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

[daftandbarmy]

Here’s a good description of why we’re probably losing the war for talent.

Left side: most traditional organizations. Left side: organizationsthat will survive in the future:

 

[Booter]

It presently isn’t a conversation that is being had in the open- “prejudice”- overt or systemic isn’t a reason. Show me what it is about the system that doesn’t support or move people along- if it’s a thing that can be addressed without compromising fighting readiness then let’s crack at it- but much like some personal circumstance that causes me to look elsewhere for employment- just because it doesn’t fit all stages of life doesn’t mean it’s prejudice. Show the systems prejudice and we ll examine it.

I don’t buy a lot of it- because it seems to rely on the “noble savage” error, I googled it and it seems like we still use that term so excuse me if it’s offensive and I’m unaware- it still appears to be a referenced trope.

That if we put minority populations into command positions that somehow their intentions are pure and they’ll look the people out for marginalized people- that they don’t suffer from selfishness. Which isn’t true. Like at all. It is important to pursue equal opportunity. Pursue diversity. Let’s get extra voices at the table. But let’s not act like they’re a magic bullet, taking care of people and pursuing their health and wellness is a worthy thing, understanding my people is a worthy thing. So it’s neccessary to seek understanding- varied voices. But it’s no magic bullet to cure selfish assholes. If our promotions system rewards dickheads- it will just reward dickheads of a different “type”

But that pursuit doesn’t have primacy. Organizational goals have primacy.

So, the first place this disconnects is on our ideals.

So for some- they have stated that they believe it’s a moral imperative, a primacy, to stamp out discrimination. It comes out ahead of things like war fighting. Which is fine. Maybe it’s like on a scale of 10- equality and diversity is 10/10 goals for them and war fighting is 9/10. It doesn’t mean they don’t value operations- it means they value equality, and their views on how to get there slightly more than straight operational capability,

Then when I look at my values for the org- 10/10 is operational readiness. Followed somewhere after that for diversity etc.

So because the main things are different we really can’t fundamentally agree on big drastic changes. Mine will always be operations, theirs will be removing some toxic factor. The good news is big drastic moves are hardly ever effective and we can more likely agree on smaller factors to move us in the right direction.

Like I would say “we need boots!” Everyone can agree on that. They can say “bold eagle is good idea but here is ways we can improve on it”. And I would be like that is a good idea.

So I can value the opinion of others without really having to fall in like with their thinking.

But I am hungover. Maybe I’m Out of my mind

 

[Brad Sallows]

When a person says "As an "X"...", it's still just one person's opinion. There aren't really any people entitled to speak for the groups of which they claim membership. Value the opinion accordingly.

Solutions crafted to alleviate a problem for group "X" should be examined as to whether the solutions are more universally applicable. If so, apply universally. Schemes designed to benefit "X" and no further should be waste-binned.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Probably best explained in the report

We’re still waiting for you to point us to the relevant sections of the report.

 

[btrudy]

Due to the institutionalization of racism in Canada, harmful conditions persist that disproportionately impact Indigenous populations. For example, institutional racism has disadvantaged Indigenous populations across education, health care, judicial and prison systems. There are glaring disparities in post-secondary attainment for Indigenous People as compared to the rest of Canadians: 8% compared to 20%, respectively.Footnote18 Challenges to Indigenous education attainment relate to attempts to integrate Indigenous learners within "predominately Euro-Western defined and ascribed structures, academic disciplines, policies, and practices."Footnote19 The effects of these structures within the education system are compounded by and intersect with a sense of mistrust towards Canadian education on the part of Indigenous Peoples due to "generations of grandparents and parents who were scarred by their experience"Footnote20 in Residential Schools, as well as insufficient funding for on-reserve schools and inadequate access to essential services.Footnote21

Perpetuated negative stereotypes about Black people have led to the internalized racism that impacts contemporary society.Footnote37 An example of internalized inequality is outlined in a 2015 survey showing that while "nearly 94 percent of Black young people aged 15 to 25 said they would like to complete a university degree, only 59.9 percent thought it was possible."Footnote38 In contrast, "82 percent of other groups surveyed said they wanted to achieve a university education, and 78.8 percent believed they could."Footnote39 This is evidence of the significant gap between hope and expectation among Black youth.

Andrea Davis, associate professor at York University's Department of Humanities, explains that Black young people "work tremendously hard and their aspirations [for education] are great. But very few people have told them they can be successful."Footnote40 She argues that the most profound finding from her research on the impact of violence among youth in Toronto is that Black youth perceive everyday lived experiences of cultural racism as the worst form of racism. They have experienced it from "teachers who did not believe in them, who stereotyped them, who over-disciplined and over-punished them, who constructed possibilities for them that were different from the possibilities for other children."Footnote41

The Intersection of Racism with Experiential and Identity Factors​

Racism intersects in complex ways with other systems of oppression that construct the differential treatment and perceived value assigned to groups based on gender, sexual orientation and ability. Racism, patriarchy, heteronormativity and white supremacy are embedded in systemic, institutionalized and structural forms of discrimination. Their manifestations range from extreme acts of hate to normalized cultural exclusion and marginalization.

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.

Summary of Part I​

Racism in Canada is not a glitch in the system; it is the system. Colonialism and intersecting systems such as patriarchy, heteronormativity and ableism constitute the root causes of inequality within Canada. Throughout Canada's history, the existence of systemic and cultural racism has been enshrined in regulations, norms, and standard practices. Canada has recognized, and continues to acknowledge, its history of racial discrimination by introducing Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, as well as the repealing of discriminatory policies and practices.

The Defence Team's foundational values were chiselled from Canadian ones, and formed the basis of all its practices, assumptions and approaches. The Defence Team's work schedules and holidays which are mostly based on its Christian traditions, the food prepared in mess halls which often revolves around traditional recipes from Euro-Canadian meals, and the gendered language of French—and of some English words—these are all cornerstones of unintentional biases. These practices are codified, personally and collectively, into the daily lives of each member of the Defence Team. Although at first glance they do not appear to be pernicious threats to equity, they greatly influence the comfort gauge for those who prefer a more homogenous society. Life is easier when everyone is the same. Adapting different rules, changing methodologies, and evolving norms requires effort.

Dismantling Canada's colonial culture, to which the Defence Team leadership subscribes, requires this sustained and deliberate effort. It involves feeling uncomfortable and amenable to being stretched emotionally. It calls for an organization to become more tolerant of mistakes made in good faith and better at supporting a willingness to learn from these mistakes. It also entails being bold and visionary while reviewing discriminatory structures such as laws and policies. On occasion, it necessitates artificially increasing the representation of women, Indigenous, Black and other racialized people, and people with disabilities, until archaic paradigms and systemic barriers no longer prevent them from naturally thriving in the workplace. Recognizing that the health of the National Defence organization is hampered by the powerful constraints of its inherited colonialist culture is the first step in deliberately instituting meaningful change. Throughout its mandate, the Advisory Panel witnessed many statements from members and leaders of the Defence Team that hinted at this recognition. They were ready to feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps they will lead the path forward to a new era of inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility.

An ongoing concern for the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command is the challenge of keeping white supremacists from joining the Defence Team. A thorough review of social media posts from potential recruits is part of the filtering process. But members affiliated with IMVE groups are becoming more sophisticated in their use of technology, and they are finding ways to be surreptitious in their recruiting interviews. Recruiters are not all trained and knowledgeable about methods to detect certain types of behaviour that would indicate affiliation with extremist groups or a penchant for extremist behaviours.

White supremacy, terrorism, neo-Nazism and all forms of IMVE are complex and fast evolving. The need for education and training for leaders at all levels of the Defence Team was highlighted repeatedly during the Advisory Panel's consultations. Funding, expertise, and human resources are currently not adequate to address the imperative that every leader become the first line of defence in ensuring that members of these groups stay out of or leave the Defence Team.

In addition, the Advisory Panel heard some confusion among Defence Team members concerning the proper procedures for dealing with members who affiliate with hate groups or even for how to determine the gravity of such an affiliation. There was a consensus for zero tolerance of hateful behaviour, but the application of consequences for such conduct or for affiliation with hate groups is not standardized. Consequences can range from simple warnings to relief from duty.

It is necessary as well to recognize that, for some Canadians, religion can be a source of suffering and generational trauma. This is especially true for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited members of Canadian society. And Indigenous Peoples have suffered unimaginable generational trauma and genocide at the hands of Christian religious leaders through initiatives such as Residential School and Indian Day School programs.

Another important point is that, at present, some chaplains represent or are affiliated with organized religions whose beliefs are not synonymous with those of a diverse and inclusive workplace. Some of the affiliated religions of these chaplains do not subscribe to an open attitude and the promotion of diversity.

For example, some churches' exclusion of women from their priesthoods violates principles of equality and social justice, as do sexist notions embedded in their religious dogmas. In addition, certain faiths have strict tenets requiring conversion of those they deem to be “pagan,” or who belong to polytheistic religions. These faiths’ dogmas and practices conflict with the commitment of the Defence Team to value equality and inclusivity at every level of the workplace.

The persistence of high rates of sexual assault and domestic violence within the Defence Team underscores the critical importance of professional, non-discriminatory investigation of these crimes.Footnote120 The 2015 Deschamps report outlined specific recommendations with regards to external investigations of sexual misconduct.Footnote121 They were largely ignored by the Defence Team. As a new external review led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour is now underway, this Advisory Panel focussed on systemic barriers in Military Policing with regards to structure and functionality.

The Advisory Panel engaged with several members of the Defence Team, mostly women and some men, who expressed a strong reluctance to report sexual misconduct crime to the Military Police (MP). Their reasons varied: some were concerned about the rank structure (for example, Captains having to report an incident to a Military Police Sergeant). Others considered the Military Police to be untrustworthy given their track record in dealing with this type of investigation.

The investigation of sexual misconduct or assault, domestic abuse and harassment is complex and as such must be undertaken by a specialized team of investigators who are equipped with in-depth training as well as substantial experience. The same is true for hateful conduct. These types of investigations require arms-length, unbiased, culturally-sensitive and trauma-informed approaches that are not synonymous with the current state of Military Policing.

Also, the rank structure of the Military Police is not conducive to creating a non-hierarchical relationship between complainant and investigator. An MP can be perceived as being more focused on his/her/their career progression, rather than on the need for justice in the case of a victim whose perpetrator is a senior member of the organization with power to influence careers either directly or indirectly. There is undoubtedly a conflict of interest that cannot be ignored within the current rank structure of Military Policing.

Through consultations with three transgender women of various ranks and positions within the Defence Team, the Advisory Panel was made aware of some of the discriminatory practices inflicted upon transgender members. Although this information is anecdotal given the limited number of transgender women with whom the Advisory Panel consulted (and no consultations were done with transgender men), there were similarities in their stories and challenges.

Because of their gender non-conformity, many transgender members within the Defence Team face psychosocial burdens, challenges and barriers that range from adverse social attitudes to open hostility. It is important to note that 27% of transgender patients attempt suicide while waiting for gender affirming medical procedures.Footnote125

For the transgender persons consulted, gender dysphoria (a state of general unhappiness or unease) led to serious bodily dissatisfaction and a strong desire for medical gender affirmation surgery. All three of the members interviewed by the Advisory Panel reported a lack of understanding from the military medical community, with poorly written and homophobic notes included in their medical files (which ultimately followed them whenever they tried to get new, unbiased opinions). This meant that, in addition to the unbearable hostility and discrimination they received from their units, these members had to fight the medical system instead of obtaining much needed support during the most vulnerable time of their transitions.

These members reported that CAF doctors seemed to have little to no knowledge of gender dysphoria and were unwilling to recommend gender affirmation surgery because they were certain that the members would regret such surgery. However, according to Dr. Laura Mechefske from Canadian Forces Health Services Centre Ottawa, informed consent models produce a regret rate of less than 0.8%, with only 0.1% of patients wishing for action reversal.Footnote126

For the transgender members interviewed by the Advisory Panel, the steps to providing psychological proof of their commitment to this surgery were not only lengthy and tedious, but they were also often traumatic and devoid of compassion. In addition, these members felt that the consultations they were forced into were biased, as the psychological team had been briefed by the same medical doctors who refused to recommend surgery in the first place.

The prejudices and social stigma faced by transgender persons daily are an immense challenge that no member of the Defence Team should have to face. To further fuel that trauma with inadequate medical, moral and psychological support is detrimental not only to these valued members of the Defence Team, but to the entire organization. Instead of doing everything in its power to ensure that these members thrive, with all the unique contributions that they can make towards collective performance, the Defence Team alienates them. The resistance these members face often leads to post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health issues and extreme loneliness. This alienation and trauma often impacts the member’s family as well.

tl;dr Bigotry exists, a lot of people in the CAF are bigots, and thus that bigotry changes the way that certain people are "dealt with".

The Canadian Armed Forces is a microcosm of Canadian Society, which is by and large racist. It in particular was set up by white Christian men, to suit white Christian men.

Efforts made to eradicate even people who are actively members of hate groups are inadequate, let alone those people who simply hold bigoted views and allow those views to taint their decision making processes, all of which will A) disadvantage members who "don't fit the mold", while at the same time serving to aid people who do "fit in".

Likewise sexual assaults or harassments, which in the CAF are predominately targeting women, are poorly investigated, leading many victims to leave due to the lack of support, or to be revictimized when they do report and instead the system as a whole moves to target them and smear their reputation, rather than the person who actually deserves it (for this, see the 2nd most recent article by he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-site-because-the-moderators-couldn't-be-bothered-to-remove-defamatory-comments). Likewise a similar approach is often taken against folks who try to support victims, as we saw with LCdr Trotter.

When there are a myriad of interactions that one takes throughout the year that involve a person coming into contact with, relying upon the good faith efforts of other members of the defence team who, due to their bigotry, are disinclined to support or even actively oppose your success, then the net result will be that the cishet white men who "fit in" with the system that was set up to allow people like them to succeed are more likely to do so, while those who get dragged down by the constant instances of bigotry, large and small, are less likely to succeed, through no fault of their own.

But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.

 

[Good2Golf]

But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.

You mean people aren’t agreeing completely with you, and/or aren’t apologizing for their privilege as well as acknowledging that they are the reason all the women, male-minorities and LGBTQQIP2SAA CAF members left?

If you were CDS, what single-most policy/direct action would you enact to resolve the situation?

 

[Remius]

But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.

I was in fact discussing in good faith. I think what is overlooked is maybe the things that make white men quit or leave or what not are the same things making women quit or leave or anyone else for that matter. Does bigotry exist? Yes. Is the reason for all the problems? No. It’s certainly part of it though.

We should look at things in compartments rather that as one big lump. People talk of white male privilege in very narrow terms.

 

[SupersonicMax]

tl;dr Bigotry exists, a lot of people in the CAF are bigots, and thus that bigotry changes the way that certain people are "dealt with".

The Canadian Armed Forces is a microcosm of Canadian Society, which is by and large racist. It in particular was set up by white Christian men, to suit white Christian men.

Efforts made to eradicate even people who are actively members of hate groups are inadequate, let alone those people who simply hold bigoted views and allow those views to taint their decision making processes, all of which will A) disadvantage members who "don't fit the mold", while at the same time serving to aid people who do "fit in".

Likewise sexual assaults or harassments, which in the CAF are predominately targeting women, are poorly investigated, leading many victims to leave due to the lack of support, or to be revictimized when they do report and instead the system as a whole moves to target them and smear their reputation, rather than the person who actually deserves it (for this, see the 2nd most recent article by he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-site-because-the-moderators-couldn't-be-bothered-to-remove-defamatory-comments). Likewise a similar approach is often taken against folks who try to support victims, as we saw with LCdr Trotter.

When there are a myriad of interactions that one takes throughout the year that involve a person coming into contact with, relying upon the good faith efforts of other members of the defence team who, due to their bigotry, are disinclined to support or even actively oppose your success, then the net result will be that the cishet white men who "fit in" with the system that was set up to allow people like them to succeed are more likely to do so, while those who get dragged down by the constant instances of bigotry, large and small, are less likely to succeed, through no fault of their own.

But, anyways, I think that's the last I'm going to say on this topic, as frankly I think the majority of people commenting here are not doing so in good faith, and frankly I've got no patience for such bullshit anymore.

None of this is specific to our evaluation system and most are actually issues across the whole Country…

 

[btrudy]

You mean people aren’t agreeing completely with you, and/or aren’t apologizing for their privilege as well as acknowledging that they are the reason all the women, male-minorities and LGBTQQIP2SAA CAF members left?

If you were CDS, what single-most policy/direct action would you enact to resolve the situation?

Single action? Remove the QR&O banning unionization.

I would expect most suitable corrective actions would flow from there.

None of this is specific to our evaluation system and most are actually issues across the whole Country…

Point being? Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel.

 

[Brad Sallows]

An information dump of general issues raised by the report does not really address what is wrong with the evaluation system. The answer to any "what is wrong with X" question is not "look at all the pages and pages and pages of stuff here".

The report is not to be taken seriously. What, for example, does this have to do with changes the CAF should undertake:

"There are glaring disparities in post-secondary attainment for Indigenous People as compared to the rest of Canadians: 8% compared to 20%, respectively."

Couple of things on that. First, kids have to show up and stay in school and achieve proper graduation, not a certificate of attendance or whatever the consolation prize is these days; second, kids have to meet the standards of academic preparation for post-secondary education - whatever is relevant, not whatever they would rather be doing. But neither of those are within the scope of the CAF.

"Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel."

B does not necessarily follow from A. Cause-effect must be shown.

 

[daftandbarmy]

An information dump of general issues raised by the report does not really address what is wrong with the evaluation system. The answer to any "what is wrong with X" question is not "look at all the pages and pages and pages of stuff here".

The report is not to be taken seriously. What, for example, does this have to do with changes the CAF should undertake:

"There are glaring disparities in post-secondary attainment for Indigenous People as compared to the rest of Canadians: 8% compared to 20%, respectively."

Couple of things on that. First, kids have to show up and stay in school and achieve proper graduation, not a certificate of attendance or whatever the consolation prize is these days; second, kids have to meet the standards of academic preparation for post-secondary education - whatever is relevant, not whatever they would rather be doing. But neither of those are within the scope of the CAF.

"Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel."

B does not necessarily follow from A. Cause-effect must be shown.

I think the CAF Twitter feed provides better information on how diverse, or not, we are. Viz:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529522697796997120

 

[Jarnhamar]

A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think the CAF Twitter feed provides better information on how diverse, or not, we are. Viz:

View attachment 71086

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529522697796997120

…or…you could also see a Tweet that shows 30% women of a formation, significantly higher (almost double) than the pan-CAF composition from women.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524087133874630656

 

[btrudy]

A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.

Seems to be working for the RCMP. Which isn't saying they don't have issues, just that said issues seem largely to stem from management decisions.

You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.

 

[Good2Golf]

You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.

All the more reason to accelerate the release of white males. The sooner the problem is resolved, the better.

 

[Halifax Tar]

A union would cripple the CAF for a decade.

I am a proponent of our unionization. But if we want avoid it we need fix us ourselves.

 

[Booter]

Seems to be working for the RCMP. Which isn't saying they don't have issues, just that said issues seem largely to stem from management decisions

Actually the “union” is making it slower to deal with senior NCOs accused of sexual misconduct. More assistance on appeals, more appeals, more foot dragging.

It’s lengthened the process and protects the people accused of Conduct violations.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Seems to be working for the RCMP.

Even pre-union I don't think I could accuse a subordinate in the RCMP of littering (sans proof) and arbitrarily take away 6 of their week-ends telling them too ***king bad when they tell me it's their week-end to have custody.

Or send them to work in the kitchen for a week as punishment.

Or give them 4 days notice to go work thousands of kilometers away for 3 months.

I don't think we can fix ourselves and I'm actually pro-union; but it'll be a decade of chaos.

You know what'll cripple the CAF for more than a decade? Continuing to do nothing to fix our ongoing retention crisis, making the burnout for whoever is left even worse until everyone leaves.

Very true. Speaking of which, you know what would also cripple the CAF? Pissing on our largest recruiting pool (cis het white males) to the point where they see the writing on the wall and don't waste their time joining. Think we have shortages now? We'd have to press-gang visible minorities and 2SLGBTQ+ Canadians into service.

 

[daftandbarmy]

…or…you could also see a Tweet that shows 30% women of a formation, significantly higher (almost double) than the pan-CAF composition from women.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524087133874630656

Not going to dispute that... it just seems that anyone remotely interested in collecting examples of irony will find happy hunting grounds in CAF Twitter photos... like this one

 

[SupersonicMax]

Point being? Issues that are systemic across the entire country will indeed affect the entire country, including the evaluation system for military personnel.

Except for those issues, the CAF has no control over. Not sure what more we can do in our evaluation system. Perhaps you can offer suggestions since you seem to think it is terrible.