needed 3 to 1 ratio to recruit.  So 1 in 3 would get through the process, but I can tell you they weren't always the best or the brightest.  Those numbers didn't account for who would succeed in basic and then in trade.

You need to attract as many as you can.  It's like a hockey team. If you want the best players you can't just look at one city.  You need to look everywhere and abroad.

How many capable women will I get if I only have 10 of them applying and I have 100 men applying?  If I have 100 women applying, my odds of getting the better candidate goes up because my pool is now 200 and not 110.

If we want to increase numbers we need to get more people through the door.

 

[George Wallace]

Remius

I will not argue your points; but again I point out that the CAF is limited in its 'established strength level'.  Recruiting more women to meet that 10%, or whatever percentage, required to fill those physically challenging Trades means that less men will have to be recruited.  The glass only holds so much. 

 

[Remius]

Remius

I will not argue your points; but again I point out that the CAF is limited in its 'established strength level'.  Recruiting more women to meet that 10%, or whatever percentage, required to fill those physically challenging Trades means that less men will have to be recruited.  The glass only holds so much.

Of course.  But are we at 100% of the establishment?  I doubt it.  I don't have the numbers but I think we are significantly short in many areas.

The point is to attract more women to increase our odds of getting to that 10% or 25% (CAF wide) that can meet the standards.  It is still about trying to get the best candidates but we need to expand the pool and find ways to do that.  Like targeted recruiting at women's sports venues, varsity sports etc etc.  Like looking at quality of life issues like daycare, shortened deployments and improved posting process and yes things like Operation Honour. 

 

[dapaterson]

I know I wouldn’t let my daughter join the CF.

So what have you done to make the CAF an organization you would let your daughter join?

 

[MAJONES]

Some interesting and well brought up points.  I note that some people have made the point that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer for women.  I would say that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer, period.

 

[Remius]

Some interesting and well brought up points.  I note that some people have made the point that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer for women.  I would say that we need to make the CAF a more attractive employer, period.

And that goes to the point when someone says we need to or should take a feminist approach to the CAF.  What are the key things that are discouraging women from joining?  Likely you will see that if you address those issues you might actually have a better product and make the CAF a more attractive employer as a whole to men and women.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It has nothing to do with biology.  Quantity increases your odds of getting better quality.

Also, some of you should take off your combat arms goggles.

Can women serve in the CAF.  It's a yes or no question.  Either you think they can or you think they can't.  If they can (I think they have proven that they can indeed serve) then you need to attract more of them but more importantly you need to attract the best of them. 

When I was in recruiting you needed 3 to 1 ratio to recruit.  So 1 in 3 would get through the process, but I can tell you they weren't always the best or the brightest.  Those numbers didn't account for who would succeed in basic and then in trade.

You need to attract as many as you can.  It's like a hockey team. If you want the best players you can't just look at one city.  You need to look everywhere and abroad.

How many capable women will I get if I only have 10 of them applying and I have 100 men applying?  If I have 100 women applying, my odds of getting the better candidate goes up because my pool is now 200 and not 110.

If we want to increase numbers we need to get more people through the door.

You're actually talking about three different issues:

1.  Recruit suitability,

2.  Recruit numbers, and

3.  Recruit groups.

Your argument that we should recruit more women because it would give us a larger pool of recruits to draw from is irrelevant because every trade in the CAF is already open to women.  There is literally no job in the CAF that a woman cannot apply for and be successful in, even the special/secret squirrel units.  I personally believe those that are able and willing should be allowed to; however, the thing that I hate the most in this world is nepotism and favoritism. 

My solution to our recruiting woes is pretty simple and it's the only one that hasn't been tried already.  It's called telling the truth about what the military is for, i.e. "A military is a force authorized to use lethal or deadly force and weapons to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens"

Want to recruit the right people, start making recruiting videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9vGHU1RsF0&t=113s 

hey look, Canadian Soldiers kicking Butt, woohoo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwidx05ZdbU

Hey look!  If I join the Navy, I can fight Pirates!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V9T3d0LE14

OMG, we can even make Logistics look cool!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUaOnzdw5I

Found a video with a woman for effect!

Imagine, showing a military force doing military things, what a revolutionary idea to raise recruitment!

 

[Remius]

You're actually talking about three different issues:

1.  Recruit suitability,

2.  Recruit numbers, and

3.  Recruit groups.

Your argument that we should recruit more women because it would give us a larger pool of recruits to draw from is irrelevant because every trade in the CAF is already open to women.  There is literally no job in the CAF that a woman cannot apply for and be successful in, even the special/secret squirrel units.  I personally believe those that are able and willing should be allowed to; however, the thing that I hate the most in this world is nepotism and favoritism. 

Sorry HB but a larger pool isn't irrelevant at all to the discussion.  The larger the pool, the better your odds of getting the best.

I'm not sure you understand the point being made about attracting more women.  It does not matter if all jobs are available to women. If you don't make those jobs or careers attractive they won't apply in any real number meaning you are limiting your talent pool.  A talent pool someone else will exploit. 

The same applies to men.  If you don't make the jobs attractive they won't apply.

Like it or not women are on the rise in terms of education and training.  More women are becoming doctors, lawyers, accountants, finance professionals, etc etc etc.  even the trades world is looking to women to fill lacking positions.  50% of the country's population.  If people are our most important commodity then we should be going after the best and brightest regardless of gender but if you can't prove to one gender or the other why they should come work for you then you've already lost regardless of "all jobs are open to women".

 

[Piece of Cake]

You can take 10 average sized women and 1 average sized man and give them six months strength training and that man will be far stronger than any of the women, this ia a fact.

Fact? Not at the gym that I workout at.

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

Fact? Not at the gym that I workout at.

So you're debating biology then?

Abstract

Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

 

[Piece of Cake]

So you're debating biology then?

Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance. So, can you beat the women's 100m dash world champion? Can you out press a women Olympic weightlifter? I would like to hear your answers.