Invisible No More
What? Charlotte, doing this late? S h o c k e r
Note before I start: My being late in doing this read-through is not because of a lack of care. It is mainly an issue of time; on June 13th, I was running my employer’s last full-day conference until the Fall; on June 14th, I was at a workshop on civilian-military relations, while catching up on some work and travelling to Sandbanks for a camping weekend; then I ended up being slower than intended this week and I am competing alongside Women in Defence and Security at the Ottawa Dragon Boat Race.
This topic is a critical one and deserve our attention – whether immediate or delayed by a couple of weeks.
On June 12, 2024, the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Veterans published its report on women veterans’ experiences.
I am not exaggerating when I say that this report his historical. It is the first time in Canada’s history that a committee studied the experiences of women veterans.
23 years after the last position close to them opened
35 years after Brown v. the Canadian Armed Forces
46 years after the Service Women in Non-Traditional Environments and Roles (SWINTER) trials started.
Over 100 years after women served in droves for the war efforts in the First and Second World Wars.
While we should celebrate this history, I think it is sobering to reflect on how long it took us for a committee to see women veterans as who they are: veterans, with different experience than their counterparts.
The title brings hope: “Invisible No More,” I certainly hope we live up to this promise. But the Committee is trying to do right by women veterans, by making this study “the largest that ACVA has undertaken since its creation as a standing committee in April 2006.”
Members of the committee took trauma management training, and acknowledge that more could be done on the inclusion of service members that are 2SLGBTQIA+, black, of colour, and First Nation, Métis, and Innu.
The report is close to 150 pages, it will be hard to give it full justice. It would be worth your time to read it.
From scanning through the recommendations, I get a sense of how thorough this report is. The committee did not stick to just the experience of women veterans; it included real considerations for women’s time in service, and how that impacted their time as they re-adapted to civilian lives. Childcare challenges, homelessness, medical issues, military sexual trauma – all of which are more likely to impact servicewomen and influence their departure from the military and their lives after service.
Note that I say “more likely.” The recommendations of the report seem to recognize that while women are sur-represented in these issue sets, they are not alone. Most recommendations will benefit all service members. You could see this report as a masterclass in GBA+, underlining where specific attention is needed and broadening the topic when warranted.
Why Study Women Veterans
We all know that military life brings challenges. As the report outlines, veterans are more likely to experience poorer mental health (inc. suicidal ideation, difficulty to accomplish tasks) and chronic pain than their civilian counterparts.
Because of the societal, social, and physical differences between genders, men and women live through service in different ways – servicewomen are more likely to be in an administrative role in the military, they still deal with ill-fitting uniforms and equipments, many of them will get pregnant and will be expected to take on the larger share of the child-rearing responsibilities… They are also more likely to be injured and live through sexual violence while serving.
Additionally, the report (p.14), women veterans are more likely to experience
“migraines, mood and anxiety disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders, as well as needing help with activities of daily living; and
… suicidal ideation, although fewer deaths” from suicide than men veterans
Further, women veterans, after retirement from the military, usually earn “40% less than men Veterans” and their incomes “declined by 17%-22% whereas men Veterans’ incomes do not change” within the first three years following retirement.
An issue remains – and it is one that impacts men veterans as well: the women veterans population is not homogenous. However, we know more about the men veterans population than the women veterans one, and very little has been done to fully understand women veterans in their entirety and in their diversity.
Further, Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)’s research tends to group women who live in a military context all together. According to the VAC Ombudsperson, Col (ret’d) Nishika Jardine, VAC surveys analyses answers from women veterans alongside women military spouses and widows, without any differentiation.
Dr. Maya Eichler, Ph.D. and Dr. Karen Breeck, M.D. underlined that that (1) research on military women is undervalued and underfunded; (2) research mainly focuses on men v. women; not current/ retired military women v. civilian women – which creates important gaps in the identification of services for women veterans.
Note: I would like to underline how service women and women veterans have been significant drivers of research on women in the military. I underline some of that history in my article on the end of the LGBT Purge for the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies: https://jmss.org/article/view/78425.
A DND/CAF or a VAC Issue? Yes.
We see a recurring under current in the report, and that is the inclusion of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in the responsibility to support women veterans.
Why?
Simply enough, before becoming veterans, those women were service women and spent time of their lives in the CAF. Understanding their conditions of service leads to understanding their outcomes as they re-enter civvy street; improving their conditions of service leads to improving their outcomes as they re-enter civvy street.
This also applies to an often under-discussed aspect of military and veteran life: transition itself. As service members leave the military, their care becomes the purview of VAC. Changing the institution responsible for one’s care is a difficult feat – building new relationships, learning and understanding the new processes, doing the proper paperwork… those require time, resources, and energy. Now, imagine doing so while experiencing, in many cases, injuries (physical, psychological, or both) and/ or loss of identity.
For many service women, this is not a hypothetical; it is reality. Hence the need for more solid DND/CAF to VAC cooperation in the transition phase of a member’s life.
Add to that the issue that VAC treats mental health and physical health as separate issues disconnected from one another.
Invisibility; the Failures of Gender Integration
It is not hard to find the origin story of women veterans’ invisibility in the twenty-first century. Look no further than women’s integration in the Canadian military since at least the 1970s. After significant pushback against women’s service as embodied in the poor design of the SWINTER trials and the questionable analysis of the results, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal imposed on the military to open all combat positions (but submarines, for privacy of service members issues) in 1989. But the issue was that the military decided to “add women and stir,” use gender neutrality as a tool not to change.1
That gender neutrality in language did not lead to neutrality in treatment:
Let us remember the May 1998 Maclean’s cover issue featuring Dawn McIlmoyle and the stories of too many women who had experienced sexual violence in the ranks.
Today, service women and women veterans pay the price, which is better embodied by the idea that their service is not acknowledged or recognize.2
You add to that expectations in the workforce that stood in the way of women’s deployment – a central element of how Canadians’ understand veteran-hood:
The recognition of service women and women veterans within the larger Canadian publish remain marginal. We see it in small groups that aim to build community, such as the Pepper Pod, Women in Defence and Security, or as a subset of activities of larger veterans and military research and support organizations such as True Patriot Love, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, and the Atlas Institute.
There are signs of change, with DND/CAF implementing a woman’s health program, conduct-related culture change moving forward, this ACVA report…
The Consequences of Invisibility: Systemic Barriers
Service women and women veterans experience several layers of invisibility; with research in women’s health being so behind on civvy street, access to care for women veterans becomes extremely complex. 3
Medical Competencies
The report notes that service members need to rely on civilian health professionals across Canada, as the CAF does not have enough medical staff to support the health of all service members. The consequences are:
Service women face difficulty accessing proper reproductive health care. This translates into lack of support before, during, and after pregnancies, as well as larger reproductive health.
Because service women need to go on civvy street for health care, they deal with providers that lack the proper cultural competencies to effectively care for them.
While (2) is applicable to service men and men veterans as well, the trailing behind of women’s health research and the marginal presence of women veterans in the collective Canadian consciousness compound the effects.
Equipment: Where Medical Meets Procurement:
Then, let’s turn to ill-fitting equipment. In 2021, I argued in The Hill Times that procurement of proper fitting equipment needed to be an inherent part of culture change efforts. Here was my argument:
In a performance-oriented organization such as the military, looking at giving service members from employment equity-seeking groups the best conditions to perform well is essential.
Proper equipment is a critical step for women and other minorities to have the opportunity to do their job as well as their white male counterparts. The concerns of the Minister’s Advisory Board over the rucksack in the 1990s came from a worry over women sustaining a greater risk of injury. In fact, in 1998 the Canadian Army put out an explainer for women on how to adapt the rucksack to avoid back strain.
Today, while there is little publicly available data on the impact of ill-suited equipment on women performance, women are leaving the military for “personal health reasons” at almost twice the rate as men (12.3 percent v. 7.4 percent). And while the same proportion of women leave the military for musculoskeletal injuries (due to overuse or trauma) as men, the fact that women are more likely to leave the Canadian Armed Forces due to injuries raises many questions.
Questions are not really needed any more; once again, veterans’ stories say it all4:
Note: I have heard many times, and I read it in the report, that one of the issues with proper equipment for women is the lack of incentive for industry. I am skeptical of that argument.
I have heard of Special Operations Forces being able to work with industry for the modification of radios for their specific needs. Canada also has a very “personalized” approach to the type of capabilities they want. We see instances of industry being able (and willing) to meet the very specific needs of Canadian defence.
I am not denying the existence of such an issue, but questions to remain:
Has DND ever published a request for information (RFI) and/ or a request for proposal (RFP) ever came up in the creation of, say, ballistic plates for women? rucksack for women? Have those RFI/ RFP been left unanswered or their content fallen short of expectations?
Has Defence Research Development Canada (DRDC) done any research on this? DRDC does a lot of work on new capabilities (e.g., maritime sensors, maritime autonomous vessels) and personnel issues, why not on equipment that could properly fit women?
Has the development of such women-adapted equipment been a project under Innovation for Defence and Security (IDEaS)? If yes, were there any submissions?
In the example of the rucksack, camping backpacks for women have existed for a long time; I am not sure I believe that market share is an issue. My hunch would be that if militaries started having an interest in giving proper equipment for women, companies would have a massive incentive to make it happen.
A System not Fit-for-Purpose
The report underlines might suggest there is a misalignment between the VAC compensation system and the need of veterans:
Service women having difficulty proving their illnesses and ailments are service-related, as VAC applies its “benefit of the doubt” principle:
The “Table of Disabilities” does not differentiate between men v. women veterans health issues, and the impact of certain health issues on women veterans’ quality of life are underestimated.
Communication from VAC to veterans could be greatly improved. Guidelines and policies are vague and decisions are poorly communicated to veterans.
Homelessness initiatives are not suited for those who have experienced sexual violence.
Women required to repeat continuously their stories to access the services and support they need.
Lack of Gender Based Analysis (GBA) Plus
This is one of the most shocking, yet unsurprising, themes in this report. Throughout, we see clear examples where VAC has failed in implementing basic GBA Plus. Women veterans remain largely invisible in the VAC processes, and the consequences are that VAC inadequately handle their experience and physical/ psychological trauma.
Recommendation 19 ought to apply throughout the work VAC does, the services it offers women veterans, as well as how they offer those services. Implicit throughout the report is that many of VAC’s approach to veteran care remains male centric. This is a huge issue that affect women’s outcomes post-military life.
GBA Plus is a tool that the government of Canada launched in 2012 – the fact that VAC is behind on its implementation when dealing with about 16% of its client base is concerning.
This is all the more critical to underline that military-to-civilian transition is a vulnerable time for veterans, both men and women. Both lose their identity in the process, need to find new employment, adapt to a new way of living, often late in life. Many of them have to go through this transition while facing health issues and/ or trauma. We know that women and men experience their military lives differently – why not accounting for it?
Because women veterans’ experiences are so much tied to their service, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces ought to also better apply GBA Plus when writing and implementing personnel policy.
This analysis should not only take into account women’s physiological differences, but also the roles they are more likely to occupy in their private lives (e.g. child rearing, household management, care of family members) and how this might impact their service.
The report demonstrate that VAC engages in GBA Plus; the issue remains that these analyses do not seem to translate into policies that apply to women and their specific needs.
Conclusion: Highlight on Testimonies
This is a long report that is as informative and thorough as it is gut wrenching. We also need to applaud the Committee for being at times incredulous with testimonies that clashed with many others. Further, ACVA, in between each section of the report, highlighted the experience of one different woman veteran had shared with them. I cannot share them all, but I would like to share the list of those who have appeared in front of the committee and told their difficult stories yet another time.
Their service, their advocacy, and their never ending work is to be recognized and celebrated. Thank you for your service.
See my book, The Ones We Let Down, or better authors such as Dr. Karen Davis’ PhD Dissertation, “Negotiating gender in the Canadian Forces, 1970–1999,” Sandra Perron’s Out Standing in the Field; Kate Armstrong’s The Stone Frigate; and Dr. Kelly Thompson’s Girls Need Not Apply.
Dr. Kelly Thompson’s op-ed in The Globe and Mail: “We are the invisible: The problem with how we understand our veterans,” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-are-the-invisible-the-problem-with-how-we-understand-our-veterans/
American Association of Medical Colleges: https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health
In her testimony to ACVA, LGen Bourgon, acting Chief Military Personnel, presented that 47% of women leave the CAF for medical reasons.