Justin Trudeau's mic drop on why a gender-balanced cabinet is important to him - General

[url]https://www.facebook.com/GlobalNews/videos/917485664965866/[/url] Can't find a youtube version yet.

Real equality means not taking peoples race/religion/gender into account.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49048592]Real equality means not taking peoples race/religion/gender into account.[/QUOTE] Obviously, but (especially in politics), equality is also making sure voices are heard equally. You can't doubt that males and females are pretty different from eachother physically and mentally. It's understandable not to take race/religion/gender into account. But you must do so with sub-cultures and groups that are inherently different.

Snip - late

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49048592]Real equality means not taking peoples race/religion/gender into account.[/QUOTE] so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick

Either? They're both equally qualified.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] "equally qualified" Thats pretty tough to reach. However picking somebody just because of genitalia and chromosomes is a bit low.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] nobody is equal in politics, set aside using the female politician's edge in swaying certain voters and any sight act they've made or done can use used. You look where you want things to go and what can be played off of currently and in the future. The Pennetta institute which trains people to become politicians (over simplifying it) tell them not to post anything on social media, at all, nothing. That's because anything in their lives is like a butterfly effect good and bad and anything on facebook and be spin to be bad. Realistically it's an easy answer to say that statement is flawed. But the real answer is who's going to stick to their guns in not taking race/religion/gender into account and hire that person. If they are twins, flip a coin or do blind hiring tests.

not a single one of your replies answered the question

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49049832]"equally qualified" Thats pretty tough to reach. However picking somebody just because of genitalia and chromosomes is a bit low.[/QUOTE] There's a lot more difference between men and women than that. if they are up for cabinet then chances are they are perfectly eligible, ignoring culture is just naive and doesn't make anyone happy. If everyone's all equally qualified and all there is to do is pick and choose, then why not choose so that all the communities and subcultures are represented fairly and have a balanced say?

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049907]not a single one of your replies answered the question[/QUOTE] Coin toss? They're both equally qualified.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] the one who signed up first

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049907]not a single one of your replies answered the question[/QUOTE] Ithon answered it well, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=New Cidem;48791886]nothing makes me disregard another poster's opinion more than smugly posting in all lowercase and without punctuation in order to appear disinterested[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kommodore;49049907]not a single one of your replies answered the question[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] This some kind of gotcha question?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49050027]This some kind of gotcha question?[/QUOTE] I'd say so, yes. Its a flawed question off the bat.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049907]not a single one of your replies answered the question[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49050034]sexism, racism, and classism doesn't exist if we ignore it[/QUOTE] Sexism and racism don't exist when people aren't judging people based on sex and race.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49050045]Sexism and racism don't exist when people aren't judging people based on sex and race.[/QUOTE] it was a gotcha question, yeah. you're choosing to believe that by not seeing identity, identity doesn't exist. that it's purely in the eye of the beholder, so that seeing inequality is equivalent to being racist, sexist, whatever. which is approaching the issue upside down, from another dimension. women aren't, as you put it, irreducible beyond "genitals." that's not what equality means. they're a real and distinct category of people, historically, psychologically, legally - and parity not based on that acknowledgment isn't actually equality. [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] it's like you all believe in this quick and dirty sci-fi future version of equality where there's this androgynous perfect pool of talent, or something, but it's just so far from what it actually is to acknowledge difference and egalitarianism

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49050128]it was a gotcha question, yeah. you're choosing to believe that by not seeing identity, identity doesn't exist. that it's purely in the eye of the beholder, so that seeing inequality is equivalent to being racist, sexist, whatever. which is approaching the issue upside down, from another dimension. women aren't, as you put it, irreducible beyond "genitals." that's not what equality means. they're a real and distinct category of people, historically, psychologically, legally - and parity not based on that acknowledgment isn't actually equality. [editline]4th November 2015[/editline] it's like you all believe in this quick and dirty sci-fi future version of equality where there's this androgynous perfect pool of talent, or something, but it's just so far from what it actually is to acknowledge difference and egalitarianism[/QUOTE] That is literally not what equality is. Being a male or a female does not determine who you are as a person. It shouldn't be taken into account. Ever. That is true equality.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49050027]This some kind of gotcha question?[/QUOTE] ignoring my post bb

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] the one with better character

[QUOTE=yodafart9;49050381]That is literally not what equality is.[/QUOTE] No, true equality is taking differences INTO ACCOUNT, not IGNORING them.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49050400]No, true equality is taking differences INTO ACCOUNT, not IGNORING them.[/QUOTE]Is it? Seems its a issue of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49050045]Sexism and racism don't exist when people aren't judging people based on sex and race.[/QUOTE] Giving them consideration is not judging them. Until we all live in one homogeneous society where all viewpoints, religions, races, sexes, and positions share the same struggles, issues, perspectives, and socioeconomic conditions, then it only makes sense to represent each group to the best of our ability. While this may not necessarily mean proportionally electing individuals of different classes or categories, it does mean doing reasonably well to represent them. If the group in question feels as though they are not represented by alternatives to their group, or if someone believes that group's perspective is invaluable and attainable particularly through that group, then it only makes sense to represent that group by members of that group. While this does not have to be the case all of the time, and group outsiders [I]can be[/I] efficient at representing the group, the fact of the matter is that there's more harm in dismissing the representation of the group or under-representing them in issues where their representation is necessary than there is in being overly cautious to proportionally represent them. Ignoring that these are classes with perspective differences in our current society does not make differing perspectives go away, nor does it negate issues specific to certain classes, be them artificially constructed (such as socieoeconomic differences in race and economic class) or fundamental (such as women's health issues). If the point of representative government, and indeed especially proportional government, is intended to be as close to representative of the advocacy and perspectives of their electors, then it must be in fact representative and proportional. It is not up to an out-group to decide the issues, advocacy, perspectives, and therefore the representation of a group, and further it is up to the state and government to be as representative as possible, by making sure that groups are thoroughly represented, which may require that they represent themselves. The idea that "-isms" don't exist when we ignore them is not true. It's not true when rephrased in terms of "we need to be colorblind to get over issues of color." This is only true when there's no differences to be accounted for between classes and groups. Judgment and consideration are different things, and frankly only the blind to these differences are the ones saying there are no differences worth considering. Part of living in a diverse society means that we accept that there are differences that create unique perspectives, and part of living in a just society is then taking those perspectives into account and effectively and proportionally representing them in such a way as to aid that group in being on- if not equal- then fair and just proportional footing. If tomorrow every person in the western world stop caring about race and sex and religion, then you'd still have inequal, unproportional, inefficiently represented groups with different socioeconomic conditions and issues that concern them. "Not judging" people based on their demographics doesn't fix these issues- if nothing else it merely prevents them from being worsened. Tomorrow the world would be the same. Women would still be under-represented as a proportion of their population, would still struggle in America with reproductive rights and pay equality and this and that and the other, natives would still be economically slummed and living in crime-ridden reservations, black people would overwhelmingly still be confined to economically depressed and crime-ridden ghettos. What does taking race, sex, or whatever else out of the equation do to change this? Nothing. These issues came from a lack of representation, by refusing to recognize these differences and issues and perspectives, you're not helping- you're harming. The answer is not "don't see color, don't judge based on demographic", the answer is "recognize demographics, then help them with their issues", and often times the only way to recognize demographics is to give them proper direct representation. [I]I'm Seed_Eater and I approve of this message.[/I]

A quick reminder of what we had previously, circa 2006: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkI21I9LY5Y[/media]

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;49050415]A quick reminder of what we had previously, circa 2006: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkI21I9LY5Y[/media][/QUOTE] Wow, look how young Harper and Baird look back then. And we didn't even know that Pierre Poilievre was a scumbag yet. Those bygone days of youth.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49050408]Is it? Seems its a issue of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.[/QUOTE] If equality of opportunity was in effect then one would see equality of outcome spread proportionally across all demographics. If all people had equal opportunity, then naturally the successful would be roughly representative of all groups. Similar proportions among the population would equal similar proportions among the successful. Problem is that there isn't equality of opportunity. We could get into a long discussion on, say, the plight of black people in America and the systems and issues that maintain that a large proportion of the black population are caught within a positive feedback cycle of poverty, violence, stress, and limitation, and I'd be happy to talk about in detail how the education system has failed the poor, and especially latino and black youth, and how many demographic groups simply don't start off equal. Equality of opportunity suggests that each group has an equal chance at opportunity, or each individual succeeds based on merit versus affirmative action. Frankly, this is a "up-by-your-bootstraps" myth that does not address that in order to have an equal share of opportunity, or equal chance at opportunity, or will achieve greatness out of merit, that one must start at relatively equal positions to begin with. Without starting at a level playing field, it becomes much more disproportionate for different groups to have opportunity within reach, or to achieve, or even act based on merit. To achieve a level playing field, you have to take into account that there are real socioeconomic differences that must be addressed, which requires that you consider differences to alleviate disproportion. Equality of opportunity without a level playing field is social darwinism applied across generations. It's a self-justifying argument- the hard workers achieve success, the failures fall to poverty. We were equal to begin with, therefore the end result was just and based on the outcome of the individual's work. But then someone is born to the poor person who lost out, and then that person must start from a lower position. So when the person born to success looks at the race towards greater success, they refuse to recognize that the other person is starting out two rungs lower and has less farther to climb to reach higher. But it's equality of opportunity, right? It's just, right? It's not. It's an easy way to justify disparate conditions of demographic groups without addressing the reasons for that difference. To have true equality of opportunity, and to have true equality of potential, you must first start with a level playing field. Which requires consideration of specific socioeconomic needs that affect groups differently.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];49050469'] Equality of opportunity without a level playing field is social darwinism applied across generations. It's a self-justifying argument- the hard workers achieve success, the failures fall to poverty.[/QUOTE] Well if we're talking in general I'm all for having programs aimed at uplifting the lower class. However being black, native or non-white doesn't automatically mean you're lower class. Cutting poor asians and whites from programs that could really help them because of their race [B]is racism[/B]. As for the cabinet, we're mostly talking about successful women and successful men. We shouldn't even be considering sex and just picking based on merit. It boggles my mind that this is sexist.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49050814]Well if we're talking in general I'm all for having programs aimed at uplifting the lower class. However being black, native or non-white doesn't automatically mean you're lower class. Cutting poor asians and whites from programs that could really help them because of their race [B]is racism[/B]. As for the cabinet, we're mostly talking about successful women and successful men. We shouldn't even be considering sex and just picking based on merit. It boggles my mind that this is sexist.[/QUOTE] To the fist comment: no shit, no one should be denied aid based on race. BUT it's ignorant to not understand how race historically and often currently- both due to a history and due to modern factors- plays a role in being poor. Not all black people are poor, but nearly 30% are in poverty, which is much higher than the rate of whites in the US: 10%. Even if you don't believe that race and poverty are inter-related, then you still have to admit that black people have a stake in addressing their higher poverty rates as a class, or at least addressing poverty rates that affect them at a higher rate. Cutting any race from a program base don their race or denying them specifically because of that is racism. Allocating scarce resources towards demographics with the most need in hopes of larger change is not. As far as government, the fact of the matter is that regardless of economic class, racial and sex issues are still best represented by the people who are affected by those issues. It's not sexist to leave out one group, it is sexist to not properly represent them, which can be- but not always is- due to under-including those groups in policy making and representation. When only one group sits at the table or dominates the table, then there's a fair chance that that group is going to be prioritized. While we don't need parity on proportion of population, organic proportionalism would signify natural equality. Any steps towards proportionalism is a step towards effective true representation. Ideally proportionalism would come through a proportional percentage of each group being elected through sheer merit, but since that's not the case there is a solid argument that artificial proportionality is a must.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;49049686]so lets say you have an all male cabinet minus a minister of the interior and you have 2 candidates to fill the position and both are equally qualified, one is a man, one is a woman which do you pick[/QUOTE] That's easy! I'll take a coin and flip it, heads the man gets the position, tails the woman gets it. Can't call me sexist now!