People, politicians included, have always exaggerated, omitted or outright lied about their heritage, background, academic credentials, experience. Just review any resume of a job applicant and you will find something that is not quite accurate or complete. The motivation for this type of behaviour may not have anything to with a (perceived) DEI advantage. After all, we have a former leader of the opposition and speaker of the house who lied about his work experience, exaggerated his academic credentials and omitted the citizenship of another country.
The fact that people lie about their heritage should not be an argument against a sound and effective DEI approach. Now, developing a meaningful and effective DEI approach is hard. Quotas are typically the worst way to do it. I don’t think the 50-50 cabinet approach in 2015 was a bad idea, but I would have liked a statement with that along the lines of that going forward it will not always be an exact 50-50, it may be 40-60 or 60-40, the goal is that it becomes a non issue.
Just as the "left" is ignoring all you say it is, and i don't disagree, but the right also lives in this fantasy world of "how things use to be" and in doing do also skirt responsibilities of good politics, as well as open, honest communication.
I recall that "Because it's 2015" moment and immediately saying that he (the Face Painter) had just admitted that he had at least SOME unqualified women. I am certainly glad that someone else saw his comment that way.
The thing is, I couldn't care less about someone's gender, color, orientation, yada, yada, yada. Just make sure that they are competent, honest, have some reasonable modicum of experience in the particular position, and are reasonably congruent with party position. Then, turn them loose and know that there will be a need to weed some out from time to time as not all choices work out. But, again, who the Hell cares if the person is x or y or z or j or k or whatever as long as they can do the job as needed. Make the cabinet all women; make it all gay; make it all black, Hell, make it all green women. Whatever. Just make the cabinet of quality individuals.
I am a retired accountant and it was clear to me for some decades that the quality candidates in my profession were women; then minorities, then ...
One of my bosses a million years ago said it best: "This company pays me a lot of money to manage my little section of heaven so why would I ignore fifty per cent (i.e. women) of the talent pool when my bonus depends on the quality of the work of the people who work for me?"
Agreed about the virtue signalling and holier than thou on the left; makes US look like the religious nutbars instead of the fearful, traditionalist and punitive right, but I'd say this change has also been reactive, i.e. in lockstep with the right getting worse and worse over time, bit by bit so people won't notice as much. It's worked like a charm.
But as a woman, I take issue with this minority argument you make.
Firstly Evan, your comfort with declaring yourself gay is the demonstrable result of a definite evolution in society, and you ARE a bona fide minority after all, but where does anyone get off lumping women in with minorities when they comprise fully half of humanity?
Yeah, they've been compromised through history by their biological limitation, i.e. a natural preoccupation with procreation that has been more complicated to change than most men seem to be able to imagine, not to mention MANY not willing to even consider ceding THEIR perceived-as-natural birthright of dominance in society, including dominance over women. Note what the U.S. Supreme Court tackled first, propelled by uber-patriarchal Catholicism.
So suffice to say, we are in fact not much farther along than "racism" is, because despite birth control's transformative effects, right-wing men have been motivated to "put things right" ever since the sixties. Now imagine, if you will, them succeeding so easily in 2024, and recall the blatant, depressing misogyny of Trump's rally at Madison Square Gardens, and Kamala losing with joy and hope in the battle of "bros vs. hos." Absolutely crushingly nullifying. Talk about not being seen.
So I'll take the Liberals/progressives thanks, as should you, and will champion them, both for accepting and respecting science as much as they ostensibly do WOMEN. If they come off as being too "woke," well remember what that word means; they ARE more aware. They're Mother Nature adjacent rather than Trump adjacent, and as such are the only ones who can offer peace and respite from the ever more exhausting male of our species.
"whether Maryam Monsef was Cabinet worthy." It's remarkable how people forget that she was explicitly a token woman. Bardish Chagger was "Minister of Small Business and Tourism" but remained formally a Minister of State "to assist the Minister of Industry;" she was a "Minister" to count to 15. Patricia Hajdu started as "Minister of Status of Women" but was really a Minister of State under the Heritage Minister; not until 1918 did Status of Women Canada became a federal department called the Women and Gender Equality Canada. Carla Qualtrough (who ended up a powerful minister) began in 2015 as "Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities" under the Department of Canadian Heritage; another fake minister. Kirsty Duncan was "Minister of Science" responsible for assisting the senior portfolio of Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (the restyled Minister of Industry). And Maryam Monsef was a Minister without a department, under the new title "Minister of Democratic Institutions" but associated with the Privy Council Office; they told her what to say. That made 15.
I think that there are bad actors and pretenders on many sides. However, it's also true that typically, we define freedom as having begun at some point that was not actually free. A classic example is slavery or stealing Indigenous land. So in 1870, you would say that the best candidate for the job is a white plantation owner as compared to the black slave.
So first, we would need to make the starting line equal and the barriers everyone faces to be the same. Then you could truly have meritocracy.
I agree with this take in general. Living in Massachusetts, though, I can say Elizabeth Warren isn't a good example of it, because her reasons were way more complicated. When she first ran for senator here, she said very little about her indigenous heritage; it was her opponent who pointed to her having once claimed indigenous heritage at a university to be an advisor to indigenous students, and tried to make it a big issue. He failed, but Massachusetts was easy territory, and she was rightly worried that federally people were going to come after her in the same way, so she brought the issue up directly to try to get ahead of it.
I think your are conflating two separate issues.
People, politicians included, have always exaggerated, omitted or outright lied about their heritage, background, academic credentials, experience. Just review any resume of a job applicant and you will find something that is not quite accurate or complete. The motivation for this type of behaviour may not have anything to with a (perceived) DEI advantage. After all, we have a former leader of the opposition and speaker of the house who lied about his work experience, exaggerated his academic credentials and omitted the citizenship of another country.
The fact that people lie about their heritage should not be an argument against a sound and effective DEI approach. Now, developing a meaningful and effective DEI approach is hard. Quotas are typically the worst way to do it. I don’t think the 50-50 cabinet approach in 2015 was a bad idea, but I would have liked a statement with that along the lines of that going forward it will not always be an exact 50-50, it may be 40-60 or 60-40, the goal is that it becomes a non issue.
Just as the "left" is ignoring all you say it is, and i don't disagree, but the right also lives in this fantasy world of "how things use to be" and in doing do also skirt responsibilities of good politics, as well as open, honest communication.
And on this, Sir, I applaud you fully!
I recall that "Because it's 2015" moment and immediately saying that he (the Face Painter) had just admitted that he had at least SOME unqualified women. I am certainly glad that someone else saw his comment that way.
The thing is, I couldn't care less about someone's gender, color, orientation, yada, yada, yada. Just make sure that they are competent, honest, have some reasonable modicum of experience in the particular position, and are reasonably congruent with party position. Then, turn them loose and know that there will be a need to weed some out from time to time as not all choices work out. But, again, who the Hell cares if the person is x or y or z or j or k or whatever as long as they can do the job as needed. Make the cabinet all women; make it all gay; make it all black, Hell, make it all green women. Whatever. Just make the cabinet of quality individuals.
I am a retired accountant and it was clear to me for some decades that the quality candidates in my profession were women; then minorities, then ...
One of my bosses a million years ago said it best: "This company pays me a lot of money to manage my little section of heaven so why would I ignore fifty per cent (i.e. women) of the talent pool when my bonus depends on the quality of the work of the people who work for me?"
Yes, I agree whole heartedly with your position.
Agreed about the virtue signalling and holier than thou on the left; makes US look like the religious nutbars instead of the fearful, traditionalist and punitive right, but I'd say this change has also been reactive, i.e. in lockstep with the right getting worse and worse over time, bit by bit so people won't notice as much. It's worked like a charm.
But as a woman, I take issue with this minority argument you make.
Firstly Evan, your comfort with declaring yourself gay is the demonstrable result of a definite evolution in society, and you ARE a bona fide minority after all, but where does anyone get off lumping women in with minorities when they comprise fully half of humanity?
Yeah, they've been compromised through history by their biological limitation, i.e. a natural preoccupation with procreation that has been more complicated to change than most men seem to be able to imagine, not to mention MANY not willing to even consider ceding THEIR perceived-as-natural birthright of dominance in society, including dominance over women. Note what the U.S. Supreme Court tackled first, propelled by uber-patriarchal Catholicism.
So suffice to say, we are in fact not much farther along than "racism" is, because despite birth control's transformative effects, right-wing men have been motivated to "put things right" ever since the sixties. Now imagine, if you will, them succeeding so easily in 2024, and recall the blatant, depressing misogyny of Trump's rally at Madison Square Gardens, and Kamala losing with joy and hope in the battle of "bros vs. hos." Absolutely crushingly nullifying. Talk about not being seen.
So I'll take the Liberals/progressives thanks, as should you, and will champion them, both for accepting and respecting science as much as they ostensibly do WOMEN. If they come off as being too "woke," well remember what that word means; they ARE more aware. They're Mother Nature adjacent rather than Trump adjacent, and as such are the only ones who can offer peace and respite from the ever more exhausting male of our species.
Excellent response. Women have been climbing this mountain forever.
"whether Maryam Monsef was Cabinet worthy." It's remarkable how people forget that she was explicitly a token woman. Bardish Chagger was "Minister of Small Business and Tourism" but remained formally a Minister of State "to assist the Minister of Industry;" she was a "Minister" to count to 15. Patricia Hajdu started as "Minister of Status of Women" but was really a Minister of State under the Heritage Minister; not until 1918 did Status of Women Canada became a federal department called the Women and Gender Equality Canada. Carla Qualtrough (who ended up a powerful minister) began in 2015 as "Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities" under the Department of Canadian Heritage; another fake minister. Kirsty Duncan was "Minister of Science" responsible for assisting the senior portfolio of Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (the restyled Minister of Industry). And Maryam Monsef was a Minister without a department, under the new title "Minister of Democratic Institutions" but associated with the Privy Council Office; they told her what to say. That made 15.
Boissonnault an "idiot Minister"... hahahaha
Love your direct writing ;-)
I think that there are bad actors and pretenders on many sides. However, it's also true that typically, we define freedom as having begun at some point that was not actually free. A classic example is slavery or stealing Indigenous land. So in 1870, you would say that the best candidate for the job is a white plantation owner as compared to the black slave.
So first, we would need to make the starting line equal and the barriers everyone faces to be the same. Then you could truly have meritocracy.
I agree with this take in general. Living in Massachusetts, though, I can say Elizabeth Warren isn't a good example of it, because her reasons were way more complicated. When she first ran for senator here, she said very little about her indigenous heritage; it was her opponent who pointed to her having once claimed indigenous heritage at a university to be an advisor to indigenous students, and tried to make it a big issue. He failed, but Massachusetts was easy territory, and she was rightly worried that federally people were going to come after her in the same way, so she brought the issue up directly to try to get ahead of it.
Yes ! Thank you