A gender balanced 50:50 cabinet in Canada watch

(Original post by Hydeman)
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...

(Original post by Plagioclase)
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...

In the article linked in the OP, there is a clear mention that this was a pre-election promise. Setting out on the task of selecting a cabinet whilst aiming for a 50:50 (or any other specific) gender balance is not a meritocracy. The 50:50 split wasn't just a happy coincidence.

(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.

..Is this sarcastic?

I bloody hope so...

(Original post by DiceTheSlice)
Good move by the new prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Source - http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...s-cabinet.html

I don't care how diverse they are, I want the best, be it 100% men, 100% women, 100% Sikhs, as long as they are best for the position, that is what matters.

Discrimination at its best. Stupid.

The thing is he's only got a few more women in his cabinet than Harper had, and now everyone's treating him like some kind of progressive saint - because genitalia was openly a factor in his cabinet selection process.

I'm not saying these women weren't qualified; I'm sure they were. But if gender proportions were the priority in his cabinet, it makes one question his ability to pragmatically appoint the proper staff.

To be clear, I voted Liberal (Harper had to go and the NDP were a lost cause), but I dislike Trudeau. He panders too hard to trendy opinions and political correctness.

"Because it's 2015". Ugh, such a douche.

(Original post by slade p)
Canada is very feminist.

*Canada is very sexist.

This whole answer is almost a textbook, rehearsed men's rights response. As they do, it falls hook line and slicker into every logical fallacy.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
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?

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.

You, like so many others, ignore the sociological side, various experiments have shown people almost naturally would choose a man over a woman if they were similar. Note experiments showing when two exact CVs were handed in as an experiment,, one with the name Sarah on the top and the other John, the male was chosen. (I'll dig that link out for you in a bit.)

Yes we all want a society based on merit, but the problem is we don't have that, and there need to be steps taken to help achieve that in the long run.

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?

Again, are you saying men are just better? No, you're sister has been subject to what throughout history has been a patriarchal society and you can't possibly deny that. Only in the last few decades have we made real strives forward. I'd be willing to wager though, that if you and your sister both were the same in many respects, equally as intelligent and useful, that you'd get the job ahead of her because people tend to prefer/trust men more for the mere fact they are men.

It's a cycle, people are wary of women in power because it's not the normal thing so therefore women don't have the same chances, the only way to break this is to change society's attitudes and positive discrimination, while not perfect helps achieve this.

So no, by virtue of being male you weren't given more free time/ more resources but you are given a leg up, generally trusted and respected more and have better prospects for being male.

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

Absolutely, they suffer just as much if not more in many cases, but we're discussing women here.

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

Very mature. No, we haven't. You saying something does not make it so and we have not established that at all. You ignore sociological factors, it's a gaping wound which you pretend doesn't exist. In almost all professions, at the top level there are more men than women so answer me again, are men just better, or are there factors which have held women back and continue to do so?

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?

I personally felt there were lots of talented women in the shadow cabinet.


You're argument seems to be 'well there are no laws which stop women so therefore they are not held back at all', well this pretty much ignores the entire sociological aspect of it.



And after all this, you, like me a male has the cheek to complain that men are the real victims of discrimination?!

(Original post by Bornblue)
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.

(Original post by Hydeman)
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.

(Original post by Bornblue)
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?

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.

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 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.

(Original post by Hydeman)
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.

(Original post by Bornblue)
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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I'm actually in favour of positive discrimination in other areas (i.e. not based on gender). You still have not proven that the 'huge' imbalance of men to women in top positions in 'society' (you're going to need to be more specific than that if you're to stand any hope of convincing anybody who doesn't already share your view) is necessarily the result of sexism.

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.

A perfect 50-50 split? Holy moly,, buckle up, utopia inbouuuund.

He's a lightweight.
A real progressive would have had Big Red in the cabinet.😆

(Original post by Hydeman)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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_releas...-epm050615.php
http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...aternity-leave
http://www.care2.com/causes/employer...heres-why.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-2...orkers/4833586
http://news.sky.com/story/1584248/eq...-work-for-free


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Original post by Bornblue)
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.

Simple correlation does not show anything past the point of reasonable doubt. Like I said in my previous post, unless you could prove that the only possible reason for a gender imbalance in top jobs (whether here or across the world) is an 'inbuilt societal advantage to men', your argument doesn't stand. It relies on stoking outrage at statistics rather than any real proof.

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

Again with the ad hominems, guilt by association and putting words in my mouth. I have not said that it is a figment of the imagination -- just that you haven't proven anything. Despite my having declared my position on the fence on this subject, you continue to perpetuate the falsehood that I'm arguing for the opposite view. I really don't know what to say to that -- are you genuinely incapable of conceiving of a world outside this false dilemma of yours or does it just help you to argue (if your paltry responses thus far can be dignified by calling them 'arguments') if you can sort people into boxes labelled 'friends' and 'enemies?'

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?

This example does not provide an argument in favour of the view that women seeking top jobs are discriminated against on the basis of their gender, unless you can prove that these rape threats were made by the people who decide whether they reach these positions. I also recommend you stop trying to shift the goalposts from a debate about sexism in top jobs to a debate about sexism generally.

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.

No, I am saying that there is no evidence for the view that the dominance of men in top jobs has anything to do with their gender. I have also said that the past is irrelevant to your argument for sexism today because there was actually evidence for sexism in these positions in the past; trying to import this evidence and pass it off as proof that women are discriminated against today is nonsense.

You have not made a convincing case for positive discrimination -- why you think it is necessary to change people's minds is beyond me. The debate is about whether there is sexism against women in positions of power and I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to that than go off on tangents about society more generally.

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

Did you actually read the bit of text this is in response to? Let me quote it again and highlight the bit that you seem to have missed:

(Original post by Hydeman)
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.

Not contradictory at all, methinks. I don't know why but you don't seem to be able to see this as a more nuanced issue than 'pro-women or anti-women.' My responses to you are to point out that your argument is weak and relies on emotion and improper conclusions, not to perpetuate the opposite view.

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

*sigh* Are you actually reading my responses to you at all? This is not evidence unless you can prove that the only reason for there being 'so few' women in positions of power is sexism. Unless you can prove that, this is a non sequitur.

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_releas...-epm050615.php
http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...aternity-leave
http://www.care2.com/causes/employer...heres-why.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-2...orkers/4833586
http://news.sky.com/story/1584248/eq...-work-for-free


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

These studies are not specific to positions of power and largely go on about women not being hired because they might potentially take maternity leave, despite the fact that paternity leave is now a thing.

You seem to delight in looking at statistics and formulating policy suggestions based on that rather than looking at cases individually. Do any of these studies prove that women are systematically discriminated against on the basis of their gender in top jobs? No, they don't. They simply suggest a general trend among all employers to value women less than men based on the likelihood that they'll take maternity leave, despite the existence of paternity leave.

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.

'You're like *insert group viewed unfavourably by claim-maker*' isn't a fallacy? Yeah, right.

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.

You've simply restated what you said before with no supporting argument. Why is it necessary to force employers to discriminate in favour of women to 'help make it normal?' Why is it desirable for people to become accustomed to the idea? You should have a better reason than 'because I said so' if you're proposing to tread on the rights of individuals to make 'society' (whatever the hell you mean by that) more to your liking.

This discussion amuses me because you seem to think that I'm arguing for the opposite view when, in fact, I actually support half the things you say, albeit in other things, not employment (e.g. positive discrimination in favour of state school students in university admissions). I simply find your reasoning to be full of logical hogwash.

such a stupid idea, if your split is 50/50 by pure chance then great but to force it like this by design is terrible, there are still larger amounts of males in these sectors so naturally there will be more men, we all need to just drop this whole idea of governments be sexist, its not true and it means the best people for the job are not getting the role. Granted some areas of the world need to grow up when it comes to womens ights but not places like canada, uk, france etc...

(Original post by Plagioclase)
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...

You know this is an unconvincing response. His methodology is fairly clear. He chose the gender proportions first, and then the candidates. Otherwise it's (a) a pretty big coincidence that he ended up with the even split that he did, and (b) hard to explain his reaction to questions about it ('because it's 2015', which, of course, is no argument at all, although it's at least clear what he thinks that signifies).

(Original post by Dandaman1)
because genitalia was openly a factor in his cabinet selection process.

Yep, exactly this.

(Original post by Hydeman)
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?

He probably picked the best regardless of gender.

Why do you think that men would be more able to do the job than women? This is what you are implying.

Posted from TSR Mobile