Politics in 2015

[Altair]

This had to be one of the dumbest comments I've read on here.  We are really hurting at the pointy end if you're a representation of the latest generation of soldier. 

Stay in your lane and seeing as how you're fresh out of basic that lane probably exists somewhere between the latrines and bathroom sink.  Seems like more porcelain scrubbing is required.

I last updated my profile 5 1/2 years ago, so continue being wrong.

Stay in my lane. Rich...

 

[Altair]

See, here's your mistake.  Diversity never applies when it comes to sacrifice, or to the dirty, tough jobs (coal mining or lineman during an ice storm, anyone?), or to conscription or, or, or...  This is the fallacy of the bien-pensants inhabiting the left side of the political spectrum.  They want equality when it comes to goodies, never when it comes to paying the bill.  :nod:

As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.

I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.

I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well you go ahead youngster (yes, youngster, as you're relatively wet behind the years as many of us here have decades of service behind us), filling positions by quota isn't always the best way to go as you don't necessarily get the right person for the right job.  Didn't work too well for the Soviet Union either.  I want to have the person whom is best suited beside me at work instead of someone parachuted in, just because they're (insert race/religion/sex/politics/whatever..  : here) and it's all Kumbaya huggy wuggy and fills that need by committee.

And as an aside, if you don't want to be called a recruit, then do please update your profile as it's been 5 years and you're apparently getting crusty...

 

[PuckChaser]

All we can do is open the doors to the recruiting center, and provide an environment where any race, creed, or gender is welcomed. If certain groups don't walk in the door, is that an issue with us, or with them for not volunteering? We should be taking the best candidate available without a check box for visible minority/gender/race and let the chips fall where they may. The CAF has been desperately trying to recruit women for years, without much success. You will never see 50% women in the CAF much due to old world stigmas regardless of how we work, unless you just stop recruiting everyone else. When you start cherry-picking people based on arbitrary items such as race/gender/religion, which have no rightful bearing on how well someone can soldier just to fill quotas, you are turning away excellent candidates to fill in a reverse racism quota. You're too male/white/Christian is just as wrong to say as you're a woman/minority/Muslim.

 

[cavalryman]

As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.

I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.

I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.

Good for you, but it still remains that until I see gender balance on the pointy end of any job, especially the hard ones, I'll consider the attempt to force gender balance in the luxury and comfort of the boardroom/cabinet room/centres of power as a way of getting something for nothing.  I don't really care about someone's genitalia.  All I care about is their ability and character, and I know the folks who are able would rather get to the top by their own hard work.  Sadly, there are way too many people who'd rather not do what it takes, just take what they want.  How would  you feel if you were the affirmative action appointee, the one named to the table in order to fill a quota and not because you were the best at something?  Or if you were shunted aside to allow someone of lesser ability a step up because of what they are, not who they are?  Identity politics is what revolts me the most about the modern left.  It's retrograde, divisive and fosters the kind of conflict that previous generations tried to move away from.  When I see discussions like this, I'm invariably reminded of Reverend Martin Luther King and his famous line about the content of someone's character.  What does peddling identity politics say about someone's character?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As someone who sits on the left side of the spectrum,  it boggles the mind why you would think that I don't want more women or visible minorities sharing in the sacrifice for ones nation.

I've worked many jobs, in many fields, almost none of them easy, and I have seen plenty of minorities and some women do the same work. I advocate for more diversity in those fields when I was with them, this is not a military specific thing. Do other left leaning individuals think the same as I,  maybe not, but I can only speak for myself and my experiences.

I refuse to answer for every left wing university wacko same as I wouldn't expect every right leaning individual to answer for right wing wackos.

Ok, so you've been in for 5 1/2 years and where have you served during that time?  What different portfolios have you been involved with managing over that timeframe?  Oh wait, none!

If you had half a lick about anything related to pers management within the military, you'd realize that CMP has quietly done away with recruiting goals for women/minorities, etc... The reason has already been mentioned earlier, we are a volunteer organization and no amount of affirmative action is going to change that.
The military doesn't get to choose it's members, they choose us.

There are a variety of reasons why this is so.  Many immigrants/minorities don't want to join the military because they don't hold the military in very high regard mostly from past experiences in the old country.

A lot of women end up stalling their careers in order to have children.  Is this the military's problem? Why should the military give promotions to someone who has taken, in some cases, years off their career and missed all sorts of experiences, courses, etc. that her peers would have received.  It was her choice to have a child and we are a profession that promotes based on experience.  We also have certain professional standards to uphold.

These are just a few examples of some of the difficulties that any affirmative action plan would have in being implemented.  We aren't the civil-service, we are the government's last line of Defence and mistakes we make cost lives.  We cannot afford to cow tow to certain groups to satisfy a political agenda as the stakes are just too high.

I'm all for letting anyone in to the force, not at the expense of professional standards though.  We have already let them slip considerably.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, I think we have a serious shortage of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses in Infantry and should institute a quota immediately.  :nod:

All joking aside, true equality is not that any given organization reflects exactly its societal make-up in numbers, but that any member of that society that meets the requirements of the organization and wishes to pursue participation in that organization can freely do so without his/her individual characteristics being an impediment in any way. I think we have pretty well achieved that, parliament included, to not require any "quota" system.

Under a "quota" system BTW, we could currently push the universities in Canada to positively discriminate in favour of white male, because lets face it, right now, the Canadian Law faculties, Medical Schools, in particular the Nursing Schools, and the Literature Schools of those university are majority women. They should be forced to have a 50/50 male/female ratio.

Meeting all of the job requirements should be the only criterium, and it is in the CF right now. As was said before: You cannot force people to apply for a job they don't want. Wanting such job has more to do with parents and society than the recruiting organization and it's not our job to change people or society.

 

[Altair]

Well you go ahead youngster (yes, youngster, as you're relatively wet behind the years as many of us here have decades of service behind us), filling positions by quota isn't always the best way to go as you don't necessarily get the right person for the right job.  Didn't work too well for the Soviet Union either.  I want to have the person whom is best suited beside me at work instead of someone parachuted in, just because they're (insert race/religion/sex/politics/whatever..  : here) and it's all Kumbaya huggy wuggy and fills that need by committee.

And as an aside, if you don't want to be called a recruit, then do please update your profile as it's been 5 years and you're apparently getting crusty...

I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.

Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one.  Nobody is dismissing your comments you just fail to elaborate and back up anything you say with facts.  Use facts and we won't dismiss you.  If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll.....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.

Actually, Altair, I will comment on this:

You appear to be a tech in the communication world based on your MOSID. In that world, concision and precision of language is important. So I suggest you look up your own profile.

You will note that nowhere does it indicate what year you joined the CAF. The "2010" date there indicates when you "registered" in these fora. These fora are public and anyone can join them. In fact, you may have noticed that many people join them well before even entering a recruiting centre, or even without ever joining the military. So your "registering" in 2010 and still leaving "just out of basic" for military experience means absolutely nothing. There is no connection between the two facts.

So, if you are using that as an indicator of the "type" of people who are those that read your profile and reach the "wrong" (in your mind) conclusion, I strongly suggest that you first read, understand and master the information in your own profile. 

 

[Remius]

Actually, Altair, I will comment on this:

You appear to be a tech in the communication world based on your MOSID. In that world, concision and precision of language is important. So I suggest you look up your own profile.

You will note that nowhere does it indicate what year you joined the CAF. The "2010" date there indicates when you "registered" in these fora. These fora are public and anyone can join them. In fact, you may have noticed that many people join them well before even entering a recruiting centre, or even without ever joining the military. So your "registering" in 2010 and still leaving "just out of basic" for military experience means absolutely nothing. There is no connection between the two facts.

So, if you are using that as an indicator of the "type" of people who are those that read your profile and reach the "wrong" (in your mind) conclusion, I strongly suggest that you first read, understand and master the information in your own profile.

I have to agree with this.  Don't blame others for assuming anything just because you haven't updated your profile.  When i look at it I assume you are fresh out of basic.  I also assume that you joined the forum in 2010.  I make no asumptions about when you actually joined the CAF because your profile doesn't point to that.  All I see is fresh out of basic and joined the forums in 2010.

Either way, we seem to have derailed.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think I'll keep it,  it tells me almost everything I need to know about an individual when they look up my profile, see the comment about basic, and completely ignore the part where it says what year I joined because they are too preoccupied dismissing my comment or opinion.

You want to keep it that way, that's fine.  It's your introduction to the forum on who you are etc.  Just don't get pissy with anyone who reads said profile and calls you recruit.  And by the way, I don't necessarily judge your comments by your TI, but by the content of your comments.  I'm afraid that on the whole, you and I shall remain at odds with each other.  And as HB say's, everyone has their opinion.  I just don't share yours, as I am sure, you don't mine.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of the problems in getting diversity is that even if you do everything to make them welcome, they may still choose not to come. A lot of immigrants come from countries where the army was a dumping ground for idiots, corruption or sadists. They see the army as a economic deadend and having just gotten established here they are likely all about becoming economically stable. As for women, it will appeal to some and good on them, but women are up against the biological reality that their peak career climbing period concedes with the prime child raising years. Very few Moms want to be sent overseas when they have a 2 year old back home. It’s just a reality and lot of hard choices. Woman used to face a bias that they could not do X and Y. Now they face living up to some mythical woman that has a fabulous career, perfect home life and takes part in the community and still has time for herself.

The military can do everything asked of it and still people will not walk through the doors and the chattering class will blame the military rather than deal with reality. 

 

[blacktriangle]

A lot of immigrants come from countries where the army was a dumping ground for idiots

I've met people in our military who almost certainly could not hold down civilian employment. It's not just one or two, either. Plenty of welfare cases.

 

[Lumber]

One of the problems in getting diversity is that even if you do everything to make them welcome, they may still choose not to come.

While this picture is horribly incorrect (women enrolled in STEMs vs Gender studies at a rate of 90:1), I still find it amusing, and it backs up the point your making, at least:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Back on track please people. We're not here to discuss individual membership or diversity in the CAF. We're here to discuss the politics of the sitting government in 2015.

---Staff---

 

[Rocky Mountains]

After the "my way or the highway" routine on candidate selection and abortion beliefs for candidates, does anyone believe the media hype that Shiny Pony is going to be the great democrat allowing the caucus and cabinet to rule the day.  So far he steps a little more goosier than Harper.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

After the "my way or the highway" routine on candidate selection and abortion beliefs for candidates, does anyone believe the media hype that Shiny Pony is going to be the great democrat allowing the caucus and cabinet to rule the day.  So far he steps a little more goosier than Harper.

I don't believe it was his idea. Ownership belongs to his handlers........as so much of his policy is and will be. With Chretien and others (Power Corp, Laurentian Elitists) back and working in the shadows, all he'll have to do is read his lines as they were written for him.

Of course, in true liberal fashion, when things go off the rails, they will burn him to the ground.

 

[Altair]

I think that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to defend Canada, and not meet some arbitrary quota.
And I also suppose you think that the roll of the dead is a travesty in that it's too male and too white? :/

Haha, a quota.

A quota wouldn't even work. In my experience, not enough visible minorities walk into recruiting centers.

I've done community outreach for 5 years now in my home town community center.It was suppose to be one time, but I guess they liked me enough to have me speak every time I'm home on leave. My community is composed of one minority group, more or less.

I don't go there to try to push or sell the military, I just give an update on what I do, what I did, the good, the bad, and everything in between. I do this by myself, because as far as I can tell, I am the only soldier from my community as far as they can remember and definitely the only one who takes the time to talk to people in the community.

The feedback I get a lot is that the army is not a friendly place for minorities. They look at the army and they don't see themselves reflected in it. I've talked to about 300 people, from the ages of 14 to 35, and 2 of them had ever even thought of the army as an option, 1 had walked through the doors of a recruiting center.

I think 11 or 12 looked into the army as a career after I talked to them, and I know 4 who have joined either the reg force or reserves.

I'm doing this on my own, nothing too organized. If the Canadian forces did this on a larger scale  (I'm not sure if they are, but I've seen no evidence of it where I'm from) it would make a much bigger difference than any silly pointless quota.

Because right now, the cf is missing out on a huge pool of potential. If the forces continues to be manned by rural, largely white,  largely male, the disconnect with immigrants,  and worst, the children of those immigrants while canada continues to become more urban and multicultural, eventually there will be more problems in the future other than manning.

If people don't know any soldiers, do know of what we are, what we do, then who is going to care if the budget is cut, if our vehicles, planes, equipment is junk? They will not. People are shocked when I tell them about some of the equipment we use. If people think that support for the military is a mile wide but a inch thick now,  wait a few years. We won't even have the mile.

P.S. Sorry, didn't see Reeceman's post

 

[dimsum]

Haha, a quota.

A quota wouldn't even work. In my experience, not enough visible minorities walk into recruiting centers.

I've done community outreach for 5 years now in my home town community center.It was suppose to be one time, but I guess they liked me enough to have me speak every time I'm home on leave. My community is composed of one minority group, more or less.

I don't go there to try to push or sell the military, I just give an update on what I do, what I did, the good, the bad, and everything in between. I do this by myself, because as far as I can tell, I am the only soldier from my community as far as they can remember and definitely the only one who takes the time to talk to people in the community.

The feedback I get a lot is that the army is not a friendly place for minorities. They look at the army and they don't see themselves reflected in it. I've talked to about 300 people, from the ages of 14 to 35, and 2 of them had ever even thought of the army as an option, 1 had walked through the doors of a recruiting center.

I think 11 or 12 looked into the army as a career after I talked to them, and I know 4 who have joined either the reg force or reserves.

I'm doing this on my own, nothing too organized. If the Canadian forces did this on a larger scale  (I'm not sure if they are, but I've seen no evidence of it where I'm from) it would make a much bigger difference than any silly pointless quota.

Because right now, the cf is missing out on a huge pool of potential. If the forces continues to be manned by rural, largely white,  largely male, the disconnect with immigrants,  and worst, the children of those immigrants while canada continues to become more urban and multicultural, eventually there will be more problems in the future other than manning.

If people don't know any soldiers, do know of what we are, what we do, then who is going to care if the budget is cut, if our vehicles, planes, equipment is junk? They will not. People are shocked when I tell them about some of the equipment we use. If people think that support for the military is a mile wide but a inch thick now,  wait a few years. We won't even have the mile.

P.S. Sorry, didn't see Reeceman's post

All fair points, but as the old saying goes, "give solutions, not problems."  What would you suggest in terms of concrete ideas to remedy this, understanding that moving garrisons/airbases/naval bases to cities with large minority populations aren't realistic? 

Mods:  I think this is worthy of discussion but split/merge into some other topic as you see fit.