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

[dangerboy]

Thanks Remus, likewise for sure.

Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be?

While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on.
An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.

What would be the point of this?

 

[Remius]

Thanks Remus, likewise for sure.

Perhaps I could offer another explanation of feminist orientated military might be?

While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on.
An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.

Interesting.  Maybe a result of this project:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/05/the_women_in_forceprogramanewcanadianarmedforcesinitiativeforwom.html

I’m only vaguely aware of the pilot project but haven’t heard of any results that came of it.

 

[dapaterson]

While asking around about the FORCE test I'm told there is an experiment going on.
An all female course ran by an all female staff and male staff are not allowed to speak to them.

Nope.

There was a trial where women (not in the CAF) were brought in and introduced to the CAF, running through a number of activities.  No gender-based speaking restrictions.

Someone is embellishing stories...

 

[ballz]

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 -.

You're absolutely right on the rule of large numbers, that hasn't flown over my head.... but you are underestimating the gap that exists because of biology. The law of large numbers doesn't mean you will have enough large numbers to make up for the huge gap that exists in physical characteristics. I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out).

I know that seems exaggerated, but the biological differences in physical strength / endurance / athleticism really are that stark. Consider that the Canadian Women's Olympic hockey team competes against Midget AAA teams in order to prepare for the Olympics. Literally, the best 20-25 women our country can produce, and they're competing against 15-17 year old boys... not the best 15-17 year olds in the country, not even the best 15-17 year olds in a province.... the best 15-17 year olds from communities / surrounding areas of places like Red Deer, AB.... and they regularly lose! The best adult women in the world lose to local boys who can't even grow a playoff beard.

Epic, using your logic, all men can beat all women in every test of strength and endurance.

Holy crap! Is that you Cathy Newman?

That is a good basic question, Remius. But what if the answer is: It's not us?

Let me try and illustrate, and since we are in Canada, I'll use hockey - but also because I am heavily involved in my town with the hockey organization.

Women hockey is pretty well in the news all the time in the last say, 12-15 years. The National team is reported on, incensed in view of its performances, on TV for all major tournaments, the leaders extolled publicly, and employed after their career in sports reporting, etc.

There's a National team, a pro-league and women hockey at the university level and in the lower grades, in every town in Canada or just about.

Yet, every year, in our town, I get 10 boys registering to start to play hockey for every girl that does. Meanwhile, in absolute numbers, the figure skating club gets 8 girls registering to start figure skating  for every girl I manage to attract to hockey.

Is it because I am doing something wrong, or is it because parents still have a girl/boy activities approach as to what their little girls should participate in? In other words is there still a societal values bias against girls in what is seen as "masculine" undertakings? And if so, is it possible that civil society as it exists right now is still the one that pushes male/female distinctions as regards what is "acceptable" for girls or not? I only suggest that you look at the family, at large, reaction when their girl suddenly tells them she wants to be a fireman, or an industrial welder ... or a soldier. Then come and tell me it is the military that is pushing them away by what we present as an image, and not still accepted society norms.

Shouldn't the government, if it claims to be feminist in the sense of equality of result type of feminism, be better to work on convincing parents to push girls, in their formative years, towards, STEM, physical work and trades and anything "male" like the military, police or firefighting?

Until you change the parents/society at large and what they teach girls to strive for, I surmise that there is no approach, feminist or not, that the CAF can adopt that will lead to more woman showing up at the recruiting centre.

While women still are in the minority in hockey enrollment... the data on female hockey enrollment very much supports the assertion made by BG45 that if women can "see themselves" in a role, it will increase their likelihood to join. Female enrollment in hockey has grown to huge numbers in the last 20 - 30 years, which is correlated with IIHF Women's World Hockey Championships starting in 1990, inclusion of women's hockey in the 1998 Olympics, and the introduction of an U18 World Championship in 2008.

https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/hockey-programs/female/statistics-history

So I do support the idea that making the CAF seem more like a place where a woman can see herself being employed, fitting in, etc is going to have a positive impact on recruiting, and that's why it is important to have females featured in recruiting ads, etc. You're right in that parents play a big role in both children's sports and picking the CAF as a great career option.... so a parent also needs to be able to see the military as a career option for their daughter. I don't really see how that point changes the idea being discussed.

-------

I want to be clear... I fully support the idea of recruiting more females... but I also refuse to let people forget that biology plays a factor and so arguing that we can be a 50/50 force and not be at least *different* than we currently are (maybe not positively, maybe not negatively, but definitely different) is just ludicrous, we would definitely be physically weaker. Or arguing that the physical weaknesses will not have any kind of impact on a female's ability to lead in the Infantry, for example... we can't bury our heads in the sand because of a bunch of humanities professors published a billion papers about it, over 80% of which are never even cited by anybody else, not even once.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Nope.

There was a trial where women (not in the CAF) were brought in and introduced to the CAF, running through a number of activities.  No gender-based speaking restrictions.

Someone is embellishing stories...

I spoke with an nco I know quite well and I'm inclined to believe him. I'm aware of that trial but he's telling me there is currently an all female course going on there. I'll look for something in writing to back that up.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What would be the point of this?

"To see how females operate in an all-female environment".

Since we don't have female units I'm guessing just an experiment to improve numbers. 
The USMC does an all female boot camp  but I'm reading there is a pressure to change it for a few reasons.

 

[Piece of Cake]

I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out).

I think a few on this forum have over estimated the physical condition of our men in uniform. 

I know that seems exaggerated, but the biological differences in physical strength / endurance / athleticism really are that stark. Consider that the Canadian Women's Olympic hockey team competes against Midget AAA teams in order to prepare for the Olympics. Literally, the best 20-25 women our country can produce, and they're competing against 15-17 year old boys... not the best 15-17 year olds in the country, not even the best 15-17 year olds in a province.... the best 15-17 year olds from communities / surrounding areas of places like Red Deer, AB.... and they regularly lose! The best adult women in the world lose to local boys who can't even grow a playoff beard.

How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.  Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey. 

What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.

 

[George Wallace]

I think a few on this forum have over estimated the physical condition of our men in uniform. 

How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.  Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey. 

What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.

Why do you continue to compare "apples" to "oranges"?

I have no doubt that professional female athletes can outperform non-athletic or less athletic men in a given sport.  What is being argued here, and you are ignoring, is that both sexes, on an even playing field, with the same training, are NOT Equal physically. 

[Edit to add "physically"]

 

[ballz]

How about we put this in the context of the CAF.  Prior to joining the CAF, I played 3 years of Junior Hockey in Ontario.  I have also been a part of the National Sports Program.  I would argue that if the Women's National Hockey team is entered into that CAF national men's hockey championship, they would have a fair shot of winning.  Before anyone tries to say that I'm off the wall, I can say this from my past experience, that the CAF hockey program is of less quality than that of Junior hockey.  Note well, I am not saying that on a player to player comparison that every female on the women's team is better than every male hockey player in the CAF.  However, on the CAF regional championship team that I played on - came 3rd out of 5 at the nationals - myself and one other player played Junior hockey. 

What am I saying?  We have female athletes in this country who are not only fit enough to be in the CAF, but will outperform men in the CAF. Any athlete who has trained at an elite level would say the same.  If one would like further reference, I can refer to PARE results (RCMP) comparing former Canadian Women athletes who outperform men in their quest to becoming RCMP officers.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: No one is disputing that select females aren't capable, or that select females aren't in better condition than an average male. Do you know of 30,000 female Olympians we can sign up? If not, please come back to reality where the rest of us need to work within.

 

[OldSolduer]

I’ll say this:

The CAF Hockey Program May not be as good as the junior program .
The juniors aren’t training to put themselves at the risk of being killed.

Let’s keep this in perspective. The CAF trains to kill people.

 

[Old Sweat]

I’ll say this:

The CAF Hockey Program May not be as good as the junior program .
The juniors aren’t training to put themselves at the risk of being killed.

Let’s keep this in perspective. The CAF trains to kill people.

But now it will have to be in gender-equal numbers.

 

[Underway]

Good god. 

Using biology (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.

I've seen some extremely out of shape people, both men and women pass the test.  I've seen a desk jockey female who does no PT and weighs perhaps 120lb soaking wet do the casualty drag.

Throw the biology argument out.  It's irrelevant with the new FORCE standards, and even more irrelevant with the most important skill sets that the CAF needs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Good god. 

Using biology (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.

I've seen some extremely out of shape people, both men and women pass the test.  I've seen a desk jockey female who does no PT and weighs perhaps 120lb soaking wet do the casualty drag.

Throw the biology argument out.  It's irrelevant with the new FORCE standards, and even more irrelevant with the most important skill sets that the CAF needs.

Excellent point. We'd better revise that famous SLA Marshall quote:

"Truly then, it is killing men and women with kindness not to insist upon physical standards during training which will give them a maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war." S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire

https://books.google.ca/books?id=rsfA3LkUsTYC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=battle+fitness+killing+with+kindness&source=bl&ots=7QBNkTruyy&sig=MwhBp3QQfBoRGRRxsaQIcTykwGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwyt-kp8nYAhXB7YMKHeg7BaUQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=battle%20fitness%20killing%20with%20kindness&f=false

 

[ballz]

Good god. 

Using biology (since it seems to be a popular shell argument used to exclude women) just about anyone can pass the current CAF fitness standards.  Since no one has anything resembling numbers to support their argument I'll posit my own observations.  The only thing people have problems with is the shuttle run timing and the casualty drag.

I've seen some extremely out of shape people, both men and women pass the test.  I've seen a desk jockey female who does no PT and weighs perhaps 120lb soaking wet do the casualty drag.

Throw the biology argument out.  It's irrelevant with the new FORCE standards, and even more irrelevant with the most important skill sets that the CAF needs.

I've already stated that the bar (aka the FORCE test) is set so low now it's lost all usefulness. I've also pointed out that there is a difference between the "standard" and the end product which is relevant when you're talking about how there can be a 50/50 split and it's not going to effect anything.

I sure hope you're not talking about me when you're saying people want to use biology as an excuse to exclude women, because there is nothing I have said that would provide any evidence of that. I fully support including women, and gearing marketing towards them to attract more of them... but that does not mean we have to pretend biology shouldn't even be considered when we talk about grand ideas of 50/50 splits and whether or not physical capability might affect your ability to lead in a physical job. : Speaking of which, we have other standards to lead in some of those jobs, if we didn't, we wouldn't have massive RTU rates... so the FORCE test isn't the only relevant standard.

 

[quadrapiper]

The law of large numbers doesn't mean you will have enough large numbers to make up for the huge gap that exists in physical characteristics. I don't think there's enough females in the entire country to recruit from to get the kind of numbers you would need to get the ~33,000 females that would be, on average, as physically fit as say, the most physically fit 33,000 males we currently have (assuming it's more or less the bottom half that gets weeded out).

A few musings.

- more women in the MARS/combat arms/(pilot?) sourced senior command roles means enough women moving through the ships, battalions, and squadrons to be positioned for Cmdre/BGen. The only ones that really, truly, must be PT monsters are in the combat arms, especially the infantry - don't know how many you'd need to maintain a decent stream into the senior officer world, but it's definitely a more achievable number than 33k women matching the CAF's fittest 33k men.
- 25% in the Reg Force covers a vast number of roles currently being filled by men operating at non-gender-differientiating levels of fitness.

On the recruit fitness side of things, seems like a pre-BMQ point would be ideal for addressing those recruits who are in all ways great candidates but would, under the current system, be diverted during Basic. Whether that should look like a CAF funded or led training scheme (e.g. USMC poolees), more difficult fitness testing or increased standards at the CFRC, or something else, I'm not sure - but can't imagine the current approach is the most efficient.

As for societal pressures: my gut says we might be seeing more gender role reinforcement (or fewer balancing messages) in middle through high school aged populations than in the 90s. Recruiting and retaining female cadets has certainly become harder over the last ten years compared to males. The ones that do stay in for the duration are often (not exclusively, but enough to notice) outliers, trending to traditionally masculine activities, in other ways - in trades programs, contact sports (lots of rugby players), hunting or 4x4 enthusiasts, etc.

On a broad public policy level, if we as a country - forget about the CAF - want to see the full potential of the population realized, a serious effort needs to be made to ensure that girls and young women are in no particular order: a) not driven away from e.g. the CAF, trades, or whatnot by idiot men, b) measuring success by classically male matrices - career, cash, and accomplishment, c) are desensitized to hands-on work, and d) realize that partners are infinitely replaceable non-vital parts of their lives.

 

[Cloud Cover]

"On the recruit fitness side of things, seems like a pre-BMQ point would be ideal for addressing those recruits who are in all ways great candidates but would, under the current system, be diverted during Basic. Whether that should look like a CAF funded or led training scheme (e.g. USMC poolees), more difficult fitness testing or increased standards at the CFRC, or something else, I'm not sure - but can't imagine the current approach is the most efficient."


How much of a deterrent is the fitness issue for recruiting? I really like this idea of a pre-BMQ program, perhaps run by community colleges during summer months when there is space in dorms?  In fact there are probably quite a few men and women serving in the forces that could use and would jump at the chance to take a month or 6 weeks of fitness development, health and well being.  Much easier to concentrate on just that issue alone without having all the pressures of BMQ and/or work (for those spreading serving).  Builds individual confidence, self esteem, reclaims morale, -all wins for the forces.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=whiskey601]

How much of a deterrent is the fitness issue for recruiting?
[/quote]

it's been a long time since I've been in an official recruiting position but both back then and the people I engage with now and brainwash guide towards joining the CAF I can say that fitness, or rather fear of the PT, was and is the primary concern of most.  I'm certain a lot of injuries that recruits (or students) stem from lack of physical fitness. Both legitimate injuries and fake ones.

A month or two pre-fitness course run by a hired company would be expensive but also free up sorely needed instructors to put time and effort into physically fit recruits.  The pre-course may also be less scary for people intimidated by the idea of regimented PT or who need to be eased in to that lifestyle because it's a big culture shock to some (and also why I think a lot of people quit). We have to adapt to the times and society (which can be a whole different bag of problems) but in an intelligent and measured way.

 

[daftandbarmy]

it's been a long time since I've been in an official recruiting position but both back then and the people I engage with now and brainwash guide towards joining the CAF I can say that fitness, or rather fear of the PT, was and is the primary concern of most.  I'm certain a lot of injuries that recruits (or students) stem from lack of physical fitness. Both legitimate injuries and fake ones.

A month or two pre-fitness course run by a hired company would be expensive but also free up sorely needed instructors to put time and effort into physically fit recruits.  The pre-course may also be less scary for people intimidated by the idea of regimented PT or who need to be eased in to that lifestyle because it's a big culture shock to some (and also why I think a lot of people quit). We have to adapt to the times and society (which can be a whole different bag of problems) but in an intelligent and measured way.

A lot of people point at the Royal Marines and marvel at their fitness program but, having been part of their system for a couple of years and seeing it in action, they freely acknowledge that some of of the main secrets of their success in this area is the fact that:

1) They have a 30 week training program, one of the longest in the world, which allows them to very gradually ramp up recruits to the high levels of fitness (and other infantry type skills of course) required without injuring them or chasing them away, and

2) They have an in-house cadre (a 'Specialty Qualification' as they call it - the 'Club Swingers') of Royal Marine PT instructors, who are all Royal Marines themselves as well, who are professionally trained to ramp people up fitness wise.

I don't see why we couldn't do the same, especially given the low standards of fitness in our average recruits (and elderly Majors ) these days.

 

[dapaterson]

In the 1990s, the CAF was downsizing and had a choice.  Which is a more important capability to keep in uniform: musicians or fitness instructors?

And the senior leaders of the day made their choice.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Clogging the system?  I think we need to look at how much it costs to process a new recruit.  Is it not in the best economic interest of the CAF to help those who may struggle with fitness during BMQ / BMOQ than simply release them due to being unfit?  The CAF is a different lifestyle, and as such, a lifestyle a new recruit may not be familiar.  We should be giving all new members the tools to succeed, and that includes placing someone on warrior platoon.

The removal of the PT test in 2006 (sorry Uncle Rick, this was a mistake) was done for one reason only;  to get more 'recruits' thru the door.  Originally called the RFT (Recruit Fitness Training) platoon, it quickly grew in size and more and more unfit and overweight IAP and BMQ candidates waddled their way (literally in some cases) thru the Green Doors in late 2006/early 2007. 

Removing the PT test from the Reg Force side was a mistake, if anything it should have been done across the board (PRes still have an entrance PT test) or it should have been removed from the PRes and left for the Reg Force.  Warrior is "ops normal" now because it has existed for a decade +, but that just means we've yet to fix the situation that created it in the first place.

*opinion of someone who was staff at CFLRS around the time RFT came into being when the PT test was removed from Reg Force application processes - it was a mistake and still is a mistake.  If you aren't motivated enough to get into shape before entering the military, you should continue working at Walmart or being a fat bank manager or whatever it is you spend you time doing, chances are you won't be any more motivated during or after your stay at Fat Camp.