Sexual Misconduct in Canadian Forces

[Army Guy]

Army Guy, I do have a bias on this one although I totally agree with your words but I will be honest bout my bias.

Israel had of course no choice, it had to draft all women as well as men and still does. In countries where drafting women is a necessity its a lot different than in countries where women were traditionally segregated to non combat duties.

Practicality required women to fight or be raped and killed in Israel. It sure created a different cultural approach.

Fact is though, women were segregated from men as the army got more organized and conventional because of .sexual tension. Men biologically have an inherent instinct to over protect women and be possessive of them and form intense romantic relationships in times of stress and hostility and this complicates matters in combat situations on the front line. It just is.

As well it is a biological fact that men are not capable of hearing a women's voice as they would a man's in situations of intensity and stress..

I respectfully believe it is not a realistic idea to put men and women in the same combat units. I believe women need to be in their own combat units. I am only talking combat on the ground.

I admit its a bias. I just don't think men can get over certain primal instincts to protect women which may cause problems in a combat situation

That's my opinion. Doesn't mean I don't think women are great soldiers or don't need respect or agree with b.s. behaviour but I think they may be better off in their own units.

I know that ain't gonna happen.

I over protected females I was with unintentionally and many of them sure as hell were lol stronger than me and did not need it. Its an instinctual thing. Its like they become your sisters or daughters or even worse someone you feel intimate feelings for . Its hard to turn off.

Its a new era of politically proper behaviour that is for sure. For me having been in the Middle East I know in the Muslim world, the soldiers in their countries or terrorist cells see women as expendable and inferior. They will be used to carry bombs or smuggle weapons or engage in terror attacks, but they are otherwise considered inferior. They would torture and rape women no problem. It makes soldiers therefore over protect women in units for fear of the added reprecussions. Hope that makes sense. I don't support b.s. behaviour or disrespect but I just don't know how else to explain this personal bias.

To be Honest with you Rue, I joined the military in the 1980's, at that time it was still very much a mans world, females in the army were a rare thing, not more than a couple hundred , and all of them where in garrison positions, to free men to serve in 1 st line units....trust me that old school mentality was alive and well, ruling the roost so to speak....

It was not until the mid 80's that pressure from the government to integrate females not only into the army, but navy as well, this had the old school guys rolling around in constant fits of rage, now we are talking about guys that started their careers in the Korean theatre of ops...they knew what combat was all about....The government insisted, DND set about doing trails to see if it would work, trails set up and designed by the old school warriors to once and for all prove females were not fit enough, smart enough, mentally strong enough, to pass....and the first trails proved that.....government still insisted....so standards were dropped, over and over again.....to where they could accommodate the general female population....well the trails were proven successful, those female candidates were released back to garrison duties and not allowed to serve in direct army roles, DND had instead gotten a fresh batch of candidates and through them to the wolves, being the old school guys....life as a female soldier was not pretty, sexual harassment had not yet been invented, nor had many basic human rights....but they sucked it all up, and soldiered on....some quit others remained to prove they could do it....nothing motivates someone faster than having the challenges raised everyday, and being told your not good enough.....

As time passed females were serving in support units only....the very reason behind that decision was the many factors you yourself have given....once again the government pressed DND do carry out combat roles for females....and once more the old school guys set them up for instance failure....Combat roles where a mans world , the sign had said NO Women allowed.....once again standards were lowered females were now given the choice if they wanted to serve in any trade of the forces with one exception , serving in a sub....and at first there was dozens of women in the combat forces....but this gradually fades to only a few dozen or so, the barrier had been broken , very few wanted to make it a career.....Now it takes a special kind of person to be in a combat unit to start with, and is very challenging both physically and mentally....but to add onto it all being a female and how much harder they had to work to earn the same respect, well sir my hat goes off to them....

While the standards had been lower to gain entrance to the combat trades, standards were not lower on the expectation of what a soldier needs to do in combat, once these candidates hit the real world their choices were questioned....and they decided maybe a support trade is a better choice....Don't get me wrong a lot of men decide the same thing, like I said it takes a special person to subject ones body to that abuse daily, and still come up smiling.....things like having to carry ruck sacks approaching or exceeding a females typical body weight, of 100 to 140lbs, do that when it's -45 with no cover, or shelter trudging over long distances, or -5 in a cold freezing rain, with no rain jacket because it makes to much noise, and everything you own is wet, and this is day 14 and 14 more days to go.....By the end of all that if your still there and able to bring the fight to the enemy, you could be green with purple warts on your private parts male or female....your a soldier.....you've earned the right to be call an infanteer....

Today there is approx., any where from 20 to 40 % females in supporting units, such as logistical, administrative, medical units....However in combat units providing support roles there are females as well, numbers not as high but they are there....there are some females in combat roles, but much lower than the supporting roles....but in mine opinion , most if not all have earned those positions and deserve to stay....and for the most part the Canadian army has adapted and over came most of the obstacles placed in the way....units are fully integrated , or as much as the can be, as dictated by number of female recruits....meaning men and women sleep in the same shelters, respect is given, they share the same outdoor sanitation areas as the men, and carry they 're own weight....in larger areas such as garrison they have their own facilties...such as showers, bathrooms, sometimes sleeping areas but for the most part they are soldiers first, women second.....for some reason it works....because DND forces it to work....

Now their are some areas with no females, not because of restrictions but tougher standards....such as JTF operators, ....there are JTF female supporters but I am not aware of any female operators....

as for some of the basic human responses to over protection of female's over all or the distraction they may have , they are still there and thieving and may never go away...they become part of that life struggle.... and the romantic aspect have been dealt with placing a no frat policies, no sexual relations including with your spouse while on any operation or mission....but people are only human....and we have not been able to rule out basic needs such as desire just yet.....does it create problems yes it does, every mission there are a half dozen or so people paying heavy fines, and sent home, in most cases de promoted....depending on rank...but lets say a basic corporal earning 50 k a year they would be fined up to on average 2500, to 3000 dollars, while senior officers have been charged double that amount.....plus sent home forgoing any bonus pay he might earn, which could add up to another 10 k in lost earning....and well if he or she is married, what ever the divorce costs as well.... That's a lot of money for one or more indiscretions...lifting heavy weights while on tour is a popular past time , along with trading porn....

[bush_cheney2004]

.. That's a lot of money for one or more indiscretions...lifting heavy weights while on tour is a popular past time , along with trading porn....

That's so true....when the women came in...they never had any good porn to trade.

Edited February 15, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

I guess we will continue to disagree. As for profanities, I can speak for our education system. No kind of profanity is accepted for staff/student, staff/staff nor student/student (when overheard) communications. I myself have suspended coaches who, during the course of a close and contested football or basketball game, have forgotten that they are still representing their school and what language is acceptable and which is not in the academic arena.

There are arms distance, anonymous sexual harassment reporting opportunities for both staff and students in any system in which I have been involved. I have found that in the school systems, xenophobic and homophobic comments are more common complaints than those of sexual harassment - and they are all addressed.

I agree with you, an educational institute is not the place for profanities....either by staff or students....but we are not talking about a pace of learning by children or young adults, we are discussing grown men who are training for war, the taking of lives of our enemies....who's culture is surrounded by this macho behavior of sorts.....and while you have given one example of a suspension of a coach, it is not the norm, while the military system this will become common practice....to fine or suspend careers.....

That is another issue with the broad definition of sexual harassment that the government is employing Xenophobic and homophobic expressions are all addressed under sexual harassment along with profane language, all of it is dealt under the sexual harassment umbrella.....

But my main point of all this as always been, this is a national problem, not just with a few depts, not sure who did the exposee for rape, and sexual harassment in our higher education institutes W-5 or Maclains magazine, but most had levels 3 to 10 times the national levels, per capita, and while this did get some traction , investigations were launched.... it has not received the same media attention as the RCMP and DND....which has seemed to have eroded your trust in both systems......and yet like me you are defending the entire educational system or passing it off as if I was trying to deflect your comments.....but that was not my intention, my intention is the problem is much larger than just 2 depts....but reflects on our nation as a whole...

BCU has had one student under investigation for 6 years now with nothing resolved, a quick google search gives thousands of examples here in Canada and the US educational institutes not to mention the stats for these crimes by each city within this nation......Does DND and RCMP have a problem hell ya , they do.....but lets stop looking at the micro piece of pie, and address the entire pie....and the problem.....

[Big Guy]

Thank you for a very candid insight.

[Big Guy]

Army Guy - We previously disagreed on the credibility of the RCMP to investigate properly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-canadian-police-college-review-1.3453903

Please read the above and tell me that you still trust the RCMP to independently and successfully investigate sexual harassment issues.

[Army Guy]

Big guy:

I have already expressed to you that I do agree internally with in all government depts. there are issues with sexual harassment. but as I also pointed out you are painting an entire organization of 20,000 plus people both men and women with the same brush on the actions of a few employees.....

Do I agree that firm action should be taken , yes, do I think that sexual harassment should tolerated, NO I do not, hard displinary action should be taken as a first step, followed up with dismissal of further incidents.....I think we are on the same page on that....

But to suggest that the RCMP are not capable of investigating civil cases of Sexual harassment is unfounded...instead you suggest the creation of a civil organization one that would have to have powers of arrest, investigation etc etc.....effectively replacing the RCMP role.....in this whole process....There needs to be a role in this process for police action, as well as informing the chain of command within any organization to explain the million things that the victim is going through.