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

[dimsum]

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

Here's some stats from 2020.

I'd guess that the whole "Tricare medical/dental" would convince some lower-income folks (which are more likely to be minorities or women) to join up.

Also, I could be wrong but the US allows Permanent Residents to join, more so than we do.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Here's some stats from 2020.

I'd guess that the whole "Tricare medical/dental" would convince some lower-income folks (which are more likely to be minorities or women) to join up.

Also, I could be wrong but the US allows Permanent Residents to join, more so than we do.

I believe that military service is a widely recognized pathway to US citizenship too. The 'GI Bill' is a big draw as well, especially for people who can't afford to go to University. But these are just hunches from my POV.

Anyways, it might be useful to do some kind of comparative analysis with a view to informing policy changes at our end, if it hasn't already been done.

Otherwise you wind up stuck in endless emotionally charged debates that solve no-one's issues, apart from professional pessimists like me

 

[Good2Golf]

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.

Today’s picture discussing diversity, inclusiveness and equity would have a female 3-star combat arms general at the head of the table. Enough to convince you?

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.

Historically, fair to say it WAS, but the case can be made that the system is changing…a sign being that noted above about there being increasing numbers of higher-ranking female GOs (FOs still lagging…but…Navy)

Many don’t factor that, short of firing all the white CIS-hetero male senior officers (which would be against both the Canadian Charter’s principles and the CAF’s moral and ethical fair treatment conduct guidelines), time is required to see the change happen. How long will it take? Depends on the target candidates to replace the old white CIS-het males are being considered…senior officers? Probably 2-6 years to see 1-2 star female and non-white/het male GOs. Junior officers? 8-10 years to see them as GOFOs.

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.

Would/will. And it will happen. Just not going to happen next week.

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

The system is changing. Show me where females and non-white/non-CIS males are being actively discriminated against today, and te leased from the forces and I’ll concede your point that the system isn’t changing.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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 do enjoy how Edmundson and Coates are at the back of the photo.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

After the past few years and some personal observations, I agree with this. I used to be in the "no way should the CAF unionize" camp but I've been brought around to the idea because Upper Management has shown they can't be trusted to advocate on behalf of their subordinates.

Also, we need someone/anyone to protect the troops from all the vultures that sit in Parliament.

 

[btrudy]

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?

Eh, if we're hiring more of them than their actual demographic portion of the population as a whole, then that's also a part of the problem to be fixed.

Or that cishet white men may consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, or LGBTQ folks?

And if cishet white men consider staying for a longer career than women, visible minorities, LGBTQ folks etc, then there's a reason for that. Something's making the prospect of continued employment in the CAF more attractive to cishet white men than it is to people who don't fit that mold.

That thing of course would be an aspect of systemic discrimination. When one type of people "fit in", while people who aren't part of that demographic group are more likely to find continued service in the CAF intolerable, the fact that the group who hasn't had to put up with a whole lot of shit due to their gender, sexuality, ethnic or racial background is willing to stick around does also again inherently mean that they didn't "fairly" earn their positions.

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

I mean, yes. That's a major part of the problem. People who aren't cishet white men aren't comfortable even joining. And then when they do join, they're more likely to be driven out by the way they're treated, and less likely to be promoted.

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.

I'll be optimistic here and say that, yeah, sure, perhaps that's not the intended effect of the old boys club (or at least not for all members).

But it is absolutely one of the actual effects of the old boys club. And thus the old boys club needs to be demolished.

As for not saying the racist things to your face... I mean, is that that much better than instead just letting their racist tendencies guide their decision making processes which affected your career, and slagging you to others behind your back, changing their perception of you as well?

Today’s picture discussing diversity, inclusiveness and equity would have a female 3-star combat arms general at the head of the table. Enough to convince you?

Well, no, but it's a start. One positive example doesn't mean the problem is solved. Even with that one 3 star, women are still grossly underrepresented.

The system is changing. Show me where females and non-white/non-CIS males are being actively discriminated against today, and te leased from the forces and I’ll concede your point that the system isn’t changing.

Here's one example, and I'd like to be clear that this is an example of a black woman at a unit that is actually trying fairly hard to make things more inclusive, at least from an official policy standpoint. But regardless of policy, she's still facing discrimination and she's still simply finding being a black woman in the CAF to be a lot more difficult than their white male counterparts are, solely because of the fact that she's a black woman.

A message from OCdt Anna Sekyewa for Black History Month:
“My parents used to send me to summer camp and I was usually the darkest kid there. While I got used to being different, it doesn't really get easier. Some days at the College I feel like any other Cadet, when I’m surrounded by my flight and my friends. But there are days where I’ve been made to feel alien. When my name is mispronounced, and I get invasive questions about my hair, I just want to go home.
It's hard to be one of 20 Black students on campus, and it's disheartening to see that the racial and gender makeup of our top Brass has not changed much in the last century. If Black, Indigenous, and people of color don’t have a seat at the table, the diversity and inclusion initiatives mean nothing.
Despite this, I am glad I came to the College. After I ran the Obstacle Course, I felt a part of something bigger than myself. During Black History Month, I take time to consider how far the CAF has come, but I recognize that we have a long way to go.”

 

[Booter]

My opinion on the chief positions has always been, and it goes for any SM position too- including the RCMP,

It’s their job to speak truth to power- they are in the unique position to speak up and down the chain honestly. They lost their way when they started viewing themselves as “the power” rather than a unique experienced link That could speak on behalf of the most junior member to the highest level.

now they’re more concerned with being relevant.

 

[btrudy]

My opinion on the chief positions has always been, and it goes for any SM position too- including the RCMP,

It’s their job to speak truth to power- they are in the unique position to speak up and down the chain honestly. They lost their way when they started viewing themselves as “the power” rather than a unique experienced link That could speak on behalf of the most junior member to the highest level.

now they’re more concerned with being relevant.

The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.

And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.

 

[Booter]

The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.

And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.

I really really agree with this.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The problem being is that they didn't get into those positions by speaking truth to power as they were climbing the ranks. And folks who start speaking truth to power as a Cpl / PO (or Capt / Maj level while we're at it)... tend to just stay there. We select for promotion people who can "get things done" or who are "team players". We don't tend to select those who go out of their way to tell their bosses why they're wrong.

And once people have climbed to those lofty heights, they're not going to change the habits that got them there.

It's the Military adoption of a Corporate Culture without the checks and balances provided.

No shareholder voting rights, no board of directors, no consequences for failure.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, no, but it's a start. One positive example doesn't mean the problem is solved. Even with that one 3 star, women are still grossly underrepresented.

Not that I was directly setting a trap, by any means, but the fact that you just took my one example of a 3-star, LGen Jennie Carignan and went on to rail that just ‘one 3 star’ doesn’t convince you there’s change afoot, brings an ignorance on your part, perhaps not intended, but ignorant nonetheless, of the situation.

You know there’s another recently appointed 3 star female general, right? Heck, she’s even 2IC of the CAF…but I get it, nothing for the foreseeable future will make you happy.

Carry on disparaging the changes made towards the desired demographic goals as insincere and lacking.

 

[btrudy]

My dude, I'm not disputing that there's "change afoot".

But we've still got a hell of a ways to go, and we've got to fight against folks like Eye in the Sky who seem dead set against the implementation of anything that might knock white men off their current unfairly granted positions of privilege. Because god forbid we be "unfair" to the people who have and continue to benefit from an unfair advantage.

There have been changes, but they're sure as shit thus far inadequate to actually address the problem. And I will definitely continue "disparaging" that fact, until it's no longer the case.

Not that I was directly setting a trap, by any means, but the fact that you just took my one example of a 3-star, LGen Jennie Carignan and went on to rail that just ‘one 3 star’ doesn’t convince you there’s change afoot, brings an ignorance on your part, perhaps not intended, but ignorant nonetheless, of the situation.

You know there’s another recently appointed 3 star female general, right? Heck, she’s even 2IC of the CAF…but I get it, nothing for the foreseeable future will make you happy.

This isn't the gotcha you think it might be IMHO. Two in the room is sure better than one, but it's still not even close to equitable, and that's leaving beside the lack of equity for other demographic groups.

 

[Booter]

btrudy, if it is wrong for those old white guys to be in those positions unfairly- if a race or gender or something is only, hypothetically like 2.4% of the membership- why should they at the management level be more represented than that.

Would we not be creating a different error by over-representing someone else- who didn’t “compete” with the larger pool because we kept putting them forward- despite their small population.

I know this isn’t what happening- but it’s kinda the suggested solution in a very oversimplified way.

I only ask because you seem to spend a lot of time on this subject- and it’s something I’m an outsider on.

What benefit do I get- in a war fighting- or even an efficiency standpoint- beyond a diversity benefit. (Which has its own benefits and shouldn’t be discounted)

I hope this question makes sense, any links or a book you would suggest as required reading?

 

[Booter]

I suppose what it is- the diversity issue, makes sense from a nation building, humint, CIMIC, kinda standpoint, (on top of being good human beings)

But to get to that point I have to be good at war. How does this make us better at the tactical/operational sphere before the diversity dividend. In my head the fighting part has primacy and the follow on is important but it’s tier 2 considerations.

In my ignorance, these conversations always seem like the desired way to make us good employers. But not good at the reason for existence- making us a public service extension or an outreach program- rather than a very specific goal oriented organization.

And I already know these concepts aren’t exclusive- like it’s not true you can only do one at the cost of the other. But it feels dishonest to suggest that we don’t pursue one more aggressively than the other.

 

[btrudy]

btrudy, if it is wrong for those old white guys to be in those positions unfairly- if a race or gender or something is only, hypothetically like 2.4% of the membership- why should they at the management level be more represented than that.

It's unethical to simply accept that acceptable representation by various demographic groups at "leadership" levels should be represented based upon the demographics of the organization as a whole, when systemic discrimination drives certain types of people to either leave the organization early or not join in the first place, while others "fit right in".

You can't use the bigotry inherent in the system to justify the bigotry inherent in the system.

What benefit do I get- in a war fighting- or even an efficiency standpoint- beyond a diversity benefit. (Which has its own benefits and shouldn’t be discounted)

I hope this question makes sense, any links or a book you would suggest as required reading?

Well, ultimately, our recruiting pool opens up a heck of a lot if we get to a point where all folks are just as likely to feel welcome in the CAF and succeed when they apply. We won't be wasting money on training people who end up getting out due to racism or sexism or whatnot.

When we can fully leverage all segments of the Canadian society in an equal fashion, then we can be more effective and efficient in generating and using combat capability.

As well, there's the fact that having a broad range of people can provide insight to difficult cultures, which is rather useful when we're operating abroad.

But frankly, I consider most of that to be 2ndary to the fact that it's a moral imperative to eliminate discrimination. We do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because we expect it to benefit us.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Frankly I like to see us piggyback onto the British Gurkha system, that would provide us with a easily filled battalion of infantry. It would also be a pathway for citizenship for them and their families. So we get to increase our military footprint and help solve the immigration issue. I have met a number of Gurkha and would be happy to have them as neighbours. Of course this government won't go for it as it increases the military and provides a pathway for the wrong sort of immigrant (Not rich, not big on victimhood and less likely to vote Liberal)

 

[Booter]

@btrudy when you say systemic racism- what are you referring to. What systemic barrier exists to keep an indigenous person just outside Edmonton from joining?

Or 2nd generation Canadians from the lower mainland? Or Toronto?

I think there are lots of image issues. There may even be actual racism in some places. But specific systemic barriers?

I have a collection of friends from varied backgrounds that I served with that don’t feel that way- they did however have families that were angry with them for throwing their lives away in the CF and the RCMP.

Of course they could just be avoiding telling me the truth. Which is a different thing entirely.

I once did some work for a fairly long period with a local Population that didn’t speak English. We recruited as much as we could from local populations etc to try and get a friendly understanding of culture and to have some appearance of cooperation- the need for cooperation was genuine but the appearance was one necessary aspect to getting it.

What we found was that the educated or power holding groups avoided our attempts and we wound up recruiting the lower power individuals. Which caused us a new set of headaches. The higher power community structures wouldn’t cooperate with those people.

So even though we would have to work through interpreters and have incredibly cumbersome interactions- they would only deal with “whites”. Which caused me to have to go alllllll the way back to the drawing board on getting local cooperation.

The danger of anecdote is that you make something in a microcosm into some kindve universal rule- but it’s in the back
Of my head.

I am aware of lots of systemic issues in government in general- but it may be surprising but I find the CAF to have LESS of these particular barriers (I’m aware of)

There are government agencies and functions that have better representation- but is it possible that it’s because the jobs are better overall?

Many years ago, there was a federal job that carried guns that had its very first trans person trying to work (I’m sure there were others before they just didn’t fall in near clean categories). There was a line of thinking in the health clearance that a person having under gone full surgeries etc wasn’t psychologically fit to do the work on the tactical side. There was a great deal of back and forth as this person blazed a trail just by virtue of being “first” Not because they were some person who desired this attention.

I was brought in to deal with an assessment of their ability. Just tactical side. No assessments of their fitness or psych etc.

It was a bizarre situation that everyone struggled with and I wound up advocating openly and behind scenes for that person- but it was an eye opener of the level Of resistance in systems for changes. The CAF at the time had considerably higher cooperation with trans issues than this agency.

The same thing for a disabled person I had to assist in a different agency.

In a lot of the cases I actually used the CF as a touchstone for precedent.

Anyways I don’t always accept your points in your posts but they do
Cause me to pause quite often. So thanks.

Man that NWO device…this thread took
Hard right

 

[Booter]

But frankly, I consider most of that to be 2ndary to the fact that it's a moral imperative to eliminate discrimination. We do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because we expect it to benefit us.

I think the CF has a morale obligation to fulfill its reason for existence. However, It is imperative that we stomp out discrimination- I support Canada because it’s free Place with liberty.

That should be the case for all
People who live here. No just the ones we resemble.

But in your first paragraph you mention driving people out- is there any information that we are losing more of our targeted or minority groups than we are white boys from a career perspective? Or are we just bleeding people because of shitty leadership in a general Sense. (Or some Other non-discrimination based reason)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

@btrudy when you say systemic racism- what are you referring to. What systemic barrier exists to keep an indigenous person just outside Edmonton from joining?

Or 2nd generation Canadians from the lower mainland? Or Toronto?

I think there are lots of image issues. There may even be actual racism in some places. But specific systemic barriers?

I have a collection of friends from varied backgrounds that I served with that don’t feel that way- they did however have families that were angry with them for throwing their lives away in the CF and the RCMP.

Minorities don't have a monopoly on this. Bet a majority of Canadians think the same thing, regardless of gender/sexual orientation, race, etc.

 

[Booter]

Minorities don't have a monopoly on this. Bet a majority of Canadians think the same thing, regardless of gender/sexual orientation, race, etc.

I come from dirt poor folks. It was like I was voted prime minister when I joined the military my family was so excited. So I’m always curious to hear the other side