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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Good move by the new prime minister Justin Trudeau.

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

    18
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like a silly move to me. Pick the best regardless of gender.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute cuck. Embarrassment to the country (although it's Canada, didn't have much going for them).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Sounds like a silly move to me. Pick the best regardless of gender.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So far picking the "best", hasn't provided a fool-proof governance in any part of this planet. I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their demographics and act on behalf of them.

    (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?
    Tbh, I found that as one of the decisive factors. A team of diverse background and experience provides better solutions.

    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Absolute cuck. Embarrassment to the country (although it's Canada, didn't have much going for them).
    Elaborate

    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Terrible, terrible decision. You pick based upon performance, not gender.Congratulations third wave feminism, you done good.
    Oh god gender was not the sole criteria. It never was. Perhaps my thread's title is to blame.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Terrible, terrible decision. You pick based upon performance, not gender.

    Congratulations third wave feminism, you done good.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    So far picking the "best", hasn't provided a fool-proof governance in any part of this planet. I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their demographics and act on behalf of them.



    Tbh, I found that as one of the decisive factors. A team of diverse background and experience provides better solutions.


    Elaborate
    What people have already said. You don't select candidates based on what's hanging or not hanging between their legs, you select them based on their credentials. You wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had been picked primarily due to his gender or race or sexual orientation, you would want someone who was the most qualified for the job. I don't see why anyone should expect differently of politicians.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    What people have already said. You don't select candidates based on what's hanging or not hanging between their legs, you select them based on their credentials. You wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had been picked primarily due to his gender or race or sexual orientation, you would want someone who was the most qualified for the job. I don't see why anyone should expect differently of politicians.
    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yet they still weren't the best for the job. That's normally how you select candidates, when you're not busy pandering to lefty cucks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    What people have already said. You don't select candidates based on what's hanging or not hanging between their legs, you select them based on their credentials. You wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had been picked primarily due to his gender or race or sexual orientation, you would want someone who was the most qualified for the job. I don't see why anyone should expect differently of politicians.
    But apparently he thinks that male and female politicians' personal experiences are vastly different, but we all know that they're usually people who come from very privileged backgrounds.

    So how are the homeless transvestite pig-wranglers represented on his cabinet? The 50:50 ratio simply ignores this and is a travesty to equality!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Tbh, I found that as one of the decisive factors. A team of diverse background and experience provides better solutions.
    Proof?

    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    So far picking the "best", hasn't provided a fool-proof governance in any part of this planet. I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their demographics and act on behalf of them.
    I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their views, not their demographics. If there's a shred of evidence to suggest that you have to belong to a certain demographic to represent the views of the majority of that demographic, I'd like to see it, please.

    There is no such thing as fool-proof governance because it is a subjective measure and, as such, is open to interpretation. One man's fool-proof governance is another man's dictatorship.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Canada is very feminist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    *Slow clap*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    So far picking the "best", hasn't provided a fool-proof governance in any part of this planet. I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their demographics and act on behalf of them.
    So should we require politicians to have a range of IQs as well?

    We need enough women to guard against male groupthink, and vice versa. Research suggests that in smaller groups (such as juries or, as the case may be, the cabinet) the critical mass required is three people. Beyond that, other factors need to take priority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So it was a coincidence that the cabinet is exactly 50/50?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There is 15 women in this cabinet. Harper had 12. Not much of a difference. It is not much to celebrate, nor is it worth getting your knickers in a twist about.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Sounds like a silly move to me. Pick the best regardless of gender.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Canada has long tradition of balancing the national cabinet between Francophone and English speaking; Catholics and Protestants; Maritimes, Western provinces, Ontario and Quebec. This is just another exercise in balancing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    But apparently he thinks that male and female politicians' personal experiences are vastly different, but we all know that they're usually people who come from very privileged backgrounds.

    So how are the homeless transvestite pig-wranglers represented on his cabinet? The 50:50 ratio simply ignores this and is a travesty to equality!
    1) Read the link in the OP. Among many others, one of the MP was an Indian born bus driver in Canada. Another is an Afghan born, refugee sort, migrant.

    It's not a HNWI club that you think it is.

    2) I doubt a "pig wrangler" is driven or committed enough to serve for the best interests of his country.


    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Proof?

    I think the focus needs to be more on suitable candidates who can represent their views, not their demographics. If there's a shred of evidence to suggest that you have to belong to a certain demographic to represent the views of the majority of that demographic, I'd like to see it, please.

    There is no such thing as fool-proof governance because it is a subjective measure and, as such, is open to interpretation. One man's fool-proof governance is another man's dictatorship.
    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.


    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    So should we require politicians to have a range of IQs as well?

    We need enough women to guard against male groupthink, and vice versa. Research suggests that in smaller groups (such as juries or, as the case may be, the cabinet) the critical mass required is three people. Beyond that, other factors need to take priority.
    Not sure what your conclusion is... can you rephrase?


    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    So it was a coincidence that the cabinet is exactly 50/50?
    It's not a coincidence. But I see no reason why it should be an issue. Your recursive mumbling of "the best should be selected" doesn't weigh much given the said "best" is only "best" to those people who voted for them.


    (Original post by Quantex)
    There is 15 women in this cabinet. Harper had 12. Not much of a difference. It is not much to celebrate, nor is it worth getting your knickers in a twist about.
    Never knew that. Wouldn't have known if it wasn't for this thread
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Not sure what your conclusion is... can you rephrase?
    You need at least three women in the Cabinet. To that extent I can understand having a quota. I see no practical justification for enforcing a 50/50 split, though.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.