Canadian Military Staffed by Merit Or Diversity Targets?

[Michael Hardner]

Of course men have a natural advantage of size and speed,

Hi Argus - I can see that you're somehow thinking that I don't agree with this very obvious point so I will quote myself here yet again to make you feel better.

Let me be clear: men have a natural advantage of size and speed.

[WestCoastRunner]

Women who qualify for platoon exercises must pass pre-deployment training so they may be deployed in whatever capacity is asked of them, including combat missions in Kandahar, Afghanistan. I have not seen any proof from Argus that women on the battlefield do not perform the necessary duties required of them, nor has Argus provided stats that men working alongside these women 'who are inferior' are at a greater risk of being killed or harmed in anyway.

Many other opportunities exist in the National Defence for women as well. Women qualify just as much as men for the air force and navy. Female pilots don't run marathons against men to see if they qualify. The training and qualifications required for women are the same as for men.

[Argus]

Diversity makes for a stronger team overall, but the goal of making a better team should not be subjugated to scoring political points or feel-goodism I agree.

I question what kind of diversity you mean. Certainly a team with an array of skills and talents is a stronger one. But a team with women, asians and blacks is not, to my mind, any stronger for that diversity. In fact, since it's normal human psychology that we are closer to people who are like us, the more homogeneous a team has the stronger it is likely to be in terms of unit bonding.

Correct - example of a blunt argument, though, repeating the same thing over and over again. Dismissing an argument isn't the same as engaging with it and responding to it.

When the other side of the argument continues to make statements filled with the blithe assumption that men and women are physically equal it seems to make sense for blunt argument to point out how silly they are being, especially when they continue to ignore them without response.

No but you're just being stubborn. The point I made was that women have physical advantages sometimes

But we're speaking about soldiers, and more specifically, we're speaking of combat soldiers. There are no physical advantages I know of which make women the equals of men in that particular field. And even if an individual woman can be a great fighter pilot of driver or missile technician, that doesn't mean 'women' have the same abilities as 'men' in that regard, only that 'some' do.

I'm sure there are some very good female soldiers, but the undeniable fact is that soldiering (or policing) just doesn't interest the vast majority of women to begin with. To try and push high recruitment targets which ignore both this, and the fact that women are, on the whole, less capable than men in terms of physical conditioning is just ideological stupidity, as far as I'm concerned.

Aside: I was watching a youtube video last night with a friend (female) who works for the RCMP (civilian). It was of an incident on the San Fransico subway where a large, drugged up, naked guy (a gymnast, as it turns out) was acting up. The only person who did anything to protect patrons was a large custodian, until a very large cop came in. The two strong cops managed to overpower this man fairly easily. I don't think two 140lb female cops would have had much sucess, and my friend agreed completely. Her opinion was basically the same as mine: when dealing with big, stupid, violent men, you can't go wrong with more beef behind the badge.

You want to argue to win, while I want to argue to learn. Since I already fully realize, and have stated, that men are naturally faster and physically stronger than women it bogs the discussion down when we go back to that point.

That would be a reasonable statement if it was made honesty. It wasn't, of course. The posts of mine you are complaining about were, for the most part, made prior to today, and none of them were made in response to your postings. Further, it was only an hour ago you made the admission you speak of.

I suppose it makes you feel better for us to revisit the valid parts of your argument over and over again, but it feels to me like I'm patronizing you at a certain point.

Oh, that's okay. You always seem to be patronizing. There's a level of smugness to your sense of liberal ideological views which makes that almost necessary for you to carry on a conversation with 'unbelievers'. As for your wanting only to 'learn' I've not noticed that capacity in any of your posts whenever the subject comes up against your politically correct views. You're completely rigid on that score.

[Big Guy]

...

Many other opportunities exist in the National Defence for women as well. Women qualify just as much as men for the air force and navy. Female pilots don't run marathons against men to see if they qualify. The training and qualifications required for women are the same as for men.

I suggest that there are functional battlefield positions in which women, with their smaller average size, would have an advantage. I assume that the cockpit for pilots is more conducive for smaller frames.

Modern warfare is no longer a mainly hand-to-hand combat process. Technology is now so prevalent in all aspects of warfare that size and physical ability becomes less and less a crucial qualification. Sitting in front of a terminal in Miami or Toronto while controlling an armed drone over Afghanistan does not require bulk or endurance - Maybe a woman might even be a better candidate for that post? I do not know.

The pitch in recruiting for our armed forces is the ability to learn new trades, obtain marketable skills, stability and a great pension after serving a relative short length of time. The chance to fight hand-to-hand and/or get blow up by a mine is not emphasized as a recruiting tool. The military is great career for those who have the personality that is required to serve. It would be unfair if women were denied that opportunity just because of the perception that bulk is the major requirement to join the forces.

[Signals.Cpl]

Women belong in the military just as well as everyone else, as long as they meet the same standard for the universality of Service. I have seen plenty of women use the "I'm a women" excuse not to meet a standard, and I have also seen women who go above and beyond said standard. Yes it could be harder for a women to meet a set standard for say the infantry but just because that is a fact doesent mean we should lower the standard to accommodate more women.

[Michael Hardner]

I question what kind of diversity you mean. Certainly a team with an array of skills and talents is a stronger one. But a team with women, asians and blacks is not, to my mind, any stronger for that diversity.

But you acknowledge that different groups have different traits, so how can you deny that mandating against monocultural hiring tendencies would diversify skills and talents.

And since you're fond of using the generalized group trait to discriminate against individuals (in the example of religion, or gender) maybe we can do it for race assuming we can find evidence that a certain race is generally more physically capable.

Are you ready to stand up for that kind of discrimination ?

In fact, since it's normal human psychology that we are closer to people who are like us, the more homogeneous a team has the stronger it is likely to be in terms of unit bonding.

And what kind of team is more like "us" (ie. Canadians) than a diverse one ?

When the other side of the argument continues to make statements filled with the blithe assumption that men and women are physically equal it seems to make sense for blunt argument to point out how silly they are being, especially when they continue to ignore them without response.

Fine - but maybe once a response and acknowlegement has been received you can perhaps be secure enough that you can move on ? That would be a welcome change for those of us who discuss these things with you.

I would endeavor to do the same, of course.

And even if an individual woman can be a great fighter pilot of driver or missile technician, that doesn't mean 'women' have the same abilities as 'men' in that regard, only that 'some' do.

Yes, and that some men are also physically unable to do the task at hand.

I have witnessed policemen (ie. "men") sitting in their patrol car calling for other policemen to break up a fight that they were merely watching. I'm sure if a burly lesbian had picked up the call, she might have swooped in to help out her brothers on the force.

That would be a reasonable statement if it was made honesty. It wasn't, of course. The posts of mine you are complaining about were, for the most part, made prior to today, and none of them were made in response to your postings. Further, it was only an hour ago you made the admission you speak of.

I'm confused. Didn't you keep going back to challenge me on the fact that men are physically superior to women after I had conceded that point ? It's part of a more prevalent pattern, to my mind. Beyond the annoyance factor, I don't care that much - I'm just giving you advice to help you in life generally.

The true value I get from these boards is not from restating my beliefs and keeping them intact by denying facts, it's by having them challenged to the point that I have to change my views without changing my values. It's called learning, and it feels pretty good. I have had significant changes in my positions on broad subjects like workfare, economics, and surveillance by government agencies without changing my values.

You're completely rigid on that score.

See my examples above. If you'd care to submit yours I'd be interested.

[Big Guy]

Women belong in the military just as well as everyone else, as long as they meet the same standard for the universality of Service. I have seen plenty of women use the "I'm a women" excuse not to meet a standard, and I have also seen women who go above and beyond said standard. Yes it could be harder for a women to meet a set standard for say the infantry but just because that is a fact doesent mean we should lower the standard to accommodate more women.

I am not very familiar with the way our forces are organized. Are there different standards, both physical and educational, for different arms of our forces?

For example, can someone join with the stipulation of not being posted in a combat role?

Are there positions that require a university degree?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Big Guy

[Signals.Cpl]

I am not very familiar with the way our forces are organized. Are there different standards, both physical and educational, for different arms of our forces?

As of this year there is only one CF wide test, the FORCE test which consists of several tasks. Individual combat arms units do the Battle Fitness test almost religiously along with a number of other tests including Specialized tests for Paratrooper as well as CSOR and JTF2.

Needless to say for the Infantry, setting low standards is a killer because on tour they have to carry their weapons, kit, ammunition, rations and body armour which once added up could go over 100 pounds so they do field exercises and ruck marches with as close to combat weight as possible.

For example, can someone join with the stipulation of not being posted in a combat role?

Are there positions that require a university degree?

Yes different support trades are available but the underlying concept is that everyone is a soldier first and should in theory be capable of meeting the most basic standard.

As for university degree, there are different education requirements for different positions. For example, most officers require a degree while some NCM trades require college level education and/or the equivalent CF course which requires the proper prerequisite.

Until last year the CF fitness test was divided by age and sex, which meant that two individuals applying for the same job could be tested at a different level. "Superior" fitness test results for a women fall short of the minimum test score for a male of the same age group. Meaning I as a male would be seen as barely fit to serve, while a women in my age group would be "very fit" for the same job. I have met women who strive for the bare minimum and nothing more because they are "built differently" and I have seen women who ignore the female standard and go for the male standard for their age group.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Signals.Cpl

[jacee]

Require a ton of muscle development and endurance to drive a car around a track, does it?

Are you implying that soldiers only need "muscle development and endurance"?

We are in trouble.

And btw ... all the male chauvinists are having a blast dissing quotas for weak women ... but you're totally avoiding quotas for men of colour.

Hmmm ...

.

[jacee]

Care to back up your claim of the racist and sexist attitudes and harassment in the forces?

Harassment

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4208996/

http://m.thestar.com/#!/canada/redirect/7639f4c80e124e1adc64f685c7695805

Sexual assault

http://m.citynews.ca/2014/04/24/macleans-exclusive-looks-at-sexual-assault-in-the-military/

How am I not helping?

Disrespect isn't helpful.

Ask yourself: Is a woman or person of colour more or less likely to want to apply for the military after reading what you've written here?

Edited June 2, 2014 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

Harassment

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4208996/

http://m.thestar.com/#!/canada/redirect/7639f4c80e124e1adc64f685c7695805

Sexual assault

http://m.citynews.ca/2014/04/24/macleans-exclusive-looks-at-sexual-assault-in-the-military/

Disrespect isn't helpful.

Ask yourself: Is a woman or person of colour more or less likely to want to apply for the military after reading what you've written here?

First one does not mean anything, it simply states that they experienced it too, not that they experienced it exclusively. Ok, now that I read that article I think I should complain about sexual harassment, and harassment in General... I have experienced it as has pretty much anyone else. Granted Minorities and women do experience proportionally more of the harassment but does not in anyway mean we should paint a target on their backs by affirmative action.

As for sexual assault, men are much less likely to complain about any harassment let alone sexual assault...

All of this does not mean that women and minorities are targeted for sexual harassment and assault, they just suffer with the rest of the CF... this has not prevented white males from joining in large numbers and it does not account for the shortage of minorities and women. This is a problem and it should be dealt with, but making the groups in question bigger targets is hardly the way to do it...

Tell me what part of women and minorities should meet the exact same standard as the rest of the military and should get no preferential treatment in the recruiting phase, training, courses, postings and promotions is offensive or not helpful in any way? If a women meets the standard set out for me she can work alongside me, if she does not then she shouldn't have the same job as me... Its common sense really, why should I meet a higher standard to get a job and attain a promotion while someone else meets a lower standard, gets promotions because of their race or sex and al the while gets equal pay?

Military recruiting carrer progression should be gender and race neutral, it should be irrelevant wether you are a man or a women, white or black, what it should look for is if you meet the requirements and then select the best candidate for the job. If that is 100% white males then so be it, they were the once who earned it, if it is 100% women then again so be it... but as long as they attain it because of their actions and abilities rather than their reproductive organs or their skin colour.

[Big Guy]

...

Tell me what part of women and minorities should meet the exact same standard as the rest of the military and should get no preferential treatment in the recruiting phase, training, courses, postings and promotions is offensive or not helpful in any way? If a women meets the standard set out for me she can work alongside me, if she does not then she shouldn't have the same job as me... Its common sense really, why should I meet a higher standard to get a job and attain a promotion while someone else meets a lower standard, gets promotions because of their race or sex and al the while gets equal pay?

...

The answer is affirmative action programs. That means that it is acceptable to create inequalities to-day to make up for inequalities of the past. It is a process that I have had a lot of difficulty with so that is why I started this thread - to see what others think.

I do appreciate having access to most of the views stated here. It is a learning experience.

[Argus]

Are you implying that soldiers only need "muscle development and endurance"?

We are in trouble.

And btw ... all the male chauvinists are having a blast dissing quotas for weak women ... but you're totally avoiding quotas for men of colour.

Hmmm ...

.

As I said very early on this topic. You pick a hundred people based on diversity, including offivers and non-coms, and I'll pick a hundred based striclty on merit and we'll see which group outperforms.

Merit always outperforms. Diversity quotas are there for political reasons, not to improve the quality of the people being hired/employed. If you hire a bunch of Black guys because the politicians want you to hire minorities, and they're not as good as the White guys you turned down to hire them, then your team is clearly weaker. There's no getting around this no matter how much you sneer.

And no, soldiers don't just need muscles and endurance, any more than police or firefighters, but they do need them, and the more the better.

[Argus]

The answer is affirmative action programs. That means that it is acceptable to create inequalities to-day to make up for inequalities of the past. It is a process that I have had a lot of difficulty with so that is why I started this thread - to see what others think

So we hire less competent people for political reasons, knowing this will lead to a weaker, less capable military?

You know, I went to see a play a couple of days ago. This Black sailor washed up on the shores of Newfoundland during WW2, and he was the first non-white person anyone there had ever seen.

The inequalities of the past? 95% of visible minorities in Canada (excluding natives) don't have a past in Canada that stretches past one generation.

[Argus]

As of this year there is only one CF wide test, the FORCE test which consists of several tasks.

And is this new test designed along the lines of the one for men, or the one which was much easier, so women could pass?

[Army Guy]

Below are the minimum standards for CF recruits, i think when you read them you'll understand standards are not so high.

http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Winnipeg/EN/MilitaryFitness/Specialist%20Testing/CF%20Applicant%20Testing/Pages/default.aspx

This is the problem, that standards have been lowered, to the piont where they are non effective.almost anyone can make them..... note that this is not only phyiscal standards but mental standards as well. On a side note if your cant make these standards as a recruit then there is fat camp, thats right a company within the recruit school that dedicates itself to putting people in shape, they place recruits on a diet, and regtimented PT plan these recruits have up to one full year to be able to make min standards....Thats one full year recruits are being paid to loss wieght.....if they can't make the standard then they are asked to leave. Because anyone is entitled to be afford every oportunity to join DND. These recruits count as part of DND membership....

Why standards need to be increased, to havest a better recruit, be it white or black, purple what ever....In Afghan within 3 days of arriving we were marching through the mountains with over 160 lbs of kit, ammo, water etc....i'm 6'3 and struggled...men smaller than that really struggled....the only female medic could not lift her own ruck...and it had to be divided amounst the rest of the platoon....don't get me wrong she was a great medic, but we were at war, and being able to phyiscally able to hump all the equipment to do our job was not a matter of having a diverse army....but rather a matter of survival not just for one self but the entire platoon.....

Some have said well not everyone is in combat....bullshit, in Afghan everyone was in combat once they left the front gate...we had a female medic, an airforce FAC Forward air controler, a navy diver as our EOD guy......and once a clerk as a Radio man.. ....and those leasons learned are now being adressed.....it's not about being a male chauvinist, it's about common sense...lives are at risk.

[Army Guy]

And is this new test designed along the lines of the one for men, or the one which was much easier, so women could pass?

The new forece test is a joke....my 5 year old grand daughter could pass it....

[Signals.Cpl]

And is this new test designed along the lines of the one for men, or the one which was much easier, so women could pass?

I would say its easier as a whole, but harder on the physically smaller people as one of the components involving a casualty drag of 245 pounds which in some cases is significantly larger than the person doing the drag. The test is not hard at all but I suspect that the division by age and sex is coming sometime soon since it is a new test they are still working out the standards and someone is bound to complain about the weight disparity between some of the people and the casualty drag. But I don't know if they will change it since the average soldier weights above 250-280 pounds once all body armour, weapons, kit and rations are on them so lowering the drag standard means that should you ever need to do the drag in real life it would mean that you would have to strip the casualty out of their body armour, and all their kit which is not always possible under fire...