Installation of Tampon Dispensers in all Washrooms

[Halifax Tar]

I thought this might fit in here lol

 

[Brad Sallows]

The mind set is 'lets comply with Federal law'.

The mind set was the people setting the law. The requirement to comply is just a straightforward acknowledgement that for the CAF, it counts as military spending. Apparently pointing that trivial fact out gets some noses out of joint. Obviously, all spending ultimately is being guided by "federal law".

 

[Navy_Pete]

The mind set was the people setting the law. The requirement to comply is just a straightforward acknowledgement that for the CAF, it counts as military spending. Apparently pointing that trivial fact out gets some noses out of joint. Obviously, all spending ultimately is being guided by "federal law".

Because it's non-discretionary spending that isn't a nice to have, it's a must do. Framing it as wasted CAF spending that takes away operational capability is disingenuous, and it's not even the same kind of money, and is a one time spend with minimal recurring costs. I'm sure the people that actually use it will appreciate it.

We spend far more every year on SWE for people who solely exist to feed the GoC bureaucracy to keep the wheels moving, and that's just the cost of doing business (while also counting as CAF spending). Lots of things are costs that don't contribute directly to capabilities but you have to do anyway for one reason or the other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Because it's non-discretionary spending that isn't a nice to have, it's a must do. Framing it as wasted CAF spending that takes away operational capability is disingenuous, and it's not even the same kind of money, and is a one time spend with minimal recurring costs. I'm sure the people that actually use it will appreciate it.

We spend far more every year on SWE for people who solely exist to feed the GoC bureaucracy to keep the wheels moving, and that's just the cost of doing business (while also counting as CAF spending). Lots of things are costs that don't contribute directly to capabilities but you have to do anyway for one reason or the other.

The "framing" isn't disingenuous, it's a judgement call. How the budgets are "siloed" is irrelevant; money is thoroughly fungible.

"We spend a lot of money on other things" isn't any kind of defence of any particular spending. It's amusing that such a ridiculous way of spending money contributes to the "2%", or "increased military spending", or any other set of emperor's clothes people are trying to hold up. It's discouraging that government does these things.

As I've stipulated, several times: every public dollar spent probably does someone some good. That isn't, by itself, a sufficient justification for spending. There's no end of causes to burn revenues with almost no useful outputs.

 

[CountDC]

Because it's non-discretionary spending that isn't a nice to have, it's a must do. Framing it as wasted CAF spending that takes away operational capability is disingenuous, and it's not even the same kind of money, and is a one time spend with minimal recurring costs. I'm sure the people that actually use it will appreciate it.

We spend far more every year on SWE for people who solely exist to feed the GoC bureaucracy to keep the wheels moving, and that's just the cost of doing business (while also counting as CAF spending). Lots of things are costs that don't contribute directly to capabilities but you have to do anyway for one reason or the other.

Don't know about everyone's budget but we did take from our operational budget a few thousand to cover this while we were told to cut our operational costs. Nickel and diming eventually has an impact on us.

We spend more on lots of things but it doesn't justify spending on something else. We spend lots on underwear and bras, that doesn't justify spending money on a chinchilla coat. At some point we have to stop funding things that people already purchase for themself on a regular basis. One of the arguments for bra was that the military required them in the dress regulations. In that case the policy should have included that they had to match the dress regulations not just what the member desired. Same with underwear, there should be a functional stipulation and not just what the members feel like. But then maybe the dress regs has changed and now stipulate that red lingerie peek-a-boo bras and thong underwear is the standard. By the way - how does a regular thong meet the standard of leak proof underwear?

Give it time - I am sure the next step on this is that we will need to have several different brands, maxi, mini, liners and numbers 1 to 5 in order to meet each members personal preference I mean needs.

 

[QV]

I'm waiting to hear the complaints that what has been provided isn't what is wanted or needed... we'll need to open up a clothing stores outlet just outside the shitters to manage the variety of sizes and types to meet all the needs.

You know what could have been done that crosses all gender identities? Soft 3-ply toilet paper, Kirkland brand I'm looking at you. Not this weak newspaper like shit, where you're at risk of a finger poke or just smear it around. Come on, just by supplying quality ass wipe the CAF could have probably saved the $ difference in hemorrhoid treatments alone. This would be an improvement for 100% of bathroom users, not just 1%.

 

[OldSolduer]

Don't know about everyone's budget but we did take from our operational budget a few thousand to cover this while we were told to cut our operational costs. Nickel and diming eventually has an impact on us.

We spend more on lots of things but it doesn't justify spending on something else. We spend lots on underwear and bras, that doesn't justify spending money on a chinchilla coat. At some point we have to stop funding things that people already purchase for themself on a regular basis. One of the arguments for bra was that the military required them in the dress regulations. In that case the policy should have included that they had to match the dress regulations not just what the member desired. Same with underwear, there should be a functional stipulation and not just what the members feel like. But then maybe the dress regs has changed and now stipulate that red lingerie peek-a-boo bras and thong underwear is the standard. By the way - how does a regular thong meet the standard of leak proof underwear?

Give it time - I am sure the next step on this is that we will need to have several different brands, maxi, mini, liners and numbers 1 to 5 in order to meet each members personal preference I mean needs.

You shilling for Amy Schumer now? A very unfunny woman!!

 

[lenaitch]

I'm waiting to hear the complaints that what has been provided isn't what is wanted or needed... we'll need to open up a clothing stores outlet just outside the shitters to manage the variety of sizes and types to meet all the needs.

You know what could have been done that crosses all gender identities? Soft 3-ply toilet paper, Kirkland brand I'm looking at you. Not this weak newspaper like shit, where you're at risk of a finger poke or just smear it around. Come on, just by supplying quality ass wipe the CAF could have probably saved the $ difference in hemorrhoid treatments alone. This would be an improvement for 100% of bathroom users, not just 1%.

John Wayne toilet paper: It's rough; it's tough; and it don't take shit from nobody.

 

[daftandbarmy]

John Wayne toilet paper: It's rough; it's tough; and it don't take shit from nobody.

Ah yes, I remember now (ouch)

 

[Brad Sallows]

Nothing quite like pulp-grade hospital TP after a bowel surgery/disorder/upset.

 

[dimsum]

Ah yes, I remember now (ouch)

View attachment 81835

Well that is one way to exfoliate your ass.

 

[CBH99]

Okay for the 1000th time this was a GoC rule that all federally regulated facilities must provide feminine hygiene products in all bathrooms. This rule came into effect Dec 1, and includes the CAF.

I have to say though, I still feel like it was totally f**king stupid though.

Female bathrooms? Makes sense. Gender neutral bathrooms? Makes sense.
Make bathrooms? Who...in da fuk...are they buying them for? (If a girl happens to wonder into a male washroom, she's still covered?)



I think of it this way...

- We are phasing out PLD during the same time as the cost of living has soared, to save $30M...

- We have homeless encampments in most cities now, and they aren't small. It's a freaky almost forecast of our long time homeless folks, and people who are brand new to being homeless & learning from the folks that used to ask them for change...

- We can't give vets a standard, consistent quality of care because 'we can't afford to'..


...But we CAN afford to stock feminine hygiene products in hundreds of male washrooms across the country, because heaven forbid the 1% of males with a vagina just use the bloody gender neutral bathroom



I mean has this been a pressing issue I haven't heard about until recently...women who work for the feds who keep forgetting their products? If so, how does this help if they are in the male washroom? Is this some early brownie points when it comes time for an election? Is this virtue signalling to the world another "look at how forward thinking we are on this stuff!"

Or is this another waste of money, no matter how small the amount, to solve a problem that doesn't exist and wastes taxpayer dollars to do it?


If you are a male and have a vagina, that's fine. I don't care in the slightest, truly. Be a good person. I don't care at all if that's the case. What I DO care about is a government that's projecting a $20 Billion deficit just for the upcoming year, despite collecting more revenue from the citizenry than at any other time in our history - and of all the things they cut to try to tame crazy spending - tampons in all federal male washrooms was just too important to scratch off the books...


(MilEME09 - the above wasn't directed at you personally at all, just more of a general rambling rant )

 

[quadrapiper]

I have to say though, I still feel like it was totally f**king stupid though.

Female bathrooms? Makes sense. Gender neutral bathrooms? Makes sense.
Make bathrooms? Who...in da fuk...are they buying them for? (If a girl happens to wonder into a male washroom, she's still covered?)



I think of it this way...

- We are phasing out PLD during the same time as the cost of living has soared, to save $30M...

- We have homeless encampments in most cities now, and they aren't small. It's a freaky almost forecast of our long time homeless folks, and people who are brand new to being homeless & learning from the folks that used to ask them for change...

- We can't give vets a standard, consistent quality of care because 'we can't afford to'..


...But we CAN afford to stock feminine hygiene products in hundreds of male washrooms across the country, because heaven forbid the 1% of males with a vagina just use the bloody gender neutral bathroom



I mean has this been a pressing issue I haven't heard about until recently...women who work for the feds who keep forgetting their products? If so, how does this help if they are in the male washroom? Is this some early brownie points when it comes time for an election? Is this virtue signalling to the world another "look at how forward thinking we are on this stuff!"

Or is this another waste of money, no matter how small the amount, to solve a problem that doesn't exist and wastes taxpayer dollars to do it?


If you are a male and have a vagina, that's fine. I don't care in the slightest, truly. Be a good person. I don't care at all if that's the case. What I DO care about is a government that's projecting a $20 Billion deficit just for the upcoming year, despite collecting more revenue from the citizenry than at any other time in our history - and of all the things they cut to try to tame crazy spending - tampons in all federal male washrooms was just too important to scratch off the books...


(MilEME09 - the above wasn't directed at you personally at all, just more of a general rambling rant )

Bet there's a number of facilities which, first, don't currently have gender-neutral washrooms in the usual sink, toilet, etc. all in one room sense (1900s armouries which need blasting charges to alter, I'm looking at you), and second, would probably serve everyone better by just marking everything as gender neutral.

 

[Quirky]

I have to say though, I still feel like it was totally f**king stupid though.

Female bathrooms? Makes sense. Gender neutral bathrooms? Makes sense.
Make bathrooms? Who...in da fuk...are they buying them for? (If a girl happens to wonder into a male washroom, she's still covered?)

This was never about making sense and following science. When you have the mentally insane left making decisions you get wasteful spending like female mensural dispensers in mens bathrooms. Men can't have periods. Period.

 

[dimsum]

This was never about making sense and following science. When you have the mentally insane left making decisions you get wasteful spending like female mensural dispensers in mens bathrooms. Men can't have periods. Period.

Curious — how broad is the “mentally insane left” you’re talking about?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Curious — how broad is the “mentally insane left” you’re talking about?

Let me guess ,its all in the context of the situation

 

[FJAG]

This was never about making sense and following science. When you have the mentally insane left making decisions you get wasteful spending like female mensural dispensers in mens bathrooms. Men can't have periods. Period.

So, it should be pretty cheap to restock them.

 

[Navy_Pete]

For reference, to meet the regulations in the building I'm in, they put out a $0.99 basket with about $20 worth of product (pads and tampons) so not really a bit deal.

The same day in our townhall we're about $60M short for this years budget, and $300M or something for next on O&M, so a few pads doesn't mean we aren't buying parts; a massive cut to the operational budget does.

 

[Quirky]

The same day in our townhall we're about $60M short for this years budget, and $300M or something for next on O&M, so a few pads doesn't mean we aren't buying parts; a massive cut to the operational budget does.

they've recently gotten the military RPAS/JUSTAS, the F-35, new frigates, CC-330s and P8s. That's actually not bad when you think about relevant kit being purchased.

Getting kit is easy, you just write a cheque to a defense contractor. Missing is the more important and much harder part - retention and recruting.

 

[CBH99]

How much of our current problems as a country are a result of an effective and prolonged war of strategic doctrine executed by our adversaries. Economic warfare, social warfare, psychological warfare... all of this degrades us steadily. Look no further than common sense to identify which areas we are being deliberately and effectively targeted in.

So the last time I essentially tried to suggest the same thing as you, I was widely called a conspiracy theorist. (I was drunk and it took me hours to finish my post...and I probably posted it in the wrong thread anyway)


I would say a bulk of the problems we currently face as a country (I wouldn't label what we have ahead of us as a challenge) I believe are the result of us being effectively targeted in social warfare, psychological warfare, economic warfare, industrial warfare, etc.

I believe the heated and emotional debate around gender issues is definitely something that was introduced deliberately & used to fuel an artificial divide between the citizenry.

Not supporting our oil & gas industry is a deliberate campaign to eliminate jobs & sources of economic prosperity across the country - while at the same time spending the coffers completely bare.

Last week our projected deficit for this upcoming year was $20B, now it is projected at $40B.

Our national debt jumped from $1.1 to $2.1 trillion dollars in just 8 years, and during this 8 years the government has taxed the citizenry more than at any point in our history...and what do we have to show for it?

A trillion dollars spent above and beyond what the government brought in during that same time period...and again, what do we have to show for it?

Where did all that money go?



A decade ago, these issues weren't what they are today.

Countries looked to develop their industries and resources, not boycott their own industry as much as possible and work against them.

People knew what gender they were through a mastered aspect of their sense of self (maybe not everybody, but everybody knew Bob wasn't multiple genders that changed depending on the moon cycle, including Bob...)

Nobody got violently enraged that there was a black person on the Aunt Jamima box, nor did anybody ask whether Uncle Ben was a real person or not (a question they don't seem to ask about Tony the Tiger, which is kinda racist in and of itself...)

Boys went to the boys washroom. Girls went to the girls washroom. Nobody had to be told why... it just magically seemed to happen on its own.



Most western countries have been infected with a true, tangible retardation of the fabrics of our societies.

This was partially our own doing as we tried to make our workforce more diverse, more inclusive, and resolve long standing social justice issues that had been nagging at our societies - we got a bit too carried away with the destruction of the pillars of our society, thinking we were leading change for the better.

The other part of this was the deliberate hijacking of western world governments by the WEF and their ilk.

You can't have a Prime Minister personally mentioned and introduced in Davos by none other than Klaus Schwab, and not realize that our PM has clearly been trying to make Klaus's book a reality. Fuck the citizenry, seriously, fuck em'...

Democracies tend to have the citizens vote for their leaders, who in turn work on behalf of the citizens to achieve the things they claimed they would when campaigning for those citizen's votes.

Yet in the last few years we have internet censorship legislation that NOBODY wanted and the citizenry weren't even consulted on...

We have firearms legislation that specifically targets law abiding gun owners who haven't violated the law...

We are about to quadruple a carbon tax that not only does the citizenry not want nor ever did, but economists the world over have looked at and seen as an amazingly efficient way to fuck up an economy...

We are taxing our farmers out of work, while big global companies are buying up that land at a record pace...

Etc etc - the list could easily go on, and on, and on...



My thoughts are yes. This modern day minefield of imaginary social issues, compounded by real government spending on nothing at all, the blatant attack on the traditional family, and government pushing ahead on internet censorship, speech censorship, etc etc is very much the result of a clear, sustained, deliberate effort by someone...

Who that someone is could be open to interpretation I suppose. (China? Russia? My guess is that someone is actually ourselves, knowing the consequences and deliberately pushing for them anyway...)


(KevinB, you aren't wrong about us F**king ourselves in some big ways, as much as we wish we could blame it on someone else. But the US of A is in the canoe right next to us, about 20km up a little known water way called Shit Creek...how's that southern border lookin'?)