• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women

Amadeus

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women | World news | The Guardian

Canada’s new prime minister Justin Trudeau has named a young and ethnically diverse cabinet, with a ministerial team that for the first time in the country’s history is equally balanced between men and women.

The ministers – 15 women and 15 men – are mostly aged under 50, in a team marking both a generational change and a commitment to reflecting Canada’s diversity.

“It’s important to be here before you today to present to Canada a cabinet that looks like Canada,” Trudeau, 43, told reporters on Wednesday soon after he was officially sworn-in as the country’s 23rd prime minister – the second-youngest in its history.

Asked to explain his gender parity promise, he answered: “Because it’s 2015.”

Many of the incoming female ministers have been given key roles, including former journalist Chrystia Freeland – now in charge of international trade – and Maryam Monsef, who fled Afghanistan as a refugee 20 years ago and will oversee the democratic reform portfolio.
Click to expand...

You have to admit that this is a good sign, even if you don't like and/or didn't vote for Trudeau. I would like to submit this TYT commentary for good measure:

 
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
 
Scrabaholic said:
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
Click to expand...

Who says they weren't? You parody the TYT commentary perfectly...
 
Scrabaholic said:
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
Click to expand...

At times a new perspective is needed, vice the old lying BS. Of course some will fail, others will excel. He has lots of talent in reserve. Unlike Harper had.
Myself, I see no issues. A more open Govt. is what we have been told, will see how long that lasts.
I recall Ministers under Chretien were permitted to speak without prepared talking points. It is good for democracy.
 
Amadeus said:
Trudeau gives Canada first cabinet with equal number of men and women | World news | The Guardian



You have to admit that this is a good sign, even if you don't like and/or didn't vote for Trudeau. I would like to submit this TYT commentary for good measure:

Click to expand...




Who the **** are these morons and why are they running around loose? Did they go out of their way to find the stupidest, ugliest people to 'appear to be Canadian"?

While the the mainstream media is hemorrhaging on this, what is astonishing is the scope and quality of these people. In the past, we have seen tokenism with the occasional woman getting a post. The deeper you look the more you see there is no tokenism in here. Harjit Singh Sajjan is a highly decorated soldier AND police officer with a record for building community.

Jody Wilson-Raybould is far from a token, an experienced crown prosecutor and first nations chief.

What occurs to me this was planned. Trudeau was noted for recruiting some high profile candidates, and he did.


My two main concerns ate Foreign Affairs, with Stephan "Kyoto" Dion,, and Bill Morneau in Finance. The Finance portfolio is one of the most inbred with mandarins, it will be a task for him an outsider and "green" to get a handle on things
 
Scrabaholic said:
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
Click to expand...

They were.

It just so happens that they're qualified and representational.

This cabinet is way, way more qualified than the previous one.
 
He could have put forth 30 monkeys to run the show..I am just still SO glad that Harper is finally gone.
 
Trudeau gave the typical moronic SJW answer about why he cares about racial/gender parity: "it's 2015".

Stupid people like this run large countries. What a joke.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Who the **** are these morons and why are they running around loose? Did they go out of their way to find the stupidest, ugliest people to 'appear to be Canadian"?
Click to expand...

What do looks have to do with it? Are you GQ material?
 
it's 2015.. but somehow gender matters as a qualifying factor



liberals never cease to amaze me with their focus on identity politics.
 
Style over substance is all the Liberals have. It's not surprising that this would be their latest PC gesture.

Let me know when you have a thread that explains how the new Immigration Minister (an old white guy) is coming along with their grand plan to settle 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada by January 1st? That would be a good place to express competence and substance over style.
 
Scrabaholic said:
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
Click to expand...

Well this should be obvious in any case, and should be heeded in any distribution of cabinet member genders/ages/religions etc.

But, it's funny how no-one brings up that point when a cabinet is a male majority, even though as a statement it is just as valid.

Consider this, given that men and women are equally capable to perform cabinet duties, and given that the gender ratio in Canada is roughly 50/50, then statistically a cabinet chosen solely on merit is likely to be an even 50/50 gender split (plus or minus a small margin).

What this also means, is that if there is a statistically significant skewing of the ratio (say a 70/30 split, such as David Camerons cabinet in England) it is actually more likely that this cabinet has been chosen for reasons other than just qualifications/capability to perform the job at hand. Essentially, male cabinet members are being chosen for the fact that they are male, rather than their qualifications.

However, when a male dominated cabinet like Camerons is revealed, nobody questions the qualifications of the chosen cabinet members. When a gender equal cabinet is revealed, suddenly people start to suspect that people have been chosen for reasons other than qualifications, despite the fact that this assumption runs counter to the statistics.

Rather curious, isn't it.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Well this should be obvious in any case, and should be heeded in any distribution of cabinet member genders/ages/religions etc.

But, it's funny how no-one brings up that point when a cabinet is a male majority, even though as a statement it is just as valid.

Consider this, given that men and women are equally capable to perform cabinet duties, and given that the gender ratio in Canada is roughly 50/50, then statistically a cabinet chosen solely on merit is likely to be an even 50/50 gender split (plus or minus a small margin).

What this also means, is that if there is a statistically significant skewing of the ratio (say a 70/30 split, such as David Camerons cabinet in England) it is actually more likely that this cabinet has been chosen for reasons other than just qualifications/capability to perform the job at hand. Essentially, male cabinet members are being chosen for the fact that they are male, rather than their qualifications.

However, when a male dominated cabinet like Camerons is revealed, nobody questions the qualifications of the chosen cabinet members. When a gender equal cabinet is revealed, suddenly people start to suspect that people have been chosen for reasons other than qualifications, despite the fact that this assumption runs counter to the statistics.

Rather curious, isn't it.
Click to expand...

it's not curious at all.... it's a natural to question qualifications when a conscious effort is made to choose cabinet members based upon gender.

if you think Cameron chose his cabinet based on their gender, which you seemingly do, it would be correct for you to question their qualifications... which you seemingly are.--*
 
Thrilla said:
it's not curious at all.... it's a natural to question qualifications when a conscious effort is made to choose cabinet members based upon gender.

if you think Cameron chose his cabinet based on their gender, which you seemingly do, it would be correct for you to question their qualifications... which you seemingly are.--*
Click to expand...

I would hope that in both cases the members were chosen on merit. However, it is a statistical fact that a cabinet that is not gender balanced (within margin) is more likely to have been chosen for reasons other than merit than a gender balanced cabinet. Statistically, Trudeau's cabinet is more likely to be selected based on merit than Camerons. Yet we only seem to question whether the selection is meritocratic (such as in this thread) when a cabinet is gender balanced.
 
Nilly said:
I would hope that in both cases the members were chosen on merit. However, it is a statistical fact that a cabinet that is not gender balanced (within margin) is more likely to have been chosen for reasons other than merit than a gender balanced cabinet. Statistically, Trudeau's cabinet is more likely to be selected based on merit than Camerons. Yet we only seem to question whether the selection is meritocratic (such as in this thread) when a cabinet is gender balanced.
Click to expand...

where did you come by this "statistical fact"?
 
Thrilla said:
where did you come by this "statistical fact"?
Click to expand...

What do you mean where did I come by it? It's statistics 101 applied to this specific case. I explain why it's the case pretty comprehensively in post #14.
 
Scrabaholic said:
They should be chosen for their qualifications, not their gender, race, religion, orientation etc.
Click to expand...

I'm offended, Trudeau should have to resign.
 
Nilly said:
Well this should be obvious in any case, and should be heeded in any distribution of cabinet member genders/ages/religions etc.

But, it's funny how no-one brings up that point when a cabinet is a male majority, even though as a statement it is just as valid.

Consider this, given that men and women are equally capable to perform cabinet duties, and given that the gender ratio in Canada is roughly 50/50, then statistically a cabinet chosen solely on merit is likely to be an even 50/50 gender split (plus or minus a small margin).

What this also means, is that if there is a statistically significant skewing of the ratio (say a 70/30 split, such as David Camerons cabinet in England) it is actually more likely that this cabinet has been chosen for reasons other than just qualifications/capability to perform the job at hand. Essentially, male cabinet members are being chosen for the fact that they are male, rather than their qualifications.

However, when a male dominated cabinet like Camerons is revealed, nobody questions the qualifications of the chosen cabinet members. When a gender equal cabinet is revealed, suddenly people start to suspect that people have been chosen for reasons other than qualifications, despite the fact that this assumption runs counter to the statistics.

Rather curious, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Not to be disrespectful, but the percentage of women in a government's cabinet is not statistically related to the percentage of women in the electorate but reflective of the number of female members of parliament elected on the government side.

Statistically, in the previous Conservative government, women were more favoured for cabinet positions in that of the 28 women elected to the government, 12 of them served in cabinet - a little over 40%. In this current Liberal government, of the 50 women elected to the government, 15 of them are serving in cabinent - a little over 30%. As a result, one could easily argue that the Harper cabinet was far more female biased than the Trudeau cabinet but that wouldn't play well with the liberal media.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not to be disrespectful, but the percentage of women in a government's cabinet is not statistically related to the percentage of women in the electorate but reflective of the number of female members of parliament elected on the government side.

Statistically, in the previous Conservative government, women were more favoured for cabinet positions in that of the 28 women elected to the government, 12 of them served in cabinet - a little over 40%. In this current Liberal government, of the 50 women elected to the government, 15 of them are serving in cabinent - a little over 30%. As a result, one could easily argue that the Harper cabinet was far more female biased than the Trudeau cabinet but that wouldn't play well with the liberal media.
Click to expand...

But at that point you're just begging the question because it becomes about representation of women in parliament rather than just in the cabinet. Either way, a group of people being gender equal should not necessarily prompt more questions about 'have they been chosen based on their merits' any more than a primarily male cabinet. Yet we don't ask such questions of primarily male cabinets, we just assume it's based upon merit.

Thrilla said:
ahh.. ok.. it's your own personal theory.. ok.
Click to expand...

In the same way 2+2=4 is a personal theory (that I didn't 'get' from anywhere) sure.
 
Northern Light said:
They were.

It just so happens that they're qualified and representational.This cabinet is way, way more qualified than the previous one.
Click to expand...
Representational? I notice that half the country is defined as "the West". Let's give them a couple of years, at least, to determine just how qualified these people are.
 
Nilly said:
But at that point you're just begging the question because it becomes about representation of women in parliament rather than just in the cabinet. Either way, a group of people being gender equal should not necessarily prompt more questions about 'have they been chosen based on their merits' any more than a primarily male cabinet. Yet we don't ask such questions of primarily male cabinets, we just assume it's based upon merit.



In the same way 2+2=4 is a personal theory (that I didn't 'get' from anywhere) sure.
Click to expand...

I never question the composition of cabinet - it's always a function of who's available. Unlike in the US, the Canadian cabinet is made up of elected members of the governing party - that's a pretty limited sampling of expertise in the nation. In the US, a President can choose from 100s of millions of options.

I only question stupid style pronouncements like this one. And as I said previously, Liberals are all about style and little about substance - it's the ONLY REASON Justin Trudeau was elected leader of the party, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom