Canadian Military Staffed by Merit Or Diversity Targets?

[cybercoma]

Yeah, you are right, we should buy them a condo and let them live their lives... I see nothing wrong punishing someone for their crimes, unless those crimes are their sex or race...I mean I didn't get a choice to be a male and white, it sorta happened so why should I be punished for my race and/or sex?

Nope. That's right. That's exactly what I advocate. No more laws. Total anarchy. Complete freedom for all.

[Peter F]

Made up scenario?

The original link:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/19/military-retreating-on-diversity-targets-after-failing-to-meet-recruiting-goals-for-minorities-women/

Making targets in the first place creates this environment when instead of qualifications, people get hired because of their sex or race.

I was under the impression that the military trained people to do the job they were recruited for.

[Argus]

I was under the impression that the military trained people to do the job they were recruited for.

Are all doctors of equal quality? All lawyers? Someone has to be first in the class, and someone has to be 800th in the class. Which one do you want operating on or representing you?

Besides motivation and natural inclination there is the simple, physical fact that men have a lot more upper body strength than women do. They can also move faster and farther and longer on foot than women. This is why every marathon has a male winner and a female winner. They're separate categories, as in all other sports.

Want a team of male football players against a team of football players? Probably not a good idea.

[jacee]

Its not fair because its sexism, but more so its not fair because you end up putting incompetent people in positions where their incompetence will cause death and injury. And the only reason that the people are put in those positions is simply because they are of a certain race or sex.

Anybody can blather on about women and minorities being inferior soldiers, but I've never seen anybody present any evidence of that.

It just sounds like a lot of sexism and racism to me.

.

Edited May 31, 2014 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

I was under the impression that the military trained people to do the job they were recruited for.

They do train people to do their job, the problem is that once you start taking people from the bottom of the pile you obviously get the people with the least motivation, lowest capabilities and probably did poorly on the fitness and aptitude tests. Now, the problem that comes from this is that those same people who are selected based only on their race/sex rather than capabilities the policy will extend to promotions/as well as retention. This all leads to no fail courses.

When push comes to shove who would you prefer for a position in a dangerous environment as the military the white guy who was at the top of the course or the visible minority(including women) who were selected simply because of some racist or sexist reason. If we have 100 positions open per year we should hire the top 100 candidates regardless of their race, sex or sexual preferences.

I am all for more women and minorities in the military, but to me this means target recruiting drives aimed at attracting the right kind of candidate rather than accepting subpar candidate simply because we need to meet a quota.

[Signals.Cpl]

Anybody can blather on about women and minorities being inferior soldiers, but I've never seen anybody present any evidence of that.

It just sounds like a lot of sexism and racism to me.

.

Im not saying that women and minorities are inferior soldiers, I am saying the reason there are so few is because fewer women and minorities apply for the military than white men. Now when you put a quota on how many you have to recruit and it happens that the number of qualified applicant is not enough you have to get them from somewhere, usually it is from the reject pile, the once who failed the fitness test, the aptitude test, medical or any other of the requirements.

Now what this leaves you with is one of several options:

1) Hire white males because the applicant far out weight any other group. Problem solved and BTW we are doing this right now.

2) Leave the positions unfilled which hurts the military's readiness and it will probably last for a decade until a recruiting drive aimed at women and minorities brings the total number of applicants up all through that time we will see more and more positions remain unfilled hurting readiness.

3) Pick from the reject pile to make up the shortfall, so either you lower the fitness standard further, add 50 points to the aptitude test simply because they are a minority or you hire them even if they don't have the prerequisites and make their courses no fail.

Police, firefighters and paramedics as well as the military are organizations that need to hire the best qualified people for the job rather than hire people so that the organization can be PC. People's lived depend on those organizations, you hire subpar people and people die.

Hiring people because of their sex or race is racist/sexist hiring people because of their abilities is not. I have no problem if there are 100 positions and I am the 101st on the list of simply because there are 100 better candidates. I would have a problem if I am 61st on the list and I don't get a job I earned because it has to go to someone else much lower on the list simply because of a racists and/or sexist policy.

[Peter F]

I am quite sure that DND trains recruits to the required competence to do the required job. Even dumb-ass white guys.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Peter F

[Peter F]

Are all doctors of equal quality? All lawyers? Someone has to be first in the class, and someone has to be 800th in the class. Which one do you want operating on or representing you?

Besides motivation and natural inclination there is the simple, physical fact that men have a lot more upper body strength than women do. They can also move faster and farther and longer on foot than women. This is why every marathon has a male winner and a female winner. They're separate categories, as in all other sports.

Want a team of male football players against a team of football players? Probably not a good idea.

Are you suggesting that units in the field get to peruse resumes when replacements are needed? I re-iterate : recruits are trained to do the job they were recruited for.

If memory serves, each recruit undergoes testing at the end of training to see if they have actually learned something and can perform the job.

Should they fail the test then they may undergo further training or be trained in something else or be released.

I am damn sure that every one in the Armed forces can do the job they have been trained for.

[jacee]

Im not saying that women and minorities are inferior soldiers, I am saying the reason there are so few is because fewer women and minorities apply for the military than white men.

I believe that was the point of the original article: Recruiting is underfunded and not keeping up.

That's a problem with recruiting.

Of course, the racist sexist attitudes and harassment in the forces doesn't help with recruiting the best candidates either.

You're not helping with that.

.

Edited June 1, 2014 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

I am quite sure that DND trains recruits to the required competence to do the required job. Even dumb-ass white guys.

I'm not worried about the "dumb-ass white guys" because no one was ever worried I will cry racist or sexist if they fail me or discipline me. Plus I want to be there and do my job, what I am worried about is those who don't qualify getting recruited because they will make the CF very "diverse", once you implement something as stupid as affirmative action it will extend to all segments of the military not just recruiting. It will lead to quota's on promotion, postings, courses etc which means that when the promotion board looks at a potential MCpl or Sgt, they will look at leadership potential, performance, wether they speak multiple languages and wether they are a "minority", right now people are ranked based on their performance and potential, rather than performance, potential and race or sex.

What it seems like is that some people on this board seem to favour racism and sexism over over merit.

[Signals.Cpl]

Of course, the racist sexist attitudes and harassment in the forces doesn't help with recruiting the best candidates either.

You're not helping with that.

.

Care to back up your claim of the racist and sexist attitudes and harassment in the forces?

And how am I not helping? I am all for minorities and women in the military as long as they EARN their position and EARN any subsequent promotion on merit not race. I couldn't care less wether the CO or the RSM is a man/women, black/white/asian/purple as long as they know what they are doing and are competent.

I have the exact same issue with those who use mommy's or daddy's rank to get promotions/postings/OT's/courses etc... and there are enough of those as well, so we need to remove them rather than adding a whole other less than competent bunch of people who used their race or sex to get a job they were not qualified for.

[Argus]

Anybody can blather on about women and minorities being inferior soldiers, but I've never seen anybody present any evidence of that.

It just sounds like a lot of sexism and racism to me.

.

So all those womens sports shouldn't exist, right? I mean, women are just as strong and fast as men, so there should only be one gender for sports, and if no women make the team because they aren't fast enough or strong enough, well, tough tootsie.

Tell me, when was the last time the womens marathon winner had a better time than the mens winner? Or how about putting a womens team up against a mens team in basketball, or football, or even baseball or soccer? How come womens olympic records are always lower than the ones for men?

[Argus]

Are you suggesting that units in the field get to peruse resumes when replacements are needed? I re-iterate : recruits are trained to do the job they were recruited for.

If memory serves, each recruit undergoes testing at the end of training to see if they have actually learned something and can perform the job.

Should they fail the test then they may undergo further training or be trained in something else or be released.

I am damn sure that every one in the Armed forces can do the job they have been trained for.

Standards are lowered to try to meet equity goals. No platoon of female soldiers would be able to keep up with a platoon of male soldiers on a forced march. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. The men would still be moving along, carrying their heavy packs while all the women had collapsed with exhaustion. They don't have the strength or endurance. No amount of training is going to make up for natural selection.

[Michael Hardner]

So all those womens sports shouldn't exist, right? I mean, women are just as strong and fast as men,

I don't think anybody is making that argument. There are minimum qualifications that have to be achieved for all of these things.

This is another example of a blunt argument being made over and over again after it has been addressed.

Of course men have a natural advantage of size and speed, however in sports where men and women compete directly - don't you know that men will whine about womens' physical advantages.

[Peter F]

Im sorry Argus, but your imagination is running away with you.

I saw it myself back in my day when the women's platoon even set the pace - much to our manly horror. And they were to be a bunch of admin

non-combatant types!

Women do have the strength and endurance - training does in fact make up for nature.

How else do you get people to willingly kill, an abhorrent action by nature, other people except through training?

You can see this in the hundreds of marathons run in this country every year. With training women and men are able to put in pretty impressive times.

Women as police officer hasn't quite met the predictions of failure either. And when HMCS Protecteur fought its fire at sea you can bet your arse that

women were in there like dirty shirts.

[GostHacked]

So all those womens sports shouldn't exist, right? I mean, women are just as strong and fast as men,

It's terrible comparison you put forth here. Organized team sports aimed at women only can't be used as an example of equality and certain quotas in hiring people for the military. In the end, a strawman argument.

so there should only be one gender for sports, and if no women make the team because they aren't fast enough or strong enough, well, tough tootsie.

Women generally are not as big or strong or as fast as men. This is a genetic thing and NOT a sexist thing. It is a in your face reality.

[Argus]

I don't think anybody is making that argument.

They are inferring it, and ignoring the counter argument.

There are minimum qualifications that have to be achieved for all of these things.

So it's your position we should hire the minimally qualified? Even if the standards were lowered for their benefit?

This is another example of a blunt argument being made over and over again after it has been addressed.

Oh? Who addressed it? Could you show me the post where it was addressed?

Of course men have a natural advantage of size and speed, however in sports where men and women compete directly - don't you know that men will whine about womens' physical advantages.

Like what? Cite please.

[Argus]

Im sorry Argus, but your imagination is running away with you.

I saw it myself back in my day when the women's platoon even set the pace - much to our manly horror. And they were to be a bunch of admin non-combatant types!

You'll pardon me if I express doubts. In my experience most admin types in the military are too flabby to set any sort of pace, male or female. If female admins set the pace for men I can only assume the men in question were in appalling physical condition. What packs were they carrying and what distance was this march?

Women do have the strength and endurance - training does in fact make up for nature.

That simply is not scientifically or physically possible. Young men in peak physical condition are and always will be bigger, stronger and faster than young women in peak physical condition. If that weren't the case then we woldn't have separate olypic programs for men and women -- all given the highest possible physical conditioning and training.

How else do you get people to willingly kill, an abhorrent action by nature,

Actually, it is an entirely natural action given we are predators.

[Michael Hardner]

They are inferring it, and ignoring the counter argument.

I think you mean implying it. And, no, unless they specifically say that men and women are physically equal you can't say that allowing women in positions dominating by men implies that.

So it's your position we should hire the minimally qualified? Even if the standards were lowered for their benefit?

That's the definition of minimally qualified. Since we don't necessarily re-test for all such positions (such as fire and police) there could be people who don't even meet those standards.

Oh? Who addressed it? Could you show me the post where it was addressed?

How about the hundreds of thousands of posts (hyperbole) where people imply that religion causes people to be violent ? That's a pretty easy example.

Like what? Cite please.

There aren't many examples of sports where men and women compete - but this happened in one of my favourite sports (NASCAR) when "reckless Robbie" Gordon disparaged Danica Patrick:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/robby_gordon_danica_patrick_has_an_unfair_advantage/

I thought it was pretty rich when it happened...

[Argus]

Women generally are not as big or strong or as fast as men. This is a genetic thing and NOT a sexist thing. It is a in your face reality.

Yes, that is my point, thanks.

[Argus]

And, no, unless they specifically say that men and women are physically equal you can't say that allowing women in positions dominating by men implies that.

If they specifically say it then they're not implying it.

The fact they're arguing women are the equals of men as soldiers is implying it.

That's the definition of minimally qualified. Since we don't necessarily re-test for all such positions (such as fire and police) there could be people who don't even meet those standards.

And I know from experience that women have to work harder to keep in top shape then men do, especially with regard to strength conditioning. So the more women we hire -under lower requirements - the less likely they will be srong enough for the job.

How about the hundreds of thousands of posts (hyperbole) where people imply that religion causes people to be violent ? That's a pretty easy example.

It's not an example that the question was dealt with here. In fact, it's not an example that a question has been 'dealt' with at all, Mr. Trudeua. Just because you've dismissed an argument doesn't mean you've made a case which would cause anyone else to dismiss it.

There aren't many examples of sports where men and women compete

Why not?

- but this happened in one of my favourite sports (NASCAR) when "reckless Robbie" Gordon disparaged Danica Patrick:

Require a ton of muscle development and endurance to drive a car around a track, does it?

[GostHacked]

Yes, that is my point, thanks.

Looks like it was also Mikes point. Which you seemed to want to argue against. So all three of us agree on this. Let's move on.

[Argus]

Looks like it was also Mikes point. Which you seemed to want to argue against. So all three of us agree on this. Let's move on.

It looks like this is the opposite of Mike's point, actually.

[GostHacked]

Require a ton of muscle development and endurance to drive a car around a track, does it?

Actually it does require a lot of strength, stamina, endurance, and toleration of a lot of heat for extended periods of time. If you are not in shape, you are going to die on the track. Pass out because of the heat and everyone could be having a bad day.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/jobs/becoming-nascar-driver2.htm

Are you disciplined? You'll need to be. NASCAR drivers work out regularly. You need great stamina and upper-body strength to wrestle with the steering wheel for hours on end. Since stock cars lack air-conditioning, you can expect to lose several pounds in sweat during each race. Even with a fresh-air ventilation tube that blows cool air onto the driver, temperatures inside the car can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius) [source: Martin, Tuschak].

[Michael Hardner]

If they specifically say it then they're not implying it.

The fact they're arguing women are the equals of men as soldiers is implying it.

Of course, you're right. There would have to be something in-between, I think, some statement that says "women are just as good as men !". People do say that, and I would say it's fair to infer from that that they're saying women are physical equals.

And I know from experience that women have to work harder to keep in top shape then men do, especially with regard to strength conditioning. So the more women we hire -under lower requirements - the less likely they will be srong enough for the job.

But - the principle of the team being the best and strongest seems to disappear here. Our town police force had a lot of fat cops when I was growing up. I'll bet they thought that 20-something women wouldn't be good cops either.

Diversity makes for a stronger team overall, but the goal of making a better team should not be subjugated to scoring political points or feel-goodism I agree.

It's not an example that the question was dealt with here.

Correct - example of a blunt argument, though, repeating the same thing over and over again. Dismissing an argument isn't the same as engaging with it and responding to it.

Why not?

Already explained above.

Require a ton of muscle development and endurance to drive a car around a track, does it?

No but you're just being stubborn. The point I made was that women have physical advantages sometimes and that men will whine about it. You asked for a cite, that I provided. You now want to return to a point that can assure you "win" the point, but the problem is I have already conceded it.

You want to argue to win, while I want to argue to learn. Since I already fully realize, and have stated, that men are naturally faster and physically stronger than women it bogs the discussion down when we go back to that point. I suppose it makes you feel better for us to revisit the valid parts of your argument over and over again, but it feels to me like I'm patronizing you at a certain point.