Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Military recruiting - anyone but white men.

Recommended Posts

 

Seen a number of stories over the last year of personnel shortages throughout the Canadian military. Have seen the same about the RCMP. Gee. It seems like nobody wants to join the military or the RCMP any more!? I wonder what happened!?

Justin Trudeau's diversity is our strength happened. Postmedia got hold of some 'cheat sheets' which detail how the military closes off applications by white males to positions until EE quotas are met. The military might be short of people, but they're not short of white males, and that's not what they want. They want women, aborigines, and anyone else who can be claimed as a diversity hire.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply/wcm/9fe0ea53-4f18-45f6-9026-ccc674d52173

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that any kind of race based hiring is wrong.   Affirmative action has created a lot of losers.  The losers are turning up in opioid addiction clinics, white supremacy groups, prisons, and other untouchable territories. There was a time when affirmative action policies were necessary to prevent racist hiring practices, but I do wonder if affirmative action has at this point become counter productive and a source of institutionalized racist/sexist hiring practices.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Affirmative action has created a lot of losers.  The losers are turning up in opioid addiction clinics, white supremacy groups, prisons, and other untouchable territories.

 

This seems like pretty good evidence that any group pushed off to the margins results in these sorts of problems. 

OTOH maybe there's something inherently wrong with white people and they just can't succeed unless they're unfairly advantaged.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is political driven, answering to special interest groups who just look at the demographic make up of each dept....and want to make changes because of the optics it has to the rest of the country....Nobody was even given a thought to "maybe we should just hire the best man or women" but that was not complicated enough now we have to bring in race and religion...What is more important to Canadians, having a soldier that can actually soldier, and meets ALL the standards...or having the right colors and groups on a number chart on the office wall....todays standards are what ever they need to be in order to meet the quota.... 

Today the standards have been lowered to the point it may be considered a safety issue, all in the name of diversity, the article already mentions lowered IQ standards for people of the north....But there is also  a 350 lb man can pass they basic PT test, which can easily be done....they are in the CF... Ever try and lift or drag a 350 lb man who is injured on the battle field, not to mention soldiering takes a very physically fit person, you think a 350 lb person is fit, think they could march 40 kms a day, run 10 km into battle ….carry a 110 lb rucksack for prolong periods in the mountains, in 55 degree heat, in Afghanistan this was a regular routine, even the very fit had issues doing this day after day..... 

Once again politics set the standards not the military....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

This seems like pretty good evidence that any group pushed off to the margins results in these sorts of problems. 

OTOH maybe there's something inherently wrong with white people and they just can't succeed unless they're unfairly advantaged.

Who advantaged people in the first place? Was the British Empire handed to the British?  Colonialism and racism were and are real forces, but in our western democracies today a lot of efforts have been made to level the playing field.  Some of this must always be necessary, but we have to be careful not to add new forms of injustice through policy, especially when such policies are touted as progressive.  Not easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they do this type of crap in other countries?  Like in China do they talk about Asian privilege?  In India do they talk about Indian privilege?  Or is this phenomenon relegated to western countries only?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shady said:

Do they do this type of crap in other countries?  Like in China do they talk about Asian privilege?  In India do they talk about Indian privilege?  Or is this phenomenon relegated to western countries only?

Of course it isn't.  There's little reason to think that privilege and many of its pitfalls, supremacy and vanity come to mind, doesn't work any differently on the other side of the universe too.

Clearly just about anyone/thing that has a privilege or advantage will naturally be possessed of a centric view towards their possession of it and a usually profound reluctance towards parting with it.  It's completely natural but losing its appropriateness in the increasingly integrated world our species is...privileged, to inhabit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4450927/canada-armed-forces-diversity-goals-digital-recruiting/

"The Canadian Forces believes a more diverse group is also a more effective group.

“It’s important in that it gives us operational effectiveness,” Brig.-Gen. Virginia Tattersall said in an interview. “If we were all that one sort of vanilla, you won’t get that same range of opinions, those different ways of being able to think about issues, that different approach to how to solve a problem.”

The Canadian Forces says that, as of the most recent fiscal year-end, on March 31, 2018, just 15 per cent of the regular force were women, a ratio that’s hardly budged since 2016 when it was 14.4 per cent. DND’s own target is to push that ratio to 25 per cent by 2026."

I think the panic about young white men being passed over is very overblown. 

I also think women are wisely avoiding a career that is known to carry substantial risk of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and coverups of serious incidents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...the military isn't about 'diversity of opinion'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Uh...the military isn't about 'diversity of opinion'.

 

Yeah, think how much quicker WWII would have been over if we weren't all so vanilla...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Yeah, think how much quicker WWII would have been over if we weren't all so vanilla...

 

I can only think Austro-Hungarian Army...and all that entails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 9:14 PM, Army Guy said:

Nobody was even given a thought to "maybe we should just hire the best man or women"

Yes we did think about that, but no hiring process can be absolutely objective: There is always subjective judgement involved and it turned out that the white men making the judgements tend to just hire more white men like them.

So ... Affirmative Action was born back in the '80's I think.

And women are still only 15% of the CAF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Uh...the military isn't about 'diversity of opinion'.

 

Problem-solving is always about considering all possible solutions. A variety of perspectives always bring more possible solutions to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Problem-solving is always about considering all possible solutions. A variety of perspectives always bring more possible solutions to the table.

 

That's not how armies work.

Armies have a rank system and order flow from the top down. 

It's cute that you want all the soldiers to have input, mind-you. Diverse input to-boot.

Should we attack? Your vote counts!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can people tone it down it down a bit? We're all good people, with some good ideas, but sometimes we take things out of context.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. You might offer an idea that can produce results, but sometimes if you dig in, you end worse off than where you started. Some people won't understand your intentions.

Sometimes we can't speak the truth, when the truth puts people at risk. I want the movement to win, but maybe we shouldn't try winning at any cost. Sometimes we got to stop ourselve, and say hay, that was a bad suggestion... Even if the idea, could be for the better good.

Under controlled circumstances the idea might be effective, but realistically implementation of the idea could turn very ugly.

Conservatives should focus on government waste, and don't fall into the trap of cultural politics. I'm going in a new direction for a while. Good luck with the rest of you.

I think you can figure this one out.

Edited by Ryan Cramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

That's not how armies work.

Armies have a rank system and order flow from the top down. 

It's cute that you want all the soldiers to have input, mind-you. Diverse input to-boot.

Should we attack? Your vote counts!

Perhaps you should listen to what the army says about it:

The Canadian Forces believes a more diverse group is also a more effective group.

“It’s important in that it gives us operational effectiveness,” Brig.-Gen. Virginia Tattersall said in an interview. “If we were all that one sort of vanilla, you won’t get that same range of opinions, those different ways of being able to think about issues, that different approach to how to solve a problem.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jacee said:

Perhaps you should listen to what the army says about it:

The Canadian Forces believes a more diverse group is also a more effective group.

“It’s important in that it gives us operational effectiveness,” Brig.-Gen. Virginia Tattersall said in an interview. “If we were all that one sort of vanilla, you won’t get that same range of opinions, those different ways of being able to think about issues, that different approach to how to solve a problem.”

 

The Canadian Army is one of the least effective on planet Earth at the moment thanks to neglect. That some woman general hired by diversity in the first place thinks more diversity is wonderful is not a surprise...she's just parroting the party line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacee said:

Yes we did think about that, but no hiring process can be absolutely objective: There is always subjective judgement involved and it turned out that the white men making the judgements tend to just hire more white men like them.

So ... Affirmative Action was born back in the '80's I think.

And women are still only 15% of the CAF. 

Because, by and large, they don't want to be soldiers. I really don't see why we should be bending over backwards, lowering standards, and doing our best to try to convince them otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ryan Cramer said:

Sometimes we can't speak the truth, when the truth puts people at risk.

Confused about this...

1 hour ago, Ryan Cramer said:

I want the movement to win, but maybe we shouldn't try winning at any cost.

What movement?

 

1 hour ago, Ryan Cramer said:

Conservatives should focus on government waste, and don't fall into the trap of cultural politics. I'm going in a new direction for a while. Good luck with the rest of you.

They can't NOT respond to accusations they're aligned with white supremacists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Argus said:

Confused about this...

What movement?

 

They can't NOT respond to accusations they're aligned with white supremacists.

Knock it off with the diversity scapegoating and contact a politician about Terrorism. The only legal thing to do, is to speak to a local counselor and see what can be done to crackdown on the radicalization coming from certain institutions.

You're wasting your time with endless debating on the internet. Have a conversation with a local politician, than can lead to new protection laws in Canada.

It's the only way to take real action in person, and know that you're being 100% legal.

Edited by Ryan Cramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to leave everyone with that message. I have to go. I'm not allowed on MLW, and I should respect their wishes. Especially since they been tolerant.

Edited by Ryan Cramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ryan Cramer said:

Knock it off with the diversity scapegoating and contact a politician about Terrorism. The only legal thing to do, is to speak to a local counselor and see what can be done to crackdown on the radicalization coming from certain institutions.

What radicalization coming from what institutions?

31 minutes ago, Ryan Cramer said:

You're wasting your time with endless debating on the internet.

It's my  time to waste. Are you under the illusion we think this is going to accomplish anything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jacee said:

Yes we did think about that, but no hiring process can be absolutely objective: There is always subjective judgement involved and it turned out that the white men making the judgements tend to just hire more white men like them.

So ... Affirmative Action was born back in the '80's I think.

And women are still only 15% of the CAF. 

What a load of crap....The CF had changed their recruiting practices in the 90's to accommodate women, and specific groups like natives, Inuit etc etc.......Before that the hiring process was based on several areas, physical fit, no medical issues, such as a glass eye, having all your limbs, being able to walk and talk …..being mentally fit, they bring each recruit to their mental breaking point, thoise that failed , were sent home.....except today, today numbers are all that count.....Standards have been lowered both mentally and physically...Not sure what the hell being a white man had to do with it, unless your saying men of color or for that matter any race or creed, religion or what ever..... can not meet these standards or perform at levels that were chosen for white men, because thats bull shit....The standards were written  based on hundreds of years of experience on what it takes to be physical fit and mentally toughen to be able to do those jobs in the military....it was politicians who thought this affirmative action/ human rights  could translate into the military....or for that matter being a policemen, fire fighter, EMT tech....And they are wrong....They are not doing these 350 lb soldiers any favors by twisting the physical requirements, to make up numbers....what they are doing is putting more lives in danger, it takes more soldiers to carry a 350 lb er off the battle field, or command makes the decision to leave him behind....there's a moral booster for sure...trying tell johnnies mom he died because he was to fat and we could not lift him to safety....  \

Affirmative action ,basic human rights suck in this case...lets put this into perspective, todays standards are constantly changing, but to become a basic recruit a member only has to do 3 push ups, once in boot camp, they must pass the force test, which anyone with any very little physical means could pass...and the mental aspects has been toned done so much, that we have members getting PTSD in  training....Not saying there are NO good soldiers entering the CF because that is not true....But I can tell you there are a shit ton of poor soldiers getting through training these days...

Todays women who have worked hard to meet these standards are tough as nails....I've meet a lot of women in the infantry/ other combat arms and most of them can soldier with the best of them....I would go to war with any of them any day.....even they have realized lower standards do not do anyone any favors....picking recruits should be a military function...not a political one...and you can disagree, but then again your not going to be out there doing the job are you....this is so you can feel good about not having to meet white men standards....and point to your color graph that see how diverse we are.....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jacee said:

Perhaps you should listen to what the army says about it:

The Canadian Forces believes a more diverse group is also a more effective group.

“It’s important in that it gives us operational effectiveness,” Brig.-Gen. Virginia Tattersall said in an interview. “If we were all that one sort of vanilla, you won’t get that same range of opinions, those different ways of being able to think about issues, that different approach to how to solve a problem.”

Most of Canada's diverse groups have fled war, conflict, dictators, etc, they or for the most part  have no taste in joining a military which they see as un trust worthy do to past encounters in their home countries...And I agree we should have more diversity, but not at the expense of standards....Can't make the standard then do something else in life....

Like Argus has said in times of conflict the military is not a democracy, when your sgt yells at you and orders you to charge that machine gun nest, and you know there is a very good chance your going to die....they are not going to break out the tea set and brew up a pot of tea....and discuss it....you charge and take your chances and if you don't then you've let your brothers in amrs down, and when they return back to the rear, you'll be gone, charged , and placed in jail....refusal of a direct order, in war time, under combat conditions  use to carry the death penalty which was only rescinded within the early 90's. back in the day the sgt would just put a bullet in your head, then yell next......The only one making decisions is the senior rank on the ground....

The military has developed drills for most situations...there is not much time to sit down and discuss a course of action, everyone already knows what to do, or it has been discussed before hand in your briefing.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...