Gender parity will happen on

Gender parity will happen on its own, it just won't happen over night.

These quotas are nothing but band-aids of political correctness which hinder true progress.

From a member of the young generation I can honestly say that these type of programs are the ones that are actually causing the divide and will be the impetus for strife in the future.

Striving for excellence is the only answer. No matter if they are male or female, let the best person win... giving anyone the unfair advantage results in a weaker more fragile society going forward, and that is not what we need.

Work towards a level playing field and that is it. Anything else is folly and self defeating.

How can I respect a woman who has obtained a position just to fill out a quota? That is not fair to me, and it is not fair to her either. Quotas are ridiculous.

NDP damage control

Other parts of the world have a legitimate electoral system too...so what's your point?

Gender Parity A Worth Goal in True Democracies

In true democracies, it is clear the majority of citizens would vote to ensure that men and women will be represented equally in every level of government. This was a growing movement in northern Europe and will hopefully follow in South America's growing democracies.

In Canada, not so much.

BC and Canada is are no longer much of a democracy. The NDP will thus have to decide if it is going to seriously take on the rising fascism of the corporate state. Or will it dabble around the edges and stay in the safe, shallow water, debating gender parity and rule of law without mounting a serious offensive.

If the NDP has the courage to challenge the Liberal led corporate rule, debate about gender parity will be irrelevant. Just as it was in the French and Danish resistance, which relied upon thousands of women who saved lives. We will need every able bodied man, woman and child to help. And that effort alone will demonstrate the true courage and virtue of such a party.

Let's get on with it. There is precious time to waste.

affirmative nonsense

The title “what’s ridiculous about the NDP gender balance policy” is easily countered with “what is not ridiculous about the NDP’s gender policy”

I can complete the job requirements better than any other candidate but I do not receive the employment position because I have a dork? Where is the common sense in this?

Who gives a shit what Norway or any European electorate does; why do Canadians constantly compare themselves to everyone else. Why can we not be mature enough to walk our own path?

It is really simple; if women want to be involved in politics then GET INVOLVED. Who exactly is preventing them from doing so? This affirmative nonsense just re-victimizes women once again. This is nothing more than a quota requirement simple as that.

We are not even mature enough to experiment with different political structures but cling to this 145 yr old FTPT nonsense. Many do not consider this a legitimate electoral system any longer.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical but

Maybe I'm a bit cynical but I recall that when a constituency committee was struck to nominate a candidate for Victoria a number of years ago the committee was not, as the rules, which arrived in the mail, said, equal numbers of both sexes are to be on the committee. I brought this to the attention of the provincial headquarters that the committee was not gender equal and also contacted the chair of the committee. Provincial office said it was up to the committee to sort itself out, and the chair told me it was his decision so live with it. By the way , the preordained, candidate happened to be Carole James. So it appears the NDP constitution is pretty flexible when they want a particular person. I lost interest in the NDP after the misuse of their own constitution. When James finally leaves to collect her pension, does it mean that only a woman can run for the NDP in Victoria Beacon Hill, or is that flexible as well? Manipulation seems to be the name of the game

A pound of prevention

It is really simple; if women want to be involved in politics then GET INVOLVED. Who exactly is preventing them from doing so?

Less pay for equal work
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-06/wall-street-says-women-worth-less-as-pay-disparity-widens-in-finance-ranks.html

The greater share of household chores
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2010/01/newsflash-women.html

The Glass Ceiling
http://www.accenture.com/Countries/Canada/About_Accenture/Newsroom/MostStudyShows.htm

All these factors and more, such as the lion's share of childcare responsibilities, are challenges that most men don't have to face.

It's a man's world.

Norway isn't part of the

Norway isn't part of the European Union and has voted twice to stay out.

Gender parity...

like respect, must be earned not forced. The NDP will choke on this issue and the Libs will get in again.

Hey David, have you heard

Hey David, have you heard how the mass-media is going after the NDP in the last coupla days? Was driving around the other day doing some errands and was listening to that bone-head Michael Smyth on the radio. He was using a lot of words like "dumb", "stupid" and "stinks" in his sentences in describing the NDP policies. Some other fella came on at 3:00 at carried on with the same theme. The mass-media is coming after you guys and trying to make the NDP look bad (and the Liberals are not so bad).

What is ridiculous?

There is nothing within the party rules that prevent any women from joining, working, holding exec. positions or competing to be the candidate. I repeat NOTHING! So what is ridiculous? Everything about it because it distracts from the real problem. The BC Liberals.

What's ridiculous about it David,

is that no woman appears to want the leadership and the policy has thrown everyone into a complete flummox. When you start talking about getting rid of the treasurer and/or the president to satisfy the requirement, it gets completely ridiculous. Course, I'd like to get rid of the president for another reason entirely, but that's another story.

I understand the intent of the policy and it's a good one, but when common sense flies out the window to maintain the policy, once again we become laughing stocks. And it's hard to argue that.

Gender quotas

David seems to miss the point that these are quotas, not particularly aimed at balance. They impose a 50% quota on male participation in these positions with no corresponding limit on females. This inequity becomes obvious in every internal election and selection process in the party, where the males are clearly second class members with limited voting options. It's been poisoning the NDP membership for years and is fair commentary for the press.

Of course one has to remember that the Lib and Con membership often have their choices dictated by the leadership so have even less say in their party's affairs.

gender

i think ridiculous is a good description of shreck's column.

who cares what is done in other countries?

dave failed to make a single logical connection with his statistics.

this issue has been addressed by the ndp a long time ago.

if the ndp has to legislate leadership by gender, i suggest they have not bought in to gender equality, but rather are using it as propaganda.

if they truly embrace gender equality, then they have no need for rules, and can elect the best people to lead, and with a clear conscience.

yes, there are groups that will never accept females as leaders unless they are forced by laws, and penalties.

is the ndp one of them?

I Agree With Dashwood

What other countries do is not that relevant. This is Canada which has evolved quite differently than India.
Don't forget that many European countries have programs that free woman from the drudgery of family life so they can have the time for politics. We're not all Christy Clarks, able to afford nannies.
But why does gender always have to rear its head? The "best" person should be the victor. Carole James got booted out by a women-led faction so go figure.
The NDP continue to slide. One example: their gutless response to the request to release MLA expense accounts. Now there's an issue that would show who has leadership abilities, be it man or woman.

Gender Inequality

It seems that every affirmative action enforced upon a race, gender, or demographic only serves to perpetuate the stereotype about their inferiority. If we MUST support them and enact rules or legislation to help them, than they must be inferior to the white male middle class. Every person who receives special attention through assistance or legislation seems similar to the loser high school kid who must have teachers watch them to prevent them from getting bullied.

The difficulty of these claims is that we still see those who get by "independently," without government support, as people who succeed with merit. And we understand the people who exist or succeed on government generosity as leeches, bums, and ultimately undeserving of their position.

I suspect enacting legislation to enable and enforce female politicians will do the same to the perception of this office, if it hasn't already done so with Europe. As an alternative, I would suggest finding a very good female politician and having her in a powerful position if you would like to attract more women in to your party.

Gender equity = the end of patriarchy

Arguing against gender equity is like arguing the world is flat. Certainly there are problems that will arise when implementing new policy, but that does not mean gender equity should be left to the whims of old patriarchs.

Choosing the best candidate has been a point in fact. Here, discretion must be used. Will a political party insist on a female candidate, even if the loss of that one seat prevents the party from winning the overall election?

What Equality?

Sexism and racism is never a good thing, even if the intentions are good. So the NDP has "token" women, but being a token doesn't mean they have any real power. However, those who gain positions on merit will be listened to by others. I think the NDP policy is short sighted since it does nothing to encourage the best people to run, just a token acceptable to the party elite.

Oh Really?

No woman appears to want the leadership!

Why the hell would they after what's just happened to the current leader?

Give your heads a shake>

IS THE NDP UP IN SMOKE?

Its a party stuck on start, as the Liberals flaunt party hopefuls for the Liberal leadership while NDP dosen't have a single female contender to take part in the NDP leadership race.
And just when you think you have heard it all there is another twist as Pot Activists Dana Larsen enters the race. With Cheech and Chong backing the wanna be leader Larsen is sure to give some real spark to the race.

Gender balance

There is nothing ridiculous about it but what is ridiculous is the 13 that brought the party down so the NDP would have a leader who was sure to win.

Sorry GWest but once more.

It wasn't because she was a woman. It was because she was not competent. Period. She was treated no differently than anyone else would have been. Gender is not an excuse.

Skywalker is right

Van Isle noted Micheal Smith was doing a number on the NDP.

The MSM really don't want the NDP back in because the rich wouldn't be able to have their wicked way with our Province.And the rich own the MSM.

If CJ was still in she wouldn't have been able to handle all the positive press that the Soclibs are getting at the moment.

She could have won against Campbell, but not against the shiny new leader and the myth the MSM is going to build up around that person.

So she got dumped, and it wasn't the so called 14 that did it, it was encouraged by people within and without the party who need a NDP party in power because the Soclibs are selling out our province.

Forget the gender crap, get going and win the damned election.

And as for Dana Larson, start a silly party and run for that.

Proof

David,as Bill Good asked you the other day. What proof is there that gender equity in other countries is producing better government?

Distracted by balancing the teeter-totter......

While Rome burns.

How about someone..... man or woman, dog or cat..... even a few blind mice, ringing the bloody fire alarm?

What a stupid rule -- one of

What a stupid rule -- one of three (leader, president, treasurer) to be female. Why not one half of whole Council, if we must have quotas?

On another point, I do wish that we could return to the parliamentary tradition (rather than presidential one) and allow the elected representatives to choose their leader. This total focus on the tics of the "leader," and almost total discounting of the qualities of individual candidates, does nothing to improve the quality of government.

Here's why the gender quota in the NDP is ridiculous:

It assumes that women aren't equal.

We are.

Yes, we have to fight for our rights sometimes, but we don't require special favors (and a pat on the head) from the NDP establishment.

These rules are so 80's.

I have a some experience in a "male" world; I worked for 32 years in a male dominated trade. It is still a male dominated trade.
Not because of barriers to enter the trade, but because not enough women get the training to do the trade.

Go figure. A good job, with decent wages and a decent pension at the end of it. And easy to get into if you have the education for it.

The gender equality rules in my party (and I've been a member of the NDP for 40 years) are antiquated and patronizing.

FromTheMasses: Striving

FromTheMasses:

Striving for excellence is the only answer. No matter if they are male or female, let the best person win... giving anyone the unfair advantage results in a weaker more fragile society going forward, and that is not what we need. ... How can I respect a woman who has obtained a position just to fill out a quota? That is not fair to me, and it is not fair to her either. Quotas are ridiculous.

Not Fair? It sounds like you presume things are fair and anything that shifts our propagandized view is, by default, unfair.

Obviously nobody stands alone. We all come here with varying advantages and disadvantages, completely outside of our control. You should read this recent SAM HARRIS Article.

When finished, get back to us on just how unfair things would be if we had more equitable and proportional representation of all people across the board? (By reason, if we strive for a democractic government, we need to sow these seeds in the institutions that feed government, however deplorable the entities of political parties are.) Democracy only survives when we practice democracy.

I know the rich, academically coddled and emotionally spoiled white male with a head full of entitlement may be some folks idea of 'fair', but it certainly isn't my idea of it as it strives to maintain the status quo, a blight on humanity on the whole.

pianosaurus rex ~ Who gives a shit what Norway or any European electorate does; why do Canadians constantly compare themselves to everyone else.

Anyone who cares to look beyong their own borders to understand the world, who is interested in humanitarian progress and desirous of not falling into the same traps others have already been ensnared in. People who want to learn and understand comprehensively, in short.

snert ~ Gender parity like respect, must be earned not forced.

Really? You see no inherent disadvantages arising through biology or cultural customs that may be improved upon except within this ridiculous dogma of 'fair competition on the field'?

Do you think it was unfair to give natives, the blacks and women the vote as well? Or was this largely forced into the psyche of people, and is only now taken as just common sense?

continued

My gosh, I read post after post which presume things are 'fair', that the people in governmental offices earned their rightful places through their own merit, or that the government is operating well and with the best folks in office.

How does a Stephen Harper, or George Bush (either of them) or Gordon Campbell rise to the top if the game is so fair? There is no way in Hades these are the best people we have to offer, but it is what we get. The game is rigged, and it is not in favour of the people.

Now, I oppose political parties for all the right-thinking reasons which are clear indications that parties are a tool used against democratic progress. And we would not need laws nor government if people behaved conscionably. But that isn't going to happen in the next millenia so, if we must have rules, shouldn't they be directed toward the greater good, toward the advancement of all people being represented and not just the elite?

We've had centuries of elite rule and it has been abusing people incessantly, relaxing only when the elite stood to further benefit. If we want change, we ABSOLUTELY MUST change our behaviour.

Voting for an honest Independent candidate would be the logical and informed first step. It will not cure all that ails us, but it is a necessary and critical move toward democracy.

I feel as if my comment went ignored

Whenever we give to any people, it always serves to remind us of the differences we have with them and the inherent "inferiority" our assistance implies. I wish it was more complex than that.

"Nobody can give you equality...."

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it."

- Malcolm X

And....

If you're a woman, you take it for yourself, too.

No one has the right 'to give' it to me.

It is my right.

And I will take it.

well, Mathieu Y, we certainly do not want to be reminded...

of just how horribly our governance has treated people who were not in the ruling class over the years; nor of how we collectively and ignorantly repeat the mantra of the ruling class, like bobble-headed politicians, by blindly calling for 'fair play for all', while ignoring the reality that the world is gamed against the people.

Doesn't everyone deserve a chance to be treated with respect as a living being, and afforded the basic '1 person, 1 vote' right to contribute?

"The cry of the poor is not always just. But if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is" ~ From Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

We must allow all voices to be heard and considered. And knowing the political system snuffs out the voices of those who must be heard IF we are to make humanitarian progress, the least we can do is to stop asking them to fight for the right to be heard.

The entire system works against some people, and there is no shame in recognizing that we must help one another out -- not because those being 'helped' [code named for systemically stepped upon] are inherently inferior, but because we have allowed our government, our institutions, our culture and our mythology to make them so.

That all said, the political party, any party, will repeatedly fail these people, and most of us in general, as it is designed for the heard voices of the few.

Gender Parity In Politics,

as in any other field, is a disrupting problem by virtue of inherent differences. Every group of people who share a common feature learn to ignore other differences which exist between them. Adults and children. Rich and poor. Citizens and immigrants. Men and women.

Politically, how about two separate streams operating independently to set the policies, with the male version requiring female affirmation, and the female version requiring male affirmation?

Whole lotta blather

...from a bunch of rebels who simply haven't through their programme through.

Kick the leader out. Wonder why there's nobody climbing out of the woodwork to run, especially women. Then blame the people who tried to do something about it a decade ago by changing the rules, so that the corrupt media llike the Notional Pest couldn't claim any more that the NDP were simply a bunch of Archie Bunkers with no principles and no brains.

Did you clowns never notice that the rules had changed? Where were all of you when the last few party conventions happened? How come all these comments didn't form a challenge to party policy and lead to a vote to overturn the rules as they are now constructed?

Just like everything, this group of rebels is a bunch of "guys in a diner" (literally!) blathering on about how wise they would be in running the world if only someone would recognize their talent and draft them into the position of "king for a day".

It's not an easy problem, it's not a satisfactory solution, so for all you who have so much certainty in your comments...

GO AWAY

Nobody's listening to you now when you didn't do anything before. You're just troublemakers, and you and the Notional Pest deserve each other.

And for a note of reason

...samuidave and shepsil, thank you.

samuidave

Really! The bar just gets lowered, otherwise.

two points

Des ~ Every group of people who share a common feature learn to ignore other differences which exist between them. Adults and children. Rich and poor. Citizens and immigrants. Men and women.

Amen! I'd go one further and say no just ignore, but simply not even consider the differences on the cognitive/philosophical level of discussion.

snert ~ re: samuidave -- Really! The bar just gets lowered, otherwise.

Which gives rise to possibly the most fundamental question in philosophy, "compared to what?".

How high do you think the political bar is at this juncture in time?? Look around. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more selfish, ethically challenged, toady in political office than Gordon Campbell. And there are countless others who've got to the top by playing the game -- which obviously calls for no more than BSing charm backed by some heavy-weight financiers. This is what the system has repeatedly delivered, and this is what you are apparently afraid of abandoning?

So I wonder, are you suggesting we have the epitome of a democratic state which cannot be improved upon? Or that we have a democracy at all? Or is it the people achieving the most in the world have got there simply on their own talents? Or that those deemed 'non-achievers' have nothing more to offer to the discourse or to the betterment of society at large?

Look, it is completely gullible to support the mantra, let alone believe, the 'cream rises to the top' in the context of politics. Maybe your life experience has not revealed the contrary to you, but it will. No doubt there are achievers who merit their station. But the field of politics does not attract such individuals as a rule.

The talents and capabilities of most the people on this planet are never developed beyond a minimal extent by our exploitive system of governance 'of, by and for the elite'. There are literally billions of people with so much more to offer but left without much (or any) opportunity. The majority of people, globally and domestically, are left without a voice, often usurped by the political party machine and manipulatively sold back to us as 'our own'.

Why do we refuse to recognize, let alone take responsibility for, our own role in keeping ourselves under the thumb of the elite? Do you honestly think a government that monopolizes and profits from the sale of tobacco and alcohol; that sends its children to foreign lands to murder and be murdered; and that is rife with corruption and insider deals is serving the people??

In the words of Stefan Molyneux, "maybe, maybe, I should not nag the system to do better, maybe the problem IS the system ... can this be conceived of by these indoctrinated state-ass greasing robots of emptyheaded conformity to the will of those in power?"

A pound of prevention It is

A pound of prevention

It is really simple; if women want to be involved in politics then GET INVOLVED. Who exactly is preventing them from doing so?

Less pay for equal work
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-06/wall-street-says-women-worth-less-as-pay-disparity-widens-in-finance-ranks.html

The greater share of household chores
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2010/01/newsflash-women.html

The Glass Ceiling
http://www.accenture.com/Countries/Canada/About_Accenture/Newsroom/MostStudyShows.htm

All these factors and more, such as the lion's share of childcare responsibilities, are challenges that most men don't have to face.

It's a man's world.
=========

Sorry those myths you cited have been debunked ages ago.

So what about all the women leaders in the world?

Women want equality but it seems many want equity instead but of course according to you feminists every man is a rapist...

50/50 is Unfair.

If gender representation is wanted it should be based on demographics. The current 50/50 rule is just a token gesture furthering the injustice towards women, since women constitute more than 50% of the population.

Debunk is bunk

"Sorry those myths you cited have been debunked ages ago."

I cited real world studies from this century. If you believe they are 'myths' then bring forward some proofs to back up your claim.

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

- Monty Python, The Argument Sketch

equality? never has been there

There is no such thing as equality between the sexes; never has been, never will be.

What is available is equal opportunity.

There are two rights in life only; the right to pay your taxes and the right to life. All the rest of the “rights” in some of the postings here are extraneous nonsense.

Pretty much Dan the socialist; all men are pigs and we can roast in hell.

You want the leadership job...

...show us that you can beat the crap (politically speaking) out of any BC Liberal leader they come up with. Nothing else will matter. A few of us will want to see a vision but most of the public wants to get rid of the Campbellites once an for all.

lets be clear

what is happening here has more to do with the power struggle in the party than anything remotely related to noble progressive gains such as gender equality.

There are considerable forces disappointed with the controlling faction of the NDP. Moe is a lightning rod right now and people are pressuring him with this issue after he simply ignored internal and not so internal pleas to correct his circumstance rooted in the undemocratic and secretive nature in which he gained the role as Party President. And rightly so.

Those that continue to piss and moan about Carole do so only to position for a successor. There is hardly a time that a leader is not shown the door or pressured to leave and in Carole's instance she was privately approached early and no caucus member ever publically called for her resignation. She was given every opportunity to do a number of different things, but she chose to resign.

The bakers dozen, how ridiculous is that, only worked to ensure accountability to the membership as it relates to the leadership of the party. It was her choice to resign, and it was likely her intention for a long period of time.

This rhetoric only plays to a few potential candidates for replacement a few of which were significant supporters in her leadership bid.

And finally, Shrecks pathetic defense of a policy clearly far removed from the noble intent of balancing gender in the buildings and more closely alligned with the power to choose who runs for the party and who doesn't should be ignored, or in the very least called what it is. A blatant attempt to keep a candidate control mechanism in place that delivers 'desirable' candidates while masquarading as a progressive policy.

samuidave

The fundamental answer is....a higher bar. FWIW Gordon Campbell would be on a lower bar.

Remember, we are dealing with gender equity and respect not the "system". That's a whole other subject.

The NDP seems to be caught

The NDP seems to be caught in their own social engineering trap.

Studies of Opinions

Chris Keam your links aren't worth smick as being valid. These are studies concerning opinions. Which have nothing to do with reality. Almost everybody can find a reason to believe they are disadvantaged somehow. I will give you an example of how tainted one's own opinion can be.
Bob and Joanne live together. Joanne likes to have a spotless home. Bob doesn't really give a crap if the house is messy. Joanne insists that it be maintained to her specifications. Bob does participate in household chores but refuses to clean every crumb as Joanne wishes. Joanne pulls extra duty to maintain the home to her specification. When asked her opinion on whom does the most housework, Joanne insists that she does the bulk of the work and Bob(the jerk) won't do as he is told.
Joanne points out to Bob that their child won't go to sleep and is crying again and Joanne insists that it is Bob's turn to go and do something about it. Bob's opinion is that the little tyke will cry itself to sleep and this warrants no action. Joanne goes and rocks the little one to sleep. Bob doesn't think this is necessary and exacerbates the sleeping problem refusing to participate. In Joanne's opinion she does most of the child rearing and housework and Bob is a jerk because he won't comply to her demands on child rearing and housework.
Yes Chris, you are right, Joanne does do more housework and child caring and agrees with you but Bob says he has the right to have his own opinion and not be told what he should or should not be doing at home.
So Chris there are no facts in your links just opinions and the word "believe" appears with far to much regularity to warrant these studies as valid in any way.

Life is diverse

Vive la difference!

Why should we ignore our differences?

Why is difference being portrayed in some of these comments in a perjorative way? How about equality to the right of being different?

Women....and men, too, should be asking themselves what does the dead monoculture of politics have to offer anyone anymore?

Studies

The first study offers a number of facts regarding remuneration and doesn't rely on opinion to make its point. In the second link, the male scientists' responses only served to validate the responses of the women who stated they did the majority of work around the house. In the third link, both sexes were part of the pool of respondents.

Whether it's a valid opinion or not is irrelevant. If Joanne is spending four hours a day on the 'second shift' then it's four hours she doesn't have to build the networks necessary for a run at public office. If Bob, for whatever reason, isn't helping with those tasks, it's time he can spend doing that work.

You don't have to be a feminist or a woman to be able to see the gender-split in terms of sheer numbers is well-documented and doesn't proportionately reflect the make up of the population.

Women make up roughly 20% of MPs in Canada. If I thought stating the obvious repeatedly was worth doing I could find examples at every level of gov't in most countries. It's a fact that women are under-represented in politics. Whether one thinks this is good, bad or a non-issue... the numbers show that fewer women end up wielding political power than men. I've outlined some of the possible reasons why with my links. Let's face it, there has to be some reason. Random chance doesn't explain it away. What's your best guess paisley?

"Pretty much Dan the

"Pretty much Dan the socialist; all men are pigs and we can roast in hell."

Especially white men, according to samuidave.

Chris Keam

Maybe not all women actually feel under represented.

One of the more interesting things that I have discovered on my journy through life is that a significant number of women would rather not have female bosses.

I suspect that this may also apply to a dislike of female politicians.

jwstewart, you have an odd perception of my thoughts

... as the paramount problem at hand I see is one of power.

[On an aside, what amounts to your cry about the injustice toward the contemporary whiteman reminds me of the sad billionaire, who cannot account for his own wealth within 10 million dollars, bitching about a tax raise.]

Now, of course, we can anecdotally find examples of people in power irrespective of sex, race, education, etc. in Canadian history. But the cold, hard truth is that in the formation of this nation, whatever the whiteman has wanted, he has taken. He has dominated the halls of power - born into the position of advantage through sheer luck -- and has gone out of his way to retain control.

Shouldn't a democratic government, which is technically allocated authority by the people, be composed of the people? Opportunity is the key to impartiality, which itself is the basis of justice. And the opportunities for women and other minorities are, despite the recent claims of progress, still largely restricted systemically. So where is the justice? Perhaps the ideal of a just society is not what one desires, so my point then falls moot.

snert ~ Remember, we are dealing with gender equity and respect not the "system". That's a whole other subject.

Is it? When the system gives respect ONLY to those who conform to its established rules and ideals, we remain trapped within that narrow world view. And it follows ONLY those who comply to this tight ideology are given opportunity to dictate our course.

Incidentally, that world view is about holding power within the hands of those who 'deserve it', as defined by themselves.

Certainly there will be distracting claims of this forced representation as social engineering. In the 1970s Garrett Hardin's theory of 'tough love', that not allowing the strongest (ie, in the political sense the privileged) to maintain their might would inevitably lead to some sort of decay, was popular. I simply disagree.

Of course, and despite my arguing the correctness of 'forced' representation on democratic grounds (at least until our collective understanding has shifted to expect equitable representation as a given), I do not believe this will make an iota of difference to the political landscape and how power is administered down on us. One simple reason: we do not live in a democracy.

For 'politics is war without the killing...' as Mao said.

samuidave

I think the democracy you pine for is a non functional one by it's very nature.

Evidence please.

snert ~ I think the democracy you pine for is a non functional one by it's very nature.

I am sure you have all sorts of thoughts, so perhaps you can provide some details of this 'non-functional democracy I pine for'?

Gender should be irrelevant for choosing MLA's & MP's

The woman or man who has the best politics is the person deserving of our vote.

I what the Best "Person" for the job, end of story.

Who came out with this useless piece of social engineering, Mary Woo-Sims, the Queen of BC's Kangaroo Court?

Hey guys, it's your party - you made the cake - enjoy

People who possess the “skill” represented by the ability beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees are schoolyard bullies - not leaders. There will always be a few apologists in every crowd who are fascinated by political dinosaurs with such retrograde ‘skills’.

I would have thought the province of BC might, by now, have had enough of those.

The NDP had a leader, a woman leader, and it was - in clear and objective terms - the party to beat in the next election.

Now, the NDP is a laughing stock to everyone except Tommy Chong.

Welcome to the monkey house folks - enjoy!

errata

Should be:
People who possess the “skill” represented by the ability TO beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees are schoolyard bullies - not leaders.

G West

Respectfully, I still feel, quite strongly, G West, that you give James far, far too much credit for competence, ability, and the intellectual skills and knowledge required to do the job.

One of the things that has been blatantly ignored by all James supporters -- in or out of the party -- is how many people in the party and on the street had lost respect for her and did not trust her to be competent enough to do a good job.

James supporters simply ignore the many, many people in this province who are intelligent, poltically aware, and yet did not want James to stay.

I am one of those folks who does not believe for a minute that James was disrespected or pushed to leave because she was a woman. I firmly believe that that is a cheap and completely false red herring. If you want to prove it, provide some meaningful evidence.

Lastly, a general question: Have there ever been any well conducted studies or research to determine whether or not the lack of female politicians is because men keep them out, or discourage them or "glass ceiling" them?

Maybe there just are not enough women interested in such a vile, dishonest, bloodthorsty profession. And face it, it seems that most of the women who do get into politics are just a variation on Thatcher -- and do we really want more of her?

Presumptions of Right vs Proving One's Mettle...

There is absolutely nothing "ridiculous" about consciously working to increase the leadership involvement of women, period. That said, I think, the only ridiculous aspect is to think that it can be forcibly mandated. Leadership, in my experience of it, can never be successfully simply declared. It must be won... by women no less than men.

Working to dismantle all the rule, economic and attitude barriers that stand in the way of women having the opportunity to be successful, is one thing. As for women's confidence and skill sets, that is something they will have to, and have, successfully work on.

It's ridiculous when a man or men go around "proclaiming" their "right" to lead, and it is no less so when a woman or women do it. Positions of leadership, to the degree that such are needed, first need to be "won" by display of the special skill set, and then "firmly controlled" by the "rank and file"... which should never hesitate to remove any leader, male or female, upon displays of arrogance, assumptions of right and for "failure". (Which is what Carole was really dumped for... and were I an NDPer, I would think correctly so. For failure to "inspire" as much as any other.)

With a few notable exceptions....

... one finds much of interest on this list:

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

I see countries with long socialist traditions, and countries that have experienced recent war higher up the list. By the time we start getting down to the 27% level of female participation, the "noise" starts to turn such opinions into gumbo.

Of course, Canada at 22%, Israel at 19% and the US at 17% have nothing to brag about. Nor does my favourite "battling Parliament", South Korea, at 15%, who compare favourably only to such paragons of female opportunity as Russia, Thailand, Japan, and assorted Arab and African nations.

I'm quite sure a tradition of civility and respect for different points of view in political discourse would help, but I wouldn't bother to mention that here where the the level of discourse during the "silly" political season scarcely rises above primitive grunts.

John Greg

With respect, all you have proved with your screed is that the corporatist media didn't like Carole James any more than you did. You quote no figures, you give no examples, you envision no future woman winning at the same job - you simply re-fight some past battle that's long over with someone who probably doesn't even disagree with your opinion, just your manner of expression.

Are you waiting for the corporatist media to endorse a suitable left-wing woman for you to get behind and promote? Unfortunately, I don't see any long lines forming at Party HQ.

So maybe it's time that you and all the other people who still think the system is good and the candidate was rotten had another think - perhaps one less informed by the opinions of the Notional Pest, no matter how much you think them your own.

John Greg

I appreciate the 'respect' but I respectfully disagree.

James took the party to 47% in the opinion polls, she managed to be conciliatory and inclusive and she managed to convince the men and women in the street - especially women - that she was leading a party which had the jam to form a decent government for ALL the people of this province.

We haven't had a government which cared about more than 20% of their supporters for 10 years - I'm sick of it and Carole James, in my view, was a way out of that morass.

I don’t want to be disputatious, but I don’t see any ‘potential’ leaders of what has been MY party for all my life coming to the surface of the quicksand Jenny Kwan and her gang have created, have you?

You too, Jerry..

...gave with your most charitable, succinct and precise piece in weeks

...until you opened a parenthesis.

( *%&!>òΦ↕♥!* )

baloney

“James took the party to 47%”...complete nonsense….she was the leader when the Liberals shot themselves in the foot so many times that voters in BC eventually have found them(Liberals) repellent.

If this was even remotely the case she would be premier today. Couldn’t win twice…remember?

Sorry fellas

Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it...The NDP DON'T FORM GOVERNMENT VERY OFTEN IN BRITISH COLUMBIA at the best of times - cross reference the last 100 years.

You think getting few laughs about Dana Larsen as a 'serious' candidate for premier is going to help those chances?

Like I said, give your heads a shake.

lovin' Lalli

as far as this old, white woman is concerned, i am lovin' Lalli right now.
and i am sure there are many other new democrats that agree that the time for gender equity has come and gone.
when a policy that was put in place for all the right reasons becomes a stumbling block, it is time to boot that policy aside.

Instant Utopia Gonna Get You

The Utopian concept of gender equity used to be that if it was implemented all at once, some might grumble but soon everybody would get used to it, and eventually forget all about the way it used to be. Kind of like an instant Garden of Equity-Eden.

A more practical, and maybe more palatable approach is to initiate equity and allow it to grow into a garden. Sure, some might get a little impatient at the gradual and uneven ripening of the fruit, but if the garden is healthy and well cultivated, you can bank on a good harvest.

Many barriers and ceilings have been breeched never to be mended again. The ingrowth of equity is irreversible. It would be foolish for the NDP to stubbornly demand a Utopian ideal only to put obstacles in its way.

The Pain In The Ass...

"what is happening here has more to do with the power struggle in the party than anything remotely related to noble progressive gains such as gender equality." Whatthe.

I agree entirely whatthe. And with Lynn, who invariably brings that unique perspective of hers. Indeed, vive le difference.

What the!!!

One's gotta call it the way one sees it, Zalmer. If nobody else, you and I always do... let the chips fall where they may.

Actually, I wouldn't have even commented on this Carole Again thread,but there is a dearth of anything that currently interests me here on Tyee, and I can't stand not saying something about something.

Besides, the working class would be way better off if they could dispense with the need for "Leaders" altogether. That they do seem to need them still, is their one, single biggest problemo. 'Cause without them we really could kick sweet ass and seriously get on with democracy... in all its gender and other manifestation forms.

Leaders, even our presumed "own", next to the Ruling Class, are a friggin' pain in the ass.

From an old white man to the old white woman, editingfool, right on gal:

"when a policy that was put in place for all the right reasons becomes a stumbling block, it is time to boot that policy aside."

This is NOT a gender issue, but a kicking ass issue.

more of the same stupid political soap

Jerry Munro ~ the working class would be way better off if they could dispense with the need for "Leaders" altogether

But we are the 'political animal' and yearn to be lead, if only by 'the one-eyed man'. Canada has not had a natural leader for decades, arguably since Trudeau. In BC, maybe it was WAC Bennett.

What we have are trained shepherds. The political image has been groomed since Abe Lincoln's was transformed successfully, and today it is almost exclusively manufactured.

Script writers, image consultants, speech pattern experts, acting coaches for gesticulations and facial expressions to punctuate the message visually, press releases, video editing, etc. It's all just a production. 'Pander to the herd's emotions' for this is what motivates us far beyond anything else.

Seriously, an emotionally charged message with a well groomed presenter will move us anywhere. Look at Reagan. Look at Clinton. Look at Bush. All three are deplorable, disgusting humans who lead the flock deeper into the abyss.

In Canada we have Harper; in BC its Campbell. Are we suggesting these guys are leaders? The idea would be laughable if not so revolting. These folks are the product of the party machinery, shuffling us non-thinkers along behind the image of a party banner, a party 'leader', and the relentless propaganda that pollutes what is suppose to be our free-thought.

The only important fact to a sect of the NDP was that Carole James might not have allowed the party to win, so they needed more charisma to sell us. More flashy, digestible charm to pursuade you and me that the NDP has our back. And we all know that while they are back there we will invariably be bent over.

Because after a certain time, as history shows, what we eventually learn is that most of these political charmers are self righteous, opportunistic, hypocritical, lying, unconscionable folks who lust after power behind their fake hollywood smiles. And we all groan, albeit too late.

I suppose as long as we want to operate under the hallucination that the political system as it operates (coupled to its party cliques) is in place for the people, we will go on supporting their lead vultures. We've been warned of the party evils in a democracy for over 200 years, but we don't see to like the taste of sage advice.

Enjoy the show, and watch your back.

Vote independent and give democracy a chance.

Harry stands up for "old white farts"

..because they haven't had their place in the sun for a long, long , loooooooonnnnnnnnggggg time.

That'll be the quote of the election.

From one old white fart to another, Harry, thanks a lot. I needed a leg up on the competition to get my rants out into the discourse. The Vancouver Sun and the Province and Corus Low-Forehead Radio Show were simply putting on too many of those pantywaist coloured gay women and my opinions weren't getting heard.

***Irony alert*** for the sarcastically-deficient.

more Archie Bunkerisms

... for the "take back the party" crowd.

On a woman's place...

"A woman should cleave into her husband. Right here in this house is where Edith's cleavage belongs."

On old white guys...

" Look at you, you're white as a goat!"

On female candidates...

"Tell her I ain't crawlin' home to her with my tail between her legs."

http://www.archiebunkerquotes.com/1.html

Oh, it's going to be quite the convention, all right...

Of Wolves, Shepherds and Sheep...

Good piece immediately above me here by yourself, samuidave.

I reluctantly "go along" with the notion that "we folks" are still looking for that, what samuidave describes as "natural leader". And give it whatever partisan twist you want.

Still, it's too bad that there isn't enough "self-motivation" and "co-operation" out there amongst we Great Unwashed, that we can't dispense with the buggers (leaders), male or female. They invariably corrupt and hinder as much as they help, is my lifelong experience with so-called "Leaders". (Look at the trade union movement since at least the 1950s for the primo example. Talk about a missed opportunity. Instead, we got more of those "shepherds" of which samuidave speaks. Now, the wolves have been allowed to feed so long on the sheep by the shepherds, that again, we think it is the natural order of things.)

Anyway, there's my rant for the day. :-)

As for the NDP, I think that even Corky has lost his edge and his relevance to the times. Which should send the sheep's wool flying. :-)

zalm and G West

zalm, I don't understand your comment at all. And I don't think you understood mine. I am not in any way shape or form a supportter of corporatist anything -- especially corporatist media. If you've paid any attention at all to my posts here at the Tyee you should have picked up on the fact that I am as about anti-corporatist as one can be.

No, I did not post any figures. You're quite right about that. I was posting my opinion, and yes I may be wrong about the numbers of people who do not support James -- but it doesn't feel that way.

Absolutely not. I am waiting for anyone, male or female, who appears to have the skills, the wisdom, and the courage to properly lead the party. And I did not think that James was the one. Nor, at this point in time do I feel there is anyone particularly suited to replace her -- but that's a different argument. And I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut whether they are man or a woman. Such chauvinism does little more than divide, as is made more than clear in almost all the posts about James and the NDPs "equality" clause.

Where you get the idea that because I don't support James means I do support the, as you rightly call it, Notional Pest (and its supporters) is utterly beyond me. And where you get the idea that I think the system is good is also beyond me. I think the entire Canadian political system is deeply broken, and I fear for our country's future. But I don't for an instant think that James would have done anyone any good, and nor do I think that forcing gender equality into place will do anyone any good either. It's skills we need, not mandated gender equality.

G West said:

Respectfully, no, I don't think so. But, to be truthful, I am simply not at all sure. I've become a bit overwhelmed by my view of how broken I feel our provincial and federal political machine is, and for that matter how utterly broken and corporatist our entire country has become, so I've had a tendency of late to shy away from a lot of the debate and just follow the Tyee mainly. So perhaps my opinion is just moot after all. But as I've stated, I really do feel that mandated gender equality is a farce, and a dangerous one at that.

Jerry Munro said:

And I agree with that.