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

[Humphrey Bogart]

I come from dirt poor folks. It was like I was voted prime minister when I joined the military my family was so excited.

My Father's family (from Rural NB), incredibly proud. History of Military Service in the family.

My Mother's family (from the Anglo-Quebec Aristocracy/Old Rothesay NB Money), immensely disappointed.

"My grandson is throwing his life away! He should be aspiring to be a Doctor, Lawyer or CEO!" Is what my grandfather said.

 

[btrudy]

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)

Retention​

High retention rates can be an indicator of positive general morale and contribute to operational effectiveness. DND/CAF statistics demonstrate that Indigenous Peoples, visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities have much lower retention rates than white men. As a result, there are fewer individuals from these groups who reach higher rank levels or leadership positions.

In the CAF, the disparity becomes pronounced from the Sergeant and Lieutenant levels onwards. The disparity also exists at the Executive level of the National Defence civilian employee population. Again, data to compare representation of Employment Equity group members at lower-level civilian positions was not available to the Advisory Panel in time for this report.

It is important to understand that these observations do not diminish the value and contributions of white men within DND/CAF. Rather, they serve to signal that barriers are preventing all groups from equally thriving within the Defence Team. By the same token, they outline an opportunity to improve the demographic representation within the Defence Team.

 

[Booter]

So the data is there- I just read through. Where are the reasons they are leaving?

(Also thanks for the link)

 

[Weinie]

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.

Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.

 

[Weinie]

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

I hear you brother. I was in the same boat.

 

[btrudy]

Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.

You can vote with your feet if you disagree with the decision of a majority of your coworkers to form a union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No, I'm not suggesting we fire them all

This is a very different statement than:

“I’m not suggesting we fire any of them”

Anyone who is in the CAF who doesn’t chose their words carefully can expect to find themselves challenged on this topic. And so they should be.

Imagine if I or anyone made the same post but replace the word “white” with “First Nations”.

Acceptable?

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

More of the same. So, white people can’t have meaningful, productive conversations on change? What is more important; PC photo ops or engaged leadership with an honest desire to “leave it better than they found it”.

Respect the dignity of all. Full stop.

Heated? Not for me. I simply believe the way forward includes stamping out this “white guy” racist bullshit. It’s racist and that needs to go; all of it and anyone who speaks it. Out. Gone. One way door.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.

Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger. This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position. The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Unionization!!!!!! Ummmm fucking no. You can all vote with your feet if you are not confident about your choice to sign X on the enrolment doc; I don"t want you or any contrary phuck to be beside me in a trench.

Officers (aka Management) wouldn't be part of the Union just NCOs.

Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger. This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position. The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.

More like 95%, most probably haven't even dug one

 

[btrudy]

This is a very different statement than:

“I’m not suggesting we fire any of them”

Anyone who is in the CAF who doesn’t chose their words carefully can expect to find themselves challenged on this topic. And so they should be.

Dude you need to learn to understand context. The post I was replying to was asking if I was suggesting firing them because they're old and white. I said no. That's it that's all.

More of the same. So, white people can’t have meaningful, productive conversations on change?

Honestly? No. Talking about change without involving the people who the change is supposed to benefit is not productive. You're supposed to involve stakeholders.

What is more important; PC photo ops or engaged leadership with an honest desire to “leave it better than they found it”.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not a binary choice between "do nothing productive but take a photo" and "don't bother to engage with members of the target demographic".

You know... like my suggestion that they seek out and actually listen to members of the affected communities.

Heated? Not for me. I simply believe the way forward includes stamping out this “white guy” racist bullshit. It’s racist and that needs to go; all of it and anyone who speaks it. Out. Gone. One way door.

I'll tell you what; I'll stop when white people in positions of power stop doing things which reinforce structural discrimination.

 

[btrudy]

Officers (aka Management) wouldn't be part of the Union just NCOs.

Naw, if we follow the same model as every other union, everyone under the EX level would be eligible to be part of a union. That kicks in at an equivalent of what, LCol? Col? One of the two.

Edit: Pretty sure it's Col, since that's the cut off for "gets a raise when the public servants negotiate one" versus "gets a raise when the EX-1 and above get one".

 

[Weinie]

I hear you brother. I was in the same boat.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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.

Fight against me. Yes I am the boogey man:

- my position is based on Human Rights Act, Charter and Defense Ethics policy or law.

Summed up it is: you can’t discriminate against any one person or group because of their colour/age/gender.

You openly opine that old white men should be disadvantaged, are somehow incapable of change or advocating for changes and are skill-deprived and addle brained and advance because they are white. You refer to them, quite happily, in a racist-leaning phrase.

I am quite happy with my position on this one. Respect the dignity of all.

 

[Weinie]

Luckily, 80% of the CAF will never see a trench in anger. This attitude, of voting with our feet, is a big reason why we’re in this precarious staffing position. The CAF is so big it needs a forcing function to change how it treats people. So far, feet voting hasn’t been a strong enough motivator to get things changed.

Stop. But why do we exist then? We are the CAF. We will have some folks who see a trench in anger and, rightfully, fight to defend it, I will concur. If you can't see that, get the phuque out, good riddance. If we are not capable of doing that, then get used to speaking a foreign language.

 

[btrudy]

Fight against me. Yes I am the boogey man:

- my position is based on Human Rights Act, Charter and Defense Ethics policy or law.

Summed up it is: you can’t discriminate against any one person or group because of their colour/age/gender.

No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.

And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.

Again, this is why your habit of just posting screenshots is terrible. You need to actually read the entire act.

For example, when you posted the screenshot from the Canadian Human Rights Act, you stopped at section 7. You didn't bother to keep going until you got to section 16, which reads.

• 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.

The entire point of such legislation is to allow us to fix discrimination, not to make it impossible to make progress because that might knock currently unfairly advantaged groups off their pedestal.

You openly opine that old white men should be disadvantaged, are somehow incapable of change or advocating for changes and are skill-deprived and addle brained and advance because they are white. You refer to them, quite happily, in a racist-leaning phrase.

I am quite happy with my position on this one. Respect the dignity of all.

I opine that members of a privileged class are, due to the fact that they do not experience the impact of not being a member of said class, are blind to the realities that affect everyone else.

When you don't see or experience hardship, how the heck are you supposed to honestly fix said hardship? This isn't some bloody logic puzzle.

Failure to adequately consult with people who do actually have to live with said discrimination will only result in reinforcing said discrimination. You can't fix a problem if you don't bother consulting with people who actually know what the problem is.

 

[Good2Golf]

Simple solution. Just cap white male promotions above a certain % quota at each rank level…then the system will move more quickly towards employment equitable distribution. It may take several years, but it will be a clear improvement to how things work today.

 

[Weinie]

No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.

And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.

Again, this is why your habit of just posting screenshots is terrible. You need to actually read the entire act.

For example, when you posted the screenshot from the Canadian Human Rights Act, you stopped at section 7. You didn't bother to keep going until you got to section 16, which reads.

• 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.

The entire point of such legislation is to allow us to fix discrimination, not to make it impossible to make progress because that might knock currently unfairly advantaged groups off their pedestal.



I opine that members of a privileged class are, due to the fact that they do not experience the impact of not being a member of said class, are blind to the realities that affect everyone else.

When you don't see or experience hardship, how the heck are you supposed to honestly fix said hardship? This isn't some bloody logic puzzle.

Failure to adequately consult with people who do actually have to live with said discrimination will only result in reinforcing said discrimination. You can't fix a problem if you don't bother consulting with people who actually know what the problem is.

Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.

 

[Weinie]

Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.

 

[Weinie]

No, but you can put into place measures to correct for discrimination against disadvantageous groups.

And people who are currently privileged might view that as discrimination against them. They'd be wrong, it's just fixing the fact that they've got a leg up.

Again, this is why your habit of just posting screenshots is terrible. You need to actually read the entire act.

For example, when you posted the screenshot from the Canadian Human Rights Act, you stopped at section 7. You didn't bother to keep going until you got to section 16, which reads.

• 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.

The entire point of such legislation is to allow us to fix discrimination, not to make it impossible to make progress because that might knock currently unfairly advantaged groups off their pedestal.



I opine that members of a privileged class are, due to the fact that they do not experience the impact of not being a member of said class, are blind to the realities that affect everyone else.

When you don't see or experience hardship, how the heck are you supposed to honestly fix said hardship? This isn't some bloody logic puzzle.

Failure to adequately consult with people who do actually have to live with said discrimination will only result in reinforcing said discrimination. You can't fix a problem if you don't bother consulting with people who actually know what the problem is.

Your opine is full of shyte.

 

[btrudy]

Sigh................ so older white males are the problem......................... I have a solution,,,,,,,,,,,,,kill them all.(Me included) When that doesn't work, find another stupid solution to the non-existential quandary that you and others have contrived. First world problems............reflect on that.

Look, I get it. You don't care about the problem because it doesn't affect you. And you resort to mockery of people who do care.

Sure as heck says a lot about you and your moral compass, or lack thereof, but you do you I guess.