GT: Federal Election

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by rubecube

@lizchurchto "Because it's 2015" Justin Trudeau says when asked why half his cabinet are women.

The whole "has to be half women" mandate rings a little hollow to me. Sure it's nice when a cabinet is diverse, but forcing that type of diversity is not only patronizing to women, it also makes one think that probably a lot of better suited candidates are left out.

Whatever happened to judging people on their own merits? Isn't that what equality is about? If that means 75% women, great. If that means 25% women, great. At the end of the day, I want the best government possible. Not the best photo op or feel good moment.

Forcing candidates into certain spots makes you question their merits whether its justified or not. I think it would've made a more powerful statement to just appoint the same people without the fanfare, and let the media pick up on the story.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Forcing candidates into certain spots makes you question their merits

Newsflash... Cabinets in Canada have never been chosen strictly on merit. Ever.

And if they were people would loudly complain about it because you'd have whole regions completely frozen out of the executive.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... how many Cabinet spots did you think Alberta MP's were going to get? Because diversity would have been served with any of them (considering that the four Alberta members can represent the physically disabled, Sikh, LGBT, and Indian communities). Realistically there was going to be 1 from Calgary and that being the case I'd rather have Kent.

The West is still slightly under represented. 7 out of 31 ministers is 22%. The population of Western Canada is upwards of 25%. An extra Western Canada minister would have been nice and Kang would have been a good choice. Calgary could be a grow area for the Liberal government in upcoming elections so the party and the Premier should try to focus on appeasing us.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by rubecube

@lizchurchto "Because it's 2015" Justin Trudeau says when asked why half his cabinet are women.

I get what his point is, but I'd rather he frame as it should be "because they are the best candidates for those positions."

[Armchair Quarterback]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Precisely, speaking for myself the moment the Tories decided to personally smear Dion, one of the brighter minds to hold public office, as some some kind of bumbling fool was moment I wanted them out. It was so very very low.

The contemptuous smearing of the academe and the draconian treatment of scientists, coupled with the paradoxical raising up of Harper as a brilliant economic mind, is one of the more interesting paradoxes of the Tory strategy during past decade.

The Tories see such moves as legit because they believe that politics is the realm of sophists, not true philosophers. Socrates was (as they would undoubtedly say), after all, put to death for being too intelligent. They believe that the philosopher, and by extension the truth itself, have no real place in the city.

[sa226]

You can't really win one way or another. There just aren't that many western ministers. Should they all get Cabinet positions just because they hold seats in the west?

As for the women thing, I would like a little clarification on how it is being spun. Perhaps in the past women were qualified, but passed over simply because they were women. Whether the bias was intentional or not. I do agree that forcing candidates just for the image of equality doesn't do anybody any good.

[Coach]

whoops posted by mistake.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Newsflash... Cabinets in Canada have never been chosen strictly on merit. Ever.

And if they were people would loudly complain about it because you'd have whole regions completely frozen out of the executive.

I get that there will always be need to represent certain regions and groups with these appointments, but I feel like this declaration went beyond the norm. At the very least, frame your appointments as ones made on merit, not as one that fills a quota. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified women who can stand as ministers without the need for a PR hand up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The whole "has to be half women" mandate rings a little hollow to me. Sure it's nice when a cabinet is diverse, but forcing that type of diversity is not only patronizing to women, it also makes one think that probably a lot of better suited candidates are left out.

Whatever happened to judging people on their own merits? Isn't that what equality is about? If that means 75% women, great. If that means 25% women, great. At the end of the day, I want the best government possible. Not the best photo op or feel good moment.

Forcing candidates into certain spots makes you question their merits whether its justified or not. I think it would've made a more powerful statement to just appoint the same people without the fanfare, and let the media pick up on the story.

Thought Elizabeth May did a pretty decent write-up on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/elizabe...b_8472966.html

I don't know about you, but I have been astonished at the many media pundits who question Justin Trudeau's decision to appoint a cabinet with gender parity. The CBC panel on Nov. 1 with The Walrus editor Jonathan Kay was a real low point. Suddenly a hue and cry is raised that having 50 per cent women will entail incompetent appointments. Kay even kidded that it was unfair to his "people." It reminded me of the Parks and Recreation episode where men rallied for their rights crying out "we have not been treated fairly -- really recently."

I do not recall anyone questioning the merits of male ministers being appointed as the vast majority of cabinets -- forever. Were all those stellar choices under Stephen Harper (Julian Fantino, Vic Toews, and Pierre Poilievre to name a few) just so unquestionably well-prepared for the job that the matter never came up? Or is it beyond obvious that questions of merit never surfaced when the expected men were put in their usual spots -- known as positions of power?

The satirical publication The Beaverton skewered the response in a brilliant little column: "50 per cent female cabinet appointments lead to 5000 per cent increase in guys who suddenly care about merit in cabinet."

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I get that there will always be need to represent certain regions and groups with these appointments, but I feel like this declaration went beyond the norm. At the very least, frame your appointments as ones made on merit, not as one that fills a quota. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified women who can stand as ministers without the need for a PR hand up.

That's fair, but when you have enough caucus strength (and it seems they do) that could easily be filled completely by men or completely by women and they'd be completely qualified, why not gender balance? Remember, cabinet ministers are generalists, not specialists - they needn't be selected on professional expertise, but largely competence and fulfilling certain goals like 'representation' of one kind or another. You couldn't really say any of the 15 women appointed are not qualified or are token. If there were 16 women and 15 picked, you might be able to make that argument. I agree it could have just been done without the proclamation beforehand. On the other hand, symbols also really do matter and serve a purpose.

[killer_carlson]

I thought Garneau would have been Foreign Affairs. Really surprised at that. He's the best of the Liberal bench and would have been excellent at Foreign Affairs.

Amarjit Sohi is the Edmonton MP who was appointed. Of the 2 choices from up here, he was the one with a demonstrated track record of being effective, at least at the civic level.

Paula Simons had a good summary of each of the MP chances in a recent article.

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...abinet-chances

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

That's fair, but when you have enough caucus strength (and it seems they do) that could easily be filled completely by men or completely by women and they'd be completely qualified, why not gender balance? Remember, cabinet ministers are generalists, not specialists - they needn't be selected on professional expertise, but largely competence and fulfilling certain goals like 'representation' of one kind or another. I agree it could have just been done without the proclamation beforehand, though. On the other hand, symbols also really do matter and serve a purpose.

My point is not that they shouldn't try to create balance, it's that by making it a THING, it undercuts the validity of women who would be great candidates regardless. By stating beforehand that you're working on a quota, you inherently undermine the appointees by planting a seed of doubt about their merits.

By appointing half women, but without any public declaration beforehand, you achieve the same balanced result without the patronizing undertone. Symbolically, you make a statement that these were the best candidates for the job.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

My point is not that they shouldn't try to create balance, it's that by making it a THING, it undercuts the validity of women who would be great candidates regardless. By stating beforehand that you're working on a quota, you inherently undermine the appointees by planting a seed of doubt about their merits.

By appointing half women, but without any public declaration beforehand, you achieve the same balanced result without the patronizing undertone. Symbolically, you make a statement that these were the best candidates for the job.

Fair. But every person in that position knows they check a certain box one way or another. Cabinets have very little to do with real "merit" and everyone knows it. Everyone knows Marc Garneau checked the "bad ass astronaut box", not because he'll be great at knowing about how trains run.

[Coach]

^^^ Exactly. Honestly, the question itself is an insult to women. Why even ask it? Would have been better if Trudeau said he didn't realize (even if it was 100% on purpose).

"Why is your cabinet 1/2 women?"

"Is it? Oh. I wasn't counting."

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Table 5

My point is not that they shouldn't try to create balance, it's that by making it a THING, it undercuts the validity of women who would be great candidates regardless.

Cabinet representation on the basis of regional representation has always been a THING but no one made a fuss about that or claim that it undercut their validity.

[Bunk]

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.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Cabinet representation on the basis of regional representation has always been a THING but no one made a fuss about that or claim that it undercut their validity.

A) Are you sure about that? There's a few people still crying about proportional representation on the difference of a few percentage points that would be almost impossible to match up exactly.

B) The person asking the question is the one undercutting the validity by insinuating it's only for quota's sake. Trudeau essentially confirms this with his "because 2015" remark. Equality should mean the better people get their place on merit, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. If that means its over-representative of women/men/LBGT/minorities/whatever, so be it.

Trudeau has the right position, said it wrong though IMO. Just ignore the question for what it is, a loaded, stupid question.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Cabinets have very little to do with real "merit" and everyone knows it. Everyone knows Marc Garneau checked the "bad ass astronaut box", not because he'll be great at knowing about how trains run.

True, but that's basically why our governments, right off the bat, are never as effective as they could be. Too much emphasis on optics with every decision. I know that won't ever change, but a little more "always earned, never given" meritocracy would go a long way.

[northcrunk]

This cabinet actually seems really good and I think it's a positive step. They could run all male or all female cabinet ministers and still have plenty of talent. I'm happy to see 2 Alberta ministers out of 3 elected MPs.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Cabinet representation on the basis of regional representation has always been a THING but no one made a fuss about that or claim that it undercut their validity.

When's the last time a PM came out and said that a certain region or group (Say Quebecois) will get a specific amount of seats? I don't recall that happening.