Women in Canadian Armed Forces.

[Army Guy]

I was actually surprised to see this make the papers, must have been a slow news day for this kind of trash to even been considered for release....i'm surprised the man who wrote it had the balls to do so...but it really paints a clear picture of the man who wrote it,and his 19th century ideals.... and does not even come close to discribing our female soldiers in uniform...

She was 21 years old, had been in the country for two weeks on her first tour of duty and probably weighed a little over 100 pounds.

Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was "dressed up as a soldier" I mean it as a compliment. I've known soldiers all of my life and I have an invincible respect for them. I've seen their courage, integrity and sheer decency.

Yes she was a good looking girl, one that has passed all of her training required of any combat soldier, in fact it has been mentioned she has excelled at it...and was well respected by her peers and superiors, not an easy task for a female, to earn that trust and respect of warriors and has got to say something of this tiny inocent looking girl....she was a Canadian soldier, trained to the highest of standards, and could have put micheal Coren to the ground and had him crying like a baby in less time it took him to form the first sentence of this garbage....

I've spent my entire carear as a combat soldier, and have had the privilge of serving with plenty women in the military, all carried thier wieght and more has they had to go that extra step to prove themselfs, because of attitudes such as the ones express in his article...., all served thier country with the highest of honors, all carried the fight to the enemy and kicked ass...not once did i or any other have to put our lives on the line to ensure thier safety on the battle field....

The very reason we have various weight categories for all forms of organized fighting is that whatever the training, a pugilist's weight and muscle bulk give an advantage to the heavier combatant.

Canadian military has seen to it everyone of it's soldiers have been issued with the great wieght class equalizer....it's called a C-7A2 rifle, and fires a 5.56mm bullet capable of taken down a raging bull at 300 meters....and in the right hands such as any Canadian soldier capaple of taken down the largest man with a small amount of effort, without even spilling your tim hornets coffee....

Todays female soldiers have worked extremily hard at dispelling all these 19th century ideals of women in combat...and the deserve our respect, not garbage like what was written here....

Globe

[Shakeyhands]

Coren is a wanker.

[lictor616]

Whatever policy is having our "barely out of ponytails" 18 year old 105 pound little girls fight wars for us: is a perverse policy.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[tango]

Whatever policy is having our "barely out of ponytails" 18 year old 105 pound little girls fight wars for us: is a perverse policy.

And 18 year old boys ... ???

Great post, Army guy! Thanks much!

Send it to Michael Coren, eh?

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango

[Wilber]

Hope you sent that to the editor.

[Molly]

Tip of the hat, Armyguy.

Well spoken.

And thank-you.

[Muddy]

Coren has never soldiered and his thoughts relate to his own daughters. I understand what he is saying and I have some sympathy and understanding of his thoughts. I too was a soldier Army Guy, and most often I agree with your posts. You will have to put me in Coren`s category. I come from an earlier era that we referred to as this man`s army. We grew up as men who`s duty it was to protect women and children and women and children into the life boats first. I am sure this young women was as brave as any soldier. But it is still a foreign concept for us old worn down soldiers. It is hard to change us it was instilled into us as part of being a man.

But as the sun goes down ,we will remember them.

[tango]

Coren has never soldiered and his thoughts relate to his own daughters. I understand what he is saying and I have some sympathy and understanding of his thoughts. I too was a soldier Army Guy, and most often I agree with your posts. You will have to put me in Coren`s category. I come from an earlier era that we referred to as this man`s army. We grew up as men who`s duty it was to protect women and children and women and children into the life boats first. I am sure this young women was as brave as any soldier. But it is still a foreign concept for us old worn down soldiers. It is hard to change us it was instilled into us as part of being a man.

But as the sun goes down ,we will remember them.

Get over it. :angry:

If a woman chooses to be a soldier, respect it.

Army guy, you da bomb!

[Sabre Rider]

Back in the 80's when I was in, women were just starting to make inroads into traditionally non-female trades including combat arms. This was especially true within the Reserves, where due to a lack of "man" power, women had to "man" up to fill the ranks. Most were capable, some were more then capable, some even exceeded their male counter-parts and others sadly broke. They had to face hostility, and yes even sexual harassment...but they did the bloody job and for the most part did it bloody well. Apart from a few very rare cases, I never had to worry about the women in my section anymore then I did about the males. The girls I had the honour of serving with blazed the trail for our young women in uniform and they have earned the right to be called Soldiers.

[CANADIEN]

The day one of our soldiers (or an American one) empties a round into bin Laden, he won't be thinking about the gender of the soldier, or his/her sexual orientation, place of origin, skin coulour, etc. He'll be dead.

[waldo]

Todays female soldiers have worked extremely hard at dispelling all these 19th century ideals of women in combat...and the deserve our respect, not garbage like what was written here....

you, yourself, speak of the “tiny innocent looking girl”… of the need for the “great weight class equalizer”. Each amplifies the questionable “practicality” of placing a slight 45 kilo woman as a front-line combat soldier. The equality so driving this social integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military… as you say, equality at the hand of “a C-7A2 rifle, (that) fires a 5.56mm bullet capable of taken down a raging bull at 300 meters....and in the right hands such as any Canadian soldier capable of taken down the largest man with a small amount of effort, without even spilling your Tim Hortons coffee....”

absolutely… unequivocally… without reservation… woman can – and do – perform adequately (and above) across numerous roles in the military. However, the statistics I read show that the integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military, as spurred by that 1989 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has been woefully inadequate to the point of being somewhat statistically irrelevant. When only 13% of all regular force military are women (Canadian Forces – 2006)… 7900 female personnel serving in the regular force military, with 225 female personnel serving as a part of the regular combat force military… just 2% of Canadian regular force combat troops are women.

has the so-called “social experiment” to integrate the Canadian military (combat roles) failed… and if so, particularly when taken in balance against progressive change made within ‘civilian life’, why has it failed?

how’s that continued female combat integration drive affected by the death of a, as you say, “tiny innocent looking girl”?

mothers, daughters, sisters… fighting the Taliban as front-line combat soldiers… really? That 2% female combat participation is making all the difference in this otherwise futile Afghanistan undertaking? Really?

[tango]

Back in the 80's when I was in, women were just starting to make inroads into traditionally non-female trades including combat arms. This was especially true within the Reserves, where due to a lack of "man" power, women had to "man" up to fill the ranks. Most were capable, some were more then capable, some even exceeded their male counter-parts and others sadly broke. They had to face hostility, and yes even sexual harassment...but they did the bloody job and for the most part did it bloody well. Apart from a few very rare cases, I never had to worry about the women in my section anymore then I did about the males. The girls I had the honour of serving with blazed the trail for our young women in uniform and they have earned the right to be called Soldiers.

Thanks SR. Really nice to hear that.

[tango]

you, yourself, speak of the “tiny innocent looking girl”… of the need for the “great weight class equalizer”. Each amplifies the questionable “practicality” of placing a slight 45 kilo woman as a front-line combat soldier. The equality so driving this social integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military… as you say, equality at the hand of “a C-7A2 rifle, (that) fires a 5.56mm bullet capable of taken down a raging bull at 300 meters....and in the right hands such as any Canadian soldier capable of taken down the largest man with a small amount of effort, without even spilling your Tim Hortons coffee....”

absolutely… unequivocally… without reservation… woman can – and do – perform adequately (and above) across numerous roles in the military. However, the statistics I read show that the integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military, as spurred by that 1989 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has been woefully inadequate to the point of being somewhat statistically irrelevant. When only 13% of all regular force military are women (Canadian Forces – 2006)… 7900 female personnel serving in the regular force military, with 225 female personnel serving as a part of the regular combat force military… just 2% of Canadian regular force combat troops are women.

has the so-called “social experiment” to integrate the Canadian military (combat roles) failed… and if so, particularly when taken in balance against progressive change made within ‘civilian life’, why has it failed?

how’s that continued female combat integration drive affected by the death of a, as you say, “tiny innocent looking girl”?

mothers, daughters, sisters… fighting the Taliban as front-line combat soldiers… really? That 2% female combat participation is making all the difference in this otherwise futile Afghanistan undertaking? Really?

It's a process. We all have choices.

I'm really proud that young women can exercise all of their choices in Canada today.

And this thread is a celebration of the lives and work of our young women in combat.

Bless 'em and keep 'em, and if more choose to join them, that's good too.

Though I may have serious concerns about our mission in Afghanistan, that's our problem.

I never have concerns about our soldiers conducting themselves courageously and honourably, and "without even spilling your tim hornets coffee....".

Edited April 22, 2009 by tango

[Muddy]

Get over it. :angry:

If a woman chooses to be a soldier, respect it.

Army guy, you da bomb!

I do not have to get over anything. I was explaining why some of us who come from another era have a different outlook. I come from an era that did not use foul language in front of women . I still hold the door for Gals . I try to be gallant when ever possible. My Mrs. would have it no other way. I am not about to change now just because a crass generation has changed our social rules. Real men know their duty towards women and children. I have the greatest respect for women in the work force or the military. I just don`t believe women in the military should be front line troops.

[Molly]

Waldo... while you are chasing statistics, check out height and weight stats for North American women.

A 45 kg. woman would be in the tiniest 5 percentile... about 4.5.

While gender size difference exists, it bugs the heck out of me that folks citing size difference in order to disinclude women almost always compare the physical capabilities of an outlandishly small woman to those of an equally outlandishly large man.

A comparably tiny man would come in at about 50kg.

.................................

Interestingly enough, men tend to wildly underestimate the weight of women, too. Baby girl, for instance, is routinely guessed at a petite 120 pounds or so, but her fit weight ranges from 160-180. I laughed hard at finding myself listed in the 'under 135' class in an arm wrestling competition. That was a 40+ lb. miss, too.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Molly

[Muddy]

Waldo... while you are chasing statistics, check out height and weight stats for North American women.

A 45 kg. woman would be in the tiniest 5 percentile... about 4.5.

While gender size difference exists, it bugs the heck out of me that folks citing size difference in order to disinclude women almost always compare the physical capabilities of an outlandishly small woman to those of an equally outlandishly large man.

A comparably tiny man would come in at about 50kg.

.................................

Interestingly enough, men tend to wildly underestimate the weight of women, too. Baby girl, for instance, is routinely guessed at a petite 120 pounds or so, but her fit weight ranges from 160-180. I laughed hard at finding myself listed in the 'under 135' class in an arm wrestling competition. That was a 40+ lb. miss, too.

This a fact, pound for pound ( I still don`t understand kilos) a women is not as strong as a man physically. Now, I do believe women are stronger in the mind than men.

[Molly]

Okay.

For future reference: 45 kg woman = 100 lbs.

50 kg. man= 110 lbs.

(I'd be more intimidated by the former than the latter.)

[waldo]

Waldo... while you are chasing statistics, check out height and weight stats for North American women.

A 45 kg. woman would be in the tiniest 5 percentile... about 4.5.

While gender size difference exists, it bugs the heck out of me that folks citing size difference in order to disinclude women almost always compare the physical capabilities of an outlandishly small woman to those of an equally outlandishly large man.

interesting you chose not to comment on the statistics… I did chase – that you ignore them and choose, rather, to deflect and concentrate on a passing reference I make to the “practicality” of placing a “slight 45 kg” woman as a front-line combat soldier. It’s been almost 20 years since that Human Rights Tribunal launched the “integration fervour” and there’s been abysmal success in bringing forward the equitable pairing across combat troops. Why is that?

I stand to be corrected but as official policy I do believe both the UK and U.S. military still ban the inclusion of females as front-line combat personnel. Now why would that be? Certainly, as we’re told, today’s style of warfare makes it increasingly difficult to isolate and define strict combat regions; however, official policy… is official policy.

really, does your concern follow some facade to eliminate another “glass ceiling”… to allow slight 45 kg women to do battle with the best of them?

[Wilber]

The Brigade of Gurkhas has been called the finest light infantry in the world by some. A Gurkha can join if he is at least 5' 2" and weighs a minimum of 110 lbs. The Viet Cong were little guys as well and they didn't do so badly as I recall.

[kimmy]

That was a terrific response to Coren's editorial, Army Guy!

you, yourself, speak of the “tiny innocent looking girl”… of the need for the “great weight class equalizer”. Each amplifies the questionable “practicality” of placing a slight 45 kilo woman as a front-line combat soldier.

It does nothing of the sort.

It illustrates the nonsense of applying a boxing metaphor (weight classes) to combat in which combatants are equipped with firearms.

The equality so driving this social integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military… as you say, equality at the hand of “a C-7A2 rifle,

Equality at the hand of a rifle? WTF does that mean?

(that) fires a 5.56mm bullet capable of taken down a raging bull at 300 meters....and in the right hands such as any Canadian soldier capable of taken down the largest man with a small amount of effort, without even spilling your Tim Hortons coffee....”

absolutely… unequivocally… without reservation… woman can – and do – perform adequately (and above) across numerous roles in the military. However, the statistics I read show that the integration of women into combat roles within the Canadian military, as spurred by that 1989 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has been woefully inadequate to the point of being somewhat statistically irrelevant. When only 13% of all regular force military are women (Canadian Forces – 2006)… 7900 female personnel serving in the regular force military, with 225 female personnel serving as a part of the regular combat force military… just 2% of Canadian regular force combat troops are women.

has the so-called “social experiment” to integrate the Canadian military (combat roles) failed… and if so, particularly when taken in balance against progressive change made within ‘civilian life’, why has it failed?

The participation of women in the trades is extremely small. The participation of women in scientific and technical fields is extremely small. Has that also been a failure? Should we stop telling girls they could be mechanics or engineers when they grow up?

As long as Canada has entirely voluntary military service, participation in the military is a personal choice, just like any other career choice.

Most people understand that the low participation of women in fields like engineering is not a result of aptitude, but of social factors... surely we can recognize the same in regard to women in the military.

BTW my dad and my longtime boyfriend, both engineers, have told me that the few women who do enter the field are invariably excellent. Women who are just average think "this is hard, why would I want to hang out with all those nerds, etc" and move on to something that average women do for a living. The only ones who stick through it are ones with it are ones with a genuine passion for it. While I can't vouch for the military, I suspect the same may apply.

how’s that continued female combat integration drive affected by the death of a, as you say, “tiny innocent looking girl”?

mothers, daughters, sisters… fighting the Taliban as front-line combat soldiers… really? That 2% female combat participation is making all the difference in this otherwise futile Afghanistan undertaking? Really?

While sad, is her death any sadder than the death of a father, son, or brother?

-k

[Molly]

I commented on that side of it specifically, Waldo, because that is the part that pushed my buttons... but if you really want me to comment on the rest, I can.

You are right to suppose that I object to glass cielings, and bristle at your suggestion of this one... the notion of genitalia being the primary restriction on ones options is deeply offensive to me. I said as much, so there's no 'supposing' about it.

Many things contribute to the numbers you brought in.

20 years is an eyeblink with regard to changing social attitudes. The fact that the Coren article was written points out how little they have changed in that time. The shift has been from horror at the thought to mere reluctance and disapproval...

Yes, the attitude that questions the very presence of women, regardless of their wishes or their capability, is a part of it, but certainly not all. The women who take on combat roles remain pioneers. Regardless of the nature of a role, being a pioneer is its own kind of challenge. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, because it's living the hard way.

And there are a lot of differences between men and women beyond size and strength. We could argue 'til the cows come home about how much of it is socialized and how much of it is inborn, but it doesn't matter which. It DOES matter that those differences exist. Statistically, you'll find that women (as a group) are a lot less enthusiastic about combat (by anyone) than men (also as a group), see less reason for it, less merit in its results, and more ways to avoid it... so any expectation of men and women in equal numbers in combat roles is pretty darned naive.

And another huge difference between men and women is the tighter connection between women and children/family. There is little handicap for a single father participating in the military-- but a single mother? (for instance) The military is trying, and has made great strides, but the life really is not family friendly. That, all by itself, would take a huge number of women out of a position to be in a combat role, because for many the family un-friendliness erases the military as a potential career.

I could get into more arcane stuff, but you see the point, I'm sure. 13% and 2%? I don't see that as a 'failed experiment' at all. I'm actually a bit surprised it's that high!

And as to the optics of the death of this particular girl? I don't see it as having any effect at all on recruitment. The women/girls who enter the military, particularly those headed for the front lines, don't go in starry eyed. That's one of the effects of facing pioneering: you have to want it badly enough to face the downside head-on, because no one is trying to seduce you in.

[Argus]

While sad, is her death any sadder than the death of a father, son, or brother?

Yes, to some of us.

[Argus]

The Brigade of Gurkhas has been called the finest light infantry in the world by some. A Gurkha can join if he is at least 5' 2" and weighs a minimum of 110 lbs. The Viet Cong were little guys as well and they didn't do so badly as I recall.

The Viet Cong were guerrilas, operating in stealth, never choosing to engage the enemy except from ambush and with superior local numbers. And they still took casualties which were far higher than the Americans.

I don't know what the casualty rates are for the Gurkhas, but knowing the British and their history, I'm going to suggest they were thrown out there as cannon fodder to soak up fire. That doesn't mean they weren't good soldiers, for they had the same fearless attitude as the early British armies did, when they were basically made up of criminals, drunkards, and riff-raff. The Brits threw them at the considerably more civilized French and the French, by and large, got torn apart.

That being said, men are simply, physically hardier than women. True, if you're just driven to the battle, then lay in a ditch shooting a gun size and strength means little. If, on the other hand, you have to haul a hundred pound pack up a mountain, march all day through the hungle and then fight someone, I'm fairly confident a bunch of men of average size would fair considerably better than a bunch of women.

[M.Dancer]

I don't know what the casualty rates are for the Gurkhas, but knowing the British and their history, I'm going to suggest they were thrown out there as cannon fodder to soak up fire. That doesn't mean they weren't good soldiers, for they had the same fearless attitude as the early British armies did, when they were basically made up of criminals, drunkards, and riff-raff.

I think not. The Gurkha reg't is still active.

[Molly]

" If on the other hand, if you have to haul a hundred pound pack up a mountain, march all day through the jungle, then fight someone, I'm fairly confident a bunch of men of average size would fair considerably better than a bunch of women."

Haha!

Actually you'd probably be wrong! Men almost always beat out women in lesser feats of strength and endurance, but when you seriously max them out.... ie: comparing men and women with similar performance in lesser endurance events, when you double the challenge... the women win!

Edited April 22, 2009 by Molly