International Women's Day

[JLives]

It has been equal opportunity for many years, with successive PMs appointing a greater number of women as a greater number of women were elected MP.

JT promised before the election he'd have a 50-50 split, and he made that promise not knowing who would be elected MP.

Had he not made that promise, and had simply selected the best people for each position, he may well have had more women than ever in cabinet. Instead, he created a scenario that guaranteed people would suspect each of those women may be there because they're a woman. That's not equality. That's not respect. It's fluff and nonsense.

No one would dream calling it equality if we were making sure we had 50 per cent men making up a board where the majority of candidates were women.

I do agree that there's still a double-standard about how men and women are treated when their in leadership positions. That'll change as more women assume leadership positions but only if they do so on merit, and not to fill some daft quota.

He DID select qualified people for cabinet. I won't say "most qualified" as I believe there's no such thing. And he selected them to represent who they are supposed to, the citizens of Canada. Who cares what gender was elected MP when determining that? That's not who they represent. You saying they aren't as qualified as men and that they aren't neccessarily the best for the job is what undermines them.

[Queen K]

I actually came back to ask something of the men here, and it's a difficult question:

How many men of both Liberal and Conservative political leanings actually would WANT their wife to stay home and NOT work in a traditional job outside the home?

How many would be terrified at the prospect?

Or thrilled?

Why do I ask this? Because it seems to be an option that women today are terrified to broach. Because of external or internal expectations perhaps, but how many women would come out and say, "I actually want to be their for him, the kids and the house."

International Women's Day is about options is it not?

[The Green Barbarian]

I actually came back to ask something of the men here, and it's a difficult question:

How many men of both Liberal and Conservative political leanings actually would WANT their wife to stay home and NOT work in a traditional job outside the home?

I think most men just want their wives to be happy. And some are happy if they don't have to work (ie their spouse makes enough to support the family). I know a few of these women. I just don't get why this drives feminists nuts. Why can't they choose what they want to choose? Just like women who still change their last names to their husbands' name. Just drives whacko feminists crazy.

[The Green Barbarian]

Justincase, I'm going to say that you haven't read enough of GBs posts to understand that he is sickened by abuse of women, supports women in all their endevours, and has spoken in defense of women from other countries many times over.

GB does not support appointing people by using the gender bias, or by gentialia, he supports the "best person for the job" and sometimes that isn't a woman because a different persons education and experience may prove invaluable to a job position over a womans. IN other words, being a woman is not a prerequiste to getting every job applied for.

You have maligned him in this post.

Thanks for the support QK. I am fully in support of a thread about International Womens' Day. Where this cause gets cheapened and insulted quite quickly is when a lunatic decides to politicize this day, and use it to criticize past governments they are being paid to insult online. This is a slap in the face to the actual day in my view, and is deeply disrespectful. The OP should hang his head in shame.

[The Green Barbarian]

He DID select qualified people for cabinet.

Now you are just lying to try and sell a narrative. What else is new.

I won't say "most qualified" as I believe there's no such thing.

Of course there is such a thing. Like, you can't be serious.

And he selected them to represent who they are supposed to, the citizens of Canada.

No, the voters selected them to represent the citizens of Canada. Being in cabinet is actually driving policy and administering bureaucracies within government staffed by hundreds to thousands of people, failed policy in this case, but policy nonetheless. This is why you don't stick rookie MP's with no experience in these roles, especially if their only qualification is their genitals.

Who cares what gender was elected MP when determining that? That's not who they represent.

Well, obviously Justin and his team of social engineering PC morons cared, because they made genitalia their primary focus for selecting cabinet ministers. This was just dumb.

You saying they aren't as qualified as men and that they aren't neccessarily the best for the job is what undermines them.

No, what Rustled and many are saying is that selecting anyone for a job because of their genitals is just dumb, and really bad policy. The situation is the same, even if men are being selected over women because of their genitals. It's stupid. Basing hiring policy on anything other than hiring the best and brightest and most experienced for a position is failed, stupid, bad policy. End of story. And that doesn't undermine anyone. It's just the way it is.

But don't listen to me, here's someone way more qualified to speak on the subject. I know you won't watch it as you don't watch anything that challenges your backward innate confirmation biases, so this is actually for Rustled:

[JLives]

They ARE qualified. I have asked repeatedly on this topic for specific examples on WHO was not qualified and WHY. Put up or shut up.

[rustled]

It has been equal opportunity for many years, with successive PMs appointing a greater number of women as a greater number of women were elected MP.

JT promised before the election he'd have a 50-50 split, and he made that promise not knowing who would be elected MP.

Had he not made that promise, and had simply selected the best people for each position, he may well have had more women than ever in cabinet. Instead, he created a scenario that guaranteed people would suspect each of those women may be there because they're a woman. That's not equality. That's not respect. It's fluff and nonsense.

No one would dream calling it equality if we were making sure we had 50 per cent men making up a board where the majority of candidates were women.

I do agree that there's still a double-standard about how men and women are treated when their in leadership positions. That'll change as more women assume leadership positions but only if they do so on merit, and not to fill some daft quota.

He DID select qualified people for cabinet. I won't say "most qualified" as I believe there's no such thing. And he selected them to represent who they are supposed to, the citizens of Canada. Who cares what gender was elected MP when determining that? That's not who they represent. You saying they aren't as qualified as men and that they aren't neccessarily the best for the job is what undermines them.

Bunk.

If nobody cared, JT wouldn't have ended up with a 50-50 split.

If it wasn't about making sure women filled half of those seats regardless of qualification, he shouldn't have made it such an issue prior to the election. But he did. You won't call him on it, and that's your prerogative.

It's also your prerogative to keep telling the women in your life they all need special treatment to make up for the fact we can't get where we want to be without special help, and it's your prerogative to somehow expect them to believe you're not saying they can't get there on their own merits.

I'll keep telling the women in my life they are every bit as capable of getting where they want to be on their own merits and that we don't need special treatment to "prove" we are equal, which is anything but equal treatment. We are equal. We are up to the task. Period.

[The Green Barbarian]

They ARE qualified.

No they AREN'T qualified. And there was no way they could be.

I have asked repeatedly on this topic for specific examples on WHO was not qualified and WHY. Put up or shut up.

Is there a point? You would just spin it anyway, totally not listen, and then in the end conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is a misogynist. You are a waste of time.

For everyone else, here's Andrew Coyne's take:

There never was a time when cabinet ministers were chosen strictly on merit. Region and language have been taken into account from the start, latterly joined by considerations of gender and ethnic balance; white men have benefited throughout from a preference, conscious or otherwise, that was until comparatively lately all but absolute.

Friendships, flattery, grudges: these, too, have always been important factors in deciding who’s in and who’s out — as, of course, is the simple matter of party affiliation. The numbers of the incompetent, the venal, and the merely mediocre among Her Majesty’s ministers, most of them white men, would fill a book.

The question is which direction we want to move from here. Do we want cabinet to move toward the (still distant) meritocratic ideal, or away from it? Do we want individuals to be chosen more for their talent and experience and less for their sex, race and so on, or the reverse? Is merit an attainable or even desirable goal, or is the whole thing just a spoils system — in which the only objective is to make sure your group is at the front of the line?

How we answer this will depend in part on what we think cabinet is for. Is it intended to be a reflection of society, in all its multi-faceted diversity? Or is it intended to govern the country? If the first, then the dominant consideration in choosing a cabinet will be to hit the right percentages of sex, race, disability, etc. — or rather, since it is impossible to embody the full range of social differentiation in a cabinet of any manageable size, to balance the claims of competing identity groups for scarce cabinet seats.

The issue here, God knows, is not fairness to male MPs. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up for this. And in any event, you may be of the view that this is a sort of cosmic payback, an evening of the scales for past discrimination against female MPs. The problem is that the country has to be governed in the here and now. So far as we are putting representationalism before ability, we are also asking the country’s interests to take a back seat.

That is obviously — this should not need to be said — not because women are any less fit to govern than men. Quite the contrary: it is not the critics of quotas who assert a contradiction between fairness to women and hiring on merit. It is their advocates. The radical, unspeakable alternative to quotas is: just hire the best person for the job. If it’s a man, fine; if it’s a woman, fine. If the result is a cabinet with more men than women, or more women than men, fine either way.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... not-gender

[JLives]

They did not get special treatment. Men have been getting special treatment for centuries. They were treated equally and chosen for their qualifications. If you disagree tell us WHO is unqualified and WHY.

[The Green Barbarian]

They did not get special treatment.

Oh good grief. Just ridiculous.

A Conservative MP stood in the House of Commons Monday and accused the prime minister of sabotaging the careers of rookie female ministers "for the sake of some re-tweets and trending hashtags."

In a statement that stretched close to 30 minutes covering an array of topics, Tory House Leader Candice Bergen questioned if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put in much thought before placing new parliamentarians into to key cabinet positions.

"The fact that our self-proclaimed feminist prime minister has put a number of earnest, well-intentioned, but inexperienced young female ministers into senior roles where they become political roadkill," the Portage—Lisgar MP said.

"As a female politician myself, it angers me when I see what the prime minister has done with his cabinet and those with immense professional potential.

"These are young people with huge potential in the Liberal caucus, and they are being put in these positions just to benefit his cynical feminist brand."

Bergen made specific mention of Government House Leader Bardish Chagger, whose discussion paper on House rules, released in March, angered opposition MPs enough to filibuster committee meetings for six weeks.

Chagger had proposed to make sweeping changes that would limit the amount of time devoted to the debate and study of legislation, as well as the elimination of Friday sittings.

Though sold as an effort to modernize the House, the proposals were perceived by opposition MPs as a way for the Liberals to push forward their agenda and limit the powers of their colleagues.

"We are seeing some Liberal MPs being prematurely promoted into roles and responsibilities ahead of having the necessary experience to assume such weighty offices and then being asked to do the impossible for the prime minister," Bergen said. "Some would call this the 'glass cliff.'"

Chagger was forced to remove some of the more contentious items in her proposal for standing order changes.

Bergen responded, saying, "Nobody is talking about whether it is a good idea to put women in cabinet positions. We agree with that. However, we need to put the very best people in cabinet positions, and many times those very best people are women."

She reiterated her opinion the prime minister isn't offering some of his female ministers a path to success.

"It is clear the prime minister is putting them in front of him. He is okay sacrificing them so he can get the glory he wants," Bergen continued, choosing her words to serve as a sort of rallying cry.

"As women, we need to stand up to that kind of thing, telling him that is all show and not substance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/21 ... _22528714/

[JLives]

Is there a point? You would just spin it anyway, totally not listen, and then in the end conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is a misogynist. You are a waste of time.

So you're picking the shut up option then? I thought so. You can't back up your misinformed opinion with actual examples. Because you don't have any.

[The Green Barbarian]

So you're picking the shut up option then?

LOL - say whatever you want Cathy Newman. There is no point in trying to educate you. You won't listen, you are too married to backward PC nonsense and just spin everything that disagrees with your confirmation bias.

I thought so. You can't back up your misinformed opinion with actual examples.

I just did.

Because you don't have any.

LOL - you have done a masterful job of taking the focus off the real issue, which is that quotas are dumb, that Trudeau was an idiot for installing them, and result in nothing but failure. I will give you that.

[The Green Barbarian]

You ever listened to what climate Barbie aka Catherina McKenna has to say? She doesn't know the difference between a puffin and a penguin, or the difference between the Manitoba provincial flag and the dominion of Canada flag. There's other examples there too.

Not very qualified in my eyes.

McKenna has been a total dud, as has Chagger. And it's not their fault, they were put in impossible positions by a vapid SJW moron. But there's no point even trying to bring them up here, as the spin machine will kick in about how they are actually awesome and doing a great job, and then the insults follow soon after that about how you must be a misogynist for even thinking that they are doing awful. Every single time.

[rustled]

They ARE qualified. I have asked repeatedly on this topic for specific examples on WHO was not qualified and WHY. Put up or shut up.

You want people to agree "qualified" should count the same as MOST qualified?

Well, I simply don't agree.

JT could have appointed more women than any previous cabinet, and no one would be asking if women were we wouldn't be having this conversation. You reap what you sow.

[JLives]

I just did.

You posted an opinion piece with the only person named was so because a paper she wrote angered some snowflakes. WHY was she unqualified? Please try using actual reasons.