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 Katty3)
    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
    No it isn't, actually. I've simply said that selecting a cabinet on the basis of gender is not a laudable action. It's probably best if you avoid putting words in my mouth and then asking me to defend them, because I won't.

    And no, he didn't pick the best regardless of gender. Did you read the article linked in the OP? A 50:50 men-to-women ratio was a pre-election pledge, not a happy coincidence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    He probably picked the best regardless of gender.
    :laugh:

    And ended up with a perfectly even balance... and then pretty much came out and said that he wanted a gender balanced cabinet? (edit: apparently this was more explicit than I'd thought, so for this you can read 'said that he was going to choose a cabinet based on gender'.)

    Who do you think you are kidding? If you want to argue for positive discrimination, argue for it. This is just silly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No it isn't, actually. I've simply said that selecting a cabinet on the basis of gender is not a laudable action. It's probably best if you avoid putting words in my mouth and then asking me to defend them, because I won't.

    And no, he didn't pick the best regardless of gender. Did you read the article linked in the OP? A 50:50 men-to-women ratio was a pre-election pledge, not a happy coincidence.
    Because the best way to tackle inequality is to ensure that there is fair representation. I was looking at the subtext for your argument. He did not pick on the basis of gender, he decided that there would be equal representation and then picked the best from there. Both genders still have an equal chance of getting picked because half of the population is female and half is male. Roughly. Some people are non binary, agender, etc.

    He has a diverse cabinet. That means that there is a broad range of expertise and experiences so they can make the best decision possible. This means that marginalised groups get ignored. If I stick 20 rich, middle age white men in a room and ask them to make decisions for an entire community, they probably won't consider many minorities. They won't consider the struggles of minorities and so, will make things worse.

    Diversity also brings different thinking patterns. Different people look at problems and go "have you thought of doing x to solve y problem." A group of people who have all had similar experiences won't do that.

    Diversity in leadership is a good thing.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Because the best way to tackle inequality is to ensure that there is fair representation.
    I highly doubt that you and I agree on what counts as 'fair.' I do not think, as a lot of people in favour of this decision, that simply attaching the word 'fair' to something makes it so. I also do not think that inequality of any and all kinds needs to be tackled -- it seems to be that kind of silly, emotive word that people use to generate victimhood where there's no evidence for any.

    I was looking at the subtext for your argument. He did not pick on the basis of gender, he decided that there would be equal representation and then picked the best from there. Both genders still have an equal chance of getting picked because half of the population is female and half is male. Roughly. Some people are non binary, agender, etc.
    Er, he did. The fact that he restricted himself to a 50:50 split and then looked for the best is, by definition, picking on the basis of gender and not merit. It's nonsensical, and analogous to saying, 'I only pick the best, as long as half of them are women' and failing to notice the self-contradiction in that statement.

    Both genders do not have an equal chance of being picked because the cabinet is picked by the Prime Minister from an elected parliament on a biased basis, not the general population. Key word: biased. I'm actually quite shocked by how poor that argument is. What does the general population have to do with the chance of somebody getting picked from the available MPs in Parliament?

    He has a diverse cabinet. That means that there is a broad range of expertise and experiences so they can make the best decision possible. This means that marginalised groups get ignored. If I stick 20 rich, middle age white men in a room and ask them to make decisions for an entire community, they probably won't consider many minorities. They won't consider the struggles of minorities and so, will make things worse.
    This is all speculation. Your assertion that 20 rich, middle-aged white men probably won't make decisions that favour minorities is no truer than the opposite assertion that they would probably make decisions only in the interests of minorities.

    A broad range of expertise and experiences is not guaranteed by gender selection and, even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily logically follow that the broadest range of expertise and experiences is conducive to making the 'best' decisions. 'Best' is subjective and, as it happens, so is breadth of expertise and experience. Far too subjective to be drawing the kinds of certain conclusions that you're indulging in.

    Diversity also brings different thinking patterns. Different people look at problems and go "have you thought of doing x to solve y problem." A group of people who have all had similar experiences won't do that.

    Diversity in leadership is a good thing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What is the evidence for this? And if there is convincing evidence for this, how does one determine diversity of experience? And what is the best way to implement this, in your view? And is doing so, on carefully weighing up the arguments for and against, worth shifting away from a meritocracy? You'd need to answer these questions, and many more, before your argument begins to approach 'decent' status.

    Not particularly pertaining to the last quoted part of your post, I want to point out that this view that there are such things as 'women's interests' or 'ethnic minorities' interests' has no basis in evidence. And it is entirely fallacious to suggest that you must belong to a certain demographic to represent the views of that demographic (of course, proving that demographics share certain views is another kettle of fish altogether) -- yes, views. That is what legislative bodies are for: to represent people's views, not their demographics.

    Your example of rich, white men, particularly, demonstrates this, with the implication being that they cannot represent the views of other demographics. What is the evidence that every single rich, white man is incapable of representing the views of other demographics, who're apparently unanimous in their views? I'd be happy to look at any that you can direct me to.

    Nevermind the fact that there is diversity of opinion within demographics as well as between them. What you might call a bad decision for women -- let's say, a repeal of paid maternity leave -- might be lauded by some women who think that the natural role of women is as mother and housewife. And it wouldn't matter in that instance whether the people who voted in favour of that are men or women, although it might be interesting to see your reaction to that if it did happen, convinced as you are that a female MP must necessarily be acting in the interests of women, despite there being no unilateral consensus on most issues.

    I won't even dignify what you said about problem solving with a response...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Precisely.

    I don't even know how we're supposed to this for every STEM job out them, or indeed, every field imaginable!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Surely it's best to pick based on merit rather than gender? The fact that it's 50/50 says to me some people weren't picked on merit


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    One man's fool-proof governance is another man's dictatorship

    If I'm in a oppressive country like Saudi Arabia and I don't feel my life is at stakes am I living under a fool proof governance or a dictatorship?

    Perhaps I have an incorrect interpretation of your quote. The point is countries can be appealing to different people all at the same time. Just because there isn't a 100% satisfaction return doesn't necessarily mean those who are dissatisfied are living under a dictatorship or whatever.


    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    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.

    It's commendable character. If people are going to ask silly questions like why is your cabinet a 50% representation of men such facetious answers are what you should expect.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    One man's fool-proof governance is another man's dictatorship

    If I'm in a oppressive country like Saudi Arabia and I don't feel my life is at stakes am I living under a fool proof governance or a dictatorship?

    Perhaps I have an incorrect interpretation of your quote. The point is countries can be appealing to different people all at the same time. Just because there isn't a 100% satisfaction return doesn't necessarily mean those who are dissatisfied are living under a dictatorship or whatever.
    Yes, I'd say the bold is true. You seem to be reading far more into it than intended by the writer.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    equality is about equal opportunity, as there are less women in politics this is disadvantaging the male politicians - how is that a move forward?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Must suck being a woman in that cabinet, not knowing whether you were actually the best person for the job or just a lucky beneficiary of an idiotic idea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Meanwhile in New Zealand, MPs are are ordered to leave the parliament after sharing sexual assault stories.

    Source - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...ries-1.2425387

    I feel this is what happens when females are underrepresented.


    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yes, I'd say the bold is true. You seem to be reading far more into it than intended by the writer.
    Next time you spew an asinine quote and ask someone to explain, think twice.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Next time you spew an asinine quote and ask someone to explain, think twice.
    Ad hominems -- nice.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    And those were my own words, not a quote. Nice to know that I'm quotable enough for you to make that 'asinine' assumption though.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Meanwhile in New Zealand, MPs are are ordered to leave the parliament after sharing sexual assault stories.

    Source - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...ries-1.2425387

    I feel this is what happens when females are underrepresented.
    Yes, there is a direct causal relationship between an imbalance of genitalia in the cabinet and sexual assault committed by MPs. Totally.

    That's a very fine non sequitur you've constructed. Make sure you polish it every day so that it shines bright as evidence of your cognitive defects.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    He shouldn't be picking the people in his cabinet because of their gender, he should be picking them based on how good they are. I'd be perfectly happy if the cabinet was entirely male or entire female, or even entirely non binary, and able to do their job, rather than eliminating some possibly better candidates in support of someone of the opposite gender.
 
 
 
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.