#discrimination

Diversity in the ADF – lower targets missed by even wider margin

D61DCB9C-6778-4D4B-BCBE-83002FA4E1EC.jpeg

What sort of defence force can Australia rely on if our military brass blathers on about the importance of “diversity”? The irony is that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) reduced the actual female recruitment target and missed it by an even wider margin. Instead of respecting the pure vocational choices of men and women somehow the military seems to think ever higher levels of discrimination will overcome it. Military morale is not high.

Navy News reports that,

100 Days of Change, running from July 1-October 8, aims to strengthen the momentum for individuals to improve our operational effectiveness by committing to gender equality and equity at all levels.

There is only one thing a military needs to do – be capability effective. It should focus on candidates who fit that requirement. Nothing else matters. Yet RADM Mark Hammond said,  “We must do this as one Navy, regardless of age, rank, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability or gender,” Indeed he should but such outcomes do not come through blatant discriminatory practices.

Shouldn’t a military focus on capabilities of the individual – whether he/she meets the “same” minimum fitness requirements (women have easier standards to pass), can hit enemy targets or whatever objective is set out. If 100 women are better than 100 men for the specific role then the military should hire 100 women and vice versa. Imagine if 100 men proved to be more capable than 100 women for a particular skill? In order to to hit targets, 25 men would be shunned to make way for inferior skills. If 100 women were better in this hypothetical situation, imagine the outrage if only 25 were selected for the 100 positions to keep the diversity target? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t happen.

Is discrimination, where recruiters face demotion if they don’t hit gender based targets, the way we want to run a military? Let’s take a look.

In the 2015-16 Women in the ADF report we see the Navy wishes to have 25% women by 2023  it stands at 21.3% today, up from 19% in 2016.

935713BD-645B-4A29-A199-C16CC4CC7822.jpeg

If we were to look at actual vs target, it seems that the path is diverging. Isn’t that indication that women are less interested in the military as a career choice? Yet the Navy is forced to discriminate against males in order to hit targets.

So has the Army  it wants 15% by 2023 and is tracking marginally ahead with the ultimate aim of 25%. Could it be that 15% is the “natural” rate of women wanting to join the armed forces?

D3E8E0E5-1004-4F34-BFAB-AC80B4A36E6A.jpeg

The Air Force is also aiming for 25% by 2023 but is tracking below target.

52794261-2AE5-489E-BE1B-C5AC9F68A43E.jpeg

We should reflect on a study conducted around the world covering over 100,000 subjects which revealed that the countries with the biggest push/policy provision for equality and diversity cause the opposite to occur when choices are exercised. Scandinavia is the perfect example. Men and women don’t sort themselves into the same categories if we leave them alone to do it of their own accord through policies that tend to maximize equality. In Scandinavia it is  20 to one female nurses to male and approximately the same male engineers to female engineers,

Yet look at the lengths the Royal Australian Air Force goes to in order to hit diversity through blatant discriminatory practices.

“In support of this growth path Air Force has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, a number of recruitment and retention initiatives such as:

  • specific female recruiting target
  • Women in the Air Force marketing campaign
  • continuation of embedded specialist women recruitment team in Defence Force Recruiting
  • the trial of a reduction of Initial Minimum Period of Service (IMPS)
  • introduction of the Graduate Pilot Scheme (GPS) for women
  • changes to direct entry female pilot return of service obligations
  • continuation of experiential camps for girls (technical and aircrew focussed programmes)
  • release of an Air Force produced recruitment guide, ‘PropElle’, to support female pilot candidates through the recruitment process.

No such programs are available for men.

Despite all these programmes, surely any squadron leader with any common sense wants the most effective fighting force. Once the canopy closes, they depend on each other.

What an insult to women to think they need all these artificial prop ups to get ahead. Every ambitious women CM has ever met has never relied on free kicks but sheer determination, grit and above all ability.

53450D05-9E3C-4C77-B72C-9231FAA284E7

It is clear in the table above that all three military branches missed female recruitment targets in 2015/16. The irony is even after lowering the numerical targets of female hires in each military branch over 2014/15, recruiters missed by an even bigger margin. Evidence that on balance women are less likely to join the military when driven by personal choice!

The ADF paper also notes that women quit at higher rates than men, especially at the trainee stage. Men are also much more likely to remain in the military than women after 18mths of parental or maternity leave.

CB5A7FDE-B49A-4DE7-A6DB-854AB4228C42.jpeg

In terms of gender pay gap there are marginal differences. In the senior ranks – Commodore (Navy), Brigadier (Army) and Air Marshall (Air Force) – women are paid more than men on average. Although the ADF “determines work value and subsequent remuneration proposals based primarily on capability delivery. Where there is a direct or similar civilian (non-military) occupation, market relativities may contribute to remuneration determinations. One example of this is in Defence’s technical trades, where there are measurable market influences and relativity for trades such as vehicle mechanics.

In terms of effectiveness of these diversity programmes,  the data is also telling  a little more than half of women think it makes  difference. 45% of men also agree. Hardly overwhelming evidence.

BE9BBB6A-F48A-4283-BC08-067BE1397457.jpeg

When addressing morale, only 40% of men and women feel positive. Confidence in senior leadership was around 63%. Not exactly the figures that make a war fighter. 22% of women are actively planning to leave the military and 25% of men. If the military keeps it up perhaps male  resignations will help boost the percentages of female recruits that don’t seem keen to join.

2BEAE1C5-8B50-453A-85AC-83060F4D0952

The military is the last place that social experimentation should be conducted. Let’s be clear that China, Australia’s most realistic threat in the Asia-Pacific, doesn’t practice diversity in the PLA. It projects capability.

Should our frigates be sunk, our fighters shot down or our artillery troops shelled to smithereens, at least we can say they didn’t die in vain but won the war of diversity. Await the rainbow camouflage to broaden our “wokeness”

EU pushes for 40% female representation on company boards

The EU in its infinite wisdom said that it wishes to mandate that company boards achieve a quota of 40% women. Even Germany considers this an overreach (even though its own goal by 2018 is 30%). This EU’s socialist charter to push for affirmative action was challenged in 1981 by Dr Thomas Sowell who completely debunked the myths put forward about the gender pay gap, discrimination and other stereotypes of minimum wage and income inequality. It is truly worth watching the 50 minutes or so of Sowell dispose of lawyer Mrs Pilpell whose weak liberal agenda gets ripped to shreds because is based on a lack of understanding and being loose with facts.

Don’t mistake the position of CM. If based on merit then have 100% female boards should they outqualify men. So assume that boards hit 40% women then what next? Should we hire a minimum percentage of LGBT, minorities, religious groups or disabled people to run companies? Since when should gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or disability be a bigger factor than capability  in running company boards? Shareholders expect one thing – returns. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote a puff piece on those boards without women on them underperforming. CM proved the hypothesis false.

CM wrote with respect to the SMH’s false assertion, “Note that the twenty companies listed in the article have the following 1yr and 3yr relative performance (i.e. vs. ASX 200). Note on an unweighted average over these 1 & 3 year periods, these chauvinistic men’s clubs outperformed the broader index by 22.7% and 89.9% respectively.”

Once again, gender ought to have nothing to do with it. Every ambitious, hard working female that has become truly successful in a man’s world never complained at any disadvantages they may or may not have had. They never played the woman card and I absolutely admire them to this day. One is a mentor some 18 years after we first met. So shouldn’t it be an insult to industrious women like her to see less hungry females given unfair advantages that weren’t earned through individual merit and effort like she had to endure to get there?

Yet such diversity programs designed to remove inherent biases in the system actually create the very discrimination it is designed to stop. All that matters is diversity of thought and if that happens to be women that provide that wisdom sign me up as a shareholder of every corporation that does so on merit. Listen to Dr Sowell – it is truly intelligent stuff. Poor Mrs Pilpell.

Let’s hope the Feds don’t take the same biases in investigations

CF3369CC-B6BB-49BC-AA1E-D30D6F053C46.jpeg

Here we go again. The slippery slope of ‘diversity’ which does everything else other than promote inclusivity because by its very nature it is all about singling out exclusivity. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) brazenly states in its recruitment campaign that they want to get to 50/50 women. Of course there is no issue with hiring women. No ifs or buts. If you are a male, your chances of joking the AFP will be diminished no matter how qualified you might be. What has gender got to do with work performance, let alone the desire to ‘protect and serve’? In most police forces around the world the split is 70/30 men/women. Maybe it is just reflective of individual choices in careers rather than women being selectively discouraged?

The AFP wrote in response to their post,

There’s been a lot of commentary on the fact that we’re targeting women with this recruitment. We’d like to clarify a few things.

In the AFP, women currently comprise 22% of sworn police and 13.5% of protective security officers. Our goal is to increase this proportion to 35% in both streams by 2021.

Today’s ‘special measure’ recruitment action is designed to supplement our current recruitment process – we already have a pool of suitable male and female candidates who applied recently.

This action we’re taking will provide us with additional female candidates. It’s not going to displace existing recruitment pools and it will require applicants to meet all the existing gateways.

Under Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act, the special measures we’re taking to achieve substantive equality between men and women in this organisation are legal.”

This lame excuse is yet another spineless rolling over to pander to political correctness. If. 20 candidates apply for 10 positions and there are 10 men and 10 women, wouldn’t it be best to hire 10 women if they were better qualified for ability than the 10 men? Or vice versa? So hire 5 extremely qualified women and 5 inept males just to keep a balance?

Last month CM spoke of the same garbage ‘diversity’ argument in the army.

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

So once again we are told to view this nonsense as completely acceptable. That the AFP puts gender above ability. Ability and passion are all that matters. Shame on the AFP for having a blonde white woman instead of one from a coloured background for maximum virtue signaling mileage. For all of the AFP’s expertise in forensic science it is an embarrassment to see them use a most flawed identikit for recruitment.

So what is next after the 50/50 target is hit? After all the AFP seeks to match society. Surely what follows is balance in sexual orientation, faith, race and other irrelevant aspects which should be irrelevant to job performance – all in the name of diversity – what a joke. Let men and women chose the AFP of their own volition and take the best of the crop.

Welcome to the nanny state.

Chinese Corporate Grubbynance?

IMG_0512

The Asian Nikkei Review posted an interesting piece suggesting that good looking female analysts tend to get better access to information from Chinese listed corporates. The study took a “sample of 89,056 earnings forecasts made in 2005-2014 by 2,328 Chinese analysts to consider how their physical attractiveness might relate to their success in acquiring accurate information and making better financial forecasts. The analysts came from 102 brokerages, including the largest ones in China…raters from different educational backgrounds, occupations, income levels and social experience scored the analysts, using headshots from the website of the Securities Association of China, on a five-point scale, with 5 reserved for the most attractive. The raters were asked to use the average person in the Chinese population, rather than the sample group of analysts, as the benchmark in grading attractiveness…The evidence gathered clearly suggest that attractive financial analysts are better able to acquire sensitive information from Chinese company management teams. Compared with their less attractive counterparts, they are more likely to gain advance access to information on pending significant corporate events, and they are more likely to issue a stock recommendation in the quarter before the public announcement of a restructuring, signing of a major contract or an earnings warning. Consequently, they are able to produce more informative stock recommendations.”

While this study is somewhat superficial (no pun intended) to suggest good looks somehow override the intelligence of the analysts in question at least I have an excuse to  see why my career as a financial analyst went the way it did. It won’t be a lie if I believe it!

 

Canada’s Bill M-103 was twisted to ensure it was discriminatory by itself

「terrance and phillip canada」の画像検索結果

Canada has passed bill M-103 in the House of Commons (201 in favour, 91 against. PM Trudeau was conveniently absent for a vote which is a surprise given he loves to appeal to his penchant for virtue signalling) which condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”.   Conservative member David Anderson tabled a motion on February 16 to remove the word “Islamophobia” and asked the House of Commons to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.” That the liberals rejected the equitable amendment shows Bill M-103 is in fact openly discriminatory.

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing Mississauga, Ontario who went on to say,

“Our country is very diverse…I think that we need to continue to build those bridges amongst Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this, by really understanding the issue and really listening to what Canadians have to say. I’m really looking forward to the track that the Canadian Heritage Committee takes on this.”

Put simply, free speech was sold out with the passing of this bill. If bridges are needed to be built and the government wants to “really listen to what Canadians have to say” why push legislation that effectively gags them from expressing concerns they might have. Hypothetically if a radical Islamist terrorist was to storm Canada’s Parliament (one already has) and a Canadian citizen was to calmly mention it was the result of radical Islam then that would be a violation of M-103 because it could be interpreted as an Islamophobic statement. Even if it was cold hard fact. Is mentioning fact each and every way hate speech? Certainly not. Candians would seem to agree that it M-103 takes away free speech.

Pollster Angus Reid Institute asked 1,511 Canadians, “if you were a a Member of Parliament, how would you vote on this motion (M-103)” and found that 42% would vote against it; 29% would vote in favour and 29% were not sure or would have abstained.

From a regional standpoint, a plurality of survey respondents in every province rejected M-103 though objections to M-103 were softest in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada.

As M-103 was sponsored by a Liberal MP support among those who voted for the party in the 2015 election revealed just 38% of them would support M-103 versus 33% of  who oppose it and 28% with no opinion. 68% of those who voted Conservative in 2015 rejected M-103 and  just 14% voting in favour.

There is no condoning racism or religious discrimination. Even if one argues that the majority of Canadians need not worry about it because they are tolerant, we’ve got Australia’s 18C Racial Discrimination Act as exhibit A of how the application of the law turned into state sponsored witch hunts. Secret trials conducted over years held by a biased and prejudiced Australian Human Rights Commission ended up wrongfully and unnecessarily destroying lives based on trumped up charges based on a law which promotes victimology. These people were innocent yet ‘interpretation’ becomes very dangerous and often used in completely the wrong way.

We shouldn’t be the least bit surprised when trumped up charges start hitting the headlines because honesty gets re-branded hate speech.