Canada's New PM Ends Trudeau Equality Representation In Government

[Economy 52,844]

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/out-with-women-and-gender-carney-cabinet

 

New Liberal Leader Mark Carney, considered by most to be more Centrist than Trudeau who was considered Centre-left has begun sweeping changes including a new cabinet which is pretty typical each time a new Prime Minister is selected even if its the same party

 

One trade mark of Trudeau is he made it a point to have an exactly 50-50 ratio of men to women in cabinet as well as racial diversity and LGBT representation

 

Mark Carneys new cabinet does not hold the 50% female ratio and no current LGBT members are in cabinet

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,612]

Well that's not great. 

[Economy 52,844]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I admire Trudeaus desire for diversity of representation. Sends a positive message on inclusion.

 

On the otherhand most of a cabinet is selected by MP members which exist in limited numbers (a few hundred) and straight males still overwhelmingly dominate which is typical of politics

 

I always wondered if trying to force a perfectly balanced ratio in top cabinet positions from a small poll to choose from might result in some members not really being the best and only being selected because they fit the diversity bill

[Economy 52,844]

1 minute ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Well that's not great. 

I have mixed feelings about it. Like it does at least send a good progressive message of inclusion. 

 

This isnt a private sector job where u can have many thousands of candidates to choose from. U have to pick from a poll of MPs that are already mostly male to begin with

 

Trying too hard to keep the ratio exactly 50% makes me wonder if ur getting the best ppl for every position or if a few were chosen just to fill the diversity quota

 

 

[PartySick 172,489]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

I always wondered if trying to force a perfectly balanced ratio in top cabinet positions from a small poll to choose from might result in some members not really being the best and only being selected because they fit the diversity bill

Diversity is always a strength. Even if you would have a "more qualified" individual, having diverse backgrounds and experiences benefits a team more, especially when it's a team of political representatives.

Women make up half the population, they shouldn't only be 10%-20% of the people in positions of representation.

[REALITY 80,162]

I've never understood the reasoning behind ending diversity and equality initiatives like this. The only reason people are doing this is because they're either bigots or they don't have the backbone to stand up to bigots and are instead placating them.

The counterargument is always, "Well, but people who are qualified for the job should be in those positions, not just because of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.", but who's to say that those people aren't qualified? No one is hiring people solely based on those traits. At the end of the day, whether it's a business or government agency, they're hiring people who they think will do the best job. The goal isn't to hire someone just because they fit some diversity quota, regardless if they meet the qualifications. Cause if they don't meet the qualifications, they'll just end up getting fired and they have to start the hiring process all over again—which is the last thing companies want to do.

The point of these initiatives is to give more opportunities for minority groups because they've been disproportionately affected by a system that favors and is run by straight white men. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Economy said:

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I admire Trudeaus desire for diversity of representation. Sends a positive message on inclusion.

 

On the otherhand most of a cabinet is selected by MP members which exist in limited numbers (a few hundred) and straight males still overwhelmingly dominate which is typical of politics

 

I always wondered if trying to force a perfectly balanced ratio in top cabinet positions from a small poll to choose from might result in some members not really being the best and only being selected because they fit the diversity bill

That's ultimately feeding the century-old narrative in the sorts of 'women can't do that because they are not qualified'. If you are doubting someone based on gender or other things but white people receive the 'benefit of doubt' it is upholding that exact glass ceiling.

[Obobo 3,984]

Mixed feelings here too.

I think Canada needs to focus on fixing the economy and the population's productivity. From what I've seen, it looks like this new cabinet is meant to be smaller and focused on these main issues. 

So far it looks like they have no plans to be "Trumpified" by encouraging hate speech and removing "DEI" worker rights, etc. So I'll hold my breath for now.

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,612]

45 minutes ago, Economy said:

I have mixed feelings about it. Like it does at least send a good progressive message of inclusion. 

 

This isnt a private sector job where u can have many thousands of candidates to choose from. U have to pick from a poll of MPs that are already mostly male to begin with

 

Trying too hard to keep the ratio exactly 50% makes me wonder if ur getting the best ppl for every position or if a few were chosen just to fill the diversity quota

 

 

I hear you, but I echo @PartySick.

I'm not saying it necessarily has to be down to the exact percentage, but representatives of a nation should reflect its population. I think having the ability to see from that array of angles is more important than having a lineup of the best resumes from a narrow perspective. How well is one able to look out for everyone if they've got a horseblinder on? People suffer in the periphery. 

Besides, I'm positive there are enough qualified people for the positions that come from a multitude of different backgrounds. 

[Gabe 2,584]

Isn't it just one woman off from equal parity; like 12 men, 11 women?
I'm not too bothered. 

[sarahb 17,188]

Not having exactly 50/50 representation is not a hill worth dying on

[Economy 52,844]

1 hour ago, chromaticainmyhead said:

That's ultimately feeding the century-old narrative in the sorts of 'women can't do that because they are not qualified'. If you are doubting someone based on gender or other things but white people receive the 'benefit of doubt' it is upholding that exact glass ceiling.

Thats not really what i was saying tho. I was saying its a small poll to choose from in which women are already only a fraction to begin with

 

Im not doubting womens ability as a gender as a whole. But i am saying not everyone is always going to be an ideal candidate (man or woman). And if the pool to choose from is relatively small, u may have to make some compromises on experience or best candidate

 

I stress the "may". As I do not know most of the 338 MPS (about 60 are women) are how many have extensive qualifications

 

But for a typical cabine. If you make half have to be women, it means 1 in 6 maybe even 1 in 5 female MPs will have to be selected for a top tier job in cabinet. Thats not a huge pool to pick from for top talent is what I was getting at

[Economy 52,844]

54 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

I hear you, but I echo @PartySick.

I'm not saying it necessarily has to be down to the exact percentage, but representatives of a nation should reflect its population. I think having the ability to see from that array of angles is more important than having a lineup of the best resumes from a narrow perspective. How well is one able to look out for everyone if they've got a horseblinder on? People suffer in the periphery. 

Besides, I'm positive there are enough qualified people for the positions that come from a multitude of different backgrounds. 

That is a very fair point to consider.

 

The power of perspective and representation may outway and compromising that may have been done on experience levels or what not because if everyone is experienced but all are one population group, they may fail to see other important perspectives

 

I still remain with mixed feelings about it tho just because the poll of women to choose from in MPs is pretty relatively small, So I personally see pros and cons here...