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

[btrudy]

I don't want to pass a negative judgement on the position. I'm dismayed that people thing we aren't representing them well enough.

I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.

But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel? I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly understand the interests of the average junior ranks member?

Representation should be best done by members of the group being represented. People who are, or at least have very recently, lived the experiences of the folks they're trying to represent. People who have a good idea of what it actually means to be doing the job; now, not what it was like 15 years ago.

There's a reason that unions are represented by people who are selected by the bargaining group, and not being represented by someone in middle management hand-picked by the CEO.

This of course also shouldn't be applied just to rank. It's also farcical to have the CDS tweeting out something saying "Conversations on diversity, inclusion, and culture change are not incompatible with our thirst for operational excellence. I count on my senior leaders to champion culture change. Diversity makes us stronger, inclusion improves our institution. We are #StrongerTogether", when it's accompanied by a picture of the most homogeneous group of old white men you've ever seen in your life.

 

[Furniture]

I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.

But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel? I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly understand the interests of the average junior ranks member?

Representation should be best done by members of the group being represented. People who are, or at least have very recently, lived the experiences of the folks they're trying to represent. People who have a good idea of what it actually means to be doing the job; now, not what it was like 15 years ago.

There's a reason that unions are represented by people who are selected by the bargaining group, and not being represented by someone in middle management hand-picked by the CEO.

This of course also shouldn't be applied just to rank. It's also farcical to have the CDS tweeting out something saying "Conversations on diversity, inclusion, and culture change are not incompatible with our thirst for operational excellence. I count on my senior leaders to champion culture change. Diversity makes us stronger, inclusion improves our institution. We are #StrongerTogether", when it's accompanied by a picture of the most homogeneous group of old white men you've ever seen in your life.

View attachment 71047

I was with you until the end...

Should we fire the top brass because their gender and race don't align with current trends? How many white men are you ok with firing because they happen to be white, and men?

Also, isn't that an old pic? I'm pretty sure the CDS there is MacDonald.

 

[btrudy]

I was with you until the end...

Should we fire the top brass because their gender and race don't align with current trends? How many white men are you ok with firing because they happen to be white, and men?

Also, isn't that an old pic? I'm pretty sure the CDS there is MacDonald.

No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when there's only old white men in the room.

Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about. Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.

Having a seat at the table is rather important.

And it's an "old" pic, being from last year. I dunno about you, but I rather doubt we've fixed all of the department's problems in the last 15 months. I'm not convinced we've fixed any of them to be honest.

 

[Furniture]

No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when there's only old white men in the room.

Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about. Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.

Having a seat at the table is rather important.

And it's an "old" pic, being from last year. I dunno about you, but I rather doubt we've fixed all of the department's problems in the last 15 months. I'm not convinced we've fixed any of them to be honest.

To what level of demographics do we extend the invites?

Race?
Race and rank?
Race, rank, and element?
Race, rank element, and gender?
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation?
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation, and other defining characteristics?

I suspect that no matter what the CAF does, someone will find a reason to be upset.

 

[btrudy]

To what level of demographics do we extend the invites?

Race?
Race and rank?
Race, rank, and element?
Race, rank element, and gender?
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation?
Race, rank, gender, element, sexual orientation, and other defining characteristics?

I suspect that no matter what the CAF does, someone will find a reason to be upset.

Right... so instead what, don't make any effort whatsoever?

 

[Furniture]

Right... so instead what, don't make any effort whatsoever?

Not what I said, I asked what level of representation was "acceptable".

Like I said earlier, I think representation from the actual Jr. pers is important. I'm just curious about what you'd do to ensure the CAF had more representation at the table?

It's cheap and easy to slag the system, but what would you do to fix it?

 

[btrudy]

Honestly? Unionization. If you want one thing we could do that would be the most effective at changing the way we do business for the better, it's a unionized Canadian Armed Forces.

Direct bargaining by actual representatives selected by the people that they're representing, rather than relying upon the "goodwill" of some generals or admirals very occasionally seeking feedback from junior personnel and even more rarely taking action based upon that feedback.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can understand being dismayed at this; sure the Chiefs have supposed to be doing this job.

But, well... can anyone who by definition is a very very long ways away from being a junior ranks member be actually trusted to adequately represent the interests of said junior personnel?

Yea. They are called Senior NCOs; Sgts and PO2s.

Maybe they just aren’t giving you everything you want so you don’t talk to them anymore.

I mean, hell, can they be trusted to even properly understand the interests of the average junior ranks member?

Representation should be best done by members of the group being represented. People who are, or at least have very recently, lived the experiences of the folks they're trying to represent. People who have a good idea of what it actually means to be doing the job; now, not what it was like 15 years ago.

There's a reason that unions are represented by people who are selected by the bargaining group, and not being represented by someone in middle management hand-picked by the CEO.

This of course also shouldn't be applied just to rank. It's also farcical to have the CDS tweeting out something saying "Conversations on diversity, inclusion, and culture change are not incompatible with our thirst for operational excellence. I count on my senior leaders to champion culture change. Diversity makes us stronger, inclusion improves our institution. We are #StrongerTogether", when it's accompanied by a picture of the most homogeneous group of old white men you've ever seen in your life.

View attachment 71047

Old white men is a racist statement. You can’t discriminate against people because of their age or colour.

 

[btrudy]

Old white men is a racist statement. You can’t discriminate against people because of their age or colour.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all. But at the very least they shouldn't be having any discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion when there's only old white men in the room.

Invite some representatives of the demographic groups that you're talking about. Rely upon the people who can give you actual insight into the issues facing people. Again, back to the previous discussion, of having a Command Master Sailor to address concerns for the MS and Below, rather than expecting some Chief to be able to do that job. Don't try to solve problems involving groups of people without making any effort to actually listen to them.

Having a seat at the table is rather important.

And it's an "old" pic, being from last year. I dunno about you, but I rather doubt we've fixed all of the department's problems in the last 15 months. I'm not convinced we've fixed any of them to be honest.

Not fire all of them. But fire some of them. Because of their age, gender or colour.

You’re a genius. Let’s use racist practices to improve the CAF, that are against the Human Rights Act and Charter.


Old white men. Age/colour/gender.

 

[btrudy]

Not fire all of them. But fire some of them. Because of their age or colour.

You’re a genius. Let’s use racist practices to improve the CAF, that are against the Human Rights Act and Charter.

Gee it's almost like you didn't bother to actually read my comment. This is of course an ongoing trend with you.

Again, let me spell it out in simple words. I did not advocate firing anyone. I said, "No don't fire everyone", and then I proceeded with my actual suggestion, which didn't involve firing anyone at all.

Learn to read.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don’t need to read. You are just trying to justify your racist attitude and behaviour. You are part of the problem in the CAF; you claim to be trying to improve culture using practices that do not treat all equally.

Old white men. Age/colour/gender. You can’t change the definition of discrimination to suit your agenda - and you said “fire some of them” based solely on those criteria.

Fire one of them/some of them/all of them…now make it about FN members, or any other anthills or age group.

Image saying “those are all young black men. We should fire them”.

 

[btrudy]

I don’t need to read. You are just trying to justify your racist attitude and behaviour. You are part of the problem in the CAF; you claim to be trying to improve culture using practices that do not treat all equally.

Old white men. Age/colour/gender. You can’t change the definition of discrimination to suit your agenda -

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.

and you said “fire some of them” based solely on those criteria.

No, I did not.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So you’re ok with racist attitudes and conduct as long as it’s just against “old white men”.

Got it.

Here are a few bits from some of our Defence Ethics policy. Note - there is no “except for old white men” clause.




Suggesting a group of leaders were promoted solely based on bigotry etc is irresponsible and certainly doesn’t “respect their dignity”.

You don’t seem to get it; you can’t cherry pick what groups you will treat fairly and what ones you won’t.

The CAF goal is for ALL to be treated fairly. Including old white men.

 

[btrudy]

While we're at it, for the love of god could you also learn how to copy and paste text instead of screenshotting everything?

Suggesting a group of leaders were promoted solely based on bigotry etc is irresponsible and certainly doesn’t “respect their dignity”.

You don’t seem to get it; you can’t cherry pick what groups you will treat fairly and what ones you won’t.

The CAF goal is for ALL to be treated fairly. Including old white men.

If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.

If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.

Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.

An equitable and fair selection and promotion strategy needs to dismantle the unfair structural advantages currently baked into the system that work to provide cis people, hetero people, white people, and men (and of course those who are all of the above). The advantages that come along as a result of merely being who they are were not fairly earned, but those people under the current system absolutely benefit from it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

While we're at it, for the love of god could you also learn how to copy and paste text instead of screenshotting everything?

Nope. That’s how I roll; the info source is clear that way. Providing the link alone is too vague sometimes. The applicability and credibility of ref’s info should be the higher priority.

If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.

If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.

Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.

An equitable and fair selection and promotion strategy needs to dismantle the unfair structural advantages currently baked into the system that work to provide cis people, hetero people, white people, and men (and of course those who are all of the above). The advantages that come along as a result of merely being who they are were not fairly earned, but those people under the current system absolutely benefit from it.

Here’s the difference; I don’t assume every single white male who is successful is because they are white.

I am not so daft as to believe there are not changes needed.

Despite this, I don’t share the attitudes that meet the definition of racism towards white people.

“Respect the dignity of all people”. ALL people.

This is the way forward for the CAF. Including…old white men.

Until you get that, you’re really not getting it at all. You’re just behaving contrary to our defence ethics hiding under the false umbrella of “inclusion”, feeling safe and justified at targeting the group you hold biases toward.

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what we need in the CAF today, and tomorrow. For many months and years to come.

Remember, it’s ok to challenge yourself and your own biases. The falls under the Courage conversation in our Defence Ethics statements. That is what we do need in the CAF.

 

[btrudy]

Nope. That’s how I roll; the info source is clear that way. Providing the link alone is too vague sometimes. The applicability and credibility of ref’s info should be the higher priority.



Here’s the difference; I don’t assume every single white male who is successful is because they are white.

I am not so daft as to believe there are not changes needed.

Despite this, I don’t share the attitudes that meet the definition of racism towards white people.

“Respect the dignity of all people”. ALL people.

This is the way forward for the CAF. Including…old white men.

Until you get that, you’re really not getting it at all. You’re just behaving contrary to our defence ethics hiding under the false umbrella of “inclusion”.

Dismantling systemic discrimination does not disrespect the dignity of the people who previously benefited from said discrimination, and it's frankly farcical to suggest so. Neither does recognizing the impact that it's had on the people selected to lead our organization.

I really don't think you're arguing in good faith. It is not being racist towards white people to get rid of their unfair advantages. It is not being racist to white people to note the obvious fact that they've had (and continue to have) unfair advantages that other demographic groups don't.

Ditto with men, cis people, heterosexuals, etc.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Dismantling systemic discrimination does not disrespect the dignity of the people who previously benefited from said discrimination, and it's frankly farcical to suggest so.

What strikes me as farcical is to suggest the sole reason every Officer who is old/white/male or any combination of those 3 did not succeed based on abilities/accomplishments.

I argue for the equal treatment of ALL.

Nothing more, nothing less. And I will argue that point with vigour because I believe some people become successful simply by ability and merit.

Interesting fact; as a Sgt a few decades ago, with a few other white male Sgts next to me, we were called “you fuckin white boys” by a FN MWO.

It would never cross my mind to call a group of people anything like that. Ever. Not then, not when I joined in ‘89, not now.

Equal, fair treatment of all. Respect the dignity of all. I have not been perfect at this, I likely never will be. I will try to better myself and my subs and advise my Skipper if needed at every chance I can, though.

This is the way forward.

Last point:

If the CPO find out the Jnr ranks aren’t happy with their concerns etc being addressed, they need to have a long discussion with their Sgts/PO2s. That is how you fix the CoC issues. Our current Snr NCO Corps (and Warrant/Petty Officer Corps, as well) generally have less experience and confidence to navigate the current climate. The Petty/Warrant officers need to become more engaged to
mentor and develop their subs who will eventually be their replacements.

The solution isn’t a command MS, who will become a political figure and “elevated” beyond their rank and ladder wrung.

 

[dimsum]

If the system is set up such that cishet white men are more likely to end up in positions of power than people who aren't cishet white men, then yes, the system is itself inherently discriminatory.

If all groups were "treated fairly", then we'd get people in all groups having equal shots at attaining such positions, with representation at all levels proportional to the size of their demographic group.

Since we're not, it's clear that the system needs to change in order to fix this glaring and outrageous problem.

Ok, this is getting heated.

@Eye In The Sky - I re-read @btrudy 's comments and honestly, they don't advocate firing anyone.

However, from that picture, who's to say that they weren't in a Teams, etc call with folks elsewhere, who could have been minorities? Are they supposed to have cardboard cutouts of their heads, or bad Photoshop to say they're there?

@btrudy - I was with you until the quote above. Could it be that cishet white men (of which I am not) are more likely to end up in positions of power because the military has a much higher proportion of them? Or that cishet white men may consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, or LGBTQ folks? I don't have exact stats for that last point, but I pulled up a stat below:

As of 2020, an evaluation on diversity and inclusion by DND noted that the CAF is made up of 16% of women, 2.8% of Indigenous peoples, and 9.4% of visible minorities

Disclaimer: I am a visible minority, so this is very applicable to my situation. This is also why I feel as strongly about this the way I do.

Assuming that cishet white men end up staying for a longer career and thus are more likely to gain seniority, how do you know that people in those other groups are not getting equal shots? If there are 10 candidates for X position, and 8 of them are already cishet white men (just extrapolating/estimating from the stats above), is it really that surprising that it's more likely that X position will be filled by a cishet white man? Is it considered racist/sexist/etc? No - it's just probabilities.

The other option is to keep a "quota" of positions for those minorities. We know how well that looked when there was an article a few years about that in recruiting.

So, is there an "old boys club" in the CAF? Sure there is.

Is that club focused on keeping women and minorities out of Gucci positions? From my experience, no, it is not.

In fact (and I am not a senior officer or anything), the CAF has not given a crap what colour skin I was in terms of postings, education opportunities, etc. There might have been some racist things said about me in the past, but they damn sure didn't say it to my face.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ok, this is getting heated.

@Eye In The Sky - I re-read @btrudy 's comments and honestly, they don't advocate firing anyone.

However, from that picture, who's to say that they weren't in a Teams, etc call with folks elsewhere, who could have been minorities? Are they supposed to have cardboard cutouts of their heads, or bad Photoshop to say they're there?

@btrudy - I was with you until the quote above. Could it be that cishet white men (of which I am not) are more likely to end up in positions of power because the military has a much higher proportion of them? Or that cishet white men may consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, or LGBTQ folks? I don't have exact stats for that last point, but I pulled up a stat below:



Disclaimer: I am a visible minority, so this is very applicable to my situation. This is also why I feel as strongly about this the way I do.

Assuming that cishet white men end up staying for a longer career and thus are more likely to gain seniority, how do you know that people in those other groups are not getting equal shots? If there are 10 candidates for X position, and 8 of them are already cishet white men (just extrapolating/estimating from the stats above), is it really that surprising that it's more likely that X position will be filled by a cishet white man? Is it considered racist/sexist/etc? No - it's just probabilities.

The other option is to keep a "quota" of positions for those minorities. We know how well that looked when there was an article a few years about that in recruiting.

So, is there an "old boys club" in the CAF? Sure there is.

Is that club focused on keeping women and minorities out of Gucci positions? From my experience, no, it is not.

In fact (and I am not a senior officer or anything), the CAF has not given a crap what colour skin I was in terms of postings, education opportunities, etc. There might have been some racist things said about me in the past, but they damn sure didn't say it to my face.

There will be those here that have more experience with the US military than I, alot more, but it always struck me that they were far more diverse than we were.

For example, a buddy of mine was a USMC Officer, a tank guy, and he nick named his tank 'United Nations'. He was the only white person in the crew, and the rest were from various parts of Central/South America, Africa etc.

It strikes me that we might learn alot about how to do this diversity thing well from Uncle Sam.