Liberals Look to Boost Number of Women Candidates

[jolinar of malkshor]

The Liberals are set to bar men from running in some ridings in a bid to boost female candidates. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is prepared to take "extraordinary measures" to boost the ranks of women candidates in the next election

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=47019

Oh...real democratic like. Instead of getting the best person for the job that the riding association would want to run for them....Dion will be forcing them to accept people that they may not think are as good as others.

The more I hear about this guy....the more I get scared as to what would happen to this country if he gets into power.

[Kerplunk]

Oh...real democratic like. Instead of getting the best person for the job that the riding association would want to run for them....Dion will be forcing them to accept people that they may not think are as good as others.
Ya, this doesn't exactly sound to be in the best interests of the people being represented, more like in the best interest of the leader to keep his position in the party.

[kipperfan]

Do these women also have to have pets names after certain global environmental initiatives?

[ricoFlame]

they should have more animal representation in the liberal party.

[Hemi-Cuda]

isn't barring a certain gender from running descrimination? how is that legal?

[Bobblehead]

TOh...real democratic like. Instead of getting the best person for the job that the riding association would want to run for them....Dion will be forcing them to accept people that they may not think are as good as others

It's hardly a purely Liberal trait.
*cough*RobAnders*cough*

But I do agree that the best person for the job should get the job. Do what they wish to get more women to apply, but the final decision should only be based on ability, not sex.

[jolinar of malkshor]

It's hardly a purely Liberal trait.
*cough*RobAnders*cough*

But I do agree that the best person for the job should get the job. Do what they wish to get more women to apply, but the final decision should only be based on ability, not sex.

Agreed....but they haven't made it their national policy.

[jolinar of malkshor]

isn't barring a certain gender from running descrimination? how is that legal?

You would think....

When the libs were in power they really pushed for affermative action with in the civil service. They are more concerned about being politically correct and getting as many votes as possible, rather than hiring the most qualified person for the job.

Really sick.

[Vulcan]

Wow, this is taking political correctness past the point of good sense. Our democracy is far to important to force any biases on us. Sure women and minorities should be encouraged to get involved with politics and given an equal shot but this is crazy if true.

[Winsor_Pilates]

If they're actually looking to bar men from running, then I think that's stupid.

However the article is pretty simplistic and may not be 100% accurate. They don't say where they've gotten this information from and IIRC, so far all the Liberal party has actually said is they want to increase female representation to 1 third.

[CrusaderPi]

As long as people realize the Liberals are about tokenism rather then governing before the next election.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think it's such a bad thing.

Many large companies have already discovered the benefits of diversity hiring. Teams usually benefit when people from different backgrounds and experiences are brought together to share ideas. It promotes creative growth and the emergence of new ideas.

While on the surface, it seems a little drastic, I would bet that the government and country would benefit in the long run.

[Devils'Advocate]

Okay. Stupid question.

If we are all presuming that the best person wins the riding nomination, why is it that 80% of the time a man wins (88% for the Conservatives). Is it because the male candidates are better than the female candidates 88% of the time? And if so, what is it about women that make them unsuitable to be MPs?

[kipperfan]

Okay. Stupid question.

If we are all presuming that the best person wins the riding nomination, why is it that 80% of the time a man wins (88% for the Conservatives). Is it because the male candidates are better than the female candidates 88% of the time? And if so, what is it about women that make them unsuitable to be MPs?

It is about sterotypes IMO.. Firstly male candidates outnumber females by a large margin....why?.....seperate issue.

Fact is even in 2007....the north american societal perspective is that a man should be leading, and a women doing the dirty work.

[FlamesAddiction]

Okay. Stupid question.

If we are all presuming that the best person wins the riding nomination, why is it that 80% of the time a man wins (88% for the Conservatives). Is it because the male candidates are better than the female candidates 88% of the time? And if so, what is it about women that make them unsuitable to be MPs?

That's the thing. This move by Dion doesn't undermine democracy any more than it is already. At worst, it maintains the status quo. At best, it at least introduces a more diverse perspective to the Canadian political process.

Let's face it, even in "democracies", it is not about having the best person for the job. Parties typically support candidates that have the better chance of winning, and anyone is kidding themselves if they think that men were not favoured over women most of the time. Gender, ethnic background (Anglos in English Canada, and French people in Quebec), as well as appearance are all greater factors than "who is the best person for the job".

[jolinar of malkshor]

I dont think women have the same motivation to be in politics as men do....that is why there are more men than women.

[jolinar of malkshor]

That's the thing. This move by Dion doesn't undermine democracy any more than it is already. At worst, it maintains the status quo. At best, it at least introduces a more diverse perspective to the Canadian political process.

Let's face it, even in "democracies", it is not about having the best person for the job. Parties typically support candidates that have the better chance of winning, and anyone is kidding themselves if they think that men were not favoured over women most of the time. Gender, ethnic background (Anglos in English Canada, and French people in Quebec), as well as appearance are all greater factors than "who is the best person for the job".

It is up to the part association to decide who should run for their riding....not the leader of the party. The reason race, religion, sex come into play is becuase the riding wants someone that represents the majority of the people in that riding.

Dion is simple a dictator that wants everything his way or the highway.

[Devils'Advocate]

I dont think women have the same motivation to be in politics as men do....that is why there are more men than women.

That's the common answer when asked why women never make it to be CEOs. They lack the motivation to get there. They much prefer it in the typing pool.

[FlamesAddiction]

It is up to the part association to decide who should run for their riding....not the leader of the party. The reason race, religion, sex come into play is becuase the riding wants someone that represents the majority of the people in that riding.

Dion is simple a dictator that wants everything his way or the highway.

Seeing as how women often make up more than 50% of the population in many regions, if they wanted someone to represent the majority, there should be more women candidates than men.

(FYI, there are more women in Canada than men)

[jolinar of malkshor]

That's the common answer when asked why women never make it to be CEOs. They lack the motivation to get there. They much prefer it in the typing pool.

BS....

The FACT is that given a choice a lot of women, if not most, would rather be in the home and looking after the kids ect.

Arriving to the top of a company and becoming the CEO cannot be compared to running for politics.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Seeing as how women often make up more than 50% of the population in many regions, if they wanted someone to represent the majority, there should be more women candidates than men.

(FYI, there are more women in Canada than men)

Yes I know that...thanks. I said the reason it plays a roll is because of that.....not the sole reason.

Just from my own life experiences.....almost ALL of the women I know care nothing about politics and many of the men I know DO.

[kipperfan]

That's the common answer when asked why women never make it to be CEOs. They lack the motivation to get there. They much prefer it in the typing pool.

Lets not forget they bear childern, stealing years and years of expierence and tenure from their careers.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yes I know that...thanks. I said the reason it plays a roll is because of that.....not the sole reason.

Just from my own life experiences.....almost ALL of the women I know care nothing about politics and many of the men I know DO.

That may be true. That would maybe explain why Dion picked a representatively low number like 33% instead of 50%. It's easy to lack interest in an institution that one has been systematically excluded from. I think this country would benefit if something is done to push for more inclusion.

[jolinar of malkshor]

That may be true. That would maybe explain why Dion picked a representatively low number like 33% instead of 50%. It's easy to lack interest in an institution that one has been systematically excluded from. I think this country would benefit if something is done to push for more inclusion.

There is a BIG difference in education people about the benifits of public office and making it manditory that a certain percentage make up the public office. Big difference.

[FlamesAddiction]

There is a BIG difference in education people about the benifits of public office and making it manditory that a certain percentage make up the public office. Big difference.

Do you really think that there aren't enough women worthy enough in Canada to produce 1 candidate in 33% of the ridings in this country? Just because less women than men are interested in politics doesn't mean that many are not.

Let me ask this: What is the difference if a party shows a bias towards women instead of the common bias towards men?

[Winsor_Pilates]

BS....

The FACT is that given a choice a lot of women, if not most, would rather be in the home and looking after the kids ect.

Really? Why is that most University students are females then? Are they getting higher educations to fulfill their dreams of being stay at home moms?:blink:

[Vulcan]

I really dislike being dictated to on who my candidates may be. I think I'm unbiased enough to choose who I want and who will do the best job without considering race, religion or sex unless they make this part of their platform.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Do you really think that there aren't enough women worthy enough in Canada to produce 1 candidate in 33% of the ridings in this country? Just because less women than men are interested in politics doesn't mean that many are not.

Let me ask this: What is the difference if a party shows a bias towards women instead of the common bias towards men?

There are enough "worthy" women in Canada to fill 100% of all the political positions. That is not what is being argued. There is a big difference in educating these people about the benifits of public service and creating artificial bench marks as to what is an acceptable level of participation. Once this idea of hiring only certain people because of their differences instead of the quality of candidate arrises.....that is when the system really falls apart. People get in who shouldn't.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Really? Why is that most University students are females then? Are they getting higher educations to fulfill their dreams of being stay at home moms?:blink:

I am not even going to dignify this with a response.

[FlamesAddiction]

I really dislike being dictated to on who my candidates may be. I think I'm unbiased enough to choose who I want and who will do the best job without considering race, religion or sex unless they make this part of their platform.

You are dictated to who your candidates are that you can vote for. It's always been that way.

[FlamesAddiction]

There are enough "worthy" women in Canada to fill 100% of all the political positions. That is not what is being argued. There is a big difference in educating these people about the benifits of public service and creating artificial bench marks as to what is an acceptable level of participation. Once this idea of hiring only certain people because of their differences instead of the quality of candidate arrises.....that is when the system really falls apart. People get in who shouldn't.

I guess what I am getting at, is I don't believe it is an artificial benchmark. If anything, I think the current disproportional representation of males is artificial .

[FireFly]

I guess what I am getting at, is I don't believe it is an artificial benchmark. If anything, I think the current disproportional representation of males is artificial .

Yes it is. One of the biggest issues facing women who want to get into politics is exactly WHO it is voting for them to represent their riding. How many of you are part of your constituency association? Who makes up the majority of those who get to vote for their representatives? Women just aren't into politics at the grass roots levels, voting for their representatives, or there would be more females representing more ridings.

[Vulcan]

You are dictated to who your candidates are that you can vote for. It's always been that way.

Sure but I don't think they should be setting the precedent that sex matters. It's just another way of politicians dividing us and is against what I believe in.

[FireFly]

Sure but I don't think they should be setting the precedent that sex matters. It's just another way of politicians dividing us and is against what I believe in.


You're right. It's much better if all the crusty old men in Canada get to put all men in... then there's no division.

[jolinar of malkshor]

You're right. It's much better if all the crusty old men in Canada get to put all men in... then there's no division.

What?

[Vulcan]

You're right. It's much better if all the crusty old men in Canada get to put all men in... then there's no division.

I don't vote that way and I don't think most Canadians vote that way as there seems to be more women and minorities elected all the time.

[FireFly]

I don't vote that way and I don't think most Canadians vote that way as there seems to be more women and minorities elected all the time.

Really? Cause I think there were actually fewer women voted in during the last election, and it's been rather stagnant for the last... what, 15-20 years? Not sure what you're seeing, perhaps it's more women in Cabinet, but there aren't more women being elected and there hasn't been in a while.

[FireFly]

What?


I don't know, I'm drunk. That was my response to his post though. Politicians dividing us by forcing us to vote in women, how dare they?!

[Vulcan]

I don't know, I'm drunk. That was my response to his post though. Politicians dividing us by forcing us to vote in women, how dare they?!

So you think women should be given special privileges in politics, eh. Me thinks you have an agenda.

[longsuffering]

The Liberals are set to bar men from running in some ridings in a bid to boost female candidates. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is prepared to take "extraordinary measures" to boost the ranks of women candidates in the next election

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=47019

Oh...real democratic like. Instead of getting the best person for the job that the riding association would want to run for them....Dion will be forcing them to accept people that they may not think are as good as others.

The more I hear about this guy....the more I get scared as to what would happen to this country if he gets into power.

And where was your outrage and indignation when Harper handpicked candidates for various ridings, even barring long time party members from running for nomination leading up to the last election?

At least you could pretend not to apply a double standard to Liberals versus the Conservatives.

[Table 5]

You're right. It's much better if all the crusty old
men in Canada get to put all men in... then there's no division.

yeah, let's fight one inequality by forcing everyone to accept the opposite inequality. brilliant! :rolleyes:

[Resolute 14]

My thought exactly, Table. I can't believe anyone in Canada can support the Liberals for thinking that discrminating against one gender is the answer to discriminating against the other.

More hypocricy from a party that will never change, no matter how many leaders it has.

[FireFly]

So you think women should be given special privileges in politics, eh. Me thinks you have an agenda.

I've never said whether I agree with it or not. I have said that the current method of electing representatives is also biased. I don't know how it's a 'special priviledge' to have to put up with the House of Commons. WOmen are given special priviledges everywhere. That's what happens when you have to sit to pee, and you're charged with bring the next generation into the world. Get over it. Men also get special priviledges. It's not called the "Old Boys Club" for nothing.

yeah, let's fight one inequality by forcing everyone to accept the opposite inequality. brilliant! :rolleyes:

Going from 15% to 33% is the opposite inequality? What? I LOVE your math. For all we know he's going to put women in all the ridings they'll lose. Is that also fair? Is it fair now when he gets to hand pick people anyways? Should we just let it stay as an old boys club forever? Is that what you're hoping for? Because as long as it's an old boys club, the old boys club will keep picking more boys to replace them. By forcing it to become a more mixed club, he'll be setting the stage for the future as well.

You show even the smallest sign that you're going to take some power away from men and what an overreaction! These people still need to win their seats! If you don't like the fact that their private parts are different than yours, vote for a different party! :rolleyes:

[Devils'Advocate]

I do find it humorous that a bunch of men are up in arms that somebody is standing up and saying they want to find a way to put less men in power and put more women in positions of power.

If you have a better solution, let me hear it. The Conservatives current solution is to INCREASE the number of men in power as they have 12% women candidates vs 88% men.

All I've read so far is that men "want to lead" and women "want to stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant".

[Hakan]

The more women in parliament the better until it gets to an accurate representation of the population, or in other words, until 50% of parliamentarians are women.

I don't see why this is such a controversial issue.

[jonesy]

It is controversial because it is blatent discrimination. That should not be condoned. What is the next step? Only women can vote until there is 50% women in parliament?

[peter12]

Really? Why is that most University students are females then? Are they getting higher educations to fulfill their dreams of being stay at home moms?:blink:

Well university students are hardly an accurate sample of the overall female population.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that women are more social than men, with a greater desire to raise and nurture children. It is evolution after all.

[transplant99]

Nice spin DA.

Nobody I have read in this thread has said they are "up in arms" about more women getting into politics. In fact, I beleive most people would like to see it.

However, mandating it like the Liberals appear to be trying to do is ridiculous. It won't work.

More women at the grass roots levels is where change will start from, and no where else.

Right now though, if the best candidates are 80% male, then so be it. If they are 80% female, then so be that as well.

How you make this an anti-conservative thing is hard to understand but not unexpected.

[FireFly]

It is controversial because it is blatent discrimination. That should not be condoned. What is the next step? Only women can vote until there is 50% women in parliament?

But what we're saying here jonesy is that the current method also is blatant discrimination. In how many ridings do you think that a woman threw her name into the hat to be the representative? One would think that there's likely a woman in each riding, at least one, who threw her name into the hat. And yet in only 12% of the ridings was a female elected? That's not discrimination?

[jonesy]

Furthermore, I suspect anyone saying this is an OK solution would be horrified if this was broadened to include race.
Are any races so called 'under represented'? What if someone made certain ridings only available to certain races until we had fulfilled a preconceived notion of what is the proper mix.

The reason this country is great is bacause anyone can run and become an MP. Those advocating special concessions seem to be implying a weakness in certain genders. I choose to believe women are equal and can therefore stand on their own without concession.

[FireFly]

Furthermore, I suspect anyone saying this is an OK solution would be horrified if this was broadened to include race.
Are any races so called 'under represented'? What if someone made certain ridings only available to certain races until we had fulfilled a preconceived notion of what is the proper mix.

The reason this country is great is bacause anyone can run and become an MP. Those advocating special concessions seem to be implying a weakness in certain genders. I choose to believe women are equal and can therefore stand on their own without concession.

Actually races tend to be overrepresented, IIRC, simply because people with the same background tend to congregate and then vote themselves in. For example, in the NE there is a Sikh MP. But everywhere there are 50% women....

[peter12]

The more women in parliament the better until it gets to an accurate representation of the population, or in other words, until 50% of parliamentarians are women.

I don't see why this is such a controversial issue.

It isn't a controversial issue at all. Come on Hakan... you're a smart cookie. You know that in politics, means are just as important as ends.

I think you would be hard pressed to find one man on this entire board that is ignorant of the benefit of women in the political sphere. However, not all of us, including women, feel that reverse discrimination measures are at all effective. As Firefly pointed out, Dion could run all of his women candidates in Alberta, have them all lose, but still stand on his little high horse at the end of the election and say "see we did it, why can't the Conservatives do it."

It is difficult for a women to get into politics. Like it or not, politics is a man's game. I don't mean that in a sexist way at all. If you talk to former Parliamentarians, ie. Deb Grey, they will tell you of the super aggressive and dominant atmosphere of the House.

It is also a statistical given that women judge women running for Parliament more harshly than they judge men running for Parliament.
One of the demographics that tore Kim Campbell apart were middle-class female homemakers.

So I agree, we need more women in politics. But what is required is more than an easy top-down measure by one of the political parties, there needs to be a shift among Canadians core values, and that hasn't quite happened yet.

[transplant99]

But what we're saying here jonesy is that the current method also is blatant discrimination. In how many ridings do you think that a woman threw her name into the hat to be the representative? One would think that there's likely a woman in each riding, at least one, who threw her name into the hat. And yet in only 12% of the ridings was a female elected? That's not discrimination?


Not sure i follow...

If they ran and were not elected, then no, it surely is NOT discrimination. If they weren't allowed to run in the first place, then yes that would be discriminatory, and probably illegal.

Just because women dont win in elections, doesnt mean they are victims of gender. Granted there may still be some old guard ways of thinking in some ridings, but I cant beleive its so inherent that it would affect every riding across the country. If that was the case, we would see even less women in office than we do now.

[MarchHare]

While you're all frothing at the mouth about the Liberals, are you perchance forgetting that Harper has also pledged to get more females to run for the Conservatives?


Harper: Well, I appreciate you asking me that question. There really weren't the numbers of women candidates I'd like to see. I think there are things the party can do to assist the nomination of female candidates in the future but I'm pleased to say we've elected a number of highly capable women MPs and I look forward to working with them.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060126/harper_transcript_060126/20060126/

[peter12]

While you're all frothing at the mouth about the Liberals, are you perchance forgetting that Harper has also pledged to get more females to run for the Conservatives?



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060126/harper_transcript_060126/20060126/

So the party is going to encourage more female candidates to run in the next election... They aren't setting an arbitrary quota on the number of women/men allowed to run in the next election.

[jonesy]

Frothing at the mouth? You make no sense. This is about restricting one gender from participating in the governance of this country.
Harper has been brought up, but this is about Dion's apparent plan. You are pretty predictable.
Anything to say on the issue at hand?

[FireFly]

Not sure i follow...

If they ran and were not elected, then no, it surely is NOT discrimination. If they weren't allowed to run in the first place, then yes that would be discriminatory, and probably illegal.

Just because women dont win in elections, doesnt mean they are victims of gender. Granted there may still be some old guard ways of thinking in some ridings, but I cant beleive its so inherent that it would affect every riding across the country. If that was the case, we would see even less women in office than we do now.

Sure it is. Who gets to vote for the riding rep? Or perhaps I should say, who actually does vote, because everyone theoretically could vote, but not everyone does. So the question is then, who is voting this way? Also, the person that wins also has to be endorsed by the party leader. So the party leader can veto someone too.

Now it's not discrimination in that women are turned away, it's discrimination in that you get all the old boys down at the Sundre Hotel getting together to make sure there "ain't no woman representing me! She should be barefoot and naked in the kitchen!"

I once heard that the women who decide to run are generally more qualified than the men who do so. So why don't they get in?

[Cal-Gal]

Explaining voting behaviour is darn-near impossible, despite the fact that political scientists have been trying to figure out why people vote the way they do for decades. Sure, there are trends in Canada (women TEND to vote more to the left, older people TEND to vote more to the right, Union Members TEND to vote NDP, small-business owners TEND to vote Conservative)...but there simpy are no hard and fast rules.

I think its a big leap to assume that women are more likely to vote for a female candidate just because she is a woman.

As a woman who is involved in politics, I agree that the glass ceiling does exist to an extent ...however, I find it even more insulting that men in power (like M. Dion) feel the need to institute affirmitive action policies to break the glass ceiling on our behalf.

When I head into the polling booth, I cast my vote based on whose policies and principles I relate to...I don't base it on what's between a candidates legs.

[jonesy]

CG, this is what i am talking about. Those who are supporting M.Dion's apparent plan seem to believe that women are actually under qualified and require special concessions.

[jonesy]

As a somewhat related topic, what percentage of women will vote for hilary clinton just because she is female?
What percentage of men will not, just because she is female?

[transplant99]

Sure it is. Who gets to vote for the riding rep? Or perhaps I should say, who actually does vote, because everyone theoretically could vote, but not everyone does.


Members of the party in that riding.


So the question is then, who is voting this way?


Members of the party in that riding.


Also, the person that wins also has to be endorsed by the party leader. So the party leader can veto someone too.


Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

Now it's not discrimination in that women are turned away, it's discrimination in that you get all the old boys down at the Sundre Hotel getting together to make sure there "ain't no woman representing me! She should be barefoot and naked in the kitchen!"

I just aint buying it. Women's votes in these things are equal to mens votes...period. If there is a movement among males to make sure women dont get in, then there are not enough women casting votes to begin with. Afterall, as has been repeated in this thread many times, there are more women than men in Canada, so why aren't they coming together and making sure they are represented? Its a LOT more complicated than 6 farmers sitting around a saloon and deciding they want the women at home.

I once heard that the women who decide to run are generally more qualified than the men who do so. So why don't they get in?

Im going to hazard a guess that it's because there are so many fewer female candidates than their are male ones?

There are generally 4 or 5 candidates in any riding in any general election. Predominantly there will be one woman on average in those ridings....i would suspect that in the party elections to determine a candidate for any particular riding, the same would hold true. In fact it may even be more lopsided in the men running vs women running ratio at that level.

Its all about numbers, and the truth is that the majority of people that even begin to seek office are male...and the results just confirm that.

[FireFly]

I just aint buying it. Women's votes in these things are equal to mens votes...period. If there is a movement among males to make sure women dont get in, then there are not enough women casting votes to begin with. Afterall, as has been repeated in this thread many times, there are more women than men in Canada, so why aren't they coming together and making sure they are represented? Its a LOT more complicated than 6 farmers sitting around a saloon and deciding they want the women at home.

Yes, it was a generalization, and I don't think more women are needed to vote a woman in at the riding association level necessarily, I'm saying that the people who vote at those elections are those who are hardcore into politics, generally older men. And older men are probably the ones with the strongest correlation between age+sex=specific voting pattern.

How many people are card carriers? And how many of those actually vote in the riding association for their delegate, instead of just voting at election time? That's what I'm trying to get at. Most people who are interested in politics are interested every 4 years and don't have their say before then...

[transplant99]

How many people are card carriers?


For 5 bucks...anyone that wants to be.

And how many of those actually vote in the riding association for their delegate, instead of just voting at election time?

But how is this in any way, shape or form an indication of discrimination? That's individual preferences/habits. Nothing to do with why there are not more women in politics.

Most people who are interested in politics are interested every 4 years and don't have their say before then...

Agreed...except those that seek office. And if you want more women in ffice, you need more women doing this full-time and being part of the process.

As I stated, its nothing more than numbers. If there are a multitude of men running vs women, even at the riding level, then the results will be pretty much the same. This is why mandating female candidates will be an unmitigated disaster. You will have people put in positions that they aren't qualified for, or dont have a great interest in.

It starts at the beginning, the grassroots, get women involved heavily there, and you will see the results down the line.

[FireFly]

But how is this in any way, shape or form an indication of discrimination? That's individual preferences/habits. Nothing to do with why there are not more women in politics. So I can't discriminate against men? It's just my personal preference? Kinda like when Blacks weren't able to vote, that was just because all the white people preferred to have it that way? (It's an extreme example, but just to display that 'personal preference' on a grand scale can equal discrimination.)

Agreed...except those that seek office. And if you want more women in ffice, you need more women doing this full-time and being part of the process.

As I stated, its nothing more than numbers. If there are a multitude of men running vs women, even at the riding level, then the results will be pretty much the same. This is why mandating female candidates will be an unmitigated disaster. You will have people put in positions that they aren't qualified for, or dont have a great interest in.

It starts at the beginning, the grassroots, get women involved heavily there, and you will see the results down the line.

To the bolded part, um, no. They still have to volunteer to do it. They still have to have the interest enough to volunteer to do it, it's a huge undertaking. As for qualifications, I would ask you what qualifications a person really needs in order to sit on the backbench?

You're right, it is numbers. However there are more women involved in politics than there are actually in office. I don't think Dion pulled 33% out of his ass, I'd say that's probably close to the % of cardholders who are women. And you're also right in that it starts at the grassroots. What I'm saying is that the grassroots are men, and they vote in men. It's not that women aren't applying as you suggest, they still need people to vote for them. If 1/4 candidates is female, but only 12% of delegates are female, that's a disconnect. I can't imagine that only 1/8 of the candidates are female.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

For all we know he's going to put women in all the ridings they'll lose.


This is an important point--because it's actually been a pretty standard practice in politics for a number of decades. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lot of women were thrown to the wolves in unwinnable ridings.

Let's be clear. Dion isn't proposing anything that's any different from what all of the political parties have been doing since time immemorial. Anyone who thinks that nomination of candidates is some organic grassroots process whereby constituency members select the most qualified candidate is.... well.. kidding themselves. Unspeakably naive.

The National party has ALWAYS had a hand in who runs. If the national party shows little interest in who your candidate is, it's a good sign they've given up on that riding. This is and has been true for Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, (Reform and Social Credit back in the day, etc. etc.)

Dion's mistake has been SAYING that's what he's going to do. Maybe the result of this will be more transparency in the process, which I would consider a good thing--but it's a political blunder, that's for sure.

[Resolute 14]

Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

Point of fact, it would seem that Dion intends to veto men specifically for being men.

Seems for certain people here, discrimination doesn't matter unless they are the ones being discriminated against...

[FireFly]

Yes...but so what? Has a female been vetoed because she was female? If not...why bring it up? Males can be vetoed as well ya know.

I apparently did not reply to this. The only reason I bring it up is to show that the method of delegate selection is not democratic as is. There are inequalities in the system regardless. Should the leader of the party even have the right to veto a person that the riding wants? If that person is 'democratically elected', then the only way to make it fair is to strip the party leader of the ability to veto at all.

Point of fact, it would seem that Dion intends to veto men specifically for being men.

Seems for certain people here, discrimination doesn't matter unless they are the ones being discriminated against...

I don't think anyone here complained about the status quo, and frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what the Liberal party does. The Liberal party does it to show how 'liberal' they are; how sensitive they are to the needs of all members in society... that's fine. I dont' vote based on social issues anyways. Discrimination does matter, and sometimes the only way to fix that is to have reverse discrimination. Clearly two wrongs do not make a right, but sometimes you have to do things in order to open some eyes.

Do you think that without affirmative action, society would be where it is now in regards to equality?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Well university students are hardly an accurate sample of the overall female population.
True, but they do show an increasing trend for women to be more then stay at home moms, which shows females do have the desire to be businessmen, politicians etc. which is the point I was disputing.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that women are more social than men, with a greater desire to raise and nurture children. It is evolution after all.
Of course more women want to raise children then men. The point I was disputing was that most women prefer to stay at home and raise kids. Most women in this country are in the paid labour force and most young women are getting good educations.

The old boys club excuse of "women don't get the good jobs, because they don't want them" is BS.