How can any policy that uses a persons gender as a qualification be considered by Liberal leadership candidate ? This is a step backwards. All Canadians should be equal, some shouldn't be more equal than others, no matter what.

And what, IAMC, is inequitable about having gender parity in parliament? I can't wait to hear what you come up with.

Maybe you just can't read.

I don't have a problem with natural gender equity, did I say something that indicated that ?

This is what you said.

Please explain in the context of the goal of parliamentary gender equity.

I kind of like this idea.
There is something in the structure of our institutions that mitigates against women getting to management in very high numbers, and to legislatures and the commons in very high numbers. (Municipal councils seem to me to do a tad better, and certainly volunteer groups have a lot of women elected as chairs and so on)
I don't know what the obstacles are.
So arbitrarily setting quotas will do two things; even the balance; and, amybe, smoke out just what those obstacles are.
I've noticed for some time the way some of our northern neighbours are handling this: Norway is mentioned here, and I think that Iceland has tried some affirmative changes to affect the gender balance.
I undrstand that a caucus, such as a women's caucus, has to have a certain number to achieve a critical mass so as to have some affect on the way business is done,and 20% is too low.
We have some very effective MPs among both men and women, but I sometimes get the sense that the women are kind of isolated...or adrift.

This is great. I think we should have multi-parity in both kinds of parliaments, provincial and federal. Like for instance, 50% aboriginal, 50% Ukranian, 50% Black, 50% South Asian, 50% American, 50% Italian, 50% left-handed. And age parity too; 50% boomers between 45 and 50, 50% boomers beteen 50 and 59, and generation xers too, 50%.

It would be good to have more female members in our legistatures, they often have a different perspective on things, and could perhaps also dampen some of the boisterous behaviour?
My sense is that women realize how great an obligation it is to run for office, and often decide that it is not worth the hassle!
They know that they will be exposed to the old boys network, trying to "teach" them how things are done (or else)!
Rafe has made it clear enough that backbenchers have no say whatsoever, and maybe that is the problem that needs to be changed, rather than forcing a solution?
What would a party do if the required number of women did not agree to run?

Anyone who is against this is insane. People against this idea are using the same logic that tried to deny women and minorities the right to vote. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and a couple other countries have had gender parity legislation for roughly 40 years...period.

Enid, your argument is not sound. There was a law that denied women the right to vote at one time. There is no law banning anyone from running for office or CEO. Women are getting into trades, warehousing, law, medicine, politics, crime, management and everything else that men also do. I just don't see any discrimination here, except maybe against men.

IAMC
What is the approximate proportion of men vs women in Canadian society?

Why would not having a similar proportion of men to women ( the answer to the above question is 50/50, more or less) in parliament be a good idea too? How else can the interests of the whole population be properly represented?

This has nothing to do with party affiliation and only tries to achieve rough parity in government.

Are you a misogynist?

How could such a program possibly discriminate against men?

Because water finds it's own level. And I know what you want to hear from me, so I will say it.
Darwin discovered that the survival of a species depends on the survival of the fittest. If someone screws with that, we as a species decline in our strength. We would eventually die. Which is what many of you regular posters on this site wish for.
Women now make up a majority of medical and law students. Things will sort themselves out without social engineering.
We need the best people doing the important duties in our society, regardless of gender or race.

You don't even know that Darwin never said anything about survival of the fittest. Those words came from others and social darwinism is just another name for Nazi racism. We need fair and equitable representation for the whole of our society and not just for the old boys and turkeys who run the system for their own advantage now.

By the way, I listened to the clip from that Edmonton radio station. If you listen to to that crap very often it is not hard to understand why you are such a racist and misogynist.

G; I don't believe you. There is no way you could have figured that out in 7 minutes, while also composing your post.
BS won't get you anywhere.
Maybe we should just put every ones name in a two jars. One male and one female. Top job comes up and we draw from one jar. Nobody who's name is drawn, they get the position. Next job comes up, we draw from the other jar, and whoever's name is drawn, they get the job.
Would this be your way of advancing us ?
You must be crazy to say what you do.

Figured what out? I'm listening to the clip right now. Some people aren't limited to doing just one thing at a time. I work 10 to 12 hours every day on top of that.

I don't have to lie to contend with someone as phenomenally ignrant as you are.

You ARE crazy!

What about the gays and lesbians, and the transvestites and transgendered, and the bi-sexuals, and the A-sexuals and the hermaphrodites? Where do they fit in? (No pun intended)

This affirmative-action gender equality purity is somewhat anachronistic in this age of poly-genders? We would be condemning people into traditional stereotypical identities, demanding that they they declare affiliation with just one of two categories would be an assault on their freedom of choice and an invasion of their privacy!

It'd be better if you were punning!

GWest, your post were a lot better when you could resist getting into name calling. You can really get your points across better if you walk the moral high ground.

Oh c'mon 'realisticman' anyone who uses that handle can't be devoid a sense of humour. If your post this morning wasn't a joke then I apologize.

I call them as I see them.

My apologies, realisticman. The above was meant for working man and does just as nicely for him. I still think your remarks were worthy of a chuckle; just as I did your statement some time ago about how Margaret Thatcher ‘saved’ Great Britain.

From you, working man, I take no lessons. Alcibiades demonstrated last week quite thoroughly just exactly how big a waste of time it is reading much of the flawed and erroneous stuff you post – except for comic relief.

I noticed yesterday you seemed to be pandering for acceptance with some of what you were posting. The kind of thing you usually only express when you're looking for approval from Frank. Feeling a bit lonely out there on that cracking limb all by yourself?

This will be the last I say on this because this is ridiculous. I should hope that the above posters aren't just bunch of hell raisers and will listen to my rational.

Women have historically not been allowed to enter politics due to a varitey of reasons that hve been well documented in 99% of all books that deal with the subject. Law has historically been one of these things, but when these laws were lifted (starting at the the beginning of the last century) women's lot in Western society crept up only maginally. Representation in institutions, economic and social standing all styed at low levels compared to men. Why?

Is it because water finds its own level i.e. Survival of the fit (this was what Darwin's original quote)? Women are not water and humans are not a bunch of isolated small brained monkey's trying to eke out an existence in the Bornean jungle. This argument has NOTHING to do with a) survival of our species b) natural genetic patterns applied to women's lot in society or c) a decline in a species strength. Those who wish to think so should enroll in a level one Biology course in any academic institution to see why this is so.

This argument has to do with the following: women have been systematically denied the ability to enter politics. The word system is key. In the upper echelons of education (Phd and masters) women make up a smaller percentage of students. Women are also denied management positions across the board regardless of their experience levels (the recent case against Wal-Mart) and are generally kept out of running for office due to dominance by men and male-centric issues in politics.

This is about choices by our society. The Nordic countries have simply chosen to deal with this and the results have been great. More women in politics and management, more women at higher education levels, less single mom's in prison, welfare better suited to both sex's, more equal pay across the board, etc.

To argue otherwise is to argue that women have not been denied the ability to run for office, something which has been documented by every well-rounded academically sound and peer-reviewed political scientist, sociologist and human geographist I've read.

With that long-winded argument out of the way I turn to the other guy. Democracy is about representation. Since Canada claims to be democratic, we should try to reflect that in parliament. Not perfectly in every way based on percentages, but as best as we can and with the ability to still choose from a wide variety of candidates. There are steps we can take to do this, Dion is promoting one of them just have other MP's done in the past from all the parties. To try and puff this up as "equality gone out of control" is a waste of my time as a reader, unless you can show me a well-documented case where this kind of legislation fucked up. So I'm all ears.

Well put Enid. I expect the silence will be deafening!

It's up to women, it's not up to legislation, quotas, affirmative action. Just go do it. There is nothing stopping you. The door is wide open. How many ways are there to tell you that you are already there. There is nothing more to be done for you in this country. If you are worried about equality of women, the Muslim societies need your help more than North American women.
I am baffled by this argument. It's a non argument. Women have exactly the same opportunities as men. If they are not exercising these freedoms, that is their problem. I am not going to take a job away from an ambitious man to give it to a complacent women. How does that improve our society ?

IAMC:
Women have the same opportunities as men - in what dream world?

Are you pregnant? Have you ever nursed a child? You clearly don’t even understand the role of biology in determining one’s life opportunities

The complacency is all on your lazy and unthinking behalf, as usual.

To have more women in positions of real power and influence improves society because men and women are different, and because women bring an important and unique perspective that is far more valuable than you have the sense, experience or education to understand.

Your remark about the situation in Muslim countries having any relevance to this discussion doesn't even require a response it is so utterly inane.

- there's the brand of a true misogynist. The remark should be turned back on you and the dinosaurs of the troglodyte right. – you make a far more appropriate target.

Sorry Enid. I guess the exception proves the rule - at least I hope so!

RE: IAMC

"There is nothing stopping you" - Off the top of my head: documented and proven sexism in the workplace denying women management positions over less qualified men, management and education positions not condusive to raising children, party leadership promoting women candidates only in ridings where they are bound to lose, a long well documented history of traditionalism and sexism in the family and public schools, etc.

"How many ways are there to tell you that you are already there." I challenge you or any person who follows this bastardized junk-logic to show me a variable in society where women recieve the same equal fair treatment as men. Law and Medicine enrollement only goes so far as entry or bachelor levels, the vast majority of doctors and highly paid administrative medical and judicial positions (including judges) are men. This goes for policy setting professionals as well. I have listed a number of examples and can pull out the books should you be so inclined to actually learn about this phenomenon (hint: it's called sexism by some and patriarchy by others).

"If you are worried about equality of women, the Muslim societies need your help more than North American women." I agree that foreign women (not just Muslim women, but women in East Asian, Central Africa, South American, South Asia) are in far greater need of support. The best way to have women here in Canada promote this is to ensure that our foreign policy department has a women's caucus. This will require more women in Parliament. So see how this can be done, please scroll up to the original article that this comment thread refered to.

Its truly amazing how someone who is so blatantly ignorant can ferret out so much knowledge and wisdom, albeit, as a counter for such earlier ignorantly flawed arguements. Liked your post, Enid Godtree. Spot on. :-)

And just one note... Dion, if anyone watches CPAC, or the news when he was minister of the environment, was impressive in what he had to say and in the way he said it. He would, if anyone cares to note, make an excellent PM in my opinion and not just because of his stances on gender, but rather, his views on pretty much everything.

Well this is the rare occasion when I think everyone is making good points. Certainly IMAC agrees with the ideal that all segments of society should be represented. I think what he is questioning is the way to get there.

It's not debatable that women have been historically kept out of positions of authority and power in this country. Perhaps the question is: Has this changed and has it changed enough that affirmative action is not an appropriate remedy?

One thing cannot be denied, though. If women as a block--voting entity really wanted parity in parliamentary representation, they could have it as soon as the next election. With 51% percent of the population they could elect at least 80% female representation merely by voting as a block--and reduce the male representation to 20%.

So, if they really want parity, no problem. Beyond the unlikelihood of this actually happening, I think it brings some probitive value to the argument. The parity--now policy requires some artifical finangling with party and parliamentary candidacy. I see an analogue in asking women to vote only for women. And it's this analoque that, at least syllogistically, diminishes the argument for affirmative action.

Afterall, what's good for the goose is good for the gander--and conversely so, one would suspect.

In case my argument is not self-evident, here's the alogrithmic (recipe) equivalency: If artificially altering the party and parliamentary candidacy is justifiable, it follows that artifical block-voting might be just as justifiable.

The problem, Truman, is that the party structure dominates the process that controls the product. Until at least 50% of candidates for all parties are actually women your observation has no traction and block voting will not achieve rough parity in legislatures, ever – in my view.

That's why there needs to be the kind of affirmative action which has successfully addressed the same problem in other jurisdictions. It is one of those very few instances where it could be argued that the end justifies somewhat less than perfect means.

Further, while women and men are different and will bring different perspectives to parliaments; they also exist in a wide variety of political ideologies so it's no more likely that you could convince a majority of women to accept your proposal than it has been possible to convince the retrograde elements in society that women have suffered (and are continuing to suffer) discrimination under the current regime.

I think a better analogy is civil rights in the US. There, addressing structural inequities between blacks and whites required positive governmental interference of an activist and positive manner. That's also what's needed in Canada for, among other groups, women. In my view.

And, while I'm loathe to compare Kuwait with Canada,(It's still a nasty, women-baiting and hating little monarchy), at least in political or social egalitarianism, I think the recent election there highlights my position.

For the first time women were allowed to vote and run for office. Even with no political parties, and with women candidates vying for 28 of the 50 seats, not a single female candidate won.

One wonders if even most of the female candidates voted for men.

I anticipated your observation about party candidacy, G, but too bad. Women will just have to change it even if Hedy Fry becomes Prime Minister. She's not so bad that women couldn't all vote for her, is she? There was, afterall, one genuine cross-burning in Kelowna. So what if she got a few minor details wrong! (As she spoke)

Some carpenters, building scaffolding were apparently careless when they left the structure poorly supported, and when they went to Tim Hortons for coffee two two-by-fours, in the shape of a cross tumbled over and fell into a bonfire and caught fire. If the media would have done their job properly Hedy would never have been so unjustly criticized for merely doing her job and pointing out that the KKK still runs roughshod over the black community in this country--sometimes even still on horseback. Honest, I seen them.

If we can't manage to do things a little better than Kuwait and a little more like Scandinavia I'd agree with you. But I don't. Nice story about the cross - darn carpenters!

Unbeknowst to you (possibly), G, you've already agreed with me for this pesky bit of reasoning: If Dion can find enough potential female representatives--candidates, members of parliament,even ministers--to reach parity, there must be enough females available for whom block-voting female voters could vote.

Unlike much of this discussion, this is an "a priori," unassailable conclusion, otherwise Dion is just "playing the gender card," as Peter McLeod suggests might be the case.

Doesn't really matter Truman - it may well be a popular item in his platform - but I'll wager it will soon be part of all the candidates' armamentarium and the rubber only really hits the road when it comes to the general election. I shouldn't have been so dismissive of Kuwait's progress though. We've allowed women to vote in this country for something less than 100 years so I guess they're entitled to some growing pains.

The point, in the end, is whether or not 50% of the population can be adequately represented by a handful of women. If the situation were reversed I think you'd say men had a democratic deficit.

Anyway, one thing I do wish is that more women would weigh in on the subject. I'm busy for the rest of the day so I'll check out and leave it to you.

"Doesn't really matter," eh G. Why didn't you say that before, and saved me from trying to make up jokes, and develope mathematical reasoning algorithms, and stuff like that?

I thought we were trying to decide if affirmative action was appropriate as a vehicle for providing political parity for women.

Forgive me for pointing out that it sure seemed to matter when you were basking in the glow of your ad hominem-driven confrontation with the politically incorrect, but thoughtful, IMAC--the identification of which puts me dangerously into that same unfortunate debating category.

The problem I can see with your voting-block proposition TG is that it assumes that gender is the only thing that women voters care about when it comes to voting decisions. Because there are a variety of issues which people vote for and a number of issues regarding promotion, viability and procedure which can deny women access to office (in the case of Kuwait and every other country), hoping that women "get it together" or "figure it out for themselves" is a bit of a pipedream. It assumes that it is just as easy for 13 million women to vote identically en masse as it is to have a parliamentry or cabinet committee formulate and pass a proposal through gov't.

I feel in this debate that, theory aside, I have the empirical evidence on my side. If you feel that women should have proper representation in politics then look to the countries where they have the best representation and ask why it is so. The answer why they have is because of gov't policy. If one somehow thinks that this is against natural order and/or disastrous in someway I would be OK in hearing explanations why the Nordics manage to have the best standard of living in the world, the strongest performing economies in Europe and the most encompassing welfare states that offer the greatest welfare instruments to women in the Western World.

Naw, My quarrel with IAMC has nothing much to do with this matter. We were contesting over his attitude toward native people for the most part.

When I said it 'doesn't really matter' I was speaking in the context of the advancement of the policy as a touchstone for the Liberal leadership contest only. Check back to what I actually wrote.

I think it matters a great deal and I totally agree with affirmative action - for exactly the same reasons that I support affirmative action for Blacks in the US.

I really do have to go though and I'm more than willing to leave the defence of these concepts in Enid's very capable hands.

BTW, I don't think my quarrels with IAMC are ever ad hominem - they don't have to be - he provides all the ammunition I need with his own writings and prejudices.

Cheers. Thanks for the chuckle. Did you go to high school in Surrey?

I am confused - to say the least. Has there been evidence that if a woman wants to run for office she has not been allowed?
My experience is that most women do not want to, and are not willing to give up their family life to do so.

G, as to Surrey, do you mean Surrey, BC or Surrey, Enland? Google me, and find out.

And regarding your denialism of my claim that you have grown accustomed to using ad hominem attacks, I wonder if you could point me in the direction of a world in which "You are crazy," and "You are such a racist and mysogynist," (reserved for the politically incorrect IMAC) would not be considered as ad hominem in nature. The most perfunctory googlistic search of the definition of "ad hominem" throws considerable doubt on your claim, I'm afraid.

to wit: ad hominem--epithets employed to degrade the person when attempts to denigrate his/her arguments have been accurate only on a purely (oops redundancy) hit-and miss, that is to say inconclusive basis. Okay, I made that up. So what?

And certainly, Enid, I am not suggesting that women historically vote only on the basis of gender, (What gave you that idea? Surely my argument, claims otherwise) or doubting that they have other issues in mind--only suggesting that if and when they believe that political parity is a priority, they as a group, have it within their power to change the situation. And I am making this observation in view of the unimpeachable (as facts are wont to be) fact that this has not always been the case.

This admission allows me to make the suggestion that there comes a time in the progress of democracy, near the tipping point of libertarian parity, that victims of oppression must grasp those last worn out weapons from the hands of the oppressors, and by doing so, become themselves, the oppressors.

Just kidding.

As for Norway's high standard of living, one could suggest that they were well on their way back in the 60's when they found oil and gas out in the saltchuck, and since have become the world's third greatest exporter of oil--bigger than Canada--and produce more than the tar sands and all of Canada's wells combined.

And all of this with a population of 4.6 million--all accomplished before private sector parity legislation. By the way, Peter Mcleod refers to the Norweigians creating legislated parity in the private sector, but doens't mention the fact that the Norweigian government had reached gender parity by l972, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GENDER LEGISLATION--all which might render your claim of empiricism somewhat flimsy, especially if one notices that the political parity didn't immediately translate to parity in the private sector. Might one suggest also that in Canada there are unfortunately cultural and social reasons why women have not, so far, taken advantage of the political ascendency which appears to be theirs for the taking?

And notwithstanding the difficulty in breaching the anonymity of
Tyee posters, with their often gender-neutral funny names and such, it might even be profitable to wonder what percentage of the justice-seeking blogeration is indeed, female.

Otherwise see: Norweigian Oil Money Surplus or Norweigian Pension Fund, for instance, eh.

Last I heard it was closing in on 500 billion dollars, American. But then I just heard that from a rather bragidocious Norweigian tourist in Robins' Donuts, so who knows?

It's not debatable that women have been historically kept out of positions of authority and power in this country. Perhaps the question is: Has this changed and has it changed enough that affirmative action is not an appropriate remedy?

Thank you Truman! Glad to see you demonstrate that it is possible to have a real discussion or critique re: affirmative action without being a sexist or racist. I'm really disappointed in those who were so quick to cry wolf & resort to name-calling. I share your value in gender parity, but no policy is beyond critique.

Here are university enrollment figures for 2003/04, courtesy of StatsCan:

Cited from: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051011/d051011b.htm

The report goes on to say that, although men still outnumber women at the PhD level, the rate of growth in the number of female students exceeds the growth rate in male PhD students.

If this trend continues, we will see a society in the not-so-distant future in which it will be assumed that women are the more competent, educated gender, and thus the most appropriate gender for political leadership. Therefore, I don't believe women need affirmative action: they are already growing more successful without affirmative action. If we enforce gender parity by law, soon it would be to ensure that sufficient men are represented, which I think is just as misguided as a quota on women. I don't believe quotas and affirmative action is the best solution here -- let's find other ways to encourage success at university that is not tied to gender.

Oops! My last post should have concluded:

"let's find other ways to encourage success for under-represented groups that is not a gender-based quota."

Mr. Dionne is just saying that the Liberal party intends to ignore the choices of its constituency associations and impose centrally approved candidates. Which is just another way of saying that the Liberal doesn't really care about local democracy.

I don't care how he does it as long as he gets Horrible Harper out of office before he drags Canada's reputation down the way Bush did the U.S. with his unbalanced foreign policy among other things.

Anyone who is against this is insane. People against this idea are using the same logic that tried to deny women and minorities the right to vote. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and a couple other countries have had gender parity legislation for roughly 40 years...period.

Let me quote from the Danish Consitution:

Section 81 [Military Duty]
Every male person able to carry arms shall be liable with his person to contribute to the defence of his country under such rules as are laid down by Statute.

No, the Danes and other such progressive breeds of people do not see identical treatment as necessarily 'equal', but are actually respectful of the very complex issue equality is. The idea of anyone landing in a public position of trust, simply because of his/her gender is insane, to say the least. As Rhett Butler said: those worthy of respect get it naturally, they don't have to demosntrate for it. Let us all try to grow up together and pick up the guts to judge a man/woman on his/her merits

sorry, the top paragraph in theprevious post should have been in quotation signs, as I am speaking against it.

I just got so incensed; I am probabaly not qualifying as one of those leydies, who would put a damper on the 'boisterousness.

Truman
Surrey BC.

You have to look at what IAMC posted relative to moi, as well as the other things he wrote to understand why I wrote what I did.

It WAS in context, in my view.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Dion's proposal and I think it is a valid attempt to address traditional baises in government and decision making.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - the website appears to have had a breakdown, eh!

There are a lot of things that keep women from the political arena. The caustic debate above seems to assume that incompetent people will be leap-frogged over brilliant leaders. That would be ridiculous.

However, it can be difficult for women to break through the social networks involved in even securing a nomination. A simple policy such as ensuring that at least one candidate put forth for nomination is female can go a long way to breaking down the barriers, while still allowing for democratic choice, and the cream to rise to the crop.

I believe that some form of affirmative action is necessary if only to level the playing field, nothing more.

The idea that the number of women in universities "sorted itself out" is wrong. First, social and institutional change had to occur so that women were allowed to compete against men in all faculties, removing unwritten rules and social norms that discriminated against women. Once they were allowed, they proved that they had what it took and then some. Every single faculty now has more female students than male, including law, medicine, science and engineering. They were not let in with weaker abilities. They earned their places on merit.

There are so many women's issues diverting our energy – violence, domestic abuse, corporate glass ceiling, childcare, poverty, abortion, etc.– but if you care about any of these issues, getting more women elected is the single most important social change you can work towards. Studies have proven that jurisdictions with more women in government have more women & child friendly policies. It's that simple.

So yes, it is important that we make our government look like our population. This doesn't mean 50% this and 50% 12 other things. It means that everyone who is supposed to be represented, is truly represented.

Rikia wrote:

I couldn't agree more with this classic defence of liberal feminism -- women are certainly capable of political leadership, and the upcoming generation, I believe, will change the political landscape, based on an analysis of current university enrolment.

I also completely support your argument that a simple quota system (50% female representation in the house, for e.g.) is not a desirable solution.

I believe that barriers to participation should be removed or mitigated, rather than have an affirmative action or quota system for specific constituency groups.

Where I am a little confused, Rikia, is how your support for women achieving positions on merit fits with your argument in favour of "some form of affirmative action." Do you have a form of affirmative action in mind when you make this statement? If so, I certainly would be eager to know more about it.

best wishes,

sp

Sigh, sigh…

Where are we going here? While we discuss a lot of other issues, economy and so on, we seem to have a proper respect for the past, eye on the present, and heart towards the future. But when we get into this gender-inequality-affirmative-action stuff, we get sucked into thinking strictly of the ‘poor’ aspiring-to-great-things individual, hitting her head on that infamous glass ceiling, trapped by all the ‘feminine issues’, including childcare, and invariably under the heel of a massively paternalistic society.

Let us get real. Women have a global brain with many more connections between the two halves of it than the male brain has. We can run circles around the poor guys – and do, most of the time. While we still have a real role to fill in looking after the next generation, they are reduced to chasing paper tigers, and all the real meaningful manly work has been snatched away from them and someone commissioned to do it on a collective basis, so that we don’t have to contend with psychopaths with spears, axes and scythes. Life has become boring.

Once a scenario has been established, where affirmative action is in place, we will have a two-tier system: the people who got hired on their merit, and the people who landed the job so that a quota could be filled. It is completely outrageous, that this politico would endeavor to use our tax-dollars to get more political mileage, or accommodate his own little hobby horse – you choose. If we want the truth of the matter, why do we not simply conduct all job application stuff in writing and without names, so that gender does not come into it? It would also prevent discrimination based on race, age, personal idiosyncrasies, and all the other little inequality quirks that invariable sneaks into any selection process.

I am happy to see that some are not enamored by Affirmative action, quota's of any other discriminatory evil.
I agree with dorothy that legislative discrimination is not the way to go, because we all no that if the balance shifts in favour of females much further, we males won't get the same favour in return.
Lets not go any further into this world of prejudice.

I don't know... I prefer the humiliating approach to change and name call in the hopes that negativity, however distasteful and repugnant, if coming in the form of the truth, sometimes castes an identity that fits the mould, forcing the creation of a new one.

Its always been about trying to achieve balance, is it not? For a democracy to work, after all, minorities do need to be represented proportionally, do they not? Isn't participation and accurate information needed to make the right choices on election day, mandatory to make a true democracy function?

And even with the worst that humanity has to offer on election day, the apathetic no shows, the ones that vote solely for their own self interests at a disproportionate expense to others... do we not try to invent a system that "forces" us to be honest? Of course we do, and we have tried. and the more complex the methods of crime become, the more complicated and sweeping the laws of the land become. Many parliments in many nations have tried and are still trying to create such a system. Who can say that such ideals of principle and fairness are not to strive for within the system, even in times where it seems totally absent in its participants?

And with this in mind, Dion is an idealistic man. The thing I liked about his work in the short time he was Canada's minister of environment, was the work he had done in creating more parkland across Canada. Outside of a true nationalist government (of which I can't see ever really happening in Canada), national ownership of Canada's gems lie in our parks and he exploited it. But anyways, I'm off track here.

The bigger issue is, do we need to tweak the system to ensure greater minority participation to ensure greater minority representation in the goal of achieving more proportional representation in parliment? And the same issues keep coming up:

Ownership (property, personal, national)

Multiculturalism vs single or dual cultures, the latter sometimes reeking of racism.

Electorial boundaries and electorial population representation.

Constitutional changes.

Minority rights issues (gender, gay marrages, language, race, age, religion)

And to be fair with IMAC's argument, should we site other examples of trying to achieve "balance"? Should we try to create parties or legislation that says a certain percentage of the population must be Christian? Or Muslim? Or under 30? Or first generation Canadian? Where does it stop? How much is to much? How many identies do we need? Any and all? Or just one.

And finally, who's choice is it to create the identity of our nation? Yours? Mine? this group only or that minority only? Or everyones choice, whoever they vote or don't vote for, for whatever reason. And in the final summation, we have what we have now. An evolving nation that should, in my own opinion, look at the models of success (and failure) and what its based on, elsewhere in the world.

The thing with multiculturalism and minority and human rights, is that we have to ask, once and for all (as the Con support certainly is), do we want to support groups like the NCC and their former prez, Stephen Harper, a right wing group that has condemned multiculturalism for what... one culture, English and white, or two cultures and countries, English and French, over multiculturalism, defined as saying, "The culture you were born into or bring with you is welcome here, as long as it doesn't violate human rights."?

And on that note, this is where I too, differ with IMAC and the NCC Con stance which is to get rid of it and supplant it with something superior in the name of "universality" and "efficiency".

If only it were the motive, for if it was the motive, multiculturalism could easily survive the recognition of the official languages we already have. But universality and efficiency in terms of communication are not the motive here. Culture and race are the motive and on that note, one can now all but say it.

"..the NCC Con stance which is to get rid of it and supplant it with something superior in the name of "universality" and "efficiency".

These may well be the names, but they're not the real agenda. The real agenda is, that featureless 'populations' devoid of cultural indetity, and thereby of value-based critical thinking, can be filled with anything the media handlers choose, in the way of 'must-have', 'cool', etc., all to do with getting to - and getting, your bottom dollar. Cultural identity may get in the way of profit, in other words, that is why neocons want it gone.
Try to follow, how much Canwest, for example, wallows in the blessings of cultural identity going down the tube in one great happy nondescript mix, and how much of their scribble is in the business of pushing some brand-name commodity. These go together, or you wouldn't find them in the same place. These people don't do anything for no reason.

Are you being sarcastic?

Brain, I totally disagree with you here. Name-calling is a childish evasion of real arguments. It entrenches positions in a debate, rather than seeks common ground -- especially among strangers. Name-calling is particularly stupid when the name-caller assumes that, for e.g., a criticism of affirmative action means that the critic does not value social equity, or that critiquing a green policy means that the critic doesn't care about the environment. This kind of political posturing is an extremely unhelpful straitjacket that shuts down the dialogue which could be used to arrive at something resembling truth. Sometimes the truth ain't popular =^)

This is precisely the problem with granting rights on the basis of identity. Is identity who you sleep with? Your ethnic heritage? Skin colour? Music preference? Social class? It never ends, and is hopelessly muddled. Let's separate identity from universal rights. That way people can cultivate whatever identity they choose or are born into, but it doesn't change their legal entitlements.

Let's not forget that, in practice, multiculturalism often has an undercurrent of racism. Multiculturalism is used to attack English and other western European cultural traditions, such as Christmas, Christianity and the Enlightenment. I do value tolerance and understanding between cultures, but I am not convinced that this happens under the policy we call multiculturalism. Our value in cultural diversity is something very specific to our own culture and history, which I believe grew out of our experience as a trading people -- ironically, multiculturalism itself is a cultural trait, rather than the absence of support for a single culture.

A little aside on nationalism:
Brain, I read that you support Canadian nationalism. Do you believe nationalism can happen in a multicultural environment? Nationalism has been used to overthrow multi-ethnic states in the past: Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.

Moreover, since nationalism as a mass movement has been responsible for so many 20th century crimes against humanity, I would like to understand why you believe it holds promise for a multi-ethnic state like Canada. In my mind nationalism goes hand in hand with states that have a dominant culture.

In sum, let's respect each other as human beings, rather than as members of identity groups.

I don't think this is a question of granting rights based on identity. Surely the objective is to develop a society in which all citizens share the same 'rights'.

Providing more gender equality in elected bodies is an entirely different thing because it moves to create a more 'representative' democracy. In my view.

We didn't have representative democracy prior to universal suffrage, for example.

I think that a representative body will provide a better kind of government if it tends to balance (more or less equitably) the influence and diversity of the majority. Without finding ways to provide more women with a way into the system I think we, as a society, are diminished.

I think that identity as males and females is at the centre of our membership in the human family.

Neither women or men, in my view, can be classed simply as just another group.

I do think there is danger in going the other way – treating each sub-group as unique and providing it with proportional representation – but, with respect, I don’t think that is what the instant case is all about.

I agree with this point, but I think quotas grant specific groups more rights. I think we should have the same rights, but should look to ways to overcome barriers which prevent people from being able to act upon those rights. For example, rather than dictate how many women should be in the labour force, perhaps access to better child care services would enable them to participate in greater numbers.

Since a portion of the population elected political representatives, there was representative democracy prior to universal suffrage -- it just wasn't sufficiently representative according to our present views. For example, minors do not vote today, but this does not mean that our system is not representative -- it just doesn't adequately represent minors.

I think there is a big difference between not including minors who will, in the fullness of time, become adults with voting privileges. Therefore, I don't accept the analogy.

OK G West -- my analogy certainly was not a perfect fit. But I believe the argument holds:

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that excluding women from politics is in any way acceptable today.

SO, if it is a valid objective, and it is something that's being done successfully elsewhere, I don't see the nominal 'downside' to the program that some have suggested.

Clearly the disengagement of any significant segment of the population - young people for example - is a problem if modern democracy is to survive. Why not begin, as others have, with providing more and better opportunities to the 50% of the population that could better represent themselves than we men ever can?

Merely suggesting that it is as 'simple and straightforward, as some have for women to become more engaged in active politics is naive, in my view.

Just as affirmative action has played a significant role in advancing the participation of minorities it can also play a valuable role in advancing the cause of a 'majority' – of which, I’d suggest, the distaff part of the population actually numbers.

The downside for affirmative action and quotas is perpetuating gender-based discrimination (i.e. sexism).
Gender should not be used as legal criteria for whether one can participate in politics. That is what most liberal feminists are trying to stop.

Voter preference is a different issue (i.e. whether women choose to vote for a women because they are women), wherein people can vote under whatever rationale they choose.

I totally agree with this statement. My disagreement lies only with affirmative action as a specific policy tool. Let's help people make the most of their opportunities, rather than legislate quotas.

Since were born into one and choose the other, I'd hope to have some respect for both! Just being Canadian for example. We, despite our grumblings about taxes and such, live in one of the best countries in the world. Our people are sharing so many of the same experiences through a common environment bonded together through ideals that have given birth to mass education, mass media, mass production, and mass social growth spawned on a "national" level, that as a nation we can be proud in some ways, of not just where we are born in terms of luck, but what weve chosen to do with it both as groups and as individuals alike for there are times that choices narrow and groups form because of what we are sometimes, ironically, born into. Like us being Canadians.

And when one is plugged in on a national level, one feels the pollution and exploitation of resources at the cost to present and future life and its host environments... people without fully provided needs most of the rest of us take for granted... all that one can experience when one is a "have not" in the human condition.

Nationalism... there are, as you have sited a couple seedier examples, some destructive forms of nationalism with tyrants, thieves and control freaks at the helm, but there are also some patriotic, healthier forms of it as well, the positives of belonging to a group one is born into or chooses like cheering on our home teams in international play (and they win at times) but looking out for Canada's identity is, in most ways, looking out for how we wish to be percieved and how we also percieve the world on national levels and on that note, our opinion and resources, along with the opinion and resources of others, and what we do with them, counts! And too, with our own introspections of the nation we want to live in and become, it should count.

And these days, to see our foriegn aid and peace keeping down to 50th and falling from 10th place internationally a few years ago, concerns me. Getting involved in a war fought by the U.S. for the ownership of oil and gas commodities concerns me a great deal... especially when I know I'm not the only person on Earth who knows it. The world is small and the paper trail of greed is easy to follow in the markets. Canada's military spending to support U.S. occupation of Afganistan is embarrassing. We should all know better than to help the U.S. plot out a two border invasion of IRAN for a few to profit at such a massive human and environmental cost.

Mulroney had several directorships from defense corporations when the Cons spent 11.7 billion back in 91' when Bush Sr invaded IRAQ. This bunch of Cons is already pushing 20 Billion. I wonder how much this bunch is gonna steal. I wonder how corrupt this Con government will be and perhaps has already been. Time will tell.

Your right, of course, but just for the sake of debate, just so were not confused with a play of words here, name calling is really like a put down is it not? Labels. Stereotypes. Smears... but what if its true?

Its like calling a politician a crooked politician, for example. The stereotype, the label (and all of a sudden someone like David Emerson comes out with 7 directorships, just magically given to him for the flow of shares for all his help), once used, castes a smear and stain that can and has ruined lives. And what, however, if its true? What if the thief is a thief and the criminal is a criminal and the label fits? Denial is the first thing one must get past in order to heal. :-)
(oh, the humility)

Let's explore this. Referring to earlier posts on this thread, was it "true" that everybody who disagrees with affirmative action is "insane", "misogynist" or "racist"?

I think these terms were intended to smear the poster and shut down legitimate debate. Since I believe that it is possible to be pro-gender equity, while remaining anti-affirmative action, I think these remarks were very inappropriate for constructive debate.

Spot on, The Brain...sometimes the truth is just the truth... but how the one toe in and one toe out " cowardly hedging" of political correctness oh-so-artfully likes to dodge it.

"Liberalism, austere in political trifles, has learned ever more artfully to unite a constant protest against the government with a constant submission to it." Alexander Herzen, 19th century Russian journalist and political thinker.

Brain:

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It is true that I purposely chose negative examples of nationalism. My point is that nationalism is not always a good thing and is, in fact, often expressed in very negative ways.

Re: the difference between our universal rights as humans and identity groups we are born into or choose.

I don't respect a woman because she is a woman, but because she is another human being. Same goes for members of religious groups of which I am not a member -- I have absolutely no reason to care about their religion, but they are due the consideration I would show another human being. Same for people with different sexual orientations -- I really don't care who they sleep with, but they are due the respect which accords to fellow human beings.

I even feel the same way about people with different political views -- respect universal human rights and democratic politics, and it is good enough for me =^)

Dion is not radical enough. His proposal would not achieve 50-50 parity for decades, if ever. No modern nation ever has. The closest is Rwanda -- with 48.75 % women in Parliament. They have a partial quota.

See my Web book korky.ca Part 4.

Korky Day,

How so?

If the end result of affirmative action is rough parity for men v women in parliament, how can that be seen as discriminatory, or sexist?

Just as the end result of affirmative action in the US has increased the participation rate for black in a great number of areas where they had been, heretofore, sorely underrepresented.

I think you're just writing nominal objections without having thought through the kinds of changes in electoral politics, which are necessary to implement more gender-balanced representation.

Erecting a straw man of some imaginary candidate (male) who is supplanted by a less well-qualified female candidate because of an imaginary program whose parameters haven't yet been set is not really dealing with the issue squarely, in my view.

Clearly, there a great many ways - including moving to mixed-member proportional representation with part of an elected body being appointed from party lists would go a long way to addressing not only real democracy but also issues like gender balance.

And all this could easily be achieved with none of the false deadfalls you've suggested, Steve P.

Sigh, sigh…

How we do get lost in technicalities of our own castles in the air…

Gender equality is not simply a question of moving some numerical parameters or fiddling with some accounts. It is a deep-seated cultural set of parameters, ingrained in the fabric of the folk, where we don’t even see it for what it is.

On the other side of the world, seventy million men (or, is it? I’m losing count) are going to look in vain for a life partner, because the parents of the wives they should have had, decided that girl babies were undesirable, and selectively cut them out of mother’s life before their time. Gender equality, eh?

On this side of the globe, the tide has turned. We are sqeezing the menfolk into the ditch, to the extent that they have had to remind us that they are people, too, and learn to whine appropriately, and lo and behold, we have found out that domestic violence goes both ways. Anyone reading Icelandic Sagas or the history of the Siberian steppe nomads could have told us wimmen are more than capable of holding their own, when the cassocked guys have not been there with their ‘obedience’ nonsense.

So, what to do? Well. We’re working on it. Girls can build cars in school, and guys can learn embroidery, and door-opening now falls to those carrying the lightest load, be they male or female.

That is why Dion’s initiative is such a cheap shot! It irks me, that good men and women would jump on his little politically self-serving band-wagon. Find a large minority or latent majority, whine along with it and promise to ease its pain, and you got voters. It is so simple, and so detrimental, divisive, and disturbing to the natural progress of our society, that it will make me look for another party to vote for, for the first time ever, in a federal election, if this idea wins headway within the party. The nanny-state at its worst: Impose ‘solutions’ over the heads of those who won’t toe your line immediately, rather than let social evolution take its course in ways that involve everyone.

Process must also be fair. Selecting people for political life on the basis of their gender is sexist by definition. I do not believe that legally entrenching sexism in politics will help us truly be more egalitarian. Adopting sexist standards will not help us be less sexist.

Ability, not gender, should be the defining quality for success.

Again, to be clear, I believe there are more useful ways to remove barriers to political participation than quotas.

As was argued above, there are more women than men studying at Canadian universities, and their growth rate at the PhD level exceeds that of men.

I think the most competent people should be free to run for office. In the not-so-distant future, I believe that women, as a group, will be better educated than men. I don't believe women require special protection or quotas to ensure that they participate in political life.

I believe there should be height parity. For too long, celebrities and politicians have been drawn from the ranks of the shorter-than-average. It is time for the tall person to have equal representation in Parliament.

Also, what about lefthanders? Shouldn't there be representation also? Biologists and sociologists have long been aware of the discrimination and oppression of those who have the "sinister" mark of wrong-handedness. Shame, shame.

Uh, R...--I mean Yammer--I don't think it's nice of you to steal my jokes like that, eh. Go back up the posts and read where I recommended, "...50% American, 50% Italian, 50% left-handed."

So, while I recognize your competence with humour, I'd only remind you that we do have copyright laws in this country, eh. Shame, shame. Oops I did it again. Sorry, Britany.

You keep repeating yourself, Steve P. But I notice you actually haven't come to grip with what Alcibiades posted above.

I wonder why not. There is no need to reject qualified individuals just because one wants to get more people from the female half of the population into positions of political influence.

I think your concerns are baseless and wonder why you can't get past them.

Normally, that isn't a problem with what you write.
Cheers.

.

Problem is, I don't call this move progressive, seems completely regressive to me.

Why would any woman want herself defined in terms of corporate culture?

Corporate culture isn't the definition of success, it's the definition of failure... like a flailing horse in a death-obsessed race that is not worth the winning.

I would just like the doors opened for both men and women who can think with a little critical and imaginative intelligence for a change... who are both capable of envisioning and enacting a better future than the absolutely limp, lame and impotent...not to mention boringly conventional and deathly conforming so-called "life" that corporate culture is madly intent on sowing on this grand, old planet of ours.

Yes, I have been repetitive. Sorry!

In my defence, I also think the "your concerns are baseless" arguments are repetitive, too -- I do not believe they are baseless -- I think affirmative action perpetuates the kind of gender-based politicking that we are trying to stop.

My basic point is that selecting political leaders on the basis of gender is not valid: in the past I have voted for both women and men, and their gender or sexual orientation did not interest me. I guess I value dropping the gender variable from my political choices more than ensuring absolute gender parity in Parliament -- not considering gender to be an issue, I believe, is how gender parity ought to work. It appears that you, G West, and many others on this site disagree and believe that gender politics writ large in parliament is appropriate. Fair enough.

Perhaps we have hit the "agree to disagree" point, as the debate has degenerated into simple affirmation of our respective positions =^)

I enjoy your posts, GW, even when they provide an opportunity to disagree =^)

But Steve, why not at least address the analogy of affirmative action in the US?

Further, where is the evidence of the gender-based politicking in jurisdictions where affirmative action programs and promotions of one kind or another have succeeded in addressing the female participation deficit?

Without anything but your 'feelings' I can't see how you can sustain the case.

I'm off for two weeks, far from computers and their screens and keyboards so I'll have to check back later for your reply.

I enjoy your stuff too, btw> ;D

I guess I'm not sufficiently informed about the impacts of affirmative action, here or elsewhere, whether it applies to ethnic minorities or women.

It is probably true that legislating quotas for constituency groups does increase their participation. But arguing that quotas increased minority participation is almost tautological, so we need a different kind of evidence than this. Perhaps if we could show increased rates of female participation in politics in absence of quotas, this would lend support to my case (and vice versa).

My argument is not so much empirical as it is philosophical. It is so unacceptable under our current cultural climate to discriminate against women, I question whether quotas are necessary.

"..Perhaps if we could show increased rates of female participation in politics in absence of quotas.."

I still don't understand why everyone obsesses about this! Why must we absolutely have higher representation of women? If they generally feel more inclined to do something else with their lives, what then? would you haul them kicking and screaming into candidacies, so equality theoreticians could be happy? it appears to be a question with no satisfactory answer. Children need looking after. Women are best at it. Dads can do the job, but it costs them. Men who become primary at-home parents run twice the risk of other men of dying prematurely from stress-related disease. Women with no children have time for politics and maybe inclination, but why would they qualify as understanding 'women's issues' better than the next guy?
Maybe the solution is, that we all become a bit more understading of each other and all our 'issues', which, when it omes right down to it, are human concerns not 'men's' or 'women's'. What we need is a little bit of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for those on the other side of whatever fence and whatever their 'issues' may be. In the most democratic, if there is such a thing, country in the World, Denmark, there is a word for what we're playing with here: it's called 'millimeter democracy'.