GBA+ training

[Jarnhamar]

Thought this might be an interesting debate.

(picked up from here - http://army.ca/forums/threads/60282/post-1481467/topicseen.html#new )

Reading the GBA+ website( http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html#what ) I came across the "some myths page" that I have questions about.

1. Myth: Women and men are already equal in Canada, so GBA+ is not needed.

While many advances have been made, equality gaps remain. Women in Canada today earn, on average, only 73.5 cents for every dollar that men earn. Women are also more often the victims of domestic and sexual violence and continue to be under-represented in leadership and executive positions, occupying only 10.3% of positions on corporate boards.

This is especially evident for certain groups of women. For example, women from northern and rural communities are more likely to experience poverty; Aboriginal women are far more likely to experience sexual and intimate partner violence; and immigrant women experience higher rates of unemployment.

Does this mean to say that women aren't paid the same salary as a man is for doing the same job? Or is it saying women don't earn as much as men, which I've seen explained by ones career path and choice.

Why point out women are more often the victims of sexual and domestic violence? Men are more often the victim of suicide, homelessness (75%) and homicide. What's the relevance?
Why are women representing only 10%ish in leadership positions (except yahoo I think they're something like 99%). Is it suggesting men won't let women get promoted? I've read elsewhere that women often behave in a more passive-aggressive way in the workplace which isn't conducive towards promotions.


How exactly does GBA+ training apply to the military?

And Iis it "wrong" of me to suggest it's unfair that women get single rooms to themselves while males have to cram a bunch into one? Or that a female gets her own recce/crew tent to sleep in while guys are given the option of sleeping outside or cramming 3 people into a 2 person tent?

 

[Remius]

Thought this might be an interesting debate.

(picked up from here - http://army.ca/forums/threads/60282/post-1481467/topicseen.html#new )

Reading the GBA+ website( http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html#what ) I came across the "some myths page" that I have questions about.

Does this mean to say that women aren't paid the same salary as a man is for doing the same job? Or is it saying women don't earn as much as men, which I've seen explained by ones career path and choice.

Why point out women are more often the victims of sexual and domestic violence? Men are more often the victim of suicide, homelessness (75%) and homicide. What's the relevance?
Why are women representing only 10%ish in leadership positions (except yahoo I think they're something like 99%). Is it suggesting men won't let women get promoted? I've read elsewhere that women often behave in a more passive-aggressive way in the workplace which isn't conducive towards promotions.


How exactly does GBA+ training apply to the military?

And Iis it "wrong" of me to suggest it's unfair that women get single rooms to themselves while males have to cram a bunch into one? Or that a female gets her own recce/crew tent to sleep in while guys are given the option of sleeping outside or cramming 3 people into a 2 person tent?

Have you completed the actual training/course?

The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women. 

A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job.  Your question about how fair it is that women get their own tents or single room actually goes to the point that gender may or may not be a factor in that decision making process. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Have you completed the actual training/course?

The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women. 

A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job.  Your question about how fair it is that women get their own tents or single room actually goes to the point that gender may or may not be a factor in that decision making process.

I've taken the GBA+ and I've reworded your post below, with my amendments in yellow, to be more valid to GBA+ IF GBA+ actually considers males AND females.  Why are you discriminating against shorter/taller/heavier males?  That makes me sad.  :'(

A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man or the average woman and don't factor in women and men, either of whom could be shorter than average, or taller than average, or perhaps huskier than average you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her or his job. 

You've made it about a female and, not considering ALL gender factors, you've let it become about females only and not even considered your male soldiers who are shorter than average, taller than average, heavier than average.  FAIL.  You must now redo GBA+ (unless the purpose of GBA+ isn't in any way tied to considering male CAF members as well).

[Xp

 

[Remius]

I've taken the GBA+ and I've reworded your post below, with my amendments in yellow, to be more valid to GBA+ IF GBA+ actually considers males AND females.  Why are you discriminating against shorter/taller/heavier males?  That makes me sad.  :'(

You've made it about a female and, not considering ALL gender factors, you've let it become about females only and not even considered your male soldiers who are shorter than average, taller than average, heavier than average.  FAIL.  You must now redo GBA+ (unless the purpose of GBA+ isn't in any way tied to considering male CAF members as well).

[Xp

Um, that was exactly my point...but I get it  [

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But you said...

GBA+ isn't just about women.

and then...

A good example that is relevant to the CAF is that female RMC cadet who spoke out about having kit that fits.  So if you decide to buy kit that fits the average man and don't factor in women you end up with a soldier who can't properly do her job. 

Compared to my version, your example only speaks to women and issues with kit for them.  After saying its not about women, you went right to using an example that considers only women.

Irony?  8)

 

[Lumber]

Did anyone else get the impression that I they are saying that we now have to conduct thorough GBA+ analysis, including keeping documentation of our research, for all projects now? Not just with planning new policies, but when planning operations, training, and exercises?

I've got one of my OJT pilots planning a day staff end-of-year excursion... Is he supposed to conduct a GBA+ analysis for this?

 

[Remius]

But you said...

and then...

Compared to my version, your example only speaks to women and issues with kit for them.  After saying its not about women, you went right to using an example that considers only women.

Irony?  8)

It isn't just about women. Or just about gender either.

The example i gave is in relation as to how gba+ is relevant to the CAF which was a question the OP had. 

I used an example where GBA+ should have been applied. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Did anyone else get the impression that I they are saying that we now have to conduct thorough GBA+ analysis, including keeping documentation of our research, for all projects now? Not just with planning new policies, but when planning operations, training, and exercises?

I've got one of my OJT pilots planning a day staff end-of-year excursion... Is he supposed to conduct a GBA+ analysis for this?

Truthfully I think it was a simple way for the GOV/CAF to be able to say we have all been trained and are cognitive of the special needs of people, in relation to gender and sex.  So now when we fornicate the K9 up they can prove they did their due dillegence.

 

[Remius]

I see it more as a tool at much higher level for policy making but that whoever came up with it wants everyone to know about it. 

At a micro level I think most people/leaders in the CAF already apply it or should be under the heading of "know your troops and promote their welfare".

 

[ballz]

Does this mean to say that women aren't paid the same salary as a man is for doing the same job? Or is it saying women don't earn as much as men, which I've seen explained by ones career path and choice.

Calculating the wage gap is a contentious issue. Depending on what variables you isolate, it can range from the low end (70-75 cents per "male-earned dollar") up to the high end of (~95 cents per "male-earned dollar").

The low end literally just takes all the money earned by females and compares it to all the money earned by men. It doesn't even account for the most basic variable of men working more hours... so if a male and female are getting paid the exact same hour wage, but the male works twice as much (let's take OT pay out of the equation to simplify this example), it will show "females make 50 cents for every dollar earned by a male." No $hit someone working twice as much brings home twice as much money...

This is where progressives shoot themselves in the foot.... they focus on these extreme numbers that come from a deliberately poor statistical analysis, and they lose all credibility because it doesn't take very long for people to catch on and then ignore them.

I think there is a very legitimate discussion to be had on the wage gap and other gender-related issues... but first we need to isolate for certain variables and get the accurate picture. If, after doing that, we see a 5-10 cent wage gap (and I believe that this exists), then we can properly ask "why?" and perhaps find some real answers. Perhaps, armed with those answers, we can find solutions.

 

[dapaterson]

There are other issues that such analysis brings to light.  If earnings discrepancies are tied, in part, to family caregiving that is unpaid labour and is predominantly done by women, is one solution to encourage more male participation in those areas?  I believe one of the Scandinavian countries directs that a certain portion of parental leave must be taken by the second parent (where there is one).  Would that sort of intervention help narrow the perceived gap?

 

[Flavus101]

There are other issues that such analysis brings to light.  If earnings discrepancies are tied, in part, to family caregiving that is unpaid labour and is predominantly done by women, is one solution to encourage more male participation in those areas?  I believe one of the Scandinavian countries directs that a certain portion of parental leave must be taken by the second parent (where there is one).  Would that sort of intervention help narrow the perceived gap?

Whenever the government inserts themselves into family life in such a way it rarely works out over the long haul...

There is an ever increasing amount of parents who believe that the school system is meant to teach their kids everything they need to know about life and that when the kid messes up it could never be their fault (the parents). Although I see where you are coming from, I think simply imposing legislation by the government is the easy way out and will be harmful in the long haul.

 

[ballz]

Whenever the government inserts themselves into family life in such a way it rarely works out over the long haul...

There is an ever increasing amount of parents who believe that the school system is meant to teach their kids everything they need to know about life and that when the kid messes up it could never be their fault (the parents). Although I see where you are coming from, I think simply imposing legislation by the government is the easy way out and will be harmful in the long haul.

Essentially, this is exactly what I was thinking. I am disappointed when the first thought people have is to use the government to force people to behave the way in which they desire. While in spirit I am a feminist, I don't identify with feminists because 99% of the solutions coming out of that camp are using the government to force exactly these kind of things on people.

There are some people (men and women) who believe a man's primary responsibility is to work and bring in the income while the woman's is to look after the household. I am not one of those people, however, it is none of my business to force them to live another way. If it works for them and they are happy living that way, that's great, we can cross off the list as "don't have to fix this."

Something I would be more concerned about is, "Why don't more women end up higher-paying, more prestigious leadership roles, even in female-dominated careers?" If the answer is because of voluntary lifestyle choices or what have you, then I don't see a case for anything needing to be fixed.

But, if the answer is "because when a woman exhibits leadership qualities like being assertive, she is perceived as a contrary b*tch to work with, whilst a man exerting the same quality is labelled as a strong, assertive character"..... now that's an issue where gender is an unfair barrier to success that needs to be talked about and a solution needs to be found (and I would argue the solution is probably a social one, not a government legislated one).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Have you completed the actual training/course?

The whole point of GBA+ is to encourage policy and decision makers to factor gender but also other factors that can affect gender.  GBA+ isn't just about women. 

Yes of course, all ranks had to. It was such a huge deal.  I still struggle to see how it applies in our workplace, especially at the private/corporal level.
I was going to respond earlier about your example but EITS beat me to it.

Agree about the wage gap. The whole men make more than women seems a very subjective argument.

 

[Remius]

Yes of course, all ranks had to. It was such a huge deal.  I still struggle to see how it applies in our workplace, especially at the private/corporal level.
I was going to respond earlier about your example but EITS beat me to it.

Agree about the wage gap. The whole men make more than women seems a very subjective argument.

It applies to our workplace in regards to a lot of things that affects the privates and corporals.  It also depends on how much of an impact someone's job has on policy or what not.  Things like changes to parental leave or even something as simple as accessible washrooms.  Was it a bigger deal than it it really is? Yes.  Is everyone going to use this info, no.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It applies to our workplace in regards to a lot of things that affects the privates and corporals.  It also depends on how much of an impact someone's job has on policy or what not.  Things like changes to parental leave or even something as simple as accessible washrooms.  Was it a bigger deal than it it really is? Yes.  Is everyone going to use this info, no.

Like the pressing need to call MATA/PATA leave Parental leave  ;D

What's the issue with washrooms that we're facing? Is it the transgender picking a washroom issue or something else?

Interesting points Ballz, thanks.

 

[Remius]

Like the pressing need to call MATA/PATA leave Parental leave  ;D

What's the issue with washrooms that we're facing? Is it the transgender picking a washroom issue or something else?

Interesting points Ballz, thanks.

It's an example, not a pressing need that I know of.  But when someone says build a washroom on this base or this CAF facility and say ok, men and women.  No problem. But might forget injured men and women and don't include the right kind of things like ramps or holding bars for specific types of injuries that might be more common for CAF members.  So the GBA might of been done but forgot the + part.  So while the Pte and Cpl really has no effect on the policy or decision they are I lacked by the decision that was made.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If we need GBA+ now, how the flying frack did we survive before?

I mean, not counting things like common sense, a planning process (estimates, and that kind of old fashioned stuff that came before iGagdet Apps)...

I guess what we need to bring back then is common sense and planning...and all it took was a GBA+ course for the entire CAF to fix itself!  [lol:

I can, I honestly believe, replace 90= % of this 'special' training we all get forced upon us with this neat little jingle I learned way back in '93 on CLC and then learned to use and employ effectively (later on in FTXs, leadership courses as a SNCO, etc, after my CLC was over).  And it went a little something like this:

*AIM, FACTORS, COURSES, PLAN*.  It worked for war/combat/peacekeeping/you name it, I am sure I could teach people to use it for deciding how to make a bathroom in a gov building.  :nod:  I will call it CFS+  (Common Fucking Sense +).  ;D

Add as added bonus, I'll also throw in, at no extra charge, this other helpful leadership tool called *The 3 M's*.  I'll keep that one for later though...I want people to focus on CFS+ for now.

 

[NavyShooter]

I just had a look at the CAF Pay Scales tables....I don't see anything there about gender.

A Leading Seaman Boatswain gets paid the same as a Corporal Infantry soldier.  Gender doesn't matter.

In the civilian work-force, maybe such an issue exists, but I think our house is quite squarely in order on this aspect.

NS

 

[FSTO]

When I was told to do the GBA+ online course I did the WASPish thing and grumbled "Another stupid check the box CYA waste of time". By the end I was actually interested in the subject. It confirmed a few common sense policies but also pointed me to other issues I would never have thought of.

That being said, the spin from the current government is that they used GBA+ to write the budget and that it was designed with females in mind and its feminist focuses and blah blah blah. This is not what GBA+ is all about, at all.