Clip taken from the YouTube video of the Elbows Up T.O. Public Meeting - original post from earlier today found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/50501Canada/s/U7jyMoggwj I have to share the most impa...
Some points I understand your frustration, but now if you flip sides and see that that happens to women and minorities all the time, for decades past and even now.
Imagine being a woman of colour that is interested in a typically male field, she would not stand a chance, while the good old boys go for a boat ride and beer to solidify a hire.
DEI might be a poor implementation of a good thing, and occasionally screw a white dude. Hopefully we have a more low level system one day where all people have access to care, training and funds so everyone gets a shot by merit.
Some points I understand your frustration, but now if you flip sides and see that that happens to women and minorities all the time, for decades past and even now.
Are you saying wampus is totally okay to suffer because someone else did? That sounds like vengeance.
Or because someone else victimized someone else? That sounds like collective punishment.
Or that he should be happy to be barred from a vaccine when it was suitable for him based on genetic makeup?
You seemed to be saying “change one intrinsic attribute and it if feels wrong, then it is” except then you kinda lost the plot.
No woman in my age range that I’ve encountered in real life has stories of being denied employment due to their race/gender – unless they’ve immigrated from another country. Many men in my friend circles do. I’ve literally seen women government regulators say to industry “I can’t work with these people”, and excuse almost every male from a board of directors.
I don’t deny that women were treated poorly in generations past when it came to the labour force. My point is that for the current generation that’s coming up, it has been almost completely flipped. The gender imbalance in the federal public service, is now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in favour of men in the 1980s when this sort of legislation first came in. We reached relative ‘parity’ around 2000 – two decades, a whole generation of people, and we’re still preferencing women as though they’re this poor downtrodden minority, and we just watched that imbalance get more and more out of whack. But there’s no talk of relaxing those pro-woman hiring policies amongst politicians, let alone enacting pro-male hiring campaigns to sort out the “new” imbalance/reality. Just an authoritarian, discussion killing mantra of “Canada is DEI!!”.
DEI and woke stuff is not inherently Canadian. Framing the current issues and political issues with the states, as being “Canada is woke and DEI! And the states hates us for it!” is not helping things.
That might be survivor bias no? The employed people you talk to in your age range are employed, you aren’t hearing from the person that is moving somewhere else because of lack of job.
As a white dude that has been privvy to conservative male bosses, I have heard direct statements of :
we won’t hire HER because she might get pregnant
we won’t hire HER because she won’t know about mechanical things (even though resume was from a tool shop)
he didn’t get hired because he was black, he was the best candidate, but the owner doesn’t like black people (owner was Asian)
“Lived experience” counts for other groups, why would you think it shouldn’t count for us? Plus, surprisingly perhaps, I have a bunch of friends that I don’t work with, where we discuss this stuff. Part of growing up local (though most of my friends from hs are minority folks, technically). I’ve not lilypadded much, so four of my five bosses historically have been women – the majority of most management in those orgs, women.
While I wouldn’t question your lived experiences, my own, and that of people around me in real life who I generally trust more than a rando online, support my viewpoint. This also includes a few managers in the federal government, who are pissed off with the demographic hoops they need to jump through for hiring/promoting people. Like there’ll be suitable local candidates, but the gov forces them to appoint people from the other side of the country to meet the racial quota.
Activist groups that fought for equality, never thought to disband after equality was achieved. Current higher education enrollment is heavily skewed female now. Gender identity shouldn’t be made a hiring criteria.
It’s not just that. There’s another way to look at these groups…
Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women’s rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don’t advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it’s outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don’t totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public ‘reads’ it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It’s not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.
If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don’t end up with equality.
Some points I understand your frustration, but now if you flip sides and see that that happens to women and minorities all the time, for decades past and even now.
Imagine being a woman of colour that is interested in a typically male field, she would not stand a chance, while the good old boys go for a boat ride and beer to solidify a hire.
DEI might be a poor implementation of a good thing, and occasionally screw a white dude. Hopefully we have a more low level system one day where all people have access to care, training and funds so everyone gets a shot by merit.
Are you saying wampus is totally okay to suffer because someone else did? That sounds like vengeance.
Or because someone else victimized someone else? That sounds like collective punishment.
Or that he should be happy to be barred from a vaccine when it was suitable for him based on genetic makeup?
You seemed to be saying “change one intrinsic attribute and it if feels wrong, then it is” except then you kinda lost the plot.
You are fishing for words that aren’t there. Move on troll
No woman in my age range that I’ve encountered in real life has stories of being denied employment due to their race/gender – unless they’ve immigrated from another country. Many men in my friend circles do. I’ve literally seen women government regulators say to industry “I can’t work with these people”, and excuse almost every male from a board of directors.
I don’t deny that women were treated poorly in generations past when it came to the labour force. My point is that for the current generation that’s coming up, it has been almost completely flipped. The gender imbalance in the federal public service, is now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in favour of men in the 1980s when this sort of legislation first came in. We reached relative ‘parity’ around 2000 – two decades, a whole generation of people, and we’re still preferencing women as though they’re this poor downtrodden minority, and we just watched that imbalance get more and more out of whack. But there’s no talk of relaxing those pro-woman hiring policies amongst politicians, let alone enacting pro-male hiring campaigns to sort out the “new” imbalance/reality. Just an authoritarian, discussion killing mantra of “Canada is DEI!!”.
DEI and woke stuff is not inherently Canadian. Framing the current issues and political issues with the states, as being “Canada is woke and DEI! And the states hates us for it!” is not helping things.
That might be survivor bias no? The employed people you talk to in your age range are employed, you aren’t hearing from the person that is moving somewhere else because of lack of job.
As a white dude that has been privvy to conservative male bosses, I have heard direct statements of :
we won’t hire HER because she might get pregnant
we won’t hire HER because she won’t know about mechanical things (even though resume was from a tool shop)
he didn’t get hired because he was black, he was the best candidate, but the owner doesn’t like black people (owner was Asian)
“Lived experience” counts for other groups, why would you think it shouldn’t count for us? Plus, surprisingly perhaps, I have a bunch of friends that I don’t work with, where we discuss this stuff. Part of growing up local (though most of my friends from hs are minority folks, technically). I’ve not lilypadded much, so four of my five bosses historically have been women – the majority of most management in those orgs, women.
While I wouldn’t question your lived experiences, my own, and that of people around me in real life who I generally trust more than a rando online, support my viewpoint. This also includes a few managers in the federal government, who are pissed off with the demographic hoops they need to jump through for hiring/promoting people. Like there’ll be suitable local candidates, but the gov forces them to appoint people from the other side of the country to meet the racial quota.
Activist groups that fought for equality, never thought to disband after equality was achieved. Current higher education enrollment is heavily skewed female now. Gender identity shouldn’t be made a hiring criteria.
It’s not just that. There’s another way to look at these groups…
Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women’s rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don’t advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it’s outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don’t totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public ‘reads’ it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It’s not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.
If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don’t end up with equality.