Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A gender balanced 50:50 cabinet in Canada watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    My line of thinking probably evolved from reading this article on HBR:

    https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversit...ive-innovation

    "One man's fool-proof governance is another man's dictatorship." I cannot take this seriously.
    Reading it now. Do explain what's so difficult to take seriously about that. I'm sure your idea of fool-proof governance differs greatly from Kim Jong-un's idea of it, assuming you have a basic level of decency.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Anything to avoid talking about income inequality. I'm overjoyed the Liberals got in, anything's better than the Tories, but we must remember they are an unreformed third way party still.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    All the MPs are well qualified in their fields and has relevant experience to back it up. They weren't judged solely on their gender.
    Bit of an oxymorons statement there, unless the system is VERY different over there. Tell me, how many people in the cabinet or shadow cabinet in this country aren't career politicians? The ones with actual experience tend to be stuck on the back benches, especially if they have a penis and thus get discriminated against, especially if in a so-called 'progressive' party.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people assume that they weren't selected on ability and that the demography is bound to be different if they purely were selected on ability? I suggest you provide examples of better candidates if you don't want to sound like arses. Also, even if we assume the most experienced people in the parties were males, how were they selected for the positions in which they gained that experience? Seems to me women are forced to lose out forever under that kind of attitude.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Bit of an oxymorons statement there, unless the system is VERY different over there. Tell me, how many people in the cabinet or shadow cabinet in this country aren't career politicians? The ones with actual experience tend to be stuck on the back benches, especially if they have a penis and thus get discriminated against, especially if in a so-called 'progressive' party.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Always suspected you were one of the mens rights nutjobs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Why do people assume that they weren't selected on ability and that the demography is bound to be different if they purely were selected on ability? I suggest you provide examples of better candidates if you don't want to sound like arses. Also, even if we assume the most experienced people in the parties were males, how were they selected for the positions in which they gained that experience? Seems to me women are forced to lose out forever under that kind of attitude.
    This is from the election mind, so the demographics will have improved slightly, but if we just look at the demographics you can see it improbable, it would be like having 100 positions, 100 women applying and 900 men applying, the odds of 50:50 being the best 100 is not likely. Before the election, between both houses only 27.6% were women between both houses, 12.3% were part of visible minority groups (compared to % of the population), and the average age was 57 vs 40.6.

    You then have to ask the question of where the women were put, were they put in the grand offices, or like Corbyn and his "new" (old) politics is it in the positions generally seen as easier and less important?

    And how did they gain the experience for the males? Maybe becuase they were the best candidate, maybe the were among the best, you do realise that some fields are male dominated in terms of people who want to do it, ergo in those fields the best will be male, or is that so much that it blows your apparently feminist mind?

    And whilst blowing minds, why is it that you assume them to identify as male, or female?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Sounds like a silly move to me. Pick the best regardless of gender.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Exactly, which is why white men shouldn't just be picked because they are white men like they have been through history and still are today.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by GermanGenocide)
    Why are the media ignoring the trial of Arthur Topham for hate speech because he parodied the book Germany must perish? Instead calling it Israel must perish.

    Jewry controls Canada. The double standards are on show here. Jews are given a free speech to preach hatred, even genocide of the goyim.
    man said jewry
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Always suspected you were one of the mens rights nutjobs.
    You deny that there are at the very least pushes for discrimination against men? You deny that in this day and age where people want arbitrary quotas there won't be discrimination to achieve those quotas?

    You do realise you can agree with something without being a radical. Does this mean that you suggest that I am also a "feminazi" because I believe that where valid disparity exists to the detriment of women I would like to see it eliminated?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You deny that there are at the very least pushes for discrimination against men? You deny that in this day and age where people want arbitrary quotas there won't be discrimination to achieve those quotas?

    You do realise you can agree with something without being a radical. Does this mean that you suggest that I am also a "feminazi" because I believe that where valid disparity exists to the detriment of women I would like to see it eliminated?
    In a society which hugely favours men and has done through history, you play the victim when measures are brought to improve the situations of women.

    Are men just better than women? Why else have there been so few women leaders, top judges and in positions of power both in history and today?

    Yes positive discrimination is not ideal- but to pretend everything is equal when it isn't is shocking.

    Trudeau has made an effort to really push the cause for women to be equal, for it to become acceptable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think I've actually seen it said anywhere that Justin T purposefully picked a 50:50 cabinet, so it could well be that they are the best for the job.

    But added to that, it could be that he believes men and women do bring something different than each other to the role and he wants a balanced discussion in cabinet meetings. Keeping this in mind he has probably still picked the people who he believes make up the best cabinet.

    Look at our government, do you honestly think the "best" people are picked for their individual cabinet positions? You are seriously kidding yourself if so. I mean if that was the case why would they get shuffled around to different positions so often. It isn't like experts are picked for their roles, I mean we have a history graduate in the most important economic role!!!

    So although it is all well and good people saying that the best person for the role needs to be picked regardless of gender, but as this does not happen anyway, may as well get something right!!!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This is from the election mind, so the demographics will have improved slightly, but if we just look at the demographics you can see it improbable, it would be like having 100 positions, 100 women applying and 900 men applying, the odds of 50:50 being the best 100 is not likely. Before the election, between both houses only 27.6% were women between both houses, 12.3% were part of visible minority groups (compared to % of the population), and the average age was 57 vs 40.6.

    You then have to ask the question of where the women were put, were they put in the grand offices, or like Corbyn and his "new" (old) politics is it in the positions generally seen as easier and less important?

    And how did they gain the experience for the males? Maybe becuase they were the best candidate, maybe the were among the best, you do realise that some fields are male dominated in terms of people who want to do it, ergo in those fields the best will be male, or is that so much that it blows your apparently feminist mind?

    And whilst blowing minds, why is it that you assume them to identify as male, or female?
    So you've justified an assumption with another assumption, nice.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In a society which hugely favours men and has done through history, you play the victim when measures are brought to improve the situations of women.

    Are men just better than women? Why else have there been so few women leaders, top judges and in positions of power both in history and today?

    Yes positive discrimination is not ideal- but to pretend everything is equal when it isn't is shocking.

    Trudeau has made an effort to really push the cause for women to be equal, for it to become acceptable.
    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?

    Now, for the average family in Britain, so accepting that there will be some where it is not so, will the same be the case if there are both sons and daughters?

    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, at least until they may or may not have the law broken when searching for a job, would you accept that in terms of bell curves, much like in the general population, the capabilities of males and females are likely to be very similar, with the male one slightly braoder, and on this basis still suggest that it is probable that such an over representation of women, under representation of men, is the best arrangement?

    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?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    So you've justified an assumption with another assumption, nice.
    So you're suggesting that in a sufficiently large sample size the bell curves for the males and females would not overlap nicely just as they do in the general population?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're suggesting that in a sufficiently large sample size the bell curves for the males and females would not overlap nicely just as they do in the general population?
    Urr no, the assumption is the part where you have 900 men applying and 100 women applying, not where you make an extrapolation based on that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    "Because its the current year" is an argument? What of someone was getting their head cut off by ISIS asked them why they were doing it and they said "because its 2015"? Makes no sense and just shows how Trudeau is no different from the rest of the showman puppets of democratic politics.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Urr no, the assumption is the part where you have 900 men applying and 100 women applying, not where you make an extrapolation based on that.
    Whilst nott 900:100 I did give you the demographics, and assuming that the liberals kept a similar gender ratio to last parliament we will be looking at about 60:120. Even here, statistics are not on your side. Let's next throw in a further condition for a certain amount of political history history of the members and it would further swing it; how often do people get put on front benches without much political experience, and for that matter how many want to, I have more than once heard people say that one should always spend time on the back benches first.

    Without detailed information on all 184 liberal MPs we have to turn to statistics and logic, that is unless they tell you a story you don't want to hear.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Whilst nott 900:100 I did give you the demographics, and assuming that the liberals kept a similar gender ratio to last parliament we will be looking at about 60:120. Even here, statistics are not on your side. Let's next throw in a further condition for a certain amount of political history history of the members and it would further swing it; how often do people get put on front benches without much political experience, and for that matter how many want to, I have more than once heard people say that one should always spend time on the back benches first.

    Without detailed information on all 184 liberal MPs we have to turn to statistics and logic, that is unless they tell you a story you don't want to hear.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay, so we've revised that comically exaggerated figure to something closer to reality. Under your extrapolation methods we might expect a third of the positions to be awarded to women. This paints a different picture from some of the language in this thread which suggests people would only expect a few token women if candidates were selected 'fairly'. Now, taking account that one way you can balance the demographics (although likely inducing bias in the process) is that in cases where the candidates are equally qualified or where the candidates have such different experiences it's basically a matter of preference, women will be preferred if you're trying to make a point. Thus you see my perspective. Also, going by the rapid trends in recent years there will probably be more parliaments that are entirely 50:50, not just ministers, and we might have moves like this to thank. At that point there won't be any question of ministers being selected purely by ability.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Sounds like a silly move to me. Pick the best regardless of gender.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you look at who he has chosen they are actually pretty good.

    What people seem to be ignoring is that while yes he has probably fudged an appointment or two in order to achieve a 50/50 gender split, he has also appointed people who are genuinely experienced within the field over which they now have power, something which we in the UK have completely failed to do time and time again.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.