When Women Are the Minority It’s OK – But Men It Isn’t?

Yesterday, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) announced it wanted more men, to keep in line with its equal opportunity hiring practices.

For years, women, visible minorities and the disabled have had a leg up on jobs, simply because of these politically correct hiring practices to “balance” out the minority in the workforce.

But apparently, that balance has shifted slightly, as the TDSB admits it has too many women, and not enough men educating our young people.

The TDSB did qualify that, by saying they are looking for men, which are racially diverse, aboriginal or disabled.

Sorry if you’re a white able-bodied man – you’re still not wanted.

Women’s groups were up in arms that after the largest school board in Canada’s announcement that they would give a job to a man, instead of a qualified woman.

The irony in all of this, is it goes how wrong being politically corrupt – whoops I mean politically correct – really is.

Whenever a company boasts about being an “equal opportunity employer” it might as well go a step further and tell us which gender, race, ethnic background, and other discriminatory factors they really are looking for, because there isn’t anything “equal” about their employment practices.

Hiring someone because you don’t see the token black blind man anywhere in your office isn’t giving someone who wouldn’t normally get hired a break, its discrimination in the worst possible way – its blatantly labelling people for what they are instead of who they are.

I applaud the TDSB for recognizing they don’t have enough men in their workforce. But if they got off their lazy butts and actually hired qualified teachers – regardless of gender – then maybe they wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.

At least the TDSB publicly admitted it’s shortcomings – most companies continue to use “equal opportunity employment” lingo to discriminate regardless of how obvious it is when you walk into their offices what the dominant culture is.

I’ve worked at some companies – American Express, BMO Bank of Montreal – just to name a handful of offenders, where their so-called “equal opportunity employment” standards were so lacking, I felt like I was in another country – yet I was right here in Toronto, Canada.

At American Express Technologies (AET) at their Canadian offices in Markham, out of well over 300 people, all were Chinese. Well, all except myself, and maybe five to 10 others – you could literally count on your fingers the number of people that weren’t Asian on that team.

BMO Bank of Montreal’s Trader’s Help Desk in Toronto, Canada had one or two non-Asian women, while the remaining 30 or so individuals were Chinese men, when I was working for that company.

BMO and Amex both have equal opportunity employment policies, but just as the TDSB, they don’t work very well unless you happen to be the specific racial or gender group they want to hire.

Seems to me that “equal opportunity employer” gives some companies the ability to only hire those they WANT to work with – people that look like the hiring managers.

That’s certainly not “equal” but I suppose it does give an opportunity for the employer.

But that’s not an opportunity I’ll have in my company – we hire based on something sadly forgotten in today’s politically correct world – talent.

America Isn’t the Great Country Everyone Thinks it Is

On the day when the first black American President is sworn in for his second term in office, all you have to do is re-read this sentence to see what is wrong with America.

When Barack Obama was first sworn in, he was jettisoned to instant rock star celebrity status. He made the history books, by becoming the first non-white man to lead the most powerful nation on our planet.

Today, he’s being sworn in for his second term in office, and although he has lost much of that rock star appeal, the most powerful country on the planet still can’t get over the fact that he’s not white.

Or at least that’s the image the rest of the world sees, when America makes more of a deal about their leader’s skin colour, than what he has accomplished.

Usually, when an American President is sworn into office – especially for the second time – the focus is on his past accomplishments, and possible future plans.

Although these are being discussed in Washington, DC, the media focus is once again on the colour of the re-elected leader.

Other countries may have rioting in the streets, extreme poverty where innocent children don’t get more than a stale piece of rock hard bread if they are lucky, for the whole day. There are other countries around the globe with brutal wars being fought, so the very thought of stepping outside for fresh air is a dangerous one.

Yet these places don’t make a big deal about the colour of their leader’s skin.

Perhaps the once thought of greatest country in the world, really isn’t so great after all?

There aren’t riots in the streets, extreme poverty, famine, disease, or brutal wars raging across America.

Well, there is one.

It’s that silent but deadly war called racism.

Because when the most powerful country in the world is more concerned with the colour of their leader’s skin, than what that person has done for their country, that brings to light the unspoken truth about America.

Despite all that American’s have achieved, they still are struggling with one of humanity’s most insidious traits.

Racism.

It’s a brutal battle in of itself. And it’s being played out on the world stage, by the very fact that despite having the same person in the White House for another four years, Americans can’t get over the fact that he’s not white.

Sad. 

Are We Ready for a Woman in Power?

Before Barack Obama became America’s first non-white male president, there was much debate which would American’s most likely accept – a woman president or someone that wasn’t white?

This debate continues in the strangest of places of sorts – on the airwaves in Canada. Earlier this week, a radio disc jockey in British Columbia was fired, for asking the female premier of that province what it’s like to be a MILF.

Shock-Jock Justin “Drex” Wilcomes, surprisingly got an answer from BC Premier Christy Clark: “You know, I take that as a compliment . . . better a MILF than a cougar.”

Wilcomes was fired, and has since apologized to the political leader of Canada’s most western province. Though he quickly got back on the air, he’s now working for another station in Vancouver, BC.

This isn’t the first time the female politician has taken a ribbing for her female charms. Late last year, eclectic billionaire-business tycoon Sir Richard Branson went kite surfing with a beautiful naked woman on his shoulders while visiting the province. After the media stunt, he said if the premier wants a similar ride, she should call him, but she must be naked to ride.

Branson too caused a public outcry, and eventually apologized to the female premier.

But these incidents raise the question – are North American’s really ready and accepting of women in powerful positions?

If Hillary Clinton became was elected president of the United States, would she have quickly attained the rock star status that President Obama achieved when he first was elected?

Or would she also go through the growing pains of being sexualized such as the premier of BC?

There have been women in high powered positions. In the 1980’s who could forget Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England, known for her iron-glad stance on the economy?

Canada briefly had a woman prime minister, but she was more of a scapegoat for the outgoing prime minister Brian Mulroney. Kim Campbell was handed the rings to the Canadian prime minister key chain, by the outgoing Mulroney. The press quickly labelled her just a female version of the outgoing prime minister, and she lost the election, because Mulroney’s popularity had slipped so much so, he wouldn’t have won had he remained in office.

Campbell was never sexualized like the current premier of BC, but she didn’t last long in power.

Have we grown-up beyond our own prejudices?

Why should it matter whether America’s president is white, black or brown? Why should it matter if that person is a man or a woman?

Why indeed?

Despite our amazing advances in technology over the years, our society may not be advanced enough to recognize that a person’s race or sex has little to do with their leadership abilities.

Until our society crosses that threshold, we are still a primitive society. We just have a lot of nice tech gadgets to occupy our time.

Real Freedom is Only for Those Who You Can’t See

Yesterday, Canada’s highest court ruled in some situations, Muslim women can wear the full face-covering veil called a niqab, while testifying in court, due to religious reasons.

The niqab provides only a slit across the eyes, allowing women wearing it to see, but fully covers the rest of the face.

Canada’s Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favour of allowing the Muslim woman to wear the full-face covering in an Ontario provincial court, as she’s the victim of a horrible rape.

One of the great things about being Canadian, is our acceptance of other cultural and religious beliefs. It’s also our greatest fault – because it doesn't work the other way ‘round.

For years, first responders have had serious reservations about serving Muslim women wearing the niqab. Be it a slight fender bender, a major car crash, a house fire, or – as in the case of the woman who won her right to wear such a garment in a public court of law – a rape case – the job of all first responders is to ensure the safety and security of all those involved.

This requires the ability to SEE with their own eyes the whole situation, including the faces of those affected.

There have been numerous reports from ambulance, police, fire and other first responders, where women in the niqab have refused to remove their coverings.

In at least three Canadian situations, paramedics were forced to wait until the women passed out from their injuries, so they could legally assist an unconscious victim, by removing the niqab, to perform necessary life-saving care.

In extremely oppressed cultures – and you can’t get much more extreme than covering your whole face – they don’t have the openness to accept other cultural or religious beliefs.

So when they come to an open and free country, and are told for their own safety and security, they must uncover their face so we can see them, they refuse.

However, they aren’t dumb – one might argue they are psychotically smart – because they not only hold true to their beliefs, but they use their new found free country’s laws to further those beliefs here. They cry about their rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being violated when asked to remove their coverings.

Freedom of all forms of expression – be it cultural, religious, or anything else – is the foundation of what makes this country great.

However, there is always a line which has to be drawn, even when freedom is concerned, for the public’s greater good.

And the public’s greater good isn't served by allowing people to cover their faces where either their own or another’s safety and security is at issue.

Wearing a full-face covering mask – which it essentially is, because it masks the identity of the person wearing it – shouldn't be allowed in any place where you interact with others.

We communicate so much through body language, and facial expressions, covering your whole face really does more harm than good. From signalling your intentions when four cars stop at a four-way stop sign at the same time while driving, to simply going into any store or bank and not being mistaken for a robber or a thief.

balaclava (a full-face sky mask), I’d probably be taken down at gun point by police. I could claim I was just wearing it to protect myself from winter’s chill – which would be understandable in a cold climate country such as we have here in Canada. 

However, I’d probably still be charged with mischief, as we Canadians know what is and isn't acceptable in our society.

So how come our nation’s highest court allowed something which isn't really acceptable in our society for a select few?

Equality My Ass – International Gender Days Aren’t

What did you do to celebrate International Men’s Day?

Nothing.

What?

Never heard of it?

But I bet you've heard of International Day of the Girl which was held last month, on October 11.

Yesterday was International Men’s Day (IMD) according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a specialized body of the United Nations to promote – among other things – gender equity in education, science and culture.

And it’s not as if International Men’s Day is new – according to UNESCO it’s been celebrated in Australia, The Caribbean, North America, Asia, Europe and Africa since it’s inception in Trinidad and Tobago in 1999.

I saw something briefly flash across the Twitter universe about IMD but that was it – one lone tweet from the UN.

International Day of the Girl on the other hand, was plastered in papers, broadcast on the television and radio newscasts, and made truly international headlines.

And you've probably heard of International Women’s Day – or you will when it gets just as much press as the International Day of the Girl on March 8.

All days of gender-specific celebration and awareness are organized by the exact same organization – UNESCO.

However, obviously, not all receives equal opportunity – pun intentional.

When International Women’s Day rolls around, every year, the media goes berserk to capture video, images and audio for their television, print and radio stories.

International Day of the Girl made all the major wire services, was carried locally here in all the big national papers, on the evening newscasts, and even was tweeted about repeatedly on Twitter.

But International Men’s Day – what a yawn – one lonely tweet, just to acknowledge it exists.

Last month, in this blog, we wrote about how International Day of the Girl is discriminatory against men, women and even little boys.

We are all human beings, and we shouldn't honour or celebrate our differences of any kind – that’s the foundation for any line of discrimination.

If we as a species are going to continue to grow and prosper in a world which is constantly getting harder to survive in, we need to pull together as a species, sharing our strengths, instead of highlighting the very things which makes us work apart.

Global warming, economic turmoil, war, famine, terrorism – none of these will ever be beaten if we continue a battle of the sexes, as these – and most issues affecting our survival – are not divided along gender, but span across all of humanity.

So what did I do to celebrate International Men’s Day?

Nothing.

Why would I want to celebrate a sexist day of division, when we really need to co-exist and work together?

Happy Thanksgiving US of Eh?

Here in Canada, we've already celebrated our version of Thanksgiving, earlier in the month, while this week our neighbours to the south celebrate what we often refer to as ‘American Thanksgiving.’

Tourists from other continents coming to Canada and the States may not be able to see the differences between our two nations. We’re so similar, and also so very different – but most of our differences are ideological instead of cultural.

American’s have an enormous sense of passion and national pride in being American. Even most of those from other lands that become permanent residents fall in love with American nationalism.

In Canada, we have pride in our nation – if your parents were born here. Those from other lands talk about the benefits of living here, but always complain about how they miss home, and are just here so their families can have a better life. Often they move into pockets where others from their homeland settled, so they don’t have to participate in Canadian culture, society, or – sadly – with anyone that doesn't speak their language.

When people immigrate to the United States, they become Americans. They pledge allegiance to the flag, and swear they’ll uphold the values and laws of the land.

When people immigrate to Canada, they become hyphenated Canadians, many don’t speak either of our official languages (English or French) and although they live according to our laws, they certainly don’t embrace Canadian values, preferring to continue living as they would in their homeland.

When parents with kids come to America, they enrol their kids in American schools, and hope their children will realize the potential of the American Dream.

When parents with kids come to Canada, they intentionally move into areas where there are schools with other children from their culture. In many cases, they have special schools which are cultural-specific to their homeland, so their kids although living in Canada, are raised with the same values and beliefs back home.

Settled immigrants in the States that have made it for themselves, embrace the American Dream, and feel a sense of obligatory pride in helping other American’s realize that dream, hiring other American’s regardless of race or culture to expand and grow the American economy.

Settled immigrants in Canada lack a sense in being Canadian, and having only done business with others from their homeland, they only hire others of the same race or culture of themselves.

They take away jobs and opportunities for those who were born outside of their culture, which although it may grow their business, it harms the Canadian economy, and eventually may harm their business, which is in that Canadian economy.

Canada and the States are both highly prosperous, safe, democracies which both have a lot to be thankful for during our mutual Thanksgivings.

Though, being Canadian, sometimes I’m envious of my American neighbours  as it appears they have more to be thankful for going forward, because as more people come from other lands to our distinct countries, America grows as a nation, while we Canadians struggle to maintain a sense of nationhood.

Not An Equal Opportunity Employer – Despite Saying We Are

Workplaces should be an equal representation of the general population. No one should ever be discriminated against based on the colour of their skin, their age, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

That’s not only the right thing to do – it’s the law.

So how come whenever I see a job posting with “We are anequal opportunity employer,” plastered somewhere within it, I know they are looking for everyone except white men?

White technically is the absence of colour, and black – again technically – is the combination of all colours. However when we’re talking human beings, we come in white, black, brown, olive and many other skin colours.

So again, why are employers that claim to be non-discriminatory, being extremely discriminating in their hiring selections when it comes to men, and specifically white men?

This isn't some rant just because I fall into this category – which I do. Rather, it’s something I've noticed over the past decade, and I've read objective research papers on too.

At the turn of the century, when the industrial revolution started, workplaces were frightful places to be. There weren't any employee protection laws, and employers more interested in getting rich than your welfare would force their employees to work in unsavoury  often dangerous conditions, for little or no pay.

Labour unions formed, strikes happened, governments created labour laws to protect workers and the world was a better place.

Nope. It was still a man’s world. A white man’s world – especially in white collar office jobs. All the higher ups running the show were white men, and they hired white men to work along side them.

Women worked too, but often at substantially lower wages, and in dead-end administrative jobs.

Throughout the decade of rebellion – the 1960’s – the women’s movement took steam, and made great strides in improving working conditions, pay and job opportunities for women.

It’s taken a while, but now there are many female executives running some of the largest corporations in the world. Yahoo’s president is a woman – they stole this high powered female executive from Google – another mega-large, well respected and branded international corporation.

But now the tables of turned completely the other way. As more women are running the show, they are hiring more women.

Over the past decade, I've been in senior roles reporting to female executives and senior managers, often being one of the few men on the team.

I've been on many teams, where I felt isolated and alone, being the only white man on a predominantly female team of mixed races.

Yet when I travel around my city, my province and my country, that’s not an equal representation of the population that I see.

I see white men and women, black men and women, brown men and women, and various combinations.

But I don’t see these various combinations in the workplace of today – especially in corporations boldly bragging “we are an equalopportunity employer.”

Funny how political-correct speak can be used to do just what it was initially created NOT to do – and discriminate against fellow human beings. 

International Day of the Girl? What About Gender Equity?

Today is International Day of the Girl – a day set aside to advocate for girl’s rights and raise issues of gender bias – according to those women running this annual event.

Isn't it interesting how in this world of equal rights, women are the only ones advocating for and raising issues about “gender bias?”

So it isn't any wonder that the only gender they advocate for is their own.

It takes both men and women to keep the world going – at least if we as a species want to continue to exist. As modern as science has advanced, the miracle of life occurs when a woman’s eggs are fertilized by a man’s sperm. The physical act of sex no longer need take place, thanks to test tubes, in vitro fertilization and other medical marvels, but so far, to continue on as a species, it takes both sexes.

So why do gender equity discussions only focus on one of our sexes – those with mammary glands?

Granted, over half a century ago, women and visible minorities in North America were treated as second-class citizens. They were given the low paying jobs the men in charge didn’t want. Often women – back then – were treated as sex objects, objectified, and poorly treated.

A lot has changed in the 50-plus years of the women’s movement, and the other politically-correct movements throughout our society, including just about every race, sexual orientation, religion, and anything else which makes us different from one another.

Employment equity programs have changed the face of the working world – now more than ever those that were discriminated against decades ago are now doing the discriminating.

Every time I see “we are an equal opportunity employer” at the bottom of a company’s tagline, I read that as “we’ll hire you, so long as you are not a white man.”

Employment equity programs were originally brought in to level the playing field, so that women and visible minorities were no longer discriminated against. Essentially the original idea behind them were if you have two equal candidates vying for the same position at a company, as a last resort, you’d hire the one that was either a woman, or a visible minority.

Problem is, as we see today, those employment equity policies have essentially created a workplace where white men are no longer welcome. No one should ever be hired based on their race, sex, or anything OTHER than their skills and experiences.

So the whole employment equity movement was flawed from the start, and here we are today, where on average white men are dropping out ofthe work force, because they can’t find work. They are just giving up.

You’d give up to if you saw everyone working at the places you were applying too didn’t have anyone like you.

I've worked for some of the biggest companies in the financial sector – including American Express, KPMG, and BMO Bank of Montreal and all of these I was shocked – no horrified to see how they all had wrongly used employment equity policies to create workplaces which were anything BUT equal.

American Express’ team I was on of about 200 people was 90 percent Chinese, and 10 percent other. That does NOT reflect the population of Canada, or even America.

When I was working for one of the largest banks in Canada, BMO Bank of Montreal, the team I was on had two white men on staff, while the rest of the female-led team was all women.

The business unit for that team, The Institute for Learning, which ironically fell under the Human Resources department, was about 90 percent women, and 10 percent men.

Yes, in North America, there are more women than men proportionately in our society. However, what I experienced at BMO Bank of Montreal was hardly representative of the Canadian society which it serves.

Clearly women don’t need a gender equity day all their own. Though the real point I’m trying to make is no one should have a day to promote their own gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion or anything else unique to them, or their own group.

If we are to really achieve full equality for all, no one group should ever be celebrated outside of the whole.

That was and still is the major flaw in all politically correct movements, and corporate job equity programs. By creating policies, procedures and practices which advocate any one group above all else, you discriminate against anyone that falls outside that group.

That’s why the pendulum has swung the other way – now women and visible minorities no longer suffer discrimination in corporate North America – which is good -- however everyone that is not a woman or a visible minority suffers discrimination.

That’s why the tagline “XYZ company is an equal opportunity employer” means “white men need not apply.”

And that’s as wrong as wrong can be.