Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[mainerjohnthomas]

Don't have to back it up do I ?
Been an enjoyable couple of days reading the posts but I never thought that expressing concern and respect for the female soldier by removing them from the line of fire would be taken as a sexuality problem for soldiers to deal with. No doubt this post will be removed due to its politically incorrectness.
Thank you for allowing me this brief visit.

Goodbye

     I do find it hard to beleive that anyone, saving perhaps a civilian, could beleive that telling a soldier they were not good enough to fight could be a gesture of respect.   If a woman would serve in the combat arms, and can maintain the standards of the combat arms, then I would give her the honour of serving her country to the limit of her abilities, as I would any Canadian soldier.

 

[Block 1]

          We are all Soldiers First, When I look out into the Coy, I see uniforms nothing more. When I give an order it's followed by someone in uniform ! If that order requires a particular skill (Qualification)  I will give it to the solider with the skill or qualification to complete the mission!. I see nothing else, to me there is no gender only soldiers out there that are willing to do their part for their country. I expect all the members in the Coy to do the same. The  completion of the mission is the aim of the day nothing more.   


:soldier:       

 

[combat_medic]

I never thought that expressing concern and respect for the female soldier by removing them from the line of fire would be taken as a sexuality problem for soldiers to deal with.

With all due respect, I don't want or require your protection. I'm not some little babymaking housewife that needs to be coddled and sheltered from the big bad world. I am a human being, just as you are, and am free to make my own decisions. To imply that you know better than a woman, even in the guise of helping them, is diminutive and insulting. It's as ridiculous a notion as your mother, at your current age and position, forcing you to leave the military, despite you being a capable, reasonable adult, because she wants to keep you safe. Chivalry is dead. I'm not here for you to protect.

 

[48Highlander]

Maybe the Directing Staff should show concern and respect for him by removing him from the boards in order to protect him from the verbal abuse which I'd like to unleash....

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm afraid it is up to the Forum Staff to be vigilant and weed out the Wannabees not for the guests to do so.

I'm just a guest here and i've found three or four


It's been said a few times, comparing women in the military to women in civlian jobs doesn't work.

 

[QORvanweert]

I am currently on my BMQ and of the 5-6 females on the course only one is left. All the others left because of knee problems, dislocated joints and some other maladies. I believe that if anyone is capable of doing the job then by all means they should be allowed to do it. But, the army is a hard world and what works in garrison and on the field ex's doesn't/won't always work out in battle(not that I know firsthand). When it comes to something like JTF2 I believe that an exception should be made do to the precious nature of the work, we can't afford failure on such a critical level and we don't have enough time/resources to evaluate whether or not females can do it. If these were provided then by all means they should be allowed to try out alongside their male buddies, but they would have to be held to the same standards as everyone else, none of this 'double pt standard'.

 

[putz]

i'm not in the military (yet) so I don't think it would be right for me to post anything but I've been following this thread and came across this:

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cbc/montreal_home&articleID=1865170

Women unwelcome in combat roles: report

Canada's Armed Forces can be a difficult environment for women according to two internal reports obtained by Radio-Canada. The reports say women are still unwelcome in combat roles, and suggest the lower ranks have lost confidence in officers.

The army's study looked at the attitudes of rank-and-file soldiers toward gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, and to their commanding officers.

Responses varied slightly across the Forces' four geographic divisions.

In Quebec, the studies suggest women are still not accepted in ground-combat roles by their male colleagues

The also study says 30 per cent of lower ranks would favour the creation of a professional order or union.

A retired colonel and military commentator, Michel Drapeau says that means the army has a serious problem.

"It shows a breakdown ... of the modern armed forces," he says.

The study also suggests gays and lesbians are still not welcomed by their colleagues in the army, especially in Quebec.

 

[qor556]

*shakes head*  Enough said.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That should not be surprising.  We can compel people to restrain themselves from unjust behaviour prompted by their prejudices; we can not restrain their freedom of thought.

 

[Glorified Ape]

While I *think* I believe (I'm still iffy on it, especially after reading this thread) women should be given the opportunity to participate in any trade they wish, given they meet the same requirements that their male colleagues have, there's one issue that doesn't seem to be addressed and I'm curious as to people's thoughts on it. (apologies if it was addressed and I missed it - I read through the thread but sometimes the posts seem to blend and blur after the first hour. I know one person posted an article about cost but there was no real discussion of it).

My question is: what of the cost? From what I gather, the failure and attrition rates for women in the infantry are abysmal. While I may like to see an open infantry, how do we reconcile the wasting of thousands upon thousands of training dollars on a group which has demonstrated such a high failure/attrition rate? From the various figures I've seen quoted here, there's a ridiculously high chance that money spent on the training/feeding/equipping/etc. of a woman in the pursuit of infantry employment will have been wasted.

The question for me isn't whether there are women that can do the job - there's no doubt that there are. The question is whether the cost of enlisting and training them, providing separate facilities, etc. for the infantry is worth it with such dismal success rates. It just doesn't seem fiscally sound. I guess the debate in my mind is whether the inefficiency and waste can be justified in terms of ethical soundness - IE it's worth the cost to keep the opportunity open for women and thus provide equal opportunity across the board.

At some point reality and ideals have to be reconciled and I'm having some difficulty with this specific reconciliation. I believe in equal opportunity but we're wasting god knows how much money on a group of people who have demonstrated time and again that they are, for the overwhelmingly large part, incapable of doing what they're trying to do. Do we really have so much money in the CF that we can afford to waste it on a pet project that has been an unrelenting failure from day 1?

Am I way off in thinking cost should even be a consideration?

I know I am generalizing here but, given the success of these women, could it be that some of the men who are so adamantly against women in the combat arms (and forces in general) are actually a little nervous that these women might begin to show them up?  

I am so cruel.

What successes are you referring to? From the statistics I've seen here and elsewhere, there seems to be an overwhelming lack of success.

 

[Britney Spears]

Am I way off in thinking cost should even be a consideration?

So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.

 

[ZipperHead]

My question is: what of the cost? From what I gather, the failure and attrition rates for women in the infantry are abysmal. While I may like to see an open infantry, how do we reconcile the wasting of thousands upon thousands of training dollars on a group which has demonstrated such a high failure/attrition rate? From the various figures I've seen quoted here, there's a ridiculously high chance that money spent on the training/feeding/equipping/etc. of a woman in the pursuit of infantry employment will have been wasted.

Here's a thought: whenever a special interest group, or political party, whomever decides to do something like this, they should generate the funds neccesary (outside of taxpayer monies ..... ie. their "war chest") to accomplish the task. If they are truly serious about it, they will find the money, and the training budget isn't effected.

I started off this reply as a joke, but the more I think about it, if this type of thing happened, there would be a lot less things coming down the pipe that are implemented "just because".....

Al

 

[48Highlander]

So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.

That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specificaly towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.  If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?

 

[KevinB]

:

Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.

Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.

We need standards - realistic to the mission.  Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.

 

[mo-litia]

Well said.  Although with our budget being what it is I'm surprised you are still questioning if cost should be a consideration.

 

[qor556]

That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specifically towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.  If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?

I'll second that.. There is a billboard on Lawrence (in Scarb.) that is just plain weak. At first i couldn't quite make out what it was advertising but while looking closer(imagine what a distraction this is while driving) it said "Strong, Proud, CF" or something along those lines with a woman on it staring off into the distance.What a waste of money! Instead they should stop hiding the fact it can be a bag drive like 48 said and have that woman (if they so please to have one in the ad) with a ruck on, crawling through the mud-OK so I'm exaggerating a bit. Sorry to put this thread off track a little bit, just my 2 lira. Carry on...

 

[Glorified Ape]

I'll second that.. There is a billboard on Lawrence (in Scarb.) that is just plain weak. At first i couldn't quite make out what it was advertising but while looking closer(imagine what a distraction this is while driving) it said "Strong, Proud, CF" or something along those lines with a woman on it staring off into the distance.What a waste of money! Instead they should stop hiding the fact it can be a bag drive like 48 said and have that woman (if they so please to have one in the ad) with a ruck on, crawling through the mud-OK so I'm exaggerating a bit. Sorry to put this thread off track a little bit, just my 2 lira. Carry on...

Well, if advertising were honest our economy would probably collapse.

Well said.   Although with our budget being what it is I'm surprised you are still questioning if cost should be a consideration.

Maybe you're right. Like I said, I'm unsure but I'm starting to lean towards the "No - due to cost" position.

:

Come on someones dead grandma could pass recruit/basic and infantry battelschool now or whatever they have been watered down into.

Fact is we've managed to dumb down the training and competancey needed to pass that we get all sorts of dogshit now - regardless of sex.

We need standards - realistic to the mission.   Be it man/woman or something in between, if they can do the job, let them do it.

I agree, though I have absolutely no experience with anything past IAP - I was in poor shape when I got to IAP and I had a tough time for the first week or two but I think it was still too easy on me. But if lax entry standards are what's responsible for women failing out of the infantry so often, why aren't the men failing at nearly the same rate?

So get rid of the double standard at the beginning of the recruitment proccess and make sure that all candidates are adequately prepared.

I agree with dispensing with the double standard. I don't know if candidates are adequately prepared for battle school when they get there or not, since I have no experience and I can't say I've read extensively on the role of pre-course preparation standards.

That and stop putting out recruiting campaigns geared specificaly towards women which make the military seem like one big tea-party.   If we tell people that it's all fun and games, can you really blame them for quitting when they find out what a bag-drive it can be?

Men are being subjected to the fluffy-light recruitment stuff too, but their failure and attrition rates are nowhere near the same as women in the infantry from what I understand.

 

[Cloud Cover]

At some point reality and ideals have to be reconciled and I'm having some difficulty with this specific reconciliation. I believe in equal opportunity but we're wasting god knows how much money on a group of people who have demonstrated time and again that they are, for the overwhelmingly large part, incapable of doing what they're trying to do. 

Blasphemequality!!! But a damn good point!!
In any event, I think the proper measure of the cost to the program is not really one of $$$, but of how candidates who are far beyond "equal" to the task sit at home stewing and thinking about changing their preferred vocation or citizenship.
What price lost opportunity for equal opportunity? Blood?

 

[ZipperHead]

(After my last witty comment, I'm not sure if I want to follow it up with this one, but here goes

Whilst painting my house today, my wife and I shot the shit about some of the things posted ref this thread, and I did some thinking (uh oh, smoke damage to a freshly painted house.... damn!!!). As much as I hate agreeing with Mo-Litia on something  , I have to agree with him, in that we have to agree to disagree on this subject(that's a lot of agree's....).

People are either going to think that it is right for women to go into battle, or not. Not much will convince either camp differently (and to think, at the beginning of the whole mess (reading the initial threads) I would have argued "hell, no!!!", and believe me, in discussions with my buddies, those words probably came out of my mouth more than a few times). But, if I am to not be a hypocrite, I have to say that if a woman is physically and mentally capable (more on that in a bit.....) to go into combat, do battle, kill, and possibly be killed alongside men, let her have the chance to be able to. I say I don't want to be a hypocrite, because I have 3 beautiful young daughters, and we always tell them that they can do anything they want to when they grow up, and we will support them 100%. Hopefully I never have to answer a door at 3AM, to see a padre and an officer, but hopefully no father will have to go through the same scenario if they have a son. But if any of my 3 daughters decide to serve their country, decide that they want to join a Combat Arm (they will be discouraged with some vigour, mind you) or a supporting Arm that could see combat, who am I to say they can't?

Who here, reading these 29 pages of posts, is able to say what makes someone able to go into combat? And if they can lay out the conditions, have they done it themselves (gone into battle)? And is merely surviving good enough justification to be an expert? Women have survived the aftermath of war since the dawn of time (who is left behind to clean up the messes than men have caused? And thanks to getting the vote, they can help cause some messes. Yay for democracy!!!!) and I'm sure will continue to survive, no matter how much chest thumping any of us do. My mother was trained to run into the snow with a white blanket to cover herself up with (winter cam) if the Russians bombed her home in WWII. To me, that shows she's tougher than me, as I would have probably muddied me knickers before I thought to pick up a blanket when bombs were dropping at the age of 13, but I'm allowed to go to war, and according to some people here, my wife shouldn't, even though she has (Afghanistan '02), and I haven't (when I went to Cyprus and Bosnia, they weren't considered war-zones.....). Strange world, no?!?!

Maybe my wife, who went on a combat operation (Op Cherokee Sky) should tell people (males included) that they shouldn't go, because she has the "combat" experience, and they don't. Who sets the policy for who can and can't go?? Politicians???? The same people who we chastise for every bone-head thing that happens (mad cow, Sponsorship scandal, floods, locusts, 9/11, whatever...). So, we agree with them on the things we like, and vehemently disagree with the things we don't. The luxury of living in a democracy, no?!!?? The example of women fighting in Russia, Israel, and Viet Nam are quickly swept under the rug by people, who point out that those policies reverted to "men only" after a time.... Hmmmm, why were they implemented in the first place???? I would guess, neccesity. After all, they must have clued in that they would be pretty foolish to exclude 50%+ of their population just because of "the old ways".

One of the things that I thought about with this whole argument (besides how it actually made me use my hamburger-fed computer (my brain...) for once) was something I saw on the news a little while back: there was a school district in the States that got a slap on the pee-pee for putting a label in their text-books that basically said that evolution is just a theory, and that students need to be open minded (link to CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/). Well, if people still want to think that evolution is just a theory (HELLLLLOOOO!!!!! Dinosaurs, people!!!!!!), people will continue to think that women shouldn't go into combat, well after my great-great-great-great-great granddaughter cures cancer.

Anyway, while I'm glad that this prompted some interesting discussion,  remarkably few (if any) personal attacks, and only the odd pissing contest (speaking of which, I'm proud to say that 'combat_medic' learned me about the "freshette".... I'm still not 100% sure on the application (or design), but  enough was implied that I get the theory....you learn something new (not neccesarily useful) every day) arose. Until someone can point out any compelling reasons why women shouldn't go into combat (other than what has already been pointed out ad nauseam) I will continue to monitor the thread, but will refrain from rehashing my opinions (and a great cry was heard across the land!!!!  ^-^).

Have a good one,

Al

 

[qor556]

Blasphemequality!!! But a darn good point!!
In any event, I think the proper measure of the cost to the program is not really one of $$$, but of how candidates who are far beyond "equal" to the task sit at home stewing and thinking about changing their preferred vocation or citizenship.
What price lost opportunity for equal opportunity? Blood?

Wait, wait... First off, there are not a great number of women that are going into the combat arms, specifically infantry in the first place-I should know(only one in my platoon all summer). The majority that I have met have gone and become medics, clerks or gone into one of the service batallions. So we are talking about a very small number here.

(ok someone posted before me, I'll post anyways)