Liberals Look to Boost Number of Women Candidates

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by FireFly

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

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.

Originally Posted by Table 5

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

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by FireFly

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/ArticleNew...0126/20060126/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 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?



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0126/20060126/

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]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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?