Women in Canadian Armed Forces.

[Argus]

" 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!

I find that kind of hard to believe. So far as I know when the physical requirements to stronger, ie for special forces units like the SEALS Marine Recon, Army Rangers, SAS or SBS or JTF2, the number of females plummets to just about zero.

[Molly]

"When comparing men and women who perform similarly on lesser endurance events.... if you double the challenge, the women win."

Your choice to believe or not, but it's a tidbit discovered in endurance studies. If they just look at marathons, men are way ahead of women, but when they compare men and women with similar results in marathons, over supermarathons, the men run out of poop and are hardly in the same race.

So far they chalk it up partly to heat dissipation by smaller body-masses, and are looking hard at womens greater reliance on body fat, rather than carbohydrate for availabe energy. I could google it up for you, but it's a giggle, not a point.

[Argus]

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

Oh I'm not saying they do that now, just that this was probably what they did during the period their reputation was earned. Still, they come from a culture where they are, in combat, basically fearless as compared to the more "genteel" people from the urban areas of the West.

[Wilber]

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.

How about the NVA then, they were regulars. A big reason the Viet Cong and NVA took such high casualties is they had no air assets. It had nothing to do with there physical size.

You couldn't be more wrong about the Gurkhas or the way their British officers felt about them, I suggest you do some research . They were the only native troops the British considered their equals and only the best British officers are chosen to lead Gurkhas. It was always considered quite plum to be selected to serve with a Gurkha battalion. That is why even though the colonies are gone, there is still a Gurkha brigade in the British army. Prince Harry was serving with a Gurkha battalion during his time in Afghanistan.

I have not met another people with so few illusions about themselves or the world around them, or who looking at the world with this practical, objective, unromantic eye, found it funny. It was easy to command such people. It was a privilege to be allowed to do so.

Patrick Davis, former British Gurkha officer.

The Almighty created the Gurkha an ideal infantryman, indeed an ideal Rifleman, brave, tough, patient, adaptable, skilled in field craft, intensely proud of his military record and unswerving loyalty. Add to this his honesty in word and deed, his parade perfection and his unquenchable cheerfulness, then service with the Gurkhas is for any soldier an immense satisfaction.

Field Marshal Lord Slim, former Gurkha regimental officer and commander of the 14th Army in India and Burma during WW2.

Back to women in the military or anything else, they deserve to be judged on their performance, not any preconceived notions of what they may or may not be capable of. Before my kid became a cop he went out for a ride with a friend who is a local police officer. A Chinese girl, short, buff but quite feminine. They got called to a domestic dispute. She told him to stay in the car and the next thing he new she had this behemoth of a guy slammed over the trunk of the car putting the cuffs on. In his words, f*%# is she ever tough.

[waldo]

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

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.

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

the introduction of the phrase, “weight class equalizer” comes from the OP. Equality at the hand of a rifle means exactly what the OP intended with his use of the phrase “weight class equalizer”… that the “C-7A2” is the equalizer to the inequalities of (female) weight.

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?

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.

we’re not talking about some fanciful romanticized fictional piece of “GI Jane” melodrama… there is a reason the current U.S. Pentagon policy governing women in combat excludes women from assignment to “units whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.”

your casually offered premise is farcical at best, disingenuous at worst – your attempt to rationalize the failings of equitable male/female combat integration by comparing female participation rates in scientific and technical fields actually helps reinforce the degree of failure by the Canadian military. That 2% female combat integration rate within the military pales in comparison to the rates of participation of women in scientific and technical fields… the participation level you termed “extremely small”.

2006 stats: with females making up 47% of the labour force… with 36% of life-science professionals female… with 30% of physical science professionals female… with 26% of computer//IT professionals female… etc. These are your “extremely small” participation levels???

% Women in Canadian Work Force

[waldo]

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?

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.

frankly, I’m not reading many questioning the presence of women in anything other than direct ground combat… most of which continues to be reduced through technological advances.

I’ve also been reading several accounts from current/ex-military who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. The question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”.

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.

if it is naivety, it leads right back to that 1989 Human Rights Tribunal that’s driven this “social experiment” within the Canadian military.

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.

notwithstanding the most obvious “family factor” where, for example, U.S. military reserve numbers are regularly decimated by pregnancy… I couldn’t find any stats on how pregnancy affects the regular forces, but…

[tango]

frankly, I’m not reading many questioning the presence of women in anything other than direct ground combat… most of which continues to be reduced through technological advances.

I’ve also been reading several accounts from current/ex-military who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. The question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”.

Why don't you, instead, read the two accounts in this thread of men who have worked directly with women in combat roles?

This is such an old hypothetical argument to make against women's choices. Why not pay attention to the results on the ground?

If physical brawn is all (some) men can come up with to discriminate against women in this way, that's pretty pathetic.

It is well known that women have more physical endurance and better ability to survive adverse conditions than men. It's built in because they are genetically engineered to survive to protect their children.

Social engineering, my foot! What you are arguing for is that insecure men who are intimidated by women with strong characters should have the right to limit women's career and life choices, and frankly, that's not a choice any man has because it isn't your choice, it is hers. :angry:

Go wrestle a dinosaur or something instead!

Edited April 22, 2009 by tango

[Molly]

That's pretty concise, Tango.

I was about to comment on that reply to Kimmy... so, Waldo...

How many women were licenced medical doctors in 1900 (20 years after the first was allowed)? How many in physical sciences, even as recently as the 50's? How many in the trades 20 years after Rosie the Riveter?

Probably not 13%, or even 2%. As I said, 20 years is an eyeblink... and right here, right now, we still have people (you) who do not expect scorn when they say they should not be 'allowed' to do it... ( cause they're so cute and tiny and weak, so fragile and incompetent)... and 'letting' them do it is a 'failed experiment.

If you can't salute them, Waldo, then at least stay out of their way.

[Oleg Bach]

That's pretty concise, Tango.

I was about to comment on that reply to Kimmy... so, Waldo...

How many women were licenced medical doctors in 1900 (20 years after the first was allowed)? How many in physical sciences, even as recently as the 50's? How many in the trades 20 years after Rosie the Riveter?

Probably not 13%, or even 2%. As I said, 20 years is an eyeblink... and right here, right now, we still have people (you) who do not expect scorn when they say they should not be 'allowed' to do it... ( cause they're so cute and tiny and weak, so fragile and incompetent)... and 'letting' them do it is a 'failed experiment.

If you can't salute them, Waldo, then at least stay out of their way.

Arrogant - and gleefully listless..whether it be a son or a daughter - to be blown up like some damned road kill racoon is not heroic - it's a waste - and fools feel important when someone dies in this artifical war..reminds me of my daughters when they were younger - they would go to raves - if someone died on the dance floor from an over doze of E -- it meant the party was important and their lives were relevant...idiots!

[waldo]

frankly, I’m not reading many questioning the presence of women in anything other than direct ground combat… most of which continues to be reduced through technological advances.

I’ve also been reading several accounts from current/ex-military who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. The question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”.

Why don't you, instead, read the two accounts in this thread of men who have worked directly with women in combat roles?

This is such an old hypothetical argument to make against women's choices. Why not pay attention to the results on the ground?

If physical brawn is all (some) men can come up with to discriminate against women in this way, that's pretty pathetic.

It is well known that women have more physical endurance and better ability to survive adverse conditions than men. It's built in because they are genetically engineered to survive to protect their children.

Social engineering, my foot! What you are arguing for is that insecure men who are intimidated by women with strong characters should have the right to limit women's career and life choices, and frankly, that's not a choice any man has because it isn't your choice, it is hers. :angry:

Go wrestle a dinosaur or something instead!

is this a discussion about choice?… an infringement on personal choice?

those results on the ground are well documented and have influenced decisions to not allow women in direct ground combat roles. Women in combat in the UK military – not allowed. Women in combat in the U.S. military – not allowed. Women in combat in the Israeli IDF – introduced/failed, now disallowed.

if you’re so hot to jump on the feminista discrimination bandwagon why not put your energies to lobbying the Canadian Forces to improve on their failed (some might say discriminatory) practices in bringing forward a more representative percentage of female ground combat soldiers.

one does not, as you say, “argue”, on the basis of insecurity and intimidation by highlighting the progress made by women in civilian professions/jobs… or by highlighting the commendable performance by females across numerous roles, including combat, within the Canadian military… save that of direct ground combat. Would you like me to quote those progressions and commendable performance highlights for you… the ones I offered?

if this is a discussion of choice… I will defer to those within the military, those in position of command/control, those who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. As I said, the question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”… I will align with those who choose to recognize the studies, those who choose to evaluate the statistics – those who choose in favour of the safety of all soldiers – regardless of gender.

[Oleg Bach]

My father was an officer in the Red Army..one thing I leaned from him as far as the definition of war was - war was survival - you engaged the enemy if you were being attacked. You fought for life it self. You fought to preserve your family and nation - YOU did not wander off 5000 miles out of your way and engage some bearded dope growers carrying AKs. WHO did not have a clue within their live time where Toronto was let alone Canada.. War is a fight! If you are about to be attacked in a street fight - you strike first and take the monster out...You do not wander down the block and cross the street looking for a fight.

[tango]

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...

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....

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

Waldo,

Let's just say I prefer Army Guy's perspective to yours.

[Oleg Bach]

Waldo,

Let's just say I prefer Army Guy's perspective to yours.

Army Guy has a vested intrest in these matters.. even if Canada's commander and chief was Aldoph Hitler himself - Army Guy would obey..that's who he is - that's what he is trained for and that is his duty.

[Sabre Rider]

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

-k

The simple answer to that is no, a lose is a lose no matter the age, gender, ethnicity, religion, political leaning or even sexual orientation od a Canadian Service person. When one is lost, a family grieves, a unit mourns and the nation bleeds.

[Sabre Rider]

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.

You know very little about the history the of Army of Lord Wellington nor of the Gurkha Regiment. The British Infantry during the Napoleonic Wars was the finest Infantry of its day. Where as the French would advance in column of march, the British would face them in line, hence the term thin red line, and by dint of their superiour training and rate of fire, devastate the French. The British Army of the early 1800's were one of the very few that actually trained their troops using live ammunition before sending them out onto the field of battle.

As for the Gurhka's, there are arguably the toughest and finest soldiers in the world. During the Falkland War, the British would let it slip that the Gurhka's were going to attack a certain strong point, the Argie conscripts holding that point would usually bugger off asap rather then face the Gurhka's. To this day, the Gurhka Regiment is considered to be an elite force within the British Army and they are not squandered as "cannon fodder".

As for men being "hardier" then women, the day a man gives birth or barring that passes a whole watermelon through his anus without dropping dead from the labour and pain is the day I will believe you. I've served with women in the past and for the most part that were just as capable and hardy as their male counter-parts, able to ruck up, hump the miles and lay down fire as required.

[tango]

As for men being "hardier" then women, the day a man gives birth or barring that passes a whole watermelon through his anus without dropping dead from the labour and pain is the day I will believe you.

BRAVO!!!

[Cuzzin E]

Coren is a wanker.

+1

I can't believe he was comparing soldiers on the battlefield to boxing, what an idiot

[Wilber]

Army Guy has a vested intrest in these matters.. even if Canada's commander and chief was Aldoph Hitler himself - Army Guy would obey..that's who he is - that's what he is trained for and that is his duty.

He certainly has a greater interest than you, his life depends on the people around him.

[Army Guy]

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.

Muddy, i've been serving along time as well, over 28 years now, i've lived through this enitre change process, and trust me, change did not come easy, Change it seemed would never hit the Royal's Canadian Regiment but it did, with both hands.

We both share the same values one women and children, serving our nation with class and honor was our number one objective, but we also share the same vision on our nations soldiers, only difference is today some of our soldiers are women, no different than yesterdays soldiers, still tough as nails, still make a sailor blush after a few beers, still able to soldier on with a 70 lb ruck in the Afghanis mountains, only difference is thier better looking than you and me....but still the same soldiers...

I guess what i'm trying to say is they are our nations soldiers, they've all worked hard to be there, constantly knocking down the walls "we've" and the rest of the Nation put in front of them, at the end of the day, all i see on the battle field is Soldiers, Canadian Soldiers, and they have long since earned my admiration, my respect...I've seen first hand that they are capable of doing the job, and do it is what they do...

[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. 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....”

No sir i stole those lines from his article, to me she is a Canadian soldier, no more , no less....and i did not mean it to be a slight, i meant it as "sarcastic". Todays battlefield is pretty much an equal oportunity employer, where size and shape, color, race or anything does much play a large role....

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.

I think we are lossing focus with stats Your facts are just that, numbers on a sheet, and can be twisted into anything you want to prove....heres my piont, of all the Canadian males of age from 17 to 55,less than .005% where actually interested in or becoming a Combat arms soldier. what does that mean ? what does that tell us....does it say females in the forces are given a raw deal,or are not cut out to be soldiers or that Canadians as a whole don't give a shit about our military....

I think the important thing here is that in Canada women have the oportunity to serve they're nation be on the battle field or not....all of our Combat arms trades are open to women and those that apply and complete training are as good or better than thier male counter parts...

Canadian military does not hire by stats any more, recruitment is done by an individual bases, if they are interested then they will be slotted into one of hundreds of job openings , if one happens to be a combat arm postion so be it....

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?

I don't think it has failed, i think it is becoming more exceptable, much like say womens hockey....and 5 to 10 years from now women will remind us of the road we made them travel, i would not be surprised if it's done with a few pokes to the chest while doing so....It's not a traditional job or field to get into, such as classics as modeling, hair dresser, etc etc but we live in a nation that equality and the opitions are open if they did choose...

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

While it may effect you that way, her death was another soldier who died doing what our nation wanted them to do....I'm sure to her father she will always be his little girl....to her comrads she will be a soldier, friend...As far as recruiting goes, recruitment is up, DND problem is we can't train them fast enough....so to answer your question, i don't see any effect....

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?

Lets snap back to reality here, Afghan battle space starts when you leavve the front gate, and while there may only be 2 % of the soldiers that are women in the Combat arms your figures do not include reservists whom also take part in those functions nor do they take into account that every soldier in Afghan does his or her duty, outside the wire....it would not be uncommon to have serveral hundred Canadian female soldiers in Afgan on any one tour..... much more than a just 2 % stat your quoted.

Every Canadian soldier is making a difference and doing what they signed the dotted line for...female or male...they all earn they're money...i think you'd be hard pressed to prove they don't....

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?

What about the 45 KG man, or do we throw out the practice that with the proper training and equipment anyone on the battle field is created some what equal...

I’ve also been reading several accounts from current/ex-military who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. The question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”.

Old 19th century ideals that have yet to be overcome...effect on cohesion, disciplinary problems is no more than any other soldier produces,,,,the Safety aspect is also BS....Those that need to ask that question have not been in combat or under fire ....recovering a wounded soldier under fire is normally done with a group effect...as with anything on the battle field....we live and fight as a team, if there is a problem then that indiv is moved but for most part we live and fight as one....everyone has strenghts and weakenesses, regardless if your a man or a women....

those results on the ground are well documented and have influenced decisions to not allow women in direct ground combat roles. Women in combat in the UK military – not allowed. Women in combat in the U.S. military – not allowed. Women in combat in the Israeli IDF – introduced/failed, now disallowed.

I think you should re check your stats once again. or re phrase your sentences....Women have been involved in combat since time began, or man picked up a stick to beat his neibour and his wife chased him home with it for supper....

Both the UK and US have women serving on or in combat postions, be it in the Army. Navy, or Airforce....including the US Marines, all have women in Combat billets....only exception is the Hard Infantry postions, those have been regalated for Male only....Within the IDF there are still postions within thier Armour corps, Arty, Attack helo sqns that are filled be women....just as the UK and US....and they are still very much alive and doing well....

Just an an example, a US Airforce Sniper, just a few months ago was credited to killing an IED planter at the range of 800 meters....how did that happen ? in fact it was on U tube for a while....shot thru the ass, and detonated the device....

[waldo]

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....”

No sir i stole those lines from his article, to me she is a Canadian soldier, no more , no less....and i did not mean it to be a slight, i meant it as "sarcastic". Todays battlefield is pretty much an equal oportunity employer, where size and shape, color, race or anything does much play a large role....

not to quibble unnecessarily but…your referenced article does not include the word “tiny”…the exact phrasing “tiny innocent looking girl” is your own… suggested intended sarcasm did not translate well. Is “equal opportunity employer” another equality statement – at the hands of the great weight equalizer, the C-7A2 rifle?

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.

I think we are lossing focus with stats Your facts are just that, numbers on a sheet, and can be twisted into anything you want to prove....heres my piont, of all the Canadian males of age from 17 to 55,less than .005% where actually interested in or becoming a Combat arms soldier. what does that mean ? what does that tell us....does it say females in the forces are given a raw deal,or are not cut out to be soldiers or that Canadians as a whole don't give a shit about our military....

those Canadian Forces statistics I offered speak for themselves – nothing to twist… a blanket statement that just 2% of Canadian regular force combat troops are women. The only thing missing from those statistics is a point I didn’t make… because the statistics themselves aren’t granular enough to further segment that 2% female combat figure to qualify the actual type of related combat soldiering/positions.

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?

I don't think it has failed, i think it is becoming more exceptable, much like say womens hockey....and 5 to 10 years from now women will remind us of the road we made them travel, i would not be surprised if it's done with a few pokes to the chest while doing so....It's not a traditional job or field to get into, such as classics as modeling, hair dresser, etc etc but we live in a nation that equality and the opitions are open if they did choose...

after 20 years, can a 2% female combat integration result, one subject to Human Rights Tribunal direction/enforcement/scrutiny… be termed a success?

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

While it may effect you that way, her death was another soldier who died doing what our nation wanted them to do....I'm sure to her father she will always be his little girl....to her comrads she will be a soldier, friend...As far as recruiting goes, recruitment is up, DND problem is we can't train them fast enough....so to answer your question, i don't see any effect....

I expect there are mitigating factors all around; active war and combat deaths must certainly impact recruitment…

Feb2009: Military's recruiting efforts fall short

I’ve also been reading several accounts from current/ex-military who openly debate the presence of women in combat units, suggesting that it has a harmful effect on cohesion, discipline and safety… simply in terms of how men react to their presence and the questionable physical capabilities of a woman to extradite a wounded male soldier. The question of life versus death shouldn’t be dictated by misdirected “social engineering”.

Old 19th century ideals that have yet to be overcome...effect on cohesion, disciplinary problems is no more than any other soldier produces,,,,the Safety aspect is also BS....Those that need to ask that question have not been in combat or under fire ....recovering a wounded soldier under fire is normally done with a group effect...as with anything on the battle field....we live and fight as a team, if there is a problem then that indiv is moved but for most part we live and fight as one....everyone has strenghts and weakenesses, regardless if your a man or a women....

you have a counter view and given the failure of the Canadian Forces to equitably integrate women into ground combat roles, I’m not so sure your view can even be supported from within… from within the upper echelons of the Canadian Forces. Your stated view begs the question – why do other countries officially forbid women from serving in ground combat… infantry, armored and most field artillery units?

those results on the ground are well documented and have influenced decisions to not allow women in direct ground combat roles. Women in combat in the UK military – not allowed. Women in combat in the U.S. military – not allowed. Women in combat in the Israeli IDF – introduced/failed, now disallowed.

I think you should re check your stats once again. or re phrase your sentences....

numerous times, I’ve acknowledged the performance of women in combat, save direct ground combat participation. Yes, within the quote you offer, I use the term “direct ground combat” in the opening sentence… I didn’t but should have carried the “ground” reference throughout. I will gladly correct:

those results on the ground are well documented and have influenced decisions to not allow women in direct ground combat roles. Women in

ground

combat in the UK military – not allowed. Women in

ground

combat in the U.S. military – not allowed. Women in

ground

combat in the Israeli IDF – introduced/failed, now disallowed.

[Molly]

Quibbling with 'tiny' truly is a paltry nitpick, since the article drips with diminutive-indicative references and nuance.

And I don't understand what you are questioning regarding a 'weight class equalizer'. The point is simple enough: size is becoming less and less relevant every day... even to combat. Bring a gun to a knife fight, and you win. When the herculean task is performed by the monster machine, at the control of a fingertip, it doesn't take a musclebound gorilla to do it. (It is my own firm belief that the need for brawn has been as wildly overstated/overbelieved for any number of tasks as actual gender-based size and weight variations have been. My experience with concrete work, for instance, is that it is a far less demanding physical workout than a day spent washing walls.)

As for your 2%... what EXACTLY would be improved by reducing it to 0%? The troop safety argument is outright false, and the esprit de corps argument ... well... I don't buy it for a minute. I didn't buy it 30 years ago when my brother in law tried it out as a reason to explain why women shouldn't ever be 'allowed' to be pilots, and it's gotten even thinner with wear. Armyguy-- the corps-- rejects it entirely, and I daresay he has a pretty good handle on current 'l'esprit'.

Your recruitment article doesn't say that recruitment is down. It says that the dropout rate is far higher than expected...

and 2% could as easily be dfined as 'a start' as 'a failure'. Now CLOSING that door, telling that 2%, and the 2% or more to come to give it up and go back to the kitchen.... now THAT would be a failure.

[waldo]

And I don't understand what you are questioning regarding a 'weight class equalizer'. The point is simple enough: size is becoming less and less relevant every day... even to combat. Bring a gun to a knife fight, and you win. When the herculean task is performed by the monster machine, at the control of a fingertip, it doesn't take a musclebound gorilla to do it. (It is my own firm belief that the need for brawn has been as wildly overstated/overbelieved for any number of tasks as actual gender-based size and weight variations have been.

why does your firm belief not align with the official policy/practice of the UK, U.S., Israeli, etc., military... those that do recognize gender based "variations/influences" do exist - those that do not allow women in direct ground combat roles?

[Molly]

Perhaps because I'm operating on the evidence of my eyes, my own experience and the reports of others 'direct experience, instead of having having a need to bow to social politics heavily influenced by assumptions/prejudices that aren't borne out in the real world.

[Army Guy]

not to quibble unnecessarily but…your referenced article does not include the word “tiny”…the exact phrasing “tiny innocent looking girl” is your own… suggested intended sarcasm did not translate well. Is “equal opportunity employer” another equality statement – at the hands of the great weight equalizer, the C-7A2 rifle?

Your right they are my words, pluck from his sentences formed to create a picture of a helpless little girl...one that should have been dressed in a prom dress and dating the boy next door....so while those are my words i did not conjure up that same image.... instead of the image she should be remembered as a soldier, yes a 100 lb soldier with 40 lbs of kit and equipment on, armed with a C-7A2 rifle doing something she loved to do, something she excelled at doing, serving her Nation...

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.

Perhaps the rifle remark was filled with some Testosterone, but it does not translate into you must have a set of nuts in order to serve your nation....Canada does have serving female soldiers in all of thier Combat arms trades, including Infantry, Armoured Corps, Arty, and Combat Engineers...they also serve in the Airforce flying Combat CF-18, and serve on Combat ships, with one exception Subs, due to limited quaters....there is no failure in that except we as a nation except anyone interested in defending thier nation....

those Canadian Forces statistics I offered speak for themselves – nothing to twist…

But your suggesting that the entire project is a failure, perhaps they've captured all the women that where interested in performing those tasks....perhaps the rest of the military also has as many as they can capture....So while the 2 % mark may look like a failure to many who want to twist it into that...i see it as an opportunity for those that chose to serve, a chance to do so....or are you again'st that ?

Canadian Combat arms consists of Infantry, Armoured Corps, Arty corps, and Combat Engineers....each componet is thrown together into a battle group, and each one will see direct enemy action at one piont on the battle field.....

after 20 years, can a 2% female combat integration result, one subject to Human Rights Tribunal direction/enforcement/scrutiny… be termed a success?

Yes, it can , those women are serving thier Nation in the Jobs they chose to do, the jobs they wanted to do....and they are doing it as well or better than thier male counter parts....OR they would not be doing it....because lives are on the line...why is it so hard to believe that a women can do the job as well as a man....keep in mind there are lots of 100 lb men given the same chance....

I expect there are mitigating factors all around; active war and combat deaths must certainly impact recruitment…

Recruiting is not the problem, it's training them thats the problem not enough instructors....Recruiting can only recruit what the training system can train, as it is there are up to a year or more back logs in the training cycle.....

you have a counter view and given the failure of the Canadian Forces to equitably integrate women into ground combat roles, I’m not so sure your view can even be supported from within… from within the upper echelons of the Canadian Forces. Your stated view begs the question – why do other countries officially forbid women from serving in ground combat… infantry, armored and most field artillery units?

I don't profess to speak for all in the forces, but i just spent 7 long,hard, dusty months in Afghan, and iteracted with dozens of women, in all trades and not once did i have any problems because someone was a women....So when the metal meets the bone it is the counter view we should be all concerned with, not a bunch of numbers , not some old Archaic attitude, these women have put just as much into this mission as thier male counter parts or more just to remain even..

Like i said before this is my view, and my view only and while it may not be supported across the forces by every soldier, it is policy and it is law...and it is enforced thru out the chain of command without question...every soldier will be tried on thier own merits....unless you got something your not sharing....

Once again your Data on Ground combat forces is incorrect....current there is American and british women serving with thier Armoured , Arty forces, within the IDF there is Women serving with thier Arty and Armoured forces....if you'd like i can send pictures....in fact Janes used to have a complete spread on an entire female IDF tank crew testing out the new Merkarva 4....They have currently no Women serving with the Infantry, or Spec forces....

Ground combat in todays termilogy includes Infantry, Armoured, Arty, Combat Engineers, Attack helo, fighter A/C, pretty much any one that will enter the battle space, and yet with the exception of the Infantry there is women serving in all those that you listed...and yet these same countries also hire on women to perform as mechanics medics clerks etc etc in most cases fighting right next to the very soldiers they themselfs are not allow to become....

Todays battle space in Afghan starts at the front gate, which includes that other 12 % of women in the military you've mentioned making up the support trades needed for the Front line guys to get the job done, from bullets to beans, to fuel all delivered on those roads you hear so much about....all of that is done with a mixed crew, not intentional, just soldiers doing thier jobs be it man or women....

I guess to sum it all up, you should ask these guys that prepare all this facts and figures if they've breached a door with a female soldier, or have they meet any of our female soldiers, and did they once have a problem that could not be sorted out....I invite any of those suits down to the RCR lines and to soldier with one of our female soldiers for a day...that should put to rest any concerns about having front line soldiers as women...they are there because they want to be...cross them and you'll find yourself on the floor holding on to 2 grape fruit sized testicles....

I guess it's bad enough just trying to serve your nation, and everything that goes with that, but top off all that with being a women no frig'in thanks....you need to see it through my eyes and see a soldier....because when it comes to this level it's the only thing that counts...