USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
How's your ass after you pulled that statement out of it? Kinda sore? I'd imagine, because it's a huge lump of nonsense. Trudeau's female members of cabinet include 2 physicians, 4 lawyers (one of which is a paraathlete), 2 journalists, 1 businesswoman, 2 social workers, 1 university professor, 1 career politician and a geologist. How do you know those people aren't the most valuable for their positions? You literally just assumed that there is a huge raft of men who are somehow more qualified. Knowing extremely little about Canadian politics, you literally just assumed that there must be better men. That men must be better. How is that not sexist.
Did you answer the question about the wage gap? The wage gap is very real, and it really affects people.
Well, it depends on exactly what happens. I don't think you can arrest someone for saying someone is beautiful. But if you start describing certain things that violate public decency rules, then you're getting across the line. I've heard some pretty amazingly vile things while hanging out with my female friends. And then there's cat callers who follow people for several blocks.
I think if you're cat calling while working, like a stereotypical construction worker, then the company could easily be complained to.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
That is the thing .. if someone wants to say "that is bad behavior", I really do not think you would get many people arguing against that. Clearly it is and it would be better off if it did not happen. You are right that employers can do something if it happens on the job, but if you take a bar and are dealing with a bunch of drunken morons, I am not sure what a good response is and it is not really clear to me where the line is. Say one non vile thing , get rebuffed and move on .. probably okay ... getting to the point of stalking, clearly not okay. Everything in the middle is pretty iffy to me. The internet is an entirely different story as there is no chance of something actually bad happening in 99.9% of the cases
Well, I don't necessarily think people should be charged for being on the internet and anything less than threats of violence. Which, as you know, threats of violence are not considered protected speech. That being said, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have every right to determine what speech isn't allowed on their private servers.
I even think the 99.9% thing is true. That means for every 1000 threats someone gets, one has reality there. There are people getting swatted, for example - I know one blogger I follow was swatted twice. Luckily she kept the police in the loop, so they didn't kick in her door, but who knows, right?
So, if you're at a bar, it's the same thing. Someone is causing a disruption, you throw them out. If it's on the street corner, I think the threat of violence needs to be the line.
I even think the 99.9% thing is true. That means for every 1000 threats someone gets, one has reality there. There are people getting swatted, for example - I know one blogger I follow was swatted twice. Luckily she kept the police in the loop, so they didn't kick in her door, but who knows, right?
So, if you're at a bar, it's the same thing. Someone is causing a disruption, you throw them out. If it's on the street corner, I think the threat of violence needs to be the line.
RTC
Libera et impera!
You want to know the shocking truth? ONE OF THOSE WOMEN IS A DEDICATED POLITICIAN. I'm not suggesting that any of these women are not smart, but the point remains that Trudeau went out of his way to split his cabinet down the middle based upon something none of the candidates can control. Quotas are sexist; as it goes against everything that a meritocracy and a egalitarian society has; everyone should have the same opportunity to qualify for a job, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc. Instead, Trudeau is basically denying a certain gender (men) from gaining a position in an attempt to create equality. You must see how this is a prejudice against something someone can't control, surely?
More men get into politics than women. Trudeau said it himself in a speech he made. I don't hate Trudeau and I appreciate that he's trying to get more women into politics, but you can't just cram the cabinet full of less qualified candidates purely based on gender "equality".
I provided a link to say it's a myth.
RTC
Libera et impera!
As he said in a speech of his, it was with the intent to create a 50/50 government. Its entire foundation is based upon a quota.
RTC
Libera et impera!
Now you're deliberately trying to make excuses and justify something that was his intent from the very start. These women aren't stupid; and they might be great in their new roles, but it's unfair that selection is based upon gender, and not primarily based upon meritocracy.
It's Trump. Did you expect nuance or tact?
This is CANADA. Professional politicians are an incredible rarity here, and are usually limited to party leaders and high end contenders. There are maybe two, three dozen professional politicians in the House of Commons - and I would only recently consider adding the Prime Minister to the list, as he has just barely passed his 10 year mark. Even cabinet ministers in Canada serve, on average, two terms before bugging out. Of the male members of cabinet, I would only consider three or four of them to be professional politicians. Yes, there are certainly more of 'em, but that's because women have only started getting elected in any numbers in the last 20 years, and it takes more than 20 years to develop political ambitions among a group of people.
RTC, everything you've said, the arrogant presumptions you've made about women not wanting to get into politics, point out the simple fact that we do not have an egalitarian society. Your starting premise is absolutely incorrect. It is harder for women to gain acceptance in most fields traditionally dominated by men. Significantly harder than it is for men who wish to enter female-dominated professions, such as nursing. And it is definitely harder for women to succeed at a higher level. The glass ceiling is a reality. One that has been thankfully punctured, but one handful of successful women does not egalitarian society create. It takes time to prove that this can be done. Here's a good article on STEM positions: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in...-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/#745531fb33a9. The best point made there is simple: "The reason there aren't more women computer scientists is because there aren't more women computer scientists." Or, in short, role models have to exist in every position in order for gender to not actually matter. How can we have an egalitarian society when the percentages of people entering various professions or various roles in our society are not equivalent to the percentages in which those people exist?
Now, if we had a true meritocracy, perhaps the above would be irrelevant. We could argue that people have the equality of opportunity versus the equality of outcome. So, let's address the myth that we have a meritocracy. This is a great myth, but it is simply untrue. We do not have a meritocracy, because our individual likelihood of success is fairly proportional to our starting situation in life. For every Barack Obama, for every poor black man who becomes successful by working hard and getting ahead through excellence, there are dozens more George W. Bushes who are gifted everything on a plate. In the United States, this is often tied to two things - geographic location, and race. In Canada, there is a significant race advantage for non-Native Canadians, and a huge race disadvantage for Native Canadians. I can't speak about it in the UK as well as some can, but I am sure it is a problem. I am sure that if you are the child of poor immigrants in the East End, you have a much smaller chance of getting access to the resources needed to become successful as someone with rich parents, like a David Cameron. Upward mobility is possible, but it is limited, very limited. Here's a good article on it in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...tery-the-myth-of-social-mobility-9152960.html
So, how do we get to actual equality? We have to force it a bit. We create better rolemodels. We use programs to encourage young people to develop in equal numbers towards certain careers. We accept that it is never going to be perfect, too - and that's OK. It matters that we try.
There you are, making an arrogant presumption again (and incorrect, it should be noted - the only place I personally feel where a person was snubbed, it was for a role they were suited to that was handed to another man). You have two pieces of evidence: 1. That of the options to pick for the various roles, men outnumber women. 2. Men and women were picked at a 50/50 ratio. You are assuming in a highly sexist manner that therefore, the women are less qualified. That's incredibly insulting to women in general, but I think it also proves my point. There's a lot more to do in our own society, let alone before we try to influence countries that are violently entrenched in female near-slavery.
Mr. Trudeau picked the best people available for each position, and when qualifications were equal, he added women. It's actually pretty hard to look at any cabinet minister he picked and suggest someone else in government would have been a better pick. Again, you're assuming things. It was important to do, but he also pushed very hard to make sure that he had as many qualified women running for government. He didn't just pick some women off the street - it's a bottom-to-top process to locate extremely qualified candidates, recruit them, help them win, and bring them to cabinet. The assumptions you're making are truly incredible.
I watched that and thought it was a joke, sorry. The Institute for Humane Society is a libertarian think tank that doesn't believe social research is a thing.
I recommend this report: http://www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/SimpleTruth_Spring2016.pdf
It goes far deeper than the link you suggested, and actually looks at whether or not choices are the reasons why. And it admits that yep, women tend to make choices that move them into lower-paid careers. But it also analyzes women who go into the same careers as similarly-educated men, and finds that a wage gap still exists. Here's some choice words:
That's a huge amount of money.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Well said, LC.
Good question. Let me grab it.
1 elementary school teacher, 2 career politicians, 1 farmer, 1 professor, 2 economists, 2 lawyers, 1 financier, 1 CEO, 1 astronaut, 1 musician, 1 soldier, 1 activist.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Hell yes.
Exactly.
LooseCannon, that was a magnificent post, where you put things into context. Several people on this forum are stuck in theoretical ideas, applying these on theoretical, ideal situations. They often don't want to seem to look at what's really going on. They seem to have problems with accepting reality. They don't look into it, they don't realize it, or they are just plain stubborn or afraid to loose a discussion.
But there are circumstances which need to be addressed with certain needed measures. In practice, that's what the focus should be.
Last edited:
frus
Barbed Wire Hen
I work in computer science field, and although there are MUCH less women, they are extremely able and if I were to choose top 5% or whatever, there would probably be something like 50/50 ratio. They also seem to find their way to management/sales/project leading faster, we men are more enamoured of technology it seems 
I work in IT as well, and it's the same way with us. Women do projects, men do programming. We actually, currently, don't have a single female programmer, and we have 2 women in support (of a total of 22 people). I get that this is how it is. I want to see that change, so that when I retire, we are having closer to a 50/50 split in all departments.
If those roles involve people skills or group/public presentation, that's probably why. Female job candidates are often favoured by recruiters for that type of work. I have two friends in computing and they don't think there are really any gender barriers in IT support and programming, it's based purely on ability. Gender bias (and other forms of bias) features more where employers make more subjective decisions in selecting employees.