D.I.E. cis-het white men bun fight [Split from:SWO badge]

[MH2022]

sigh.....yes, we are all magnificently evil, and only manifest our evilness when the CAF is not looking, I have spent my 39 plus years in uniform trying to outwit the "man".

Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to. I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.

Not saying you're evil, the facts say we're losing people. We need to find ways to keep what we have left, if that means a union let's do it. But right now the troops are leaving in droves. This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And ask yourself why it is that some people might not want to work in an organization with well publicized racism and sexism issues, or why women, racial or ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ folks who do want to join are more likely to end up leaving earlier than their cishet white male counterparts.

Probably the same reason not many of them are deck crew on halibut boats. Sometimes the work is hard and out-of-doors.

 

[Good2Golf]

But right now the troops are leaving in droves.

So long as it’s white males leaving, that’s okay.

This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man operate them.

Your paragraph didn’t pass GBA+

 

[Brad Sallows]

We'll take people in, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train them up, and then give them a shitty work environment, move them around to places with massive COLs without actually adjusting for that, and then act all shocked when they leave to work for folks who'll pay them and treat them better.

I doubt privatization of military training is going to pass muster, so the go-to-school-then-join-the-forces model is out. I doubt tracking "tuition and education cost" and forgiving 5% of it each year (nothing owed if you serve 20+) would work out either.

 

[Weinie]

Not saying you're evil, the facts say we're losing people. We need to find ways to keep what we have left, if that means a union let's do it. But right now the troops are leaving in droves. This whole site will spends months debating the ideal amount of c6s in a platoon but none of that matters if in 10 years there ain't anyone left to man them

 

[btrudy]

Cishet is not a term that I ascribe to. I do not care what you follow, but my feelings should matter, apparently they do not.

If you're trans or enbie or agender or anything other than cis that's fine by me. I don't recall ever specifying what I thought your gender identity was.

So by your logic, if white males are bad for the organization, why is the CAF even still teaching skills to them? Let them move on from the CAF, as Bruce Monkhouse suggests, and then simply replace them with the proper proportion of demographics of new CAF members — problem solved!

I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.

Having white males is fine, as long as they're not given an unfair advantage over everyone else.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think it's pretty clear that you're not arguing in good faith, but on the off chance you are, lemme explain something.

The fact that all the senior leadership that was in the room that day was a white male is a direct result of systemic institutional discrimination built into the CAF's hiring and promotion processes. Shit like that doesn't just randomly happen. It's not a coincidence. It's bigotry in action.

Acknowledging that as a problem and trying to fix it is the opposite of being racist.

Ignoring it is being racist.

Pretending like trying to fix the problem is racist itself and fighting against efforts to do so is actively supporting white supremacy.



No, I did not.

Keep in mind that it took 15-20 years for those guys to get to that room. So the changes we made even a decade ago won't show yet. Plus we have been trying to hire a lot of the different groups, but as pointed out by Jordan Peterson, by and large the majority don't have an interest.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.

Having white males is fine, as long as they're not given an unfair advantage over everyone else.

And I agree with you, the best way to eliminate their unfair advantage is to drastically restrict their progression until such time as the desired demographics of gender and race in the CAF are achieved.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don't think white males are bad for the organization. I think allowing white males to disproportionately occupy positions of power is. I think policies which lead to such an outcome are bad for the organization.

Over looking gender for a moment Canada population is approximately 73% European, 18% Asian, 5% Indigenous, 3% Black. If I'm reading that correctly.

Do you think it's possible that the disproportionately of positions of power can be directly due to the racial proportionality of Canadians as a whole?

If 3% of Canadians are black and we have 150 generals I can sort of see why we wouldn't have 90 black generals.

Or am I in left field here.

 

[btrudy]

Over looking gender for a moment Canada population is approximately 73% European, 18% Asian, 5% Indigenous, 3% Black. If I'm reading that correctly.

Do you think it's possible that the disproportionately of positions of power can be directly due to the racial proportionality of Canadians as a whole?

If 3% of Canadians are black and we have 150 generals I can sort of see why we wouldn't have 90 black generals.

Or am I in left field here.

Ummm. I think it might just be a misunderstanding. If we have 150 generals and things were allocated proportionally, ~110 of them would be white, ~27 asian, etc etc

It's disproportionate because far more than the "fair share" of 55 are white men.

 

[MH2022]

So long as it’s white males leaving, that’s okay.


Your paragraph didn’t pass GBA+

Seems a bit discriminatory but you're welcome to have your opinions

 

[dimsum]

Ummm. I think it might just be a misunderstanding. If we have 150 generals and things were allocated proportionally, ~110 of them would be white, ~27 asian, etc etc

It's disproportionate because far more than the "fair share" of 55 are white men.

I'm not following how that could happen and still be merit-based.

So, for example, how are we going to get the 27 Asian GOFOs? Do they get selected past their non-Asian peers to fill that quota?

How would that be anything other than unfair, if it's not purely on merit? How would said Asian candidates feel, when they know they're selected ahead of peers because there was a percentage requirement?

 

[Good2Golf]

Seems a bit discriminatory but you're welcome to have your opinions

You’ve done GBA+, right? Why on earth would you chose to use a gender as a verb when there are much more appropriate words to use?


Edit to add: Ah, you mean the “so long as it’s white males leaving” part. Well, you see, anti-discriminatory discrimination is actually allowed by CAF and GoC policy. btrudy pointed out the relative section earlier in this thread, Part 16 of the Charter. I believe.

Add #2:

This part here:

16 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you want balance, start with immigration policy. Canada targets people (eg. highly educated0 who are unlikely to seek military service or to encourage their offspring to do so.

 

[Good2Golf]

If you want balance, start with immigration policy. Canada targets people (eg. highly educated0 who are unlikely to seek military service or to encourage their offspring to do so.

We may have to move to counter-discriminatory conscription. It may be the only way for the Govermnent to attain the demographic composition they demand. Again, Section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows this.

 

[btrudy]

I'm not following how that could happen and still be merit-based.

So, for example, how are we going to get the 27 Asian GOFOs? Do they get selected past their non-Asian peers to fill that quota?

How would that be anything other than unfair, if it's not purely on merit? How would said Asian candidates feel, when they know they're selected ahead of peers because there was a percentage requirement?

What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly?

I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit".

Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.

 

[SupersonicMax]

What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly?

I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit".

Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.

I am not sure this is entirely true. Can you please tell me why our evaluation system favours white cishet males?

 

[Remius]

What does "selecting" purely on merit look like exactly?

I mean, we need to keep in mind that we're talking a system which systematically advantages cishet white males when it comes to selecting for promotions. The system is flawed; measurements of merit that we're currently using are inherently biased. Thus it is impossible to say that any selections we are doing are based "purely on merit".

Adjusting for that wouldn't be selecting for something other than merit. It would be fixing the flaws in the merit measurement system.

What is it specifically about the system that favours white men?

 

[dimsum]

I am not sure this is entirely true. Can you please tell me why our evaluation system favours white cishet males?

Yeah, I too want to know how our PER/PAR system does that.

 

[Remius]

So a few factors to add. When I joined in the 90s there were still people from the 60s that were in.

Women in my trade were not numerous. Many stopped after a few years.

Let’s go with 6 out of 72 recruits.

Of those 6 none are still around after 25 years or so. Only 3 of the men are. Only 1 is black and 2 including myself are white. Of the 3 only two are succession planned to CWO.

So after 25 years out of 72 people only 2 will make it to CWO. Of the 6 women one went officer. And left to be a police officer.

My point is that the reason we might have so many white males at the top now is that maybe it’s because we had many more white males joining and staying back in the day.

If you want change we need more women to join and progress, But I’m not sure how many really actually want to join in comparison to other jobs. It’s a numbers game, if women are not attracted to traditional military jobs is that more about the job or the gender?