LC, it appears your problems with how women are treated is due to the societal attitudes of a minority. All of the problems you listed are societal in nature, and not in anyway endorsed or even tolerated by western governments. We don't need a Rosa Parks or MLK figure for women, because the work they did for black people has already been done for women in this present day and age. All that remains is the prejudice bigots, who are slowly being phased out as the generations pass by, and who are almost impossible to be convinced to drop their prejudices. If you want a system where men and women are treated as equals, and given equal opportunities for employment; provided that the employer is not sexist which is unlikely in this day and age as described, you're living in one.
I don't know whether it's guilt for the sins of our proverbial fathers, or our more politically correct culture, but can't you see that what you're doing is demeaning not only towards men, but towards women as well? You're basically endorsing handing positions of power towards women without even taking into consideration men for that position as well. This is what Trudeau is doing by enforcing his quota. Men are obviously upset that they aren't considered for a position that they might actually be better at than a women assigned for the same role (shock and awe!). And the truth is, I would argue the same way if a job such as nursing enforced a quota; preventing women from being selected for a job because they need to "diversify" the pool of employees is fucked up.
Just going to break down some of the arguments you made:
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?
Egalitarian:
1.
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"
There is nothing stopping women from entering politics. There is an equality of opportunity. You seem to have difficulty grasping that generally, men and women think in very different ways, and this includes career path. On average, as stated by Trudeau himself, more men tend to get into politics than women. This isn't some conspiracy by the western "patriarchy" to condition women into other roles, this is simply how women are different from men. We don't have to treat them differently, and no-one should be allowed to undermine anyone's decision in career based upon their gender, but more women are comfortable with doing more traditional jobs. This is why it is referred to as traditional; because it is more common-place. That doesn't make it freakish if a women wants to go down a different career path obviously, and women shouldn't be treated differently from men, which is my point, something Trudeau is ignoring, and using "It's (insert current year here)" as his justification. He's treating them like children almost.
Role models don't have to exist in every position. Your argument seems to be that societal constructs are dissuading women from selecting a certain career path. While there's an element of truth to that, that determines a submissive and weak will from the woman herself if she isn't willing to challenge that stereotype; again, we're in a position where most of the western population don't care either way if a woman goes down an unconventional career path and pretty much no-one is going to go to lengths to prevent that woman from doing what she wants; that's another problem entirely in that case. It most definitely shouldn't be dissuaded; that's an act against liberty, but it doesn't exactly need to be encouraged either because
it does not matter.
As for your egalitarian statement; egalitarianism is not justified by statistics; since it is very much a subjective quality. You seem to think that there needs to be a correlation between percentages of the population by gender and careers for egalitarianism, which is just simply not true.
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
Again, you seem to think that meritocracy can be measured by statistics, which is simply not true. We live in a capitalist world, and while there are very much elements of unfairness and greed, it is better than the alternative, which basically hands everything to everyone on a plate and discourages actual hard work and merit. I do agree with some aspects of socialism; and I think the state has every right to provide absolutely everyone with basic provisions for survival and the potential to live their lives as they choose, but other aspects of socialism basically put a ceiling on the success one can achieve, which in a meritocracy, is an attack on liberty.
I do the Political Compass every now and again, and I often find my answers vary from time to time (I still always end up in the bottom-left quadrant though), but one of my constant answers is a Strong Agreement with a feeling of regret that people don't contribute to society or use their money for any good except for their own, especially if it's personal fortune that they've manipulated or inherited. A meritocracy is not perfect, and bullshit like this is very difficult to stop, but the alternative is even worse. Yes, I'm aware this is black and white thinking, but it's very hard to reach a compromise between the two systems.
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.
I think you need to replace force it a bit with force it a lot. It's becoming ostentatious in the extreme.
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.
We've accepted that men have had more political experience and are more likely to be career politicians than women, right? Good.
This therefore is a high suggestion that men are more likely to be highly qualified for a role in cabinet than a woman. And you know what, if the distribution did come back to be exactly 50/50 with zero ulterior motives, I wouldn't actually mind. I'd probably have faith that the right decisions were made for the jobs. Except there was an ulterior motive, which was to distribute the jobs evenly.
With Trudeau's cultural marxist idea in mind, this creates a problem: Once the 50% quota for either gender is hit; it is therefore impossible for the other gender to be appointed in a position of cabinet; a characteristic they cannot control. By setting a limit, you are barring people's liberty of opportunity. Do you not see how this is anti-liberty?
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.
Again, you seem to think that qualification is a thing that can be measured with regards to statistics, which it isn't; it's subjective. You could make the argument that Trudeau wants to take a gamble; that he doesn't think the ones that are more qualified have the passion and drive to succeed, but that still doesn't disprove the intention of creating a 50/50 split of gender.
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.
Social research can be used to prove anything given the correct context. For example, that men are far more likely to commit suicide than women. This therefore means that men are more at risk of suicide, which means we should put more investment in preventing men from suicide, which is absurd. Everyone should be accounted for, regardless of gender.
Most of your argument seems to be using statistics to prove something that is very subjective. The entire third-wave feminist cause is fighting a small flame (genuine sexism in the west towards women) with a towering inferno. You should watch this and see a more-detailed breaking down of Trudeau's argument:
