And then the next obvious question is if female cabinet minister are meant to advocate for women (whatever that means), then are male cabinet ministers meant to advocate for men? Are Asian cabinet ministers meant to advocate for Asians (whatever that means), and cabinet ministers of European origin meant to advocate for citizens of European origin?
It's not about advocating, it's about hearing the voice. Based on the different experiences that people of different races and genders have due to the way our society is structured, they are likely to have different opinions or viewpoints than the majority.
Providing opportunity for those voices to be heard is the goal, not 'advocating' for solutions to specific 'issues.'
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Any actual women here think it's patronizing? My wife doesn't - thinks it's an important gesture to get to a place where more women will enter politics - and therefore the conversation needn't happen at all.
Yeah, I'm with your wife. It doesn't offend me at all - I'm very pleased.
Well, I must say, with a few really weird and hard-to-justify exceptions (e.g. Bardish Chagger, Maryam Monsef, Diane Lebouthillier, and the most bizarre one - Jim Carr), this is a surprisingly strong and very impressive new cabinet.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
What should remind you of idiocracy is Harper's long war on science in Canada, which hopefully ends now with the new government, good start at least having a minister of science.
It's not about advocating, it's about hearing the voice. Based on the different experiences that people of different races and genders have due to the way our society is structured, they are likely to have different opinions or viewpoints than the majority.
Providing opportunity for those voices to be heard is the goal, not 'advocating' for solutions to specific 'issues.'
Then we're agreed that it's nothing like the representation by region that cabinets have traditionally been built around.
As for how our society is structured, for decades now the liberal project has involved breaking down those structures, not reinforcing them, to the point where Canadians in 2015 live in a society where they are less constrained by traditional roles and prejudices than virtually any society in the history of our species. Surely it's worthwhile to examine and recognize how me made such remarkable progress. And such an examination will conclude that it was by de-emphasizing gender and racial identities, not by institutionalizing them.
I reject the notion that there is substantial differences between the life experiences of citizens based on gender and race alone. Our representatives in parliament are for the most part drawn from the wealthiest and best-educated 10-20 per cent of Canadians. Affluence and education blur differences. An affluent and educated white women, an affluent and educated Asian man, and an affluent and educated white man have had very similar life experiences. These three people are much more alike in experience and outlook than any of them is like a Canadian (of any race or gender) who earns less than $30,000 and is a manual laborer. That is a meaningful difference in life experience.
I think in concrete, utilitarian terms. In order for me to see the value in this, someone will have to fill in the blanks in this sentence. "In a parliament with more [gender/race] in it, we'll see more legislation that aims to [increase/decrease] the incidence of [issue]."
If Trudeau wants to employ gender parity to address an imbalance that is having a measurable and worsening effect on Canadians, then he needs to look no further than his former field of teaching, where it can't have escaped his notice that less than a third of his colleagues were male, where boys are doing worse than girls at every stage, and where those gaps are widening. Or he could address the disastrous and disproportionate effect the collapse of marriage as an institution has had on the poor and uneducated.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 11-05-2015 at 06:28 AM.
It's the opposite. The bottom $30000 are the same. An ethnic waitress is the same as a white waitress. When we go to bars/restaurants I don't think we view service any different if received by non-white person.
At the top women in general still face an uphill battle. And in politics very few women run for office and in government fewer women get top jobs. Having 50% women in cabinet will encourage women to run as they have role models. Especially the ethnic ones.
So i'll try this.
"In a parliament with more aboriginal women in it, we'll see more legislation that aims to decrease the incidence of violence against aboriginal women"
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
It's the opposite. The bottom $30000 are the same. An ethnic waitress is the same as a white waitress. When we go to bars/restaurants I don't think we view service any different if received by non-white person.
At the top women in general still face an uphill battle. And in politics very few women run for office and in government fewer women get top jobs. Having 50% women in cabinet will encourage women to run as they have role models. Especially the ethnic ones.
So i'll try this.
"In a parliament with more aboriginal women in it, we'll see more legislation that aims to decrease the incidence of violence against aboriginal women"
Only Monarch or President can be head of state.
Prime Minister is head of government
If for example Trudeau was Prime Minster and head of state, he'd never call another election. Government falls and he becomes dictator.
Ok, but why do we need the Queen in order to have a Governor general or whatever you want to call it (President, if you want)? Currently the Queen appoints on the PMs recommendation. Have they ever said no? Why not just have the PM appoint someone and have the opposition approve or something?
From elections.ca:
Quote:
While the Governor General has the discretion to decide when to dissolve Parliament, the Canada Elections Act otherwise requires that a general election be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the previous general election. A federal election may also occur sooner if the Government loses a confidence vote in the House of Commons.
They have to call an election every four years anyways, there's no way it could turn into dictatorship unless that changed. In short, we can replace the Queen in our system rather easily, I don't see why we need the connection.
Ok, but why do we need the Queen in order to have a Governor general or whatever you want to call it (President, if you want)? Currently the Queen appoints on the PMs recommendation. Have they ever said no? Why not just have the PM appoint someone and have the opposition approve or something?
From elections.ca:
They have to call an election every four years anyways, there's no way it could turn into dictatorship unless that changed. In short, we can replace the Queen in our system rather easily, I don't see why we need the connection.
Yeah I get that, but GirlySports seems to suggest that we either need the Monarch, or have a Presidential system like the US.
I'm saying it's our system we can do whatever we want with it. Have the whole House of Commons vote on the Governor General if you want to make it a bit more democratic.
Ok, but why do we need the Queen in order to have a Governor general or whatever you want to call it (President, if you want)? Currently the Queen appoints on the PMs recommendation. Have they ever said no? Why not just have the PM appoint someone and have the opposition approve or something?
From elections.ca:
They have to call an election every four years anyways, there's no way it could turn into dictatorship unless that changed. In short, we can replace the Queen in our system rather easily, I don't see why we need the connection.
The Republic of Canada sounds good to me.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Yeah I get that, but GirlySports seems to suggest that we either need the Monarch, or have a Presidential system like the US.
I'm saying it's our system we can do whatever we want with it. Have the whole House of Commons vote on the Governor General if you want to make it a bit more democratic.
You need a final arbitrator on certain issues. Like the President's veto power.
It would be weird in the US if the House of Representatives voted for the President.
There is the US system or the France system. Canada would have to go one of those two ways. Can't have just a Prime Minister. There would be no balance.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
