A gender balanced 50:50 cabinet in Canada

I don't see how this is a move that deserves any congratulation or, indeed, even a mention. So he's picked his cabinet on the basis of their genitalia and not their ability to do the jobs he's appointed them to do. Why is that worth any praise?

How do you know it's not on the basis of meritocracy? Just because it's gender balanced doesn't mean he skimped on quality...

Absolutely fanatsic, wonderful news.
When asked why he had a cabinet that was 50% men and 50% women, his reply was simply 'because it's 2015' - absolutely beautiful stuff.


No doubt some on here will throw their toys out the pram and moan about such a progressive, inclusive measure.

It's about time politicians looked like and reflcted ordinary people.

The same old arguments such as 'you should only be judged on your ability and not appearance' will be trotted out yet they don't seem to mind white males being selected only for their appearance, just women and minorities.

Wish he was our Prime Minister.

Good move by the new prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Source - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/04/meet-the-members-of-justin-trudeaus-cabinet.html

Canada is very feminist.

So instead of living in a society based on merit, as impossible as it may be, we should live in a society based on what's between our legs, or who we love, or what colour our skin is, or whatever other arbitrary thing you wish to think up, simply because historically that was the case?

Now, answer me this: Does my sister, who as the word suggests is female, have the same gene pool as me, i.e. in theory could have the same capability (in reality, lesser capability made up for with a better work ethic)? Were the same opportunities available to her, i.e. was I, by virtue of being male, offered a better education? Was I, by virtue of being male, given more free time to study, or given better resources?

Okay, now as the same questions for gay and straight children, trans gender and cis gender.

So now that we have established that there is nothing inherently holding back one gender or another

Do you think that in Corbyn's shadow cabinet the women in the "lesser" positions got that position because they were genuinely the best for it, or because Corbyn promised a shadow cabinet at least half female and had already used up most of his quota of men?

Of course we should live in a society based on merit - but that's clearly not the case. Why is only 1 out of 12 members of the Supreme Court a woman? Why have we only ever once had a female PM/ major party leader (tories + labour)? Why are only 191 out of 650 MPs women?
Why are there so few women on the boards of companies and owners of companies? The same applies to most minorities.

So why? Is it because men are just inherently better? Or is it rather, that society has historically been very sexist, and that sexism (among other things) still plays large in society, and its institutions. Changes in the law often just paper over the cracks.

I would like to propose that you look at cases individually instead of collating information into statistics and then trying to draw conclusions based on simple correlation. It cannot be said that fewer women in positions of power is necessarily the result of sexism experienced in getting to these posts.

I don't see why you seem to mind that there are fewer female MPs, Supreme Court judges, board members, Prime Ministers and so on, especially given that some of those positions are elected. You've really no right to dictate the gender of the persons occupying those positions beyond casting your own vote. I certainly won't be guilt-tripped into voting for somebody based on gender.

Nice spin.

Are you telling me that the huge disparity in numbers of men v women in power has NOTHING to do with both past and present day sexism?
The Supreme Court is not elected, why is there only one woman?

Are men just better?
Funny how you go on about how there is no gender discrimination when in almost every single country throughout history and today, there is an imbalance of men vs women in top jobs.

I am telling you that there's a disconnect in your reasoning -- arguing from personal incredulity of the numbers is no argument at all. Nor is an imbalance in the numbers of men and women in positions of power hard evidence in itself that sexism is involved. To prove that sort of thing, you'd have to descend to the level of individual cases, as opposed to just addressing statistics.

The Supreme Court isn't; I said some of the listed positions were elected. I was referring to MPs and Prime Ministers (usually the leader of the largest party after an election and elected by their party to occupy that position). I don't know why there's only one woman but if you want to present hard evidence for your position that this is a result of sexist discrimination, I'm happy to look at it.



I did not say that there is no gender discrimination; I've only said that your reasoning is faulty. Asking rhetorical questions about apparently shocking figures is not proof that there is rampant sexism in deciding who gets into positions of power.

'Are men just better?' -- In some instances, yes. You would have to look at individual cases to determine whether sexism is involved. I won't be drawn into making general statements about certain genders.

Looking at the fact that in almost every country, throughout history and still today, that the top and elite positions have hugely more men than women in them does show that women are discriminated against.

Maybe not by the law, but certainly by society and institutions. Not all of it concious.

If you're going to argue that there is a meritocracy and that people are really judged on their abilities and nothing else, you'd have to conclude that men are just simply better as group. Is that what you are saying? Are men better? Why are they better?

But it's not surprising to see this reaction, you're like the Americans who pretend there is no racism or there is no gun problem. It's a gaping wound that people pretend is not there.

Positive discrimination is not perfect, but if it helps make things more even, and it helps tackle sexism and the huge imbalance of men-women in top positions in society then the ends will justify the means.

That does not logically follow -- it does not show that women are discriminated against. Unless you could prove that the only possible reason for such an imbalance was sexist discrimination against women, you'd have to resort to either faith to hold onto this position or take refuge in uncertainty and, so far, you seem to be doing the former.

There's also a slight distinction here: history and the present day are not the same. For most cases of sexist discrimination in history, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that it was sexist. Sexist laws, recorded statements of sexist bias in women entering top jobs (e.g. 'I would not want a woman to run the office' or something to that effect) would count as evidence. Simply pulling out figures and showing a correlation does not count as evidence.

I suggest you not conflate historic sexism with sexism today -- it only suggests that your case for modern day sexism is so weak that you have to resort to bringing up past sexism despite its (at best) tangential relevance to sexism today.

You keep putting words in my mouth -- I have not argued that there is a meritocracy. I'm actually perched firmly on the fence on this. So no, I wouldn't have to conclude that, nor answer the following questions, which rest on that premise.

I also don't think anybody should be indicted for non-conscious sexism. Again, you keep making these assertions. What is your evidence for your position that there is rampant sexism in deciding who occupies positions of power?

Unfavourable comparisons of me with other people is not an argument in favour of your view. For somebody who accused another person of indulging in fallacies a while back, you seem to be indulging in ad hominems quite often.

Bold part: That's a fairly dangerous way of thinking about things. It's rather like tunnel-vision and has the potential to cause all sorts of mayhem.

No it doesn't show it absolutely, but it strongly suggests it, often past the point of any reasonable doubt. When accross the world, there are roughly equal numbers of men and women yet the huge, huge majority of top jobs go to men, it suggests an inbuilt societal advantage to men. And judging by the fact that historically men have always been advantaged by both the law and society - it's telling.

The classic, textbook, men's rights argument for why sexism today doesn't exist and is just a figment of the imagination.

Just because there are no sexist laws, does not mean sexism doesn't exist through institutions and through societal attitudes. Last week for just one tiny example a Labour MP received rape threats, how many males recieve rape threats? If it was a male MP saying the same things would he have received rape threats?

That's just one tiny example but to suggest history is not relevant is bonkers.
You admit there was historically huge sexual discrimination in both the law and society, the law has improved, but society still lags behind. Are you saying that the domiannce of men in top jobs has NOTHING to do with the fact that women have been discriminated against in the very recent past? When women weren't allowed in top jobs? Still today women are often seen as housives and family bearers- people have difficulty seeing them in top obs because they haven't had them in the past - that's why positive discrimiantion is needed, to break the mould.

So you admit there is not a meritocracy yet are adamant there is nothing holding women back? That's kind of contradictory.

You keep putting words in my mouth -- I have not argued that there is a meritocracy. I'm actually perched firmly on the fence on this. So no, I wouldn't have to conclude that, nor answer the following questions, which rest on that premise.

For starters the fact that there are so few women in positions of power.

And there are countless studies, showing that when all else is equal, people generally prefer a man to a woman for a job - have a look at some of them rather than dismissing them straight off the bat.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/bps-epm050615.php
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave
http://www.care2.com/causes/employers-admit-they-wont-hire-young-women-heres-why.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-21/survey-businesses-prefer-male-workers/4833586
http://news.sky.com/story/1584248/equal-pay-day-why-women-now-work-for-free


Just a few, a range of sources. Have a read before you dismiss them.

There is no fallacy. Claiming sexism doesn't exist in this country is comparable with right wing Americans who claim no racism exists within the police force.

Maybe, but there being more women in top positions will help people become accustomed to the idea and help make it normal.

If it creates a more equal, less sexist society then the ends will justify the means.

How do you know it's not on the basis of meritocracy? Just because it's gender balanced doesn't mean he skimped on quality...

because genitalia was openly a factor in his cabinet selection process.

I don't see how this is a move that deserves any congratulation or, indeed, even a mention. So he's picked his cabinet on the basis of their genitalia and not their ability to do the jobs he's appointed them to do. Why is that worth any praise?